A detailed well log and 3D seismic interpretation of the Fruitland Formation: Southwest

Regional Partnership carbon sequestration site, San Juan Basin, New Mexico

Matthew R. Weber

Thesis submitted to the

College of Arts & Sciences
at West Virginia University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

Master of Science
In
Geology

Dr. Thomas H. Wilson, Ph.D., Chair

Dr. Dengliang Gao, Ph.D.

Dr. Chaoqing Yang, Ph.D.

Department of Geology and Geography

Morgantown, West Virginia

2012

Keywords: San Juan Basin, Fruitland Formation, 3D seismic, seismic interpretation, synthetic
modeling
Copyright 2012 Matthew R. Weber
 ABSTRACT
A detailed well log and 3D seismic interpretation of the Fruitland Formation: Southwest
Regional Partnership carbon sequestration site, San Juan Basin, New Mexico

Matthew R. Weber

The Fruitland Formation of the San Juan Basin in New Mexico and Colorado has been a source
of coal methane for decades. The Fruitland Formation coal beds are the focus of carbon
sequestration pilot test. The distribution of coal within the Fruitland sequence differs
significantly from area to area within the basin. A detailed understanding of coal seam
distribution within this pilot site is required to accurately model flow within the formation,
estimate storage capacity and evaluate the potential for vertical leakage. This study presents a
detailed characterization of the Fruitland Formation in the area surrounding the Southwest
Regional Partnerships’ San Juan Basin carbon sequestration pilot site. This study incorporates
well logs from 37 wells and 9 square miles of 3D seismic data in the area surrounding the CO2
injection well.
Well log interpretations are integrated into the interpretation of 3D seismic data over the area.
The integrated well log and 3D seismic study provides one of the most detailed local views of
the Fruitland coal systems in the High Rate Fairway. Earlier interpretations of the area suggested
that coal distribution was concentrated in three major coal beds within the Fruitland Formation,
however the detailed interpretations presented here reveal that each of these beds consists of 2
thinner coal seams separated by a parting. Seismic scale discontinuities suggest a loss of
continuity for some of these coal seams northeast of the injection well. Well log and seismic
interpretations were combined to depth convert the 3D seismic data. The depth converted 3D
seismic provide a comprehensive view of subsurface structure in the vicinity of the site. 2D
synthetic seismic models were used to validate seismic and well log interpretations. This study
provides the basis for better estimates of coal distribution and total coal volume, flow path
distribution and storage capacity. The results can be used to develop second generation reservoir
models.
 Acknowledgments

This technical effort was performed in support of the National Energy Technology

Laboratory’s on-going research in carbon sequestration under the RDS contract DE-AC26-

04NT41817-6060404000 and URS subcontract No. 2010-SC-RES-30033-023. I’d like to thank

Dave Wildman and Donald Martello, our DOE-NETL project managers, for their support and

advice on these efforts; George Koperna, Scott Reeves and Brian McPherson of the Southwest

Regional Partnership for their help in facilitating our involvement in the Partnership’s activities

on their San Juan Basin carbon sequestration pilot test and for allowing us to use data collected

as part of the pilot effort; and Ryan Frost and Tom Cochrane of Conoco Phillips for helping

facilitate many of the activities on the site. Bill Akwari (ConocoPhillips) provided the majority

of the well log data used in this study. We also want to thank Bill O’Dowd (NETL) SWP project

manager. Schlumberger’s Petrel Seismic Micro-Technology’s Kingdom Suite 3D seismic

interpretation software was used to interpret the 3D seismic data over the site. Landmark

Graphics (Halliburton) Geographix Structural modeling software was used to make all synthetic

seismograms.

I would also like to thank Dr. Thomas Wilson, Dr. Dengliang Gao and Dr. Chaoqing

Yang as acting as my committee and helping me to finish this study. Lastly I would like to thank

my friends and family for their interest, support and, harassment over the last couple of years. In

particular, I would like to thank mom and brother for their constant support and encouragement,

and my wife Rebekah for her love, support and, relentless optimism.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………iii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...v

iii
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………….….v

Chapter 1, Introduction

1.1 Description of Chapters…...…………………………………………………………..1

Chapter 2, Background

2.1 Description of Carbon Sequestration………………………….………………...….....4

2.2 Structural Setting.......................................................................................................4
2.3 Basic Stratigraphy.……………………………………………….………………........7
2.4 Depositional Models…………………………………………………………………..8
2.5 Position of Study Area within the Basin.………………………….…………….......12
2.6 Summary of Earlier Studies at this Site……………………………………………...12

Chapter 3, Well log interpretations

3.1 Available Data …..………………...………………………………………..……….17

3.2 Fruitland Formation……………...………………………………………….…..…...19
3.3 Interpretation of Well Logs...…………………………………………………..….…21
3.4 Well Pick defined Structure………………………………………………….…..…..22
3.5 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………...…...24

Chapter 4, Seismic interpretations

4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..26
4.2 Background and Time Domain Interpretations ……………………………………..26
4.3 Discontinuities……………………………………………………………………….37
4.4 Resolution Limits….…………………………………………………..………….....41
4.5 Velocity Model…………………………………………………….………………...42
4.6 Conversion to Depth ….……………………………………………….……….…....43
4.7 Conclusions………………………………………………………………...……......50

Chapter 5,2D acoustic models

5.1 Introduction………………...……………...…………...…………………………...52
5.2 Synthetic Models…..………………………………………………………………...52
5.2.1 Basic Models……………………………………………………………………….55
5.2.2 Input Parameter…………………………………………………………………….62
5.3 Synthetic responses of Basic Models…...……………………………………………64
5.3.1 Inline 910…………………………………………………………………………..67
5.3.2 Inline 936…………………………………………………………………………..68
5.3.3 Crossline 642………………………………………………………………………71

iv
 5.3.4 Crossline 668………………………………………………………………………71
5.3.5 Inline 924………………………………………………………………………….75
5.4 Revising Synthetic Models……..…………………………………………………....79
5.5 Conclusions………….………….….………………………………………………...80

Chapter 6, Future work.………………………………………………………………………….83

Chapter 7, Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………….86

References………………………………………………………………………………………..91

Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………………94

Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………………99

Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………..116

Appendix D……………………………………………………………………………………..120

Appendix E……………………………………………………………………………………..124

Appendix F……………………………………………………………………………………..127

Appendix G …………………………………………………………………………………….134

Appendix H……………………………………………………………………………………..142

List of Tables

Table 1, List of wells and logs………………………………………………………………..17-18

Table 2, Velocity Model…………………………………………………………………………43

Table 3, Acoustic Parameters of Fruitland Subdivisions…………………………………….….56

List of Figures

Figure 1) Structural setting of the San Juan Basin……………………………………………...5-6

Figure 2) Stratigraphic column for the San Juan Basin taken from Huffman 2003………….…..8

v
Figure 3) Fassett model of deposition of the Lewis shale, Pictured Cliffs sandstone, Fruitland
Formation and Kirtland Shale……………………………………………………………………10

Figure 4) Ayres model of deposition from Ayers et al. (1994).………………………….……...11

Figure 5) Type log of Fruitland Formation after Henthron et al. (2007)………………………...14

Figure 6) Seismic line through an attribute volume made by Wilson et al. (2009) showing small
vertical disruptions within the Fruitland Formation……………………………………………..16

Figure 7) Locations of the data available for this study…………………………..……………..19

Figure 8) Short well cross section illustrating the six Fruitland coal beds and the three parting
layers. ……………………………………………………………………………………………20

Figure 9) Isopach map of lower A coal, made from well tops ………………………………….23

Figure 10) Structure map of middle coal A top made from well tops picks..…………………....24

Figure 11) Synthetic trace through the Fruitland Formation…………………………………….27

Figure 12) Seismic interpretation of Fruitland Formation....…………………………………….28

Figure 13) Comparison of time domain structure maps of upper A coal, middle A coal and lower
A coal……………………………………………………………………………………………29

Figure 14) Isochron map of upper A coal.………………………………..…………………..…31

Figure 15) Isochron map of middle A coal………………….……………………………….….32

Figure 16) Isochron map of lower A coal……………………………...………………………..33

Figure 17) Isotime map constructed from time domain maps showing thickness between upper
A coal and middle A coal….……………………………..………………………….………….35

Figure 18) Isotime map constructed from time domain maps showing thickness between middle
A coal and lower A coal…………………………………………………………..……………..36

Figure 19) Isotime map constructed from time domain maps showing thickness between lower A
coal and Pictured Cliffs top………………………...……………………………...…………….37

Figure 20) Comparison between seismic scale discontinues and well log data….....….……39-40

Figure 21) Tuning charts made using the extracted wavelet from the 3D survey……………….42

vi
Figure 22) Local view of inline 924 showing injection well penetrating small anticline in original
time domain data…………… …………………………………………………………………...46

Figure 23) Local view of inline 924 of the depth converted volume…………………………….47

Figure 24) Comparison between well top derived structure map and depth converted seismic
horizon of lower A coal top…………………………………….. ……………………………...48

Figure 25) Comparison between well top derived isopach and depth converted seismic isopach
for the strata between upper A coal and middle A coal …………………………………………49

Figure 26) Location of synthetic models……………………………………………….………..54

Figure 27) Acoustic model along inline 910…………………………………………………….57

Figure 28) Acoustic model along inline 936…………………………………………………….58

Figure 29) Acoustic model along crossline 642…………………………………………………59

Figure 30) Acoustic model along crossline 668…………………………………………………60

Figure 31) Acoustic model along inline 924……………………………………………….……61

Figure 32) Northeast-southwest seismic line through the injection well showing events
associated with the Fruitland Formation, Kirtland Shale, the Ojo Alamo Sandstone and
Nacimiento Formation from Wilson et al. (2012)…………………………...…………..………62

Figure 33) Comparison of Butterworth wavelet to construct synthetic models and the extracted
wavelet…………………………………………………………………………………………...64

Figure 34) Features of the original data looked for in the synthetic seismograms.....…………..66

Figure 35) Inline 910 synthetic seismogram compared with actual data.………......….…….....69

Figure 36) Inline 936 synthetic seismogram compared with actual data...……………………..70

Figure 37) Crossline 642 synthetic seismogram compared with actual data……………………73

Figure 38) Crossline 668 synthetic seismogram compared with actual data…………………....74

Figure 39) Color comparison of inline 924 synthetic seismogram and actual data…………......77

Figure 40) Wiggle trace comparison of inline 924 synthetic seismogram and actual data.…….78

vii
 Chapter 1

Introduction

This study focuses on analyses of subsurface data (3D seismic and log data) from the

Southwest Regional Partnership’s (SWP) carbon sequestration pilot site in the San Juan Basin,

New Mexico. The main objective of this study is to provide a more accurate description of the

Fruitland coal zones at the pilot site, describe heterogeneity within these coals, and describe

deformation in the vicinity of the pilot site. This study uses well logs, 3D seismic data, and

acoustic modeling to accomplish the objective and better understand the potential of the

Fruitland Formation reservoirs to sequester CO2.

1.1 Description of Chapters: Log picks were made using 37 different wells in the

vicinity of the pilot site. Most logs are in raster format, and were digitized for more quantitative

representation in well log cross sections. These picks are used to construct isopach maps of the

coal seams throughout the site. The picks will also provide some insights into lithologic changes

in the coal, bounding strata and associated depositional environments. They are also critical to

the depth conversion process. The log-based stratigraphic interpretations expand upon work done

by Henthorn et al. (2007).

Attribute analysis is also performed on the seismic data to provide additional insights into

structural and stratigraphic elements in both reservoir and primary seal intervals. The structural

component of the attribute analysis will lead to a better understanding of the faults and fracture

zones at the site. This information can be incorporated into future fracture models of the

Fruitland coal reservoirs and seal intervals. This work integrates earlier work of Wilson et al.

(2008 & 2009) and contributes to our understanding of potential faults and fracture zones at this

site which helps to determine the potential for vertical leakage of injected CO2.

1
 This study also includes development of 2D acoustic models of the Fruitland Formation

at the site. Comparison of the simulated seismic response of the model to the actual response will

contribute to the modification or verification of interpretations. The reservoir model will be

modified to improve the match between the synthetic and actual seismic data. This will require

knowledge of the input wavelet, the thicknesses and velocities of the various layers, and any

changes in thickness or composition throughout the pilot site.

Chapter 2 begins with a brief description of what carbon capture and storage is and how

CO2 sequestration efforts could be beneficial on a global scale. Essential background information

is then presented, including the structural setting of the basin, the location of the site within the

basin, and the depositional models of the Fruitland Formation. A summary of the results from

earlier studies at the site are also presented in this chapter.

Chapter 3 presents well log interpretations. Raster logs were digitized and used to make

picks for the 11 different layers described in the Fruitland Formation (see Figure 8, for naming

conventions in the stratigraphic column). These picks were then used to make structure and

isopach maps of the stratigraphic subdivisions in the Fruitland Formation. Chapter 3 also

includes a list of the well logs available for this study, and a description of the log response of

individual subdivisions in the Fruitland Formation.

Chapter 4 will present 3D seismic interpretations from the site. This chapter briefly

describes the data set and is followed by an in-depth look at the interpretations made of the 3D

seismic volume. This chapter also includes a discussion of the velocity modeling and depth

conversion process undertaken in this study. Isotime and isochron maps are also compared, as

are well top derived and depth converted structure maps.

2
 Chapter 5 describes the 2D synthetic models developed from the seismic and log

interpretations. Several 2D acoustic models of the Fruitland Formation will be presented along

with the parameters utilized to produce the models. The synthetic response of the model is

presented and compared to that of the original 3D seismic data in order to determine if the

interpretations made in this study are valid.

In Chapter 6 the needs for future work are discussed.

Chapter 7 contains the main conclusions of this study.

3
 Chapter 2

Background

2.1 Description of Carbon Sequestration: Carbon sequestration refers to long term

storage of anthropogenic CO2 through either terrestrial sequestration or geologic sequestration.

Geologic carbon sequestration requires a combination of emerging technologies needed to store

CO2 in geologic layers for long time periods. These new technologies will allow mankind to

minimize the effects that the burning of fossil fuels has on the environment and global climate

change.

Geologic sequestration involves pumping or injecting CO2 into geologic traps or

reservoirs at high pressure. Sequestration of large volumes of CO2 requires storage in liquid

phase. This requires a reservoir pressure of 1072 PSI and higher, which is found at depths of

approximately 2500 feet and greater. Several possible geologic reservoirs can be used for CO2

storage, including existing oil and gas reservoirs. The distribution of oil and gas reservoirs is

well known due to the long history of oil and gas exploration and production. Since these

reservoirs provided secure storage for hydrocarbons over millions of years they offer high

probability for successful long term CO2 storage. Coal beds are another type of reservoir suitable

for CO2 sequestration. Coal bed methane trapped in these reservoirs has been exploited for over

3 decades.

2.2 Structural Setting: This study examines the structural and geologic setting of the

Southwest Regional Partnerships’ carbon sequestration pilot test in the north central San Juan

basin (Figure 1A). The structural setting is complex and includes the Zuni uplift to the south,

which pushed northeastward, and the San Juan uplift to the north which pushed in a southward

direction during the Laramide orogeny (Lorenz and Cooper, 2003). The structure of the basin is

4
characterized by a horseshoe shaped monocline that extends to the eastern, northern and western

edges of the basin (Fassett, 2000) (Figure 1B). The southern and southwestern edges of the basin

are structurally controlled by the Zuni uplift; there is no structural border to the southeastern

edge of the basin. To the west of the basin is the Four Corners plateau which is bounded by

laccoliths that form various mountain ranges. The basin is underlain by a Proterozoic crystalline

basement which is crossed by faults oriented northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast

(Lorenz and Cooper, 2003& Taylor and Huffman, 1998). In cross section the axial hinge can be

seen in the northern part of the basin. North of the hinge, the average dip is roughly 5 while

south of the hinge, the dip varies from 0.25 to 0.8 (Fassett, 2000) (Figure 1C).

A)

5
 B)

C)

Figure 1) Structural setting of the San Juan Basin. A)Small red box indicates the location of the study area within the
San Juan Basin. B) Main structural features around the basin. Red box indicates study area. C) Cross section of the
San Juan Basin. (Taken from Fassett, 2000).

6
 2.3 Basic Stratigraphy: The Fruitland Formation, Late Cretaceous in age, and

surrounding strata were deposited on the southwestern margin of the Western Interior Seaway.

The underlying Pictured Cliffs sandstone is a shoreline deposit (Figure 2). The Fruitland

Formation is composed of coal beds interbedded with sandstone and siltstone and is a backshore

marsh deposit. The overlying Kirtland Shale consists of sandstone and shale beds and is a

terrestrial deposit. The Kirtland shale is the primary caprock for the Fruitland Formation

reservoirs.

7
Figure 2) Stratigraphic column for the San Juan Basin taken from Huffman (2010).

2.4 Depositional Models: There are two depositional models for the San Juan basin.

Fassett’s (2000) (Figure 3) model depicts Fruitland deposition during a period of shoreline

regression. The sequence contains marine and terrestrial strata. Volcanic ash beds provide time

8
lines that cross the sequence and indicate progradation through time to the northeast into the

seaway. Panel one of Fassett’s model (Time A, Figure 3) shows the marine Lewis shale being

deposited. The Huerfanito bentonite bed, a chronostratigraphic layer, provides a time line that

reveals the shoreline deposition to the southwest (far left).The shoreline sands and offshore bars

in this system are known as the Pictured Cliffs sandstone. Time B (Figure 3) shows continued

shoreline regression. Marine shale deposition is located progressively further northeast into the

narrowing seaway, denoted by the polarity reversals in the model. The final panel of this model

(Time C) depicts the shoreline at the far right, having regressed entirely over the shale unit. The

coal deposits from behind the shoreline are interfingered with terrestrial deposits landward of the

swamps (not shown). Also shown is “time line” of polarity reversals that parallels the angle at

which the Huerfanito bentonite was deposited. This general model does not indicate any other

facies such as fluvial systems interacting with the Fruitland Formation as it was being deposited

however other figures presented by Fassett show this in schematic form.

9
Figure 3) Fassett model of deposition (taken from Fassett 2000). Lewis shale in blue, Pictured Cliffs Sandstone in
yellow, Fruitland Formation in grey, and Kirtland Shale in green.

Ayers et al. (1994) present a depositional model for the Late Cretaceous strata (Figure 4)

in the Navajo Lake area (about 5 miles east of the pilot site). Part A depicts marshes depositing

10
the Fruitland Formation coal beds between small streams that run into the Western Interior

Seaway. Part B of the figure illustrates subsidence along the basin axis allowing for a stillstand

in shoreline regression. This stillstand of the shoreline permitted larger accumulation of peat to

be deposited. Ayers et al. (1994) present a cross section of their model which has a datum on

the top of the Fruitland Formation (Appendix A). The Fruitland top is treated as a

chronostratigraphic surface. The contact between the Fruitland and overlying Kirtland Shale is

gradational, making the boundary across the basin difficult to pick. Also the ash beds (constant

time markers) shown in Fassett’s model are not represented correctly (i.e. as chronostratigraphic

surfaces) in the Ayers et al. model. Further discussion of the Ayers et al. model is presented in

Appendix A.

Figure 4) Ayres model of deposition from Ayers et al. (1994). A) Coal forming behind older shoreline sandstone in
disconnected marshes. B) Subsidence causes halt of shoreline regression and allows for thicker more continuous
aggradations of coal.

11
 2.5 Position of Study Area within the Basin: According to Meek and Levine (2006),

the Fruitland reservoirs are divided into four different “type production areas” (TPA) within the

basin (Appendix A). The injection well is located in the over-pressured “High Rate Fairway”,

referred to as TPA 3 by Meek and Levine (2006). The boundary with TPA 2 to the south is based

on reservoir pressure differences; TPA 2 generally has lower pressure than TPA 3.

Interpretations (Meek and Levine, 2006) suggest that the northeastward pinchout of the lower

coal occurs along the boundary between TPA 3 and 4. Gas produced from TPAs 2 and 4 have a

higher Btu value than gas produced from the “High Rate Fairway” TPA 3.

2.6 Summary of Earlier Studies at this Site: Previous investigations undertaken at this

site provided the groundwork for this study. Considerable fracture characterization work was

undertaken by Wilson et al. (2012). This included surface fracture mapping with additional

surface mapping using QuickBird imagery, analysis of FMI log, and sonic scanner data. Another

study (Henthron et al., 2007) built a database of well logs from around the site in order to make

structure and isopach maps. Finally, previous analysis of the 3D seismic data over the area

presented synthetic seismic correlations, isochore and isochron maps, as well as fault and

fracture zone interpretations of the Kirtland shale and Fruitland Formation (Wilson et al., 2009).

CO2 escape from the Fruitland reservoir could be facilitated by natural fracture systems.

Surface release of CO2, if it occurred, would likely occur through porous high permeability zones

in the sandstone that caps the mesas in the area (see Wilson and Wells, 2010; Wilson et al.,

2008). Surface fracture systems are limited and largely restricted to spalling along valley walls

(Wilson et al., 2012). Electromagnetic surveying was used to map the distribution of high

permeability pathways in the near surface at the site (Wilson and Wells, 2010). The results of

their studies were used to help locate additional tracer monitoring stations, to detect possible CO2

12
leakage at the site. Studies by Wilson et al. (2008 and 2012) and Henthorn et al. (2007) used

QuickBird imaginary to map surface fractures in the mesas at potential pilot site locations. The

QuickBird images have a resolution of 0.6 meter, which makes it possible to map fractures on

the edges of the mesas (the valley wall fractures) from these images (Wilson et al., 2010). Some

479 fractures where mapped in the vicinity of the pilot site using these satellite images. The

cumulative rose diagram (Appendix A) exhibits two dominant orientations for QuickBird

mapped fractures, N35E and N50W (Henthorn et al., 2007). The orientation of fractures was

also measured in the field. More than 380 fractures where mapped in the field and were found to

have dominant orientations of N30E and N48W (Wilson et al., 2010). Wilson et al. (2010) states

that the “systematic occurrence of the fracture systems in the area suggests that fracture origin is

largely controlled by anisotropic in-situ stress associated with basin formation and geometry”.

As part of the preliminary study for this sequestration effort Henthron et al. (2007) built a

database of some 173 well logs from around the site. Log data were used to make formation top

picks of various strata including the Fruitland Formation and Pictured Cliffs sandstone and the

Huerfanito Bentonite (Henthorn et al., 2007). Henthorn et al. (2007) also present a type log for

the Fruitland Formation (Figure 5). In the Fruitland section, Henthron et al. show three mappable

coal seams, the basal, middle, and upper coals. The basal coal is subdivided into upper and lower

intervals separated by a high gamma ray zone interpreted to be a shale layer. Structure maps

created by Henthorn et al (2007) show strata dipping to the northeast with a gradient of roughly

30ft per mile. Henthorn et al. also suggest the presence of a north-northeast plunging anticline in

the southeast corner of their map (Appendix A). Isopach maps made by Henthorn et al.(2007)

reveal some thickening (Appendix A) over the structural high in the southeast corner. A basal

Fruitland net coal map reveals that thicknesses of the basal coal range from 6 to 32ft. At the time

13
of this preliminary study 3D seismic was not available and these subsurface maps made from

well log correlation provided a relatively coarse view of subsurface structure at the site and in

surrounding areas.

Fruitland
Formation Top

Shal
Shal Pictured Cliffs
Top

Figure 5) Type log after Henthorn et al (2007). Highlighting coal sections in green and blue within the Fruitland
Formation.

Wilson et al. (2012) use sonic scanner and FMI logs from the injection well to define

present day stress and infer potential mode I fracture orientations in the subsurface. Fast-shear

azimuth measurements have a mean orientation of N42E for the entire well bore, however in the

14
lower Fruitland coal section the fast shear shifts azimuth to a mean trend of N10E. These results

are validated by drilling induced breakouts, observed in the FMI log, which form normal to the

present day maximum compressive stress (Wilson et al., 2012). Open fractures reported by

Wilson et al. (2012) appear to have preferred orientations; however, the limited number of

occurrences (n=48) did not yield statistically significant differences in these trends. A total of 57

healed fractures were also identified along the injection well bore. Healed fractures observed in

the Kirtland shale show a preferred orientation of N45W. In the upper 100ft of the Fruitland

Formation, a somewhat large number (14 or 25%) of healed fractures where observed. Taken

independently these fractures have trends consistent with the in-situ stress inferred from drilling

induced breakouts and fast-shear directions. Additional analysis of FMI log data is not planned

as part of this study.

The initial analysis of the 3D seismic data set provided for this study was presented by

Wilson et.al. (2009). The Fruitland seismic sequence was identified using a synthetic seismic tie

at the injection well. Attribute analysis was used to identify potential faults and fracture zones in

the Fruitland Formation and the Kirtland Shale. Wilson et al. state that the top and base of the

Fruitland seismic sequence are marked by bright continuous reflections. Internal reflections from

the Fruitland Formation are more complex than those bounding the section. The gain adjusted

absolute value of the derivative of the seismic amplitude calculated by Wilson et al. (2009 and,

2012) revealed the presence of considerable structural and stratigraphic complexity in the

Fruitland Formation and overlying strata. A vertical profile extracted from the 3D seismic data

(Figure 6) reveals structural and stratigraphic features unveiled through this process. Increased

vertical and horizontal resolution reveals stratigraphic pinchouts, internal faults, and potential

fracture zones within the Fruitland Formation and Kirtland shale (Wilson et al., 2009). Ant

15
Tracking (Schlumberger, 2008)) was also used by Wilson et al. to extract information about

potential fractures zones and minor faults in the Fruitland Formation and Kirtland Shale. Ant

Tracking uncovered linear discontinuities with a dominant NE (N56E) trend and a less

pronounced NW (N54W) trend.

Isopach maps made from seismic interpretation in Wilson et al. (2009) study reveal a

northwest trending zone of thinning in the Fruitland Formation which was interpreted to result

from differential compaction over a northwest trending shoreline sand in the underlying Pictured

Cliffs Sandstone. Differential compaction could lead to higher fracture intensity along a NW-SE

trend in the lower part of the Fruitland sequence (Wilson et al. 2009).

Figure 6) Line through an attribute volume made by Wilson et al. (2009). Shows small vertical disruptions and
offsets that may indicate the presents of small faults or fracture zones.

16
 Chapter 3

Well log Interpretations

3.1 Available Data: Well logs give the interpreter a detailed account of the strata that

wells have intersected. For this study, the well logs from 37 wells have been examined in order

to aid in the interpretation of the subsurface geology at the site. Well logs provide measurements

of subsurface geophysical properties at ½ to 1 foot sample intervals. Formation top and base

picks from well logs form the basis for isopach and structure maps. Since these well picks are in

depth they can be used to help convert seismic two-way time data to depth. Table 1 lists the

wells in the seismic area with geophysical logs. A total of 42 logs where digitized from raster log

images, using Didger 3 software, for this project. The majority (28) of those logs are gamma ray

logs. Figure 7 illustrates the locations of the wells and the extent of the seismic data.

Well Name Well API Logs available

Moore A3 30045099100000 Neu, Gamma
Kernaghan B1 30045100420000 LT, SP, SN, MNOR, MNV, LN
State Com K7 30045101490000 Gamma, Neu
Kernaghan B4 30045103380000 Res
Kernaghan B3 30045103610000 Gamma, Neu
Moore 6 30045131100000 Gamma, Den
Moore 7 30045200650000 Gamma
State Com 30045201130000 Gamma, Neu
AL36
Florance 103 30045201470000 Gamma, Neu
EPNG com A 30045209340000 Gamma
002A
State Com K 30045217020000 Gamma
007A
Howell A 30045217210000 Gamma, Den
002A
Moore B 30045222730000 Gamma
004A
Kernaghan B 30045224230000 Gamma, Neu
001A
Fletcher 2 30045235850000 Gamma
Moore 1 30045241890000 Gamma
Howell D 30045264510000 Gamma
003B

17
Florance H 3 30045273300000 Gamma
Kernaghan B7 30045273500000 Gamma
Kernaghan B8 30045273510000 Gamma
Dawson LS 30045294790000 Gamma
001B
Howell D 30045300450000 Gamma
002B
Howell D 30045300640000 Gamma , TALP, AT00, ATD2, ATD1, ATCO, AIBD, TNPH, ATRX, ATRT,
001B AT90, AT60, AT30, AT20, AT10
Fletcher 30045319480000 Gamma
001M
Howell D 30045320900000 Gamma, Den
350S
Kernaghan B 30045324720000 Gamma
008S
Florance H37 30045601890000 Gamma, Neu
COM A ING 1 30045343050000* BS, DEVI, DTCO, STSM_FAST, DTSM_SLOW, FSH_AZIM_AVERALL,
CO2 Injection RHOZ
Well
Howell A 4 30045203460000+ Gamma, Den, DGR, RHOB, ILD, DRHO, CALI, GR
Type Log
Kernaghan B 30045224200000 NPHI, RHOB, ILD, DRHO, GR, Neu
002A
State Com K 30045240390000 DPHI, DPHI2, CILD, RHOB, ILD, DRHO, CALI, SP, GR
007A
Howell A 30045265100000 NPHI, RHOB, ILD, DRHO, CALI, GR
004E
Howell D 30045292080000 TENS, PEF, LCO5, ILS, RWA, NRHO, ILM, AF90, AF60, AF30, AF20,
002R AF10, DPHI, NPHI, RHOB, ILD , DRHO, CALI, GR, NPOR
State Com AL 30045328850000 DT_CH, TPHI, GR_CH
036F
Dawson Gas 30045325000000 Gamma
Com 001
Moore B4 30045601880000 Gamma, Neu
State com Al 30045328970000 TPHI, GR
036M

Table 1) List of wells and logs available for this study in the seismic survey area. Logs named Gamma, Neu, Res and
Den where digitized from raster logs, all other logs where digital at the beginning of this study.
* indicates injection well. + indicates well used for type log in figure 7.

18
Figure 7) Well locations at the pilot site. Injection well is depicted as the red star. Orange square represents
approximate boundaries of the seismic data.

3.2 Fruitland Formation: Figure 8 shows two log sections of the Fruitland Formation.

Logs on the left of Figure 8 are from the injection well, the logs on the right are from a well in

the southwest quadrant of the seismic data. Logs shown in Figure 8 are a combination of logs

digitized from raster logs and digital logs.

19
 upper A coal
upper parting
upper B coal

interbedded
interval 1 Fruitland
Formation
middle A coal
middle parting
middle B coal
interbedded
interval 2
lower A coal
lower parting
lower B coal A B

Figure 8) Well logs through Fruitland Formation Com A ING (left is the injection well). The base of lower coal B cannot be identified in this log). Logs are
flattened on the top of upper coal A. Gamma ray response in the left track, density log in the right track. Intervals with densities of 1.75 g/cc an less are
interpreted to be coal and are colored black. Log response from the Howell A4 well is shown at right.

20
 The Fruitland coal bearing interval is roughly 150-175ft thick from the top of the upper

coal A to the base of lower coal B. There are three distinct coal intervals within the Fruitland

Formation; upper, middle, and lower. Separating these three coal zones are two layers of

interbedded sandstone, shale and siltstone (Fassett 2000). Each coal zone contains two separate

coal beds, upper A and B coals, middle A and B coals and, lower A and B coals. These coal beds

are divided by thin layers referred to as coal partings. Wray (2000) states that coal seams within

the Fruitland Formation are discontinuous in a regional sense. There is no definitive evidence

from log analysis that any of the coal seams are discontinuous within the site.

3.3 Interpretation of Well Logs: The typical log response associated with a coal is low

gamma ray and low density. A cutoff density of 1.75 gm/cm3 was used to identify coal

throughout the site. The thin upper coal A varies between 7.5ft and 10ft thick. Separating upper

A and B coals is a parting layer (referred to in the following discussions as upper parting). The

upper parting can be seen in logs from the injection well in Figure 8. For a better illustration of

the extent of change to this layer, see Appendix B (Figure B4). Throughout most of the site this

layer is only 3-5ft thick; however, in the northeast quadrant this layer thickens to approximately

30ft (Appendix B, Figure B3). The upper parting consist of layers of sandstone and shale with

gamma ray measurements around 150 API and densities of roughly 2.5 g/cc. Packages of

sediment similar to the upper parting separate upper B coal from middle A coal and middle B

coal from lower A coal. In the areas where the upper parting thickens, there is an increased

volume of shale. A thin coal seam underlies the upper parting throughout the site. This study

proposes that this is part of the upper coal seam, and is referred to as upper B coal. This bed

appears to be continuous from well log analysis however; there is a possibility that upper B coal

21
pinches out on the bottom of the upper parting in areas where the upper parting thickens

(Appendix B Figure B3).

The middle and upper coal seams are separated by a sequence of sandstone, shale and

siltstone approximately 30ft to 75ft thick (Appendix B). This package of thicker sediments trends

N-S from the middle of the southern border of the study area and turns to a WNW-ESE trend

near the injection well (Appendix B Figure B6) . The gamma ray response for the sandstone and

shale interval vary between 100-150API units with densities around 2.5g/cc and occasionally

dropping down to 2.0g/cc. The response from this layer varies throughout the site suggesting that

lithologies within this layer change throughout the site. The middle coal seam also consists of

two thin coal beds separated by the middle parting. Middle A coal varies from 3-6ft. The middle

parting is a low gamma ray interval with values between 80-120 API units and densities from

2.0-2.3g/cc and is interpreted to be a sandstone layer. The middle parting is 4.5-7.5ft thick.

Middle B coal sits just below middle parting and is 4.5-6ft thick.

The stratigraphic interval above the lower coal also consists of interbedded shale,

sandstones, and siltstones ranging from 40ft to 60ft thick. The response from this layer has less

variation than the section that separates the upper and middle coals, suggesting the possibility

that beds that are contained in this section are continuous throughout the site. The lowermost

coal zone of the Fruitland Formation contains lower A and B coals and a persistent shale parting.

Lower A coal varies from 9-14ft thick throughout the site (Figure 9). The lowermost coals are

separated by a thin parting that is interpreted to be shale on the basis of its large gamma ray

response, referred to as the lower parting. This shale layer persists throughout the site and has a

thickness that varies from 2-5ft (Appendix B). Lower B coal below the parting is slightly thicker,

and varies in thickness from approximately 10 to 16ft (Appendix B). Total thickness of the lower

22
coal zone is between 21 and 35ft. The lower coal is the thickest of the three coal zones. Ayers

and Zellers (1994) suggest that thicker pods of coal with northwest-southeast trend accumulated

during stillstands. The thickness of the coal is quite variable throughout the study area and there

is no clear northwest-southeast thickness trend.

Figure 9) Isopach map of lower A coal, made from well tops.

3.4 Well Pick Defined Structure: A structure map made from well tops of the top of the

middle A coal is shown in Figure 10. This map shows some folding in the layer, as described in

Wilson et al. (2009 & 2010). Structural relief in the NE section of the map is on the order of 25ft

while relief along the southern border ranges from 40ft to 75ft. The map dips to the NE toward

the axis of the basin. Other maps made using well tops have structure similar to that shown in

23
Figure 9. This map reveals that well log coverage is not uniform. Some areas have less control.

They are highlighted in red for reference.

Figure 10) Structure map of the middle A coal top. This map was made using well log picks from 37 wells across
the site. Numbers shown are in depth above sea level and colored so warm colors show highs and cool colors show
low areas. Areas circled in red have relatively weak well control.

3.5 Conclusions: The well log interpretations presented in this study provide a view of

the stratigraphic features in the Fruitland Formation that is more detailed than any published in

the literature to date. The well log interpretation presented here is consistent with earlier

interpretations in showing that the Fruitland Formation contains three major coal zones.

However, correlation of the detailed log responses of these coals across the area reveals that each

coal contains persistent silt-to-shale partings. The presence of silt and shale partings in the upper

24
and middle coals is a new finding. The shale parting in the lower coal was mentioned by

Henthorn (2007). Thickness of coal seams varies throughout the site. Total net coal thickness

varies from 30ft to 51ft (Appendix B14). The beds within the Fruitland Formation are relatively

flat, dipping about a degree to the NE toward the basin axis. There is some minor folding in the

center of the seismic area with larger scale folding along the southern border (Figure 10 and

Appendix B).

CO2 injection into the three coals was focused into the lower coal (SWP Final Report,

2010). The coal interval was under-reamed to a diameter of 9 inches and then fitted with a liner

that was perforated across each of the three coals (SWP Final Report, 2010). The model

constructed by the SWP to perform the simulation consisted of three layers: one for each coal.

The grid was oriented in the face cleat orientation as inferred from the NEBU well about 7 miles

east of the site. The 3D view of their local model suggests the injection well sits on a structural

high with the structure dropping in all directions away from the well (SWP Final Report, 2010,

their Figure 102). The plume clearly flows along a highly elliptical path to the EPNG COM A

300 well southwest along the anticipated face cleat trend. The log based stratigraphic

descriptions presented in this study reveal that the SWP model is oversimplified in terms of the

structure and the representation of the coals as homogeneous and uniformly thick intervals. The

shale-to-silt partings in each coal may have positive effects in terms of reducing vertical flow

and thus reducing the risk of escape from the Fruitland Formation into and possibly through the

reservoir seal.

25
 Chapter 4
Seismic Interpretations
4.1 Introduction: This chapter describes the seismic interpretation work that was

undertaken for this study. The workflow for this interpretation includes; seismic interpretations

in the time domain, extraction of a wavelet to better understand the resolution limits of the data,

construction of a velocity model, domain conversion of seismic data from time to depth, and

comparisons of well logs and depth converted structure and isopach maps. In this discussion the

terms isochron map, isotime map and isopach map are used. Isochron is used to refer to a map

roughly equal reflection time. Isotime denotes maps that show two-way-time (TWT) difference

between to horizons. Isopach refers to layer thickness in feet, unless otherwise noted (Sheriff,

1991).

4.2 Background and Time Domain Interpretations: High quality 3D seismic data

provided for this study by the Southwest Regional Partnership cover a 9 square mile area (Figure

7 Chapter 2).The data has a high signal-to-noise ratio. The pre- and post-stack processing list

was not provided. A synthetic trace at the injection well (COM A ING 1) was used to link

seismic reflections to stratigraphic intervals (Figure 11). In chapter 3, the Fruitland Formation is

broken down into eleven stratigraphic units using well log data, but not all of these beds could be

picked as separate reflection events in the 3D seismic data. Some beds are too thin and they do

not form easily identifiable events. Variations of signal-to-noise ratio through the 3D seismic

also limit the ability to interpret thin, low amplitude intervals in the seismic. Laterally coherent

seismic events that relate to stratigraphic units identified in the well and synthetic trace were

picked. Only four such events are present. These picks coincided with the tops of upper A coal,

middle A coal, lower A coal, and the Pictured Cliffs top (Figure 12). Reflection events associated

26
 with upper parting, upper B coal, middle B coal, etc., were not clearly defined or easy to follow

through the 3D seismic. The Pictured Cliffs top and lower coal A top were the most continuous

and homogeneous throughout the site.

upper A coal top

middle A coal top

lower A coal top

Figure 11) Synthetic trace through the Fruitland Formation. Used to tie seismic data to stratigraphic intervals. Top of
the upper, middle and lower coals are shown in green, purple and black respectively.

27
 SE NW

Upper A coal
Middle A coal

Lower A coal

Pictured Cliffs
Figure 12) Seismic interpretation of Fruitland Formation.

A comparison of isochron maps from the tops of upper A coal, middle A coal and lower

A coal is shown in Figure 13. Larger images of these maps are shown in Figures 14, 15, and 16.

There are a number of similarities between these maps which are highlighted in Figure 13.

Isochron maps reveal some folding; however, no clear indication of faulting is revealed in the

area. The most notable similarity between the maps is three anticlines. These anticlines are seen

in the western half of the maps. The anticline highlighted in yellow has the highest relief of about

8ms. The length of the anticlines shown in yellow and red are similar. However, the anticline

shown in blue is significantly longer in the lower A coal map. Each map also shows a depression

along the northern edge of the maps (outlined in orange). This depression represents an increase

in two-way travel time of about 4ms. A syncline can be seen in the map from the upper and

middle coal in the southeastern quadrant boarder that extends toward the center of the maps.

These similar features suggest that the structures seen here where formed after deposition.
28
 N

A B

Figure 13) Comparison of time domain structure maps of (A) upper A coal, (B) middle A coal and (C) lower A coal.
Contour interval of 2ms.

29
 Each isochron map has some distinct features. Upper A coal shows a structural high in

the NE quadrant of the area that is larger than the high seen in the middle and lower coals. This

structural high could indicate differential compaction over the area where the upper parting

thickens as discussed in Chapter 3. A smaller structure can be seen in the middle coal isochron in

a similar location; however, seismic response for the middle coal in this area is heterogeneous,

thus this relief may not relate to any real structure. As discussed, above the syncline seen in the

southeastern quadrant of the upper and middle coals is not seen in the lower coal. Instead, there

is a narrow anticline protruding from the SE corner. This anticlinal feature may be an artifact left

over from seismic processing.

30
Figure 14) Isochron map of upper A coal.

31
Figure 15) Isochron map of middle A coal.

32
Figure 16) Isochron map of lower A coal.

33
 Isotime maps are shown in Figures 17, 18, and 19. Figure 17 is an isotime map

illustrating the TWT separation between upper A coal and middle A coal. Values range from

10ms to 22ms, increasing in the NE and along the eastern edge of the data. Figure 18 shows an

isotime map between middle A coal and lower A coal. Separations fluctuate from 10ms to 37ms.

Areas with a separation above 30ms are along the eastern edge of the seismic data where noise is

prevalent. Figure 19 is an isotime map between the top of lower A coal and the top of the

Pictured cliffs sandstone. Thicknesses in this section are relatively uniform, ranging from 10ms

to 30ms, with separations above 20ms limited to the noisy eastern edge of the data.

34
 TWT

Figure 17) Isotime map constructed from time domain maps showing thickness between upper A coal and middle A
coal.

35
 TWT

Figure 18) Isotime map constructed from time domain maps showing thickness between middle A coal and lower A
coal.

36
 TWT

Figure 19) Isotime map constructed from time domain maps showing thickness between lower A coal and Pictured
Cliffs top.

4.3 Discontinuities: Difficulty in picking some of the time domain horizons was

encountered due to heterogeneity in the seismic response. This heterogeneity is often present in

the form of discontinuous reflection events (Figure 20C). These discontinuities are particularly

prevalent in areas where the upper parting thickens (in the NE quadrant of the study area). Figure

20A shows the location of a seismic line and well bores along the line that illustrates

stratigraphic heterogeneity. The reflection from the upper coal (green horizon Figure 20C) is

37
discontinuous just east of the Fletcher 001M well. The reflection from the middle coal zone is

not discontinuous in the vicinity of the Fletcher 001M; but the amplitude of the reflection is

lower there than at the injection well. The well log analysis (Figure 20B) reveals that there is no

pinching out of the coal layers within the Fruitland Formation in the Fletcher 001M well where

heterogeneity can be seen. What the well log analysis does show is that the upper parting is

thicker in the Fletcher 001M well than it is in the COM A ING1 well. I suggest that the

heterogeneity seen in the upper and middle coals seen near the Fletcher 001M is due to the

thickening of the upper parting. Another possible explanation is that the upper B coal and middle

coals are truly discontinuous and that these seismic scale discontinuities reveal the presence of

pinch outs that are not seen in the well log data.

38
 A

upper A coal
upper parting
upper B coal

middle parting

middle A coal
middle B coal

lower parting
B
lower A coal

lower B coal

Figure 20: (see caption next page)

39
 NW SE

Upper coal

Middle coal

Lower coal

Pictured Cliffs
C

Figure 20) Crossline 697 showing discontinuity in the middle coal reflection. This discontinuity is not believe to be a pinch out of the middle coal layer but rather
caused by an increase of signal to noise ratio. (A) Location of the wells and seismic line. (B) Cross section showing increase in the upper parting coal layers
pinching out. (C) Seismic line through the wells (B) showing seismic discontinuity in the upper coal reflection (green horizon) and weakening of signal in the
middle coal horizon (purple horizon).

40
 4.4 Resolution Limits: A discussion of seismic resolution will aid in understanding why

individual layers in the Fruitland Formation, as described in Chapter 3, are not clearly seen in the

seismic data. The coal seams of Fruitland Formation range in thickness from 3ft to 18ft. The

seismic data has a bandwidth of 30Hz to 170Hz between 0.4 and 0.8 seconds which encompasses

the Fruitland coal section. This high frequency component enables thinner beds to be resolvable.

Calibration curves based on extracted wavelet from the 3D seismic data (Figure 21) are used to

examine the resolution limits of this data set. These charts show tuning time, the point at which

the seismic reflections from the top and bottom of a bed constructively interfere to produce a

single bright reflection. Below this point, reflections from a single bed interfere destructively,

and the amplitude of this composite reflection decreases with thickness below the resolution

limit. This tuning time is easily translated into tuning thickness when the velocity of the bed of

interest is known. For example tuning thickness for a coal with a velocity of 8000ft/sec is

determined as follows:

One half dominant period ( /2) 0.004 sec (this corresponds to the tuning time)
The 0.004 second tuning time is a conservative estimate based on the calibration curves
shown in Figure 21.

Coal velocity (V) determined from sonic logs 8000ft/s

V
Tuning thickness = 0.002*8000
0.002 *8380 = 16ft
4

Coal velocities estimated from the injection well sonic log vary between approximately

6700 to 8600 ft/s. Based on the velocity range and dominant periods observed in the seismic data

the coal resolution limit varies from about 10 to 22ft The thickness of individual coal seams is

generally less than 14 feet slightly below the resolution limit of the data. A thickness of 14 feet

corresponds to a TWT of roughly 1.75ms,( less than the 2ms tuning time) in a layer with a

41
velocity of 8000ft/s. The composite response of reflections from the top and base of the

individual seams consists of a negative cycle associated with the negative reflection coefficient

from the top of the seam followed by a positive one from the base. As the thickness of individual

seams drops below 16 feet to 17 feet, destructive interference of wavelets cause a nearly linear

weakening of the amplitude (see Figure 21A). For a more detailed discussion on resolution of

seismic data see Gochioco, 1991.

1.4 0.015

Actual Transit Time (sec.)

1.2
Peak-to-Trough Amplitude

1.0
0.010

0.8

0.6

0.005
0.4

0.2

0.0 0.000
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015

Actual Interval Transit Time (sec) Apparent Interval Transit Time (sec.)
A. B.
Figure 21) Tuning charts made from the extracted wavelet from the 3D surrey. Tuning time lies between 0.003 and
0.004 seconds. A) Peak-to-trough amplitude difference versus two-way time through a coal seam

4.5 Velocity model: The velocity model made in this study consists of six layers. The

layers in the model extend from the seismic datum to the top of the Kirtland Shale, the Kirtland

to the upper Fruitland coal, the upper Fruitland coal to the middle Fruitland coal, middle

Fruitland coal to the lower Fruitland coal, from the lower Fruitland coal to the Pictured Cliffs

Sandstone and from the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone to the Mancos Shale. The inputs for the

velocity model were the seismic time horizons and the well top depths. Velocities for five of the

six layers were determined by Schlumberger’s Petrel velocity modeling process. The velocity

modeling process determines velocities by shifting seismic horizons so that the horizon and well

top for that layer have the same depth. This is done on a well by well basis. This means

velocities change at each well for each layer of the model depending of the distance the horizons
42
have to be shifted. The sixth layer of the model (Pictured Cliffs –Mancos Shale) used a constant

velocity determined by a sonic log at the State COM AL 036M well. This was done due to the

lack of well top available for the Mancos Shale. Table 2 shows velocities at the injection well

for five of the six layers. These velocities are suggestive of the velocity of each layer throughout

the site. Velocities determined by the velocity model process average velocities in sections with

multiple beds. The averaging of velocities over multiple beds will lead to local errors. However,

this average velocity covers a roughly 90ft interval, so the errors in depth should be relatively

small.

Horizons covered Velocity (ft/s)

Seismic datum – Kirtland Shale 8120.40

Kirtland Shale- Upper A coal top 12463.44

Upper A coal top – Middle A coal 12680.63

Middle A coal – Lower A coal 7455.18

Lower A coal –Pictured Cliffs Sandstone 6294.66

Pictured Cliffs Sandstone – Mancos Shale* 12850.00

Table 2) Velocity used in the six layer model to depth convert the seismic data. The velocities were taken from the
injection well except where marked. * Velocities seen in the State COM AL 036M well.

4.6 Conversion to Depth: The depth conversion process utilized the velocities

determined in the velocity modeling process, described above. The use of six well defined

reflection events to make the depth conversion eliminates uncertainties in the correlation of

internal events through the 3D seismic. Thus, the conversion to depth using log-picked formation

top depths and travel times estimated from horizon picks on the interpreted top, middle and base

of the Fruitland provides a location variable, average velocity function. A comparison between

43
the original time data and the depth converted data is shown in Figures 22 and 23. Four of the

horizons picked are also displayed in these figures. In the time domain data (Figure 22) a rise can

be seen in the Pictured Cliffs top reflection, this rise was interpreted by Wilson et al. (2009) as

differential compaction of the Fruitland Formation over a shoreline sand of the Pictured Cliffs

sandstone. In the depth converted data (Figure 23) this rise is less distinct. The NE side of this

structure is clearly seen in the depth data , conversely there is a gentle dip off the rise to the SW.

This lack of structure may be indicative of a pinch out rather than differential compaction;

however, due to the lack of data to the SW of the injection well along the inline shown, the depth

converted data may be misrepresenting the subsurface structure.

A comparison of a depth converted horizon to a surface constructed from well top data is

displayed in Figure 24. The horizon present in Figure 24 is the upper A coal top. After the depth

conversion process, the structure of the three coal tops picked in the Fruitland Formation is more

uniform. Depth converted horizons have a gentle dip to the NE toward the axis of the basin, as

does the well top derived map. Folds are seen in each map with more highly folded areas along

the southern edge of the data; relief of these larger folds range from 40ft to 60ft. Depth

converting the horizons does add some smaller folds that are not seen in the well top map. The

injection well penetrates a relatively low relief anticline in both maps, seen in Figure 24. This

anticline looks to be an extension of larger folds to the south. In the map constructed from well

logs (Figure 24A), the injection well penetrates the crest of this anticline; however, in the depth

converted seismic map (Figures 24B),the injection well penetrates the western flank of the

anticline. Drilling through the coal bed reservoirs on the flank of this anticline may lead to issues

with CO2 injection, as the flank of the anticline may not be as highly fractured as the crest. This

can be seen as both good and bad. The CO2 injected on the flank of an anticline will not directly

44
be connected to the fracture that might exist on the crest of the anticline which means the CO2 is

less likely to escape through these fractures. However injecting CO2 into a known fracture

system means the CO2 could be pumped down more easily and the injected fluid would be in

contact with more coal to absorb to.

Isopach maps constructed from seismic data after the depth conversion process resemble

isopachs made from well top data. This is expected since the well top data is used in the depth

conversion process. Isopach maps of the thickness of sediment between the top of upper coal A

and the top of middle coal A are compared in Figure 25. The two maps presented in Figure 25

are similar with a few exceptions, for example, the eastern edge of the data where the isopach

produced from the seismic data indicates an area of thick sediment not observed in the well log

derived isopach maps. Isopach maps between the top of middle coal A and lower coal A, and

isopachs between the top of lower coal A and the Pictured Cliffs top can be found in Appendix

C. The isopach map created from the seismic data for the sediment between the top of lower coal

A and the top of the Pictured Cliffs sandstone suggests a thicker accumulation of sediment than

the well top isopach depicts. The isopach built from the seismic data shows thicknesses between

20ft and 50ft in the majority of the survey, while the well top based isopach shows thicknesses

between 20ft and 30ft. The increase in thickness in the isopach constructed from the seismic data

is continuous throughout the site and not concentrated at any particular well or group of wells.

This suggests that these increased thicknesses seen in the seismic isopach are due to the uses of a

generalized velocity in the depth conversion process.

45
 NE
SW

upper coal top

middle coal top

lower coal top

Pictured cliffs top

Figure 22) Inline 924 of oringal time domain data. Show location of injection well and four picked seismic horizons. Note rise in the Pictured Cliffs horizon
directly below the injection well.

46
 SW NE

upper coal top

middle coal top

lower coal top

Pictured cliffs top

Figure 23) Depth converted southwest-northeast trending cross section through the injection well. Datum elevation is 7650 above MSL. Shown depth of COM
ING 1 well is 2946ft which correlates to a depth of 3386 above MSL.

47
 A B

Figure 24) Comparison between well top derived structure map (A) and depth converted seismic horizon (B) of upper A coal top. Folds seen in A are present in
B as is the dip to the NE toward the axis of the basin. B shows that the depth conversion prosses adds structural features to the horizon. The injection well is
shown in red. Depth shown in depth above MSL.

48
 A B

Figure 25) Comparison between well top derived isopach (A) and depth converted seismic isopach (B) maps .These maps repersent the thickness of strata
between the top of upper coal A and the top of middle coal A.

49
 4.7 Conclusions: 3D seismic interpretation places 3D seismic responses in a detailed

geologic context. A synthetic seismogram helped establish the correlation between reflection

events and stratigraphic units. Distinct reflections events can be associated with the top of the

upper A coal, middle A coal, lower A coal and, Pictured Cliffs sandstone. Horizon isochron

maps show some folding but no clear evidence of major faulting. Isotime maps constructed from

these horizons show some areas of increased travel time difference that can be attributed to

heterogeneity along the eastern edge of the survey. Discontinuities are present in the reflection

representing the top of the upper and middle coal beds. These seismic scale discontinuities

suggest that the coals are locally discontinuous within the site. Well logs however do not reveal

discontinuous coal seams. Since these discontinuities occur over distances of 150 to 300 feet,

there is a low probability that isolated well bores will penetrate these features. These

discontinuities could be caused by pinching out of the coal beds; however, changing layer

thickness and stratigraphic complexity may also contribute to these features.

Well log interpretation (Chapter 3) reveals that the thickness of individual Fruitland

Formation coals varies from about 3 feet to 14 feet. These coals are below the vertical resolution

limit of the seismic data. Calibration curves derived from the 3D volume indicate that coal beds

with velocity of approximately 8000ft/s, have minimum resolvable thickness (i.e. tuning

thickness) of roughly 16ft. Although individual coal seams lie below the tuning thickness, they

generally produce a detectable response. Beds with thickness less than the resolution limit can

become difficult to follow especially when the amplitude of the event associated with the thin

bed drops below that of background noise.

The horizons that were picked were used to create a velocity model and convert the

seismic data from the time domain to the depth domain. The velocity model was created using

50
Schlumberger’s Petrel velocity modeling process. The model is a six layer model which uses

well top data as a correction for the time domain horizons. This means that velocities change at

each well for each layer in the model. This procedure generalizes velocities which may result in

local error for some beds in the depth conversion process. These errors are most likely present in

intervals containing multiple beds. However, averaged velocities cover, roughly 90ft within the

Fruitland Formation which should keep errors small. The velocity model was then used to

convert the time domain data to the depth domain. Conversion to the depth domain provides a

more accurate structural view of the subsurface data. Depth converted horizons have a more

uniform structure than the well top derived maps. There is a general dip toward the basin axis in

the northeast, and some folding along the southern border of the data. Isopach maps constructed

from the depth converted seismic generally agree with those created from well top data.

However, the isopach of the lower A coal top to the top of the Pictured Cliffs sandstone,

constructed from the depth converted seismic data, indicates a thicker accumulation of sediment

than the isopach built from the well top data. It is suggested that this increase in sediment is due

generalizing velocity over multiple beds.

51
 Chapter 5
2D acoustic models

5.1 Introduction: The main objectives of this chapter are to:

1) Identify the basic seismic response of the upper, middle and, lower Fruitland

coals.

2) Determine whether the partings leave a recognizable imprint on the basic

seismic response of these three coal zones.

3) Evaluate the continuity of these coals across the site.

To reach these objectives five synthetic models were built. The velocities used in the synthetic

models are average velocities taken from the CO2 injection well. The wavelet used to simulate

the seismic response is a theoretical Butterworth wavelet with design parameters (bandwidth and

dominant period) taken from an amplitude spectrum computed from the 3D seismic data (see

Figure 33). The 2D synthetic seismic profiles are compared to data from the 3D seismic volume

along the profile. The GeoGraphix software STRUCT was used to construct the basic models

and compute the synthetic seismograms. The resulting synthetic seismograms are in the time

domain, thus the STRUCT seismograms are compared with the original two-way time seismic

response. Comparison of the synthetic response to the actual seismic response will help to

validate the geologic interpretations made in this study.

5.2 Synthetic models: The models presented in this chapter were developed along three

inlines (inlines 910, 924 and, 936) and two crosslines (crosslines 642 and 668). Four of these

model profiles(those along inlines 910 and 936 and both crosslines) are used to form a perimeter

around the injection well. This perimeter lies roughly a quarter mile from the injection well in

the inline and crossline directions (Figure 26A). Inline 924 (Figure 26B) was modeled through

52
the entire length of the data set and intersects the injection well. The inlines in the survey trend

roughly in the dip direction (NE-SW); the crosslines, along strike (NW-SE).

53
 A

E’

Figure 26) Locations of modeled profiles. (A) Modeled inlines 910 and 936 and crosslines 642 and 668 surrounding
the injection well; (B) The regional synthetic profile through the injection well (inline 924).

54
 5.2.1 Basic Models: These models were developed using depth converted seismic

horizons and well log derived isopach maps (Figures 27-30). Appendix D illustrates the process

by which the models were built. Depth converted seismic horizons representing the top of upper

coal A, top of middle coal A, top of lower coal A, and the top of the Pictured Cliffs sandstone

were imported and used to define the thickness and structural relationships between layers in the

model of the Fruitland sequence. Each horizon was imported as a series of data points. These

points were spaced roughly 100ft apart and were used to define horizon depth along each profile.

Horizons on each of the lines surrounding the injection well were defined using 27 control points

per horizon. The regional dip line is much longer; 182 control points were needed to define

horizon depths along this line. These data points were then connected to create the synthetic

horizons. Layers between the depth converted seismic tops were incorporated into the model by

adding the thicknesses of each layer as determined from the isopachs maps (Appendix D). The

basic models include all the layers of the Fruitland Formation as discussed in Chapter 3 (Figure

8). Velocity, density, and acoustic impedance for each bed are shown in table 3. The models

presented in this chapter assume constant velocity and density for each layer. Although this is

unlikely in reality within the Fruitland Formation, the availability of sonic logs was limited to the

injection well. Each model also includes 400ft to 500ft of the overlying Kirtland Shale which

uses constant velocity. Impedance contrasts within the Kirtland Shale are relatively small and do

not influence seismic response of the Fruitland Formation. The seismic profile shown in Figure

32 reveals relatively low amplitude reflection events within the Kirtland.

55
 Layer Name Velocity (ft/s) Density (g/cc) Acoustic Thickness at
Impedance injection well
(ft)
Kirtland Shale 12598.58 2.43 30614.55 978.27
Upper coal A 8019.25 2.17 17401.77 7.64
Upper parting 10691.76 2.33 24911.80 7.63
Upper coal B 8285.00 2.19 18144.15 6.80
Interbedded 13255.57 2.46 32608.70 70.97
interval 1
Middle coal A 7989.50 2.17 17337.22 6.02
Middle parting 9501.90 2.27 21569.31 5.74
Middle coal B 8374.86 2.20 18424.69 5.22
Interbedded 12171.37 2.41 29333.00 39.52
interval 2
Lower coal A 6500.00 2.06 13390.00 11.44
Lower parting 13000.00 2.45 31850.00 2.2
Lower coal B 6500.00 2.06 13390.00 ~14*
Pictured Cliff 18000.00 2.66 47880.00 N/A
Sandstone
Table 3) Velocity, density, acoustic impedance, and thickness parameters at the injection well used in the
construction of the 2D synthetic model. * Well does not penetrate the top of the Pictured Cliffs sandstone therefore
the thickness given here is an approximation.

56
 A A’

SW NE

Depth (ft)

Kirtland Shale

Upper Coals

Interbedded Interval
1
Middle Coals
Interbedded Interval
2
Lower Coals

Pictured Cliffs

Figure 27) Acoustic model along inline 910. This profile is is oriented in the dip direction and located roughly a quarter mile southeast of the injection well (see
insert).

57
 B B’
SW NE
W
Depth (ft)

Kirtland Shale

Upper Coals
Interbedded Interval
1
Middle Coals
Interbedded Interval
2 Lower Coals

Pictured Cliffs

Figure 28) Acoustic model along inline 936. This section trends in the dip direction and is located roughly a quarter mile northwest of the injection well (see
insert).

58
 C C’
NW SE

Depth (ft)

Kirtland Shale

Upper Coals
Interbedded Interval
1 Middle Coals
Interbedded Interval
2 Lower Coals

Pictured Cliffs

Figure 29) Acoustic model along crossline 642. This crossline extends in the strike direction and is located roughly a quarter mile southwest of the injection well
(see insert).

59
 D D’
NW SE

Depth (ft)

Kirtland Shale

Upper Coals
Interbedded Interval
1 Middle Coals
Interbedded Interval
2
Lower Coals

Pictured Cliffs

Figure 30) Acoustic model along crossline 667. This line is located roughly a quarter mile northeast of the injection well (see insert).

60
 E E’
SW COM A ING 1 NE

E’
Depth (ft)

Kirtland Shale

Upper Coals
Interbedded Interval
1 Middle Coals
Interbedded Interval
2 Lower Coals

Pictured Cliffs

Figure 31) Acoustic model developed along regional inline 924. This line extends in the dip direction through the injection well. Location of this model is shown
in insert. Red line indicates approximate location of the injection well.

61
Figure 32) Northeast-southwest seismic line through the injection well (middle of section) illustrates seismic events
associated with the Fruitland Fm, Kirtland Shale, the Ojo Alamo Sandstone and Nacimiento Fm. Internal reflection
discontinuity is evident in the Fruitland and shallower seismic sequences. Local structural features are also evident
in the display (taken from Wilson et al. 2012).

5.2.2 Input Parameters: Key input parameters in the synthetic seismogram include the

reflectivity sequence and seismic wavelet. The sample rate at which the synthetic

calculations are made is also a critical parameter. Use of a small calculation interval or

sample rate minimizes abrupt trace-to-trace steps in the reflection response from dipping and

thinning intervals. To facilitate accurate representation of the composite seismic response,

the minimum possible sample rate in STRUCT of 0.2 ms was used. The wavelet was defined

using a Butterworth spectrum (Figure 33A). As noted earlier, amplitude spectra of the 3D

seismic data in the vicinity of the modeled profiles were inspected and used as the basis for

62
setting the Butterworth spectral parameters. The bandwidth of the Butterworth spectrum

extends from 30 Hz. to 170 Hz. and approximates that of the actual data (Figure 33A and C).

The wavelet duration was set to approximately 30 milliseconds (see Figure 33B).

Information about the gain and other processing parameters used in the processing of the 3D

seismic data was not made available to the Southwest Regional Partnership. Inspection of the

data reveals that the automatic gain control (AGC) window length must have been fairly

large: large enough to preserve relatively true amplitude differences between the Kirtland

Shale and Fruitland Formation. By default, STRUCT does not apply an AGC. Thus the

synthetics provide a true amplitude view of the synthetic seismic response. Given the

relatively high signal-to-noise ratio of the data, random noise added to the synthetic traces

was limited to 5%.

63
 A
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 33) (A) Butterworth spectrum used to design the model wavelet. (B) Model wavelet developed from the
Butterworth spectrum. (C) Spectrum of the extracted wavelet. (D) Wavelet extracted from original seismic data

5.3 Synthetic responses of basic models: The investigator identifies several reference

seismic signatures to facilitate the discussion and comparison of synthetic seismograms to actual

seismic response. In general, the seismic response of the major coal zones (upper, middle and,

lower) in the Fruitland seismic sequence can generally be characterized by a classic thin bed

64
response consisting of a negative cycle, arising from the top of each coal, followed by a positive

cycle arising from the base. However, because of thickening and thinning of the coal zones along

the seismic profiles, composite seismic response is often more complex. As a guide to the

following discussions, numbers are assigned to the seismic features that come up in the

discussion of the comparisons between the synthetic and actual seismic responses. Key features

(Figure 34) of the amplitude response include (from top to bottom):

1) The negative cycle arising from the reflection from the top of the upper A coal

2) The following positive cycle associated with the reflection from the base of the upper

B coal

3) A negative cycle between the upper and middle coals

4) A negative cycle associated with the reflection from the top of the middle A coal

5) The following positive cycle associated with the reflection from the base of the

middle B coal

6) A negative cycle between the middle and lower coals

7) A negative cycle associated with the reflection from the top of the lower A coal

8) A doublet at the base of the lower A coal in which the saddle in the doublet lies

within the lower B coal and the second positive cycle in the doublet is picked as the

top of the underlying Pictured Cliffs sandstone

9) An additional positive cycle that appears in the response from the upper coal in areas

where the thickness of parting increases above the resolution limit.

These features are labeled for reference in the comparisons (Figures 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and, 40).

Corresponding features in the synthetics seismograms are also be labeled. Unique features of a

specific inline or crossline are labeled starting with the number 10.

65
 1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8

Distance (Ft) Distance (Ft)

Distance (Ft)

A B C

Figure 34) A) Reference model taken from inline 910. B) high res color raster with wiggle trace display along inline 910(A). C) Wiggle trace from the same
section of inline 910. Key features have been labeled 1-8. In this figure A reveals the geologic features that produced the seismic response in the actual data.

66
 Results from the synthetic seismogram will aid in accomplishing the main objectives of

this chapter which are to:

1) Identify the basic seismic response of the upper, middle and, lower Fruitland

coals.

2) Determine whether the partings leave a recognizable imprint on the basic seismic

response of the upper, middle and, lower coals.

3) Evaluate the continuity of these coals across the site.

The results of the basic synthetic modeling are shown in Figures 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and

40. Horizons picked in the original seismic data are shown in seismic section and corresponding

synthetic seismograms. Key reference intervals in the model and seismic views are labeled.

These include upper coal A (green), middle coal A (yellow), lower coal A (black) and the top of

the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone (purple).

5.3.1 Inline 910: The synthetic seismogram calculated for inline 910 has some similarity

to the actual seismic response (Figure 35). Features 1 and 2 mark the top and base of the upper

coal zone. In the synthetic, seismogram Feature 3 (negative cycle between the upper and middle

coal zones) is intermittent. The top and base of the middle coal zone are marked by features 4

and 5 in both the actual and synthetic data. The negative cycle between the middle and lower

coal (Feature 6) is not present in the synthetic seismogram. The negative cycle marking the top

of the lower coal zone (Feature 7) is present in both the synthetic and actual data, as is the

doublet and positive cycle marking the top of the Pictured Cliffs (Feature 8). The northeastern

end of inline 910 intersects an area where the upper parting thickens. The separation between

Feature 2 and the overlying positive cycle increases and an additional cycle (Feature 9) appears.

This response is typical of the seismic response from a layer as its thickness increases above the

67
tuning point (see Figure 35B inserts). This results in a positive cycle followed by a negative

cycle between features 1 and 2 at the northeastern end of the data. This feature is seen in both the

actual and synthetic data.

5.3.2 Inline 936: There are some structural differences between the actual seismic data

from inline 936 and the synthetic model (Figure 36). The actual data shows the crest of a gentle

anticline while the synthetic reflections are flat lying. Otherwise, the comparison of the actual

data and synthetic data on inline 936 is very similar to the comparison of actual and synthetic

data on inline 910. Features marking the top and base of the upper coal zone (features 1 and 2)

are present in the synthetic. The negative cycle between the upper and middle coal zones

(Feature 3) is intermittent in the synthetic data. Reflections denoting the top and base of the

middle coal zone are present. Feature 6 is absent in the synthetic data. Features in the lower coal

zone (features 7 and 8) are present in the synthetic data. Inline 936 also penetrates an area of

thickening in the upper parting. This produces Feature 9 in the actual and synthetic data as noted

along inline 910.

68
 SW NE
SW NE
Upper A coal
1 9 1
2 2 9
3 3
4 Middle A coal 4
5 5
6 6
7 Lower A coal 7
8 8
Pictured Cliffs
A) B)

A Distance (Ft) A’ A
SW Distance (Ft) A’
NE SW NE
1 Upper A coal 1
2 9 2 9
3 3
4 Middle A coal 4
5 5
7 Lower A coal 7
8 8
Pictured Cliffs
C) D)

Distance (Ft) Distance (Ft)

Figure 35) Comparison of synthetic and seismic responses along Inline 910. A) seismic data; B) wiggle trace display of actual seismic data; C) Synthetic
seismogram with basic model inserts taken from Figure 27. Insert at right shows thickening of the upper parting; D) wiggle trace synthetic seismic display.

69
.

SW NE SW NE

1 Upper A coal
9 1
2 2 9
3 3
4 4
5 Middle A coal 5
6 6
7 7
8 Lower A coal 8
Pictured Cliffs
A) B)
B B’ B B’
SW NE SW NE
Upper A coal
1 9 1 9
2 2
3 3
4 Middle A coal 4
5 5
7 Lower A coal 7
8
8 Pictured Cliffs
C) D)

Distance (Ft) Distance (Ft)

Figure 36) Inline 936. A) seismic data; B) wiggle trace display of actual seismic data; C) Synthetic seismogram; D) wiggle trace synthetic seismic display.

70
 5.3.3 Crossline 642: The synthetic seismogram made from the model of a section of

crossline 642 (Figure 37A and B) shows some similarity to the actual data (Figure 37C and D).

The time structure appearing in the synthetic seismogram is similar to that seen in the actual

data. The upper parting is thin in this section of the data, leading to a uniform reflection from the

upper coal zone. Features 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and, 8 all appear in the synthetic seismogram as seen in

the actual data. Feature 3 is present from the middle of the synthetic seismogram to the

northwestern end of the data. Feature 6 is not seen in the synthetic seismogram.

5.3.4 Crossline 668: Crossline 668 cuts through an area where the upper parting is thick

(~26ft). There are significant differences between the synthetic seismogram of crossline 668 and

the actual data. Structurally the actual data shows a set of generally flat lying reflections. The

synthetic seismogram reveals the presence of a syncline on the NW end of the line. Feature 1 is

relatively weak in the actual data but is shown as a strong reflection in the synthetic data. Note

that the amplitude of this event decreases on the northwest ends of models 910 and 936 (figures

35 and 36, respectively). The negative cycle of the thin upper A coal transitions into a much

shorter duration cycle. The composite seismic response from the upper coal in this area consists

of a doublet. The negative cycle arising from the thin upper coal forms the negative saddle in the

doublet. Feature 9 appears on the northwest end of the line (Figure 38 A and B) in the seismic

display but appears to be present across the entire line in the synthetic response.

Feature 2 in the seismic data appears to converge onto the negative cycle from the upper

thin coal A. It forms the lower positive cycle in the doublet mentioned above. In the synthetic,

this cycle is persistent across the line and does not converge on Feature 1 to form a doublet.

Feature 3 is very weak in the seismic data, but shows some expression across the line. In the

synthetic (Figure 38C and D), this cycle does not emerge until the middle of the line . It has

71
relatively low amplitude, lower frequency expression to the northwest. The seismic and synthetic

responses of features 4, 5, 7, and, 8 are similar. However, the positive cycle associated with

Feature 5 is less pronounced in the seismic. Features 4 and 5 have higher amplitude in the

synthetic. Feature 6 (negative cycle between the middle and lower coal zones) is not present in

the synthetic responses.

72
 C C’ C C’

1 Upper A coal
2 2
3 3
4 Middle A coal 4
5 5
6 6
7 Lower A coal
7
8 8
Pictured Cliffs

A) B)

C C’ C C’
SE NW SE NW
Upper A coal
1 1
2 3 2 3
4 Middle A coal
4
5 5
Lower A coal
7 7
8 8
Pictured Cliffs
C) D)

Distance (Ft) Distance (Ft)

Figure 37) Crossline 642. A) seismic data; B) wiggle trace display of actual seismic data; C) Synthetic seismogram; D) wiggle trace synthetic seismic display.

73
 SE NW SE NW
Upper A Coal
1 1
2 9 9
3 2
3
4 Middle A Coal 4
6 5 5
6
5 7 Lower A Coal 5 7
8 Pictured Cliffs 8

A) B)

D D’ D D’
SE NW SE NW
1
1 Upper A Coal
9 9
2 2
3 3
Middle A Coal 4
4
5 Lower A Coal 5
7 7
8 Pictured Cliffs 8

C) D)

Distance (Ft) Distance (Ft)

Figure 38) Crossline 668. A) seismic data; B) wiggle trace display of actual seismic data; C) Synthetic seismogram; D) wiggle trace synthetic seismic display.

74
 5.3.5 Inline 924: The synthetic seismic response along inline 924 intersects the injection

well and provides a more regional scale view of possible stratigraphic variability in the dip

direction (Figures 39B and 40B). The dip direction is also normal to the Late Cretaceous paleo-

shoreline trend. Feature 1 (top of the upper coal zone) is present in the synthetic and actual data,

but, in the actual data the amplitude of this response drops and appears to pinch out near the

middle of the line. It reemerges over a short distance to the northeast and then converges into an

overlying negative cycle. This feature could not be modeled in the synthetic. Feature 2 is fairly

persistent in the actual data from the southwestern half of the line. It terminates in the area below

the termination in overlying Feature 1, reemerges and again disappears on the northeastern end

of the line. The termination of Feature 2 occurs transitionally in the synthetic. Feature 2

disappears in areas where there is significant thinning between features 1 and 3 in the synthetic

on the northeastern third of the line. This area also coincides with a structural low in the top of

the Fruitland sequence. The structure on the top of the Fruitland is noticeably incorrect

throughout this area. The low is not superimposed on deeper reflection events so it must be

incorrectly represented in the model rather than being due to local velocity variability in the

shallower Kirtland Shale.

Feature 3 (negative cycle located between the upper and middle coal seams) is weakly

expressed in both the actual data and synthetic. It is present roughly, between 8000 and 10,000

feet along the line. Features 4 and 5 are continuous across the line and have relatively high

amplitude compared to their expression in the actual data (Figure 39A). They are characterized

by a lower frequency response in the synthetic than in the actual data. In the actual data, features

4 and 5 are lower amplitude and higher frequency events that disappear on the northeastern end

of the line.

75
 Feature 6, the negative cycle between the upper and middle coals is part comes and goes

through the southwestern two-thirds of the line. It is absent on the northeastern end of the line.

Feature 6 was not reproduced in the synthetic. The top of the lower coal zone is marked in both

the actual and synthetic data by Feature 7 (a negative cycle). Feature 7 is continuous through

both the actual and synthetic responses. Feature 8 is a continuous event in both the actual and

synthetic data. As noted for other features, the actual response has higher frequency content than

that of the synthetic.

76
 SW COM A ING1
NE
Upper A Coal
1
2 3 9
4 10 Middle A Coal
5 6
7 Lower A Coal
8 Pictured Cliffs

A)

E COM A ING1 E’
SW NE
Upper A Coal
1
2 9
3 Middle A Coal
4
5
7 10
8
Lower A Coal

Pictured Cliffs
B)

Distance (Ft)

Figure 39) Comparison of inline 924 from the original data (A) and a synthetic seismogram (B) made from Figure 31. Depth converted seismic horizons are
colored; upper coal A, dark green , middle coal A, purple , lower coal A, black, Pictured Cliffs, light green.

77
 COM A ING1
SW NE
Upper A Coal
1
2 3 9
4 10 Middle A Coal
5 6
7 Lower A Coal
8 Pictured Cliffs

A)

COM A ING1
E E’
SW NE

1 Upper A Coal
2 3 9
4 Middle A Coal
5
7 10
8 Lower A Coal

Pictured Cliffs
B)

Distance (Ft)

Figure 40) Comparison of wiggle traces of inline 924 from the original data (A) and a synthetic seismogram (B) made from Figure 31. Depth converted seismic
horizons are colored; upper coal A, dark green , middle coal A, purple , lower coal A, black, Pictured Cliffs, light green.

78
 There are several similarities and dissimilarities between the actual and synthetic seismic

data. Features 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the actual data are reproduced with varying levels of

accuracy in the synthetic seismic models. These features are associated with the top and base of

the upper coal (features 1 and 2), top and base of the middle coal (features 4 and 5), and top and

base of the lower coal (features 7 and 8) . The results in general indicate that the responses of the

upper and middle coals have a classic thin bed response (negative cycle followed by positive

cycle) in areas where the parting layers are below tuning thickness. The lower coal zone has a

different response consisting of a negative cycle at the top (Feature 6) and a doublet (Feature 7)

across the base. The first cycle in the doublet arises because the lower Fruitland coal zone is

thicker and slightly above tuning thickness. The second positive cycle corresponds to the top of

the Pictured Cliffs

5.4 Revising synthetic models: While several of the features seen in the synthetic

seismograms match the key features of the actual data (features 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and, 8) in the

majority of the comparisons (5.3.1 through 5.3.5), features 3 and 6 are often intermittent or

missing. These features are present in the interbedded intervals between the upper and middle

coal (Feature 3) and the middle and lower coal (Feature 6). These layers are modeled with a

static velocity; although, in reality, this strata consists of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and

shale facies (Chapter 3). Complex facies distribution not represented in the model is certainly

one reason for disagreement between the synthetic and actual seismic responses. . The addition

of detailed layering within the interbedded section may lead to more accurate synthetic models.

The upper parting thickens in four of the five models (inline 910, 924, 936 and crossline

668) and produces an additional cycle referred to as Feature 9. The models developed for inlines

910 and 936 reproduce this feature (Feature 9 Figures 35 and 36). The reflections observed in the

79
synthetic seismograms of crossline 668 and inline 924 (figure 38, 39, and 40) do not accurately

reproduce Feature 9. This may be due to a pinch out of the upper B coal. This possibility was

discussed in Chapter 3. There it was suggested that the upper B coal might pinch out in areas

where the upper coal parting thickens northeast of the injection well. This possibility was not

modeled and could help reduce some of the discrepancies seen between the synthetic

seismograms and actual data.

5.5 Conclusions: The synthetic models were made to complete the objectives. First,

identify the basic seismic response of the upper, middle and, lower Fruitland coals. The proposed

interpretation was that the tops of the coal zones produce negative cycles in the seismic response

(features 1, 4, and 7) and that the bases produce positive cycles (features 2, 5 and the second

positive cycle in feature 8). Features 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 were reproduced in the synthetics lending

support to the general interpretation.

The second objective was to determine whether the partings leave a recognizable imprint

on the basic seismic response of the Fruitland coals. The results from the synthetic modeling

show that the upper parting does not produce much change in the composite response of the

upper coal in areas where the thickness of the upper coal zone is below tuning thickness. When

the thickness of the interval increases above the tuning thickness (largely due to increased

thickness of the parting) a noticeable change in seismic response referred to as Feature 9 appears.

This feature was observed on inlines 910 and 936 (Feature 9 in Figures 35 and 36) but not on

crossline 668 or inline 924 (figures 38, 39 and, 40). The middle parting has no recognizable

effect on the reflections associated with the top and base of the middle coal because the middle

coal zone remains less than the tuning thickness throughout the area. The doublet in the lower

coal reflection (Feature 8) may be caused by increased thickness of the lower coals.

80
 The final objective of modeling was to evaluate the continuity of these coals across the

site. With the exception of the upper B coal which may pinch out in areas where the upper

parting increases in thickness, the majority of the coals in the Fruitland Formation appear to be

continuous. Feature 3 and 6 are not well represented in the synthetic models. This has helped to

identify areas where more analysis and interpretation is needed to create more accurate synthetic

models of the Fruitland Formation. Further investigation should be conducted in the northeastern

section of the study area to determine the cause for the seismic complexity where upper parting

thickens and a more detailed analysis of the interbedded intervals would lead to a more accurate

synthetic model.

The synthetic models presented in this chapter support the interpretations made in this

study, over much of the study area. However, interpretations are always non-unique.

Considerable discrepancies were encountered between the synthetic and actual seismic

responses. This modeling effort attempted to cover a fairly large area. Given the possibility for

considerable stratigraphic complexity future efforts should focus on more comprehensive

evaluations of individual area that deviate from the standard response of the upper, middle and

lower coals defined by features 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.

Other discrepancies that need to be resolved include the difference in frequency content

between the synthetic and actual seismic responses. The actual data have higher frequency

content. A narrower, broader bandwidth wavelet would help reproduce some of the higher

frequency events observed in the data that have not been reproduced in the synthetic. Other

discrepancies that are very pronounced on regional inline 924 (Figure 39), crossline 668 (Figure

38) and to lesser extent on crossline 642 (Figure 37) and inline 936 (Figure 36) that need to be

eliminated are the anomalous time structures present in these synthetic models. This is most

81
likely due to incorrect velocities used in the conversion to depth. The depth converted data was

used as the basis for the synthetic models, and the lack of correspondence of arrival times

between the synthetic and actual seismic highlight these errors.

82
 Chapter 6

Future Work

The research effort undertaken in this study reveals stratigraphic complexity within the

Fruitland Formation that differs significantly from the standard model. The standard model

portrays the Fruitland Formation as consisting of three thick coals: upper, middle and lower. The

model proposed in this study is based on detailed well log interpretations and seismic analysis of

the Fruitland Formation. The well log based interpretations reveal the upper, middle and lower

coal zones, but reveal that that these zones each contain a parting.

The log analysis could be extended to include a more detailed examination of possible

well-to-well correlations of the sandstone and shale intervals between the major coal zones.

These zones isolate methane production and CO2 sequestration into the major coal intervals. The

seismic model presented in Chapter 5 shows that these layers have significant influence on the

composite acoustic response of the Fruitland seismic sequence. Mapping of these beds and

including them in a 2D synthetic model could lead to a better understanding of what is causing

the heterogeneity in seismic response in some areas. Additional model studies will improve

interpretations of the Fruitland coal seams, and may lead to improved estimates of storage

capacity and more realistic flow simulations.

The seismic analysis conducted in this study was focused on general interpretation, and

conversion to depth. Attribute analysis can aid in in the interpretation of structural and

stratigraphic features of seismic data that are not seen in the amplitude data. A limited amount

attribute analysis was undertaken in this study (Appendix E, F, and G).

Appendix E discusses the use of instantaneous frequency to resolve thin beds in seismic

data. Robertson and Nogami (1984) demonstrate evidence for “frequency tuning”. This concept

83
is similar to that of thickness tuning, thus thin beds would produce high frequency anomalies.

This workflow was used on the seismic data from the Fruitland Formation with moderate results.

In addition to continued investigation of the instantaneous frequency data, seismic

inversion could be used to help improve resolution of stratigraphic facies. The genetic inversion

process accessed in Petrel’s volume attributes list allows the user to compute acoustic models.

Limited information is available concerning the process and limited well log data is available to

control it: only one acoustic impedance log is available from the site. It was felt that considerable

work would be required to determine whether sonic and impedance logs might be derivable from

a combination of other logs in the field. It might be possible to use genetic inversion to link

gamma ray response to lithology (coal, sandstone, shale) if seismic response could be inverted to

provide gamma ray information. Since gamma ray logs are most abundant in the field, this may

be another possible effort to consider.

Appendix F describes work that was done using geobodies as a method to determine

thickness of Fruitland coals based on amplitude data. This method assumes that all Fruitland

coals are thin beds and the amplitude of the reflection from the top of the coal beds is directly

related to the thickness of that bed (Widess 1973). This was tested by plotting depth converted

seismic amplitude against thickness of Fruitland coals determined from well logs. Results

suggest that there is not a simple correlation that can be made between the amplitude and

thickness of the Fruitland coals.

Appendix G discusses the fracture modeling undertaken in this study. This appendix

illustrates basic aspects of the fracture modeling workflow but is far from complete. The fracture

intensity driver used in this study was limited to the 3D curvature of depth converted seismic.

Curvature is associated with areas of structure relief in the seismic response. These areas are

84
prone to high levels of fracture intensity. Evaluation and testing was intentionally limited to the

Fruitland Formation. The initial tests were undertaken to see if a clear relationship between 3D

curvature and coalbed methane production exists; however, such a relationship could not be

established in this preliminary investigation.

In the future, additional attribute drivers could be tested in an effort to reveal potential

controls on coalbed methane production as well as distribution of injected CO2 during combined

enhanced coalbed methane recovery and sequestration activities. Fracture modeling efforts also

need to be extended into the Kirtland Shale. The Kirtland Shale is the primary seal for the

Fruitland Formation coal reservoirs. Fracture zones and small faults in the Kirtland Shale and

Fruitland Formation were imaged in an earlier study of the area (Wilson, 2009). Fracture

modeling and testing of various fracture intensity drivers will help identify potential leakage

zones. These additional efforts will contribute to the assessment of long term CO2 retention

potential and storage capacity. Development of a comprehensive fracture model that

incorporates the revised model of coal distribution within the Fruitland Formation, and also

includes fracture zones and faults in the Kirtland Shale, will provide a more realistic basis for

flow simulations and estimations of possible vertical leakage of injected CO2.

Iterative development of additional 2D synthetic seismic sections will help evaluate the

potential influence of insights gained in the additional analysis recommended above. This

iterative testing process can yield additional insights into coal bed methane and carbon

sequestration potential within the Fruitland Formation.

85
 Chapter 7

Conclusions

The Fruitland Formation has been a source of coal bed methane for decades and is now

being targeted for possible CO2 storage. Accurate estimates of CO2 storage capacity and leakage

risk within the Fruitland Formation require accurate estimates of coal distribution, coal volume,

and the distribution, trend and extent of high fracture permeability regions within the Fruitland

coals. This study suggests that our current understanding of coal distribution in the 9 square mile

area surrounding the SWP CO2 injection well differs considerably from previous interpretations.

Interpretations made in this study were based on analysis of well logs and 3D seismic data. The

validity of the log based interpretations is tested by developing 2D synthetic seismic models

along several inlines and crosslines through the 3D seismic and comparing and contrasting the

synthetics with the actual seismic response.

Outgrowths of the study are presented in chapters 3 through 5. In Chapter 3 well log

analysis of digital logs from 37 wells distributed around the site is discussed. Log interpretations

formed the basic geologic foundation of this study. The Fruitland Formation was broken down

into 11 layers (Figure 8), including 6 coal seams. Analysis shows that the coal beds are divided

into three zones: the upper, middle, and lower. Each zone contains two coal seams. Individual

coal seams range in thickness from 3ft to 18ft. Coal seams within individual coal zones are

separated by a layer of shale. These shale partings are identified as the upper, middle and, lower

partings. The persistence of the upper and middle partings throughout the area represents new

finding resulting from this study. The lower parting was initially recognized by Henthorn et al.

(2007). This is a departure from earlier interpretations which proposed that the Fruitland

Formation consisted of an upper, middle and lower coal (SWP final report, 2010). The well log

interpretations include identification of interbedded sandstone and shale that separate the upper,

86
middle and lower coal zones. Based on the well logs alone, there is no evidence suggesting that

the coal seams pinch out or have pod-like geometries at the site. The six individual seams can be

interpreted as continuous through the area. Responses from the coal beds are regular and

repeated in all the well logs examined.

Investigation of the 3D seismic data is discussed in Chapter 4. 3D seismic interpretation

reveals a broader view of the structural and stratigraphic complexity of the Fruitland Formation

than that developed from the well log interpretations. Seismic horizons associated with specific

stratigraphic intervals were interpreted (picked) through the 3D seismic volume. Four horizons

were easily picked and carried through the 3D seismic data. These four horizons are associated

with reflection events from the upper coal A top, middle coal A top, lower coal A top and

Pictured Cliffs sandstone top. The structure of the horizons picked in the time domain show

folding but no evidence of major faulting. Isopach maps made from these horizons show some

areas of changing thickness that can be attributed to heterogeneity along the eastern portion of

the seismic data set and thickening of certain intervals. Discontinuities are present in reflection

events associated with the top of the upper and middle coal zones. These discontinuities suggest

that the coal seams pinch out within the site.

Resolution limits were also discussed in Chapter 4. Individual coal seams in the Fruitland

Formation range from 3ft to 18ft in thickness (Chapter 3). Calibration curves presented in

Chapter 4 show that the seams are generally below the resolution limit of the seismic data. The

calibration curves were developed using a wavelet derived from the 3D volume. The calibration

curves indicate that coal seams with a velocity of approximately 8000 ft/s, have minimum

resolvable thickness (i.e. tuning thickness) of roughly 16ft. Although the top and base of seams

thinner than 16ft will not be resolved as separate reflection events, the composite response of the

87
seam is detectable. A 14 foot seam would be detectable but would generally have a lower

amplitude, thin-bed response (negative cycle followed by positive cycle from the top and base of

the seam, respectively). Beds with thickness consideratly less than the resolution limit can be

difficult to follow, especially when the amplitude of the event associated with the thin bed drops

below that of background noise.

Chapter 4 also includes conversion of the seismic data from time to depth. Seven seismic

horizons were used to create the velocity model used to convert the seismic data from the time

domain to the depth domain. The velocity model was created using Schlumberger’s Petrel

velocity modeling process. Model velocities represent average velocities. This generalization of

velocity may lead to some local errors in the depth conversion process. These errors are most

likely present in intervals containing multiple beds with significant velocity contrast. However,

the averaged velocities cover intervals that are generally no more than 90ft thick within the

Fruitland Formation so that errors in the depth conversion should be relatively small. The

velocity model was then used to convert the time domain data to the depth domain. Conversion

to the depth domain provides a more accurate structural view of the subsurface data. Depth

converted horizons have a more uniform structure with a general dip toward the basin axis in the

northeast, and some folding along the southern border of the data. Isopach maps constructed

from the depth converted seismic generally agree with those created from well top data.

Conversely, the isopach for the area between lower coal A and the top of the Pictured Cliffs

sandstone, constructed from the depth converted seismic, suggests thicker accumulation of

sediment than the isopach built from the well top data. This may be caused by the generalized

velocities used in the depth conversion process.

88
 The 2D synthetic models presented in Chapter 5 support the interpretations made in this

study over much of the study area. However, interpretations are always non-unique. In this

chapter, the seismic response of the upper, middle and, lower coals was identified; which lead to

the conclusion that the parting layers had minimal influence on the seismic response of the coal

zones: i.e. the seismic response of individual coal zones could be reproduced using a single layer.

This was anticipated since the seams within each coal zone were too thin to produce separate

events. The composite response of the two seams and parting within an individual coal zone is

similar to that of a single layer. The majority of the coals seams were determined to be

continuous with the exception of upper B coal in areas where the upper parting thickens. Future

work is required to address the persistent absence of features within the interbedded intervals in

the synthetic seismograms.

Chapter 6 discusses work that can be done in the future to further our understanding of

the Fruitland Formation at this site. Well log analysis can be extended into the interbedded

intervals that separate the coal zone. This will allow for a better assessment of these intervals and

help in determining whether these thin layers will act as barriers or pathways for migration of

injected CO2. Further analysis of the well logs will also lead to the development of more accurate

synthetic models.

Appendixes E and F discuss some attribute analysis initiated as part of this study.

Additional attribute analysis could certainly be undertaken. One possibility for future work

would be to use well log data in combination with Petrel’s genetic inversion algorithm to

populate a gridded model of the Fruitland Formation with estimates of rock properties

throughout the site. Selected properties would generally be restricted to density and gamma ray.

89
 The basic fracture model discussed in Appendix G can be built upon. Additional detail

can be incorporated into the model, and extended into the Kirtland Shale. Expanding the seismic

2D synthetic models will help validate future interpretations.

In conclusion, this study illustrates that the Fruitland Formation in the area surrounding

the Southwest Regional Partnerships San Juan Basin carbon sequestration pilot site is more

complex than previously thought. The interpretations made from well logs in this study reveal

the presence of six persistent coal seams throughout the area. These thinner intervals form the

coalbed methane and CO2 sequestration reservoirs. This study has also demonstrated that the

complex seismic response of the Fruitland Formation includes reflection events associated with

the major coal zones along with additional features associated with the clastic intervals

separating individual coal zones. This study provides model of the Fruitland Formation coalbed

methane and CO2 storage reservoirs that is more detailed and accurate than previous models

proposed for the site. The reservoir model developed herein will allow for the development of

more accurate and realistic coupled flow and geomechanical simulations. The model will also

provide the basis for development of more accurate fracture and cleat models and for the

estimation of CO2 storage capacity.

90
 References

Ambrose,W.A., and Ayers, W.B. Jr., 2007, Geologic controls on transgressive-regressive cycles
in the upper Pictured Cliffs Sandstone and coal geometry in the lower Fruitland Formation,
northern San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Colorado. AAPG Bulletin. v. 91, no. 8, pg 1099-1122

Ayers, W. B. Jr., Ambrose,W.A., and Yeh, J. S., 1994, Coalbed methane in the Fruitland
Formation, San Juan Basin: depositional and structural controls on occurrence and resources in
W.B. Ayers, Jr. and W. R. Kaiser, eds., Coalbed methane in the Upper Cretaceous Fruitland
Formation, San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Colorado: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and
Mineral Resources, in cooperation with University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic
Geology, Report of Investigations, no. 218 and the Colorado Geological Survey, Division of
Minerals and geology, Department of Natural Resources (Resource Series 21), Bulleting 146, p.
13-40

Ayers, W. B. Jr., and Zellers, S. D., 1994, Coalbed methane in the Fruitland Formation, Navajo
Lake area: geologic controls on occurrence and producibility; in Coalbed methane in the Upper
Cretaceous Fruitland Formation, San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Colorado, New Mexico
Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin, 146, pp. 63- 85

Fassett, J. E., 2000, Geology and coal resources of the Upper Cretaceous Fruitland Formation,
San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Colorado. In Kirschbaum, M.A., Roberts, L.N.R., and
Biewick, L.R.H., (eds.). Geologic assessment of coal in the Colorado Plateau: Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. USGS Professional Paper 1625-B, Chapter Q (published in
digital form on CD-ROM). 132p.

Gochioco, L. M., 1991, Tuning effect and interference reflections from thin beds and coal seams.
Geophysics, v. 56. no. 8, pg 1288-1295

Gochioco, L. M., 1992, Modeling studies of interference reflections in thin-layered media

bounded by coal seams. Geophysics, v. 57, no. 9, pg. 1209-1216

Henthorn, B., Wilson, T., and Wells, A., 2007, Subsurface characterization of a Carbon
Sequestration Pilot Site: San Juan Basin, New Mexico. AAPG Search and Discovery Article
#80005

Huffman, A.C., Jr. N.D. San Juan Basin Province. Viewed online at certmapper.cr.usgs.gov
September 2010

Lorenz, J.C., and Cooper, S.P., 2003, Tectonic setting and characteristics of natural fractures in
Mesaverde and Dakota reservoirs of the San Juan Basin: New Mexico Geology, New Mexico
Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, v. 25 n. 1, p. 3-14.

Marroquin, I.D., and Hart, B.S, 2004, Seismic attribute-based characterization of coalbed
methane reservoirs: An example form the Fruitland Formation, San Juan Basin , New Mexico
AAPG Bulletin. v. 88, no. 11, pg 1603-1621.

91
Meek, R. H., and Levine J. R., 2006, Delineation of four "type producing areas" (TPAs) in the
Fruitland coal bed gas field, New Mexico and Colorado, using production history data: Search
and Discovery article 20034, http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/
documents/2006/06025meek/index.htm, 7p.

Roberson, J. D., and Nogami. H. H., 1984, Complex Seismic trace analysis of thin beds,
Geophysics. v. 49, no. 4, pg 344-352

Schlumberger, 2010 Petrel help manual. Houston, TX

Sheriff, R., 1991, Encyclopedic dictionary of exploration geophysics: SEG Geophysical

Reference Series, third edition, 376p.

Southwest Regional Partnership., 2010, Southwest Regional Partnership for Carbon

Sequestration (Phase 2): Pump Canyon CO2-ECBM/Sequestration Demonstration, San Juan
Basin, New Mexico: DOE Final Report SP013110, 128 pp.

Taylor, D., and Huffman, Jr., C., 1998, Map showing inferred and mapped basement faults, San
Juan Basin and vicinity, New Mexico and Colorado: USGS Geologic Investigation Series, map
with text.

Veeken, P.C.H., Priezzhev, I.I., Shmaryan, L.E., Shteyn, Y.I., Barkov, A.Y., Ampilov, Y.P.,
2009, Nonlinear multitrace genetic inversion applied on seismic data across the Shtokman field,
offshore northern Russia: Geophysics, v. 74 no.6, pg WCD49-WCD59

Weber, M., Wilson. T.H., Wells. A., Koperna, G., and Akwari, B., 2010, 3-D seismic
interpretation of the Fruitland Formation at the Southwest Regional Partnership CO2
sequestration site San Juan Basin, New Mexico. SGE annual meeting abstract submission.

Wilson, T. H., Wells, A., and Koperna, G., 2009, Seismic evaluation of the Fruitland Formation
with implications on leakage potential of injected CO : on the proceedings CD for the 2009
2
International Pittsburg Coal Conference, 11p.

Wilson, T.H., and Wells, A., 2010, Multi-frequency EM surveys help identify possible near-
surface migration pathways in areas surrounding a CO2 injection well: San Juan Sanin, New
Mexico, USA, Fast times, v. 15, no. 3, pg 43-53

Wilson T.H., Wells. A., Midouchowski, A., and Martines, G., 2012, Fracture evolution of the
Southwest Regional Partnership’s San Juan Basin Fruitland coal carbon sequestration pilot site,
New Mexico, International Journal of Coal Geology, 19p.

Widess, M. B., 1973, How thin is a thin bed?, Geophysics, v. 38, no. 6, pg 1176-1180

92
Wray, L., 2000, Geologic Mapping and Subsurface Well Log Correlations of the Late
Cretaceous Fruitland Formation coal beds and carbonaceous shales - the Stratigraphic Mapping
Component of the 3M Project, San Juan Basin, La Plata County, Colorado: Colorado Geological
Survey Report, 15p.

93
 Appendix A: Further background

Figure A1) Cross section of the Ayers et al. (1994) model redrawn with additions by Fassett
2000. This cross section shows the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone transgressive tongues labeled as UP
1-3 (mid right). Some coal seams are shown to truncate against UP 1-3. The solid red line
indicates the Huerfanito bentonite bed, the red dashed line indicates the position of the C32r/
C33n magnetic marker. Fassett 2000 argues that this chronostraigraphic magnetic marker should
run parallel to the lower shale member of the Kirtland Shale which is the datum for this cross
section. For further information see Fassett (2000).

94
Figure A2) Well locations used by Meek and Levine (2006) to help delineate the four type
production areas (TPA’s). The wells are colored by the production curves type. The injection
well for this study is located in “TPA 3” the “high rate production fairway”. Taken from Meek
and Levine (2006).

95
Figure A3) Rose Diagrams of QuickBird mapped fractures from the mesa southwest of the pilot
site (Wilson et al., written communication). Rose diagrams show fracture orientations mapped at
various locations around the edge of the mesa in this area. Rose diagram a) shows fracture
orientations mapped along the western rim of the mesa. Rose diagrams b) through g) provide
summaries of fracture orientations moving progressively around the rim of the mesa from west to
north. h) is a cumulative rose diagram that reveals pronounced NE and NW fracture trends.

96
Figure A4) Pictured Cliffs Sandstone structure map from Henthorn et al. (2007), showing
northeast plunging anticline in the southeast quadrant. White box roughly outlines location of 3D
seismic data used in this study.

97
Figure A5) Fruitland Formation isopach map from Henthron et al. (2007). White box roughly
outlines location of 3D seismic data used in this study. The injection well is located at the center
of section 32.

98
 Appendix B: Additional well top derived maps

NOTE: Isopach maps presented in this appendix are made from well tops only. Wells with logs
are shown in these maps in black, the injection well is located in the center of the maps in red.
Some anomalies observed in these maps are due to the lack of points of control causing
anomalies during the construction of the surfaces. These changes are particularly noticeable in
the NW and SE corners of several maps.

Figure B1) Isopach map of Fruitland Formation from the top of upper A coal to the base of
lower B coal.

99
Figure B2) Isopach map of upper A coal.

100
Figure B3) Isopach map of upper parting.

101
 SE NE

Upper Upper A coal

coal
Zone
Upper parting

Upper B coal

Interbedded Interval
Middle
coal
Middle A coal
zone
Middle parting
Middle B coal

Interbedded Interval 2

Lower
coal
zone Lower A coal
Lower parting
parting
Lower B coal

Figure B4) Cross section showing the thickening of upper parting, which divides upper A and B coals.

102
Figure B5) Isopach map of upper B coal.

103
Figure B6) Isopach map of interbedded interval 1.

104
Figure B7) Isopach map of middle A coal.

105
Figure B8) Isopach map of middle parting.

106
Figure B9) Isopach map of middle B coal.

107
Figure B10) Isopach map of interbedded interval 2.

108
Figure B11) Isopach map of lower A coal.

109
Figure B12) Isopach map of lower parting.

110
Figure B13) Isopach map of lower B coal.

111
Figure B14) Net thickness of coal seams within the Fruitland Formation.

112
A) B)

Figure B15) A) Isopach map of upper coal zone. B) Net coal in the upper coal zone.

113
A) B)

Figure B16) A)Isopach map of the middle coal zone. B) Net coal in middle coal zone.

114
A) B)

Figure B17) A) Isopach map of the lower coal zone. B) Net coal in the lower coal zone.

115
 Appendix C: Comparison of well top derived and depth converted seismic isopach maps

Figure C1) Well top derived isopach map for the area between top of middle A coal and top of
lower A coal.

116
Figure C2) Depth converted seismic derived isopach map for the area between the top of middle
A coal and top of lower A coal. Thicknesses seen in this map are generally +/- 10ft from the well
top derived map (Figure C1), except in the “bulls-eye” in the NW quadrant where thickness
increases to roughly 100ft. This increase in thickness is possibly caused by the use of averaged
velocities in the depth conversion process (see Chapter 4).

117
Figure C3) Isopach map of the lower A coal to top of the Pictured Cliffs constructed from well
top picks.

118
Figure C4) Isopach map of the lower A coal top to top of the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone
constructed from depth converted seismic data. Thicknesses seen in this map are roughly 15ft-
25ft thicker than the isopach map made from well tops of the same strata (Figure C3). This may
be caused by the use of averaged velocities in an interval of multiple beds in the depth
conversion process.

119
 Appendix D: Construction of acoustic models

Figure D1)The first step in building the acoustic model used to create the 2D synthetic seismic
sections is to import horizons form Petrel. The green horizon marks the top of the upper A coal;
yellow, middle A coal top; black, lower A coal top and purple the Pictured Cliffs sandstone top.

120
Figure D2) Additional layers were added to the model by calculating the depth of each new
horizon. The depths of additional horizons were assigned by adding the thickness of the new
layer to the depth of the overlying horizon. Layer thickness was taken from well top derived
isopach maps. In this instance upper A coal, upper parting and upper B coal have been added
to the model. This action was repeated for each additional layer till all eleven layers were added
to the model. The green horizon marks the top of the upper A coal; yellow, middle A coal top;
black, lower A coal top and purple the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone top.

121
Figure D3) Basic model with all horizons added. The green horizon marks the top of the upper A
coal; yellow, middle A coal top; black, lower A coal top and purple the Pictured Cliffs
sandstone top.

122
Figure D4) The last step is to name each layer and define its color, velocity, and density. After
each layer is defined it is ready to be used in the synthetic model process.

123
 Appendix E: Evaluation of Instantaneous Frequency

Instantaneous frequency can reveal the presence of thin beds within seismic data.

Robertson and Nogami (1984) demonstrate this in the form of “frequency tuning”. Frequency

tuning is similar to that of amplitude tuning described in Chapter 4. Frequency tuning works on

the same concept of constructive interference as amplitude tuning. As the bed thins, there is

constructive interference leading to an increased frequency. This increase in frequency happens

along with amplitude tuning at and below ¼ the dominant period of the wavelet (viewed in one-

way time). This frequency is also known as the tuning frequency (Robertson and Nogami,1984).

Examination of the instantaneous frequency attribute highlights areas of constructive interference

and frequency increase associated with thin bed tuning. Robertson and Nogami (1984) suggest

that the attribute best suited for thin bed visualization is instantaneous frequency.

Figure E1 highlights a crossline taken from an instantaneous frequency volume. Figure

E1A shows the range of frequencies in the instantaneous frequency volume. For this

investigation, the range of frequencies between 85Hz and 120Hz were examined, due to the fact

the tuned frequencies are most likely higher than any normally occurring frequencies and are

therefore at the very top of the spectrum. Within the Fruitland formation there appears to be

series of high frequency anomalies. Most of these anomalies are thin and distinct. Some of these

anomalies may be interconnected and possibly indicate individual coal beds (indicated as 1, 2

and 5 in Figure E1) relating to a thin bed above the Fruitland, upper coal A and the lower

parting. The most connected series of anomalies lies between the top of lower coal A and the

Pictured Cliffs top. This would also correspond to the lower parting.

124
 A

Frequency

SE NW

Upper coal top

Middle coal top

Lower coal top

Pictured Cliffs

Figure E1) Crossline 668 of a cropped instantaneous frequency volume. A) Histogram of the frequencies in the
seismic volume. B) High frequency anomalies within the Fruitland Formation. Green, yellow, black and, purple
lines represent the tops of: upper coal A, middle coal A, lower coal A and Pictured Cliffs respectively. Anomalies
suggest presence of thin beds within the Fruitland section. Discontinuity in these anomalies could be due to coal
pods or thickening of coal seams.

125
 Figure E1 does not clearly show six individual coal seams as described in Chapter 3.

Frequency variability indicates presence of some of the coal beds (2, 3, and 5) and possibly beds

1 and 5. Instantaneous frequency does not clearly define the 6 coals interpreted from the well

logs. The distribution of high frequency is discontinuous and may suggest that the coals in the

area are actually discontinuous or so thin that their amplitude and frequency responses are

muted. The use of instantaneous frequency and frequency tuning may be used in some situations

to identify thin beds; however, instantaneous frequency may be limited in its ability to resolve or

uncover thin beds.

Additional work with instantaneous frequency was not pursued based on these

preliminary results. Future work could incorporate calibration of increased frequency zones to

well log thickness in areas of well control. Geobodies could also be created using certain

maximum and minimum frequency limits to further examine aerial distribution of high frequency

zones. Genetic inversion (Veeken et al., 2009) is an acoustic impedance inversion approach

incorporated into Petrel that could be used to enhance resolution and attempt to follow the

individual coal seams in the Fruitland.

126
 Appendix F: Geobody Interpretations

The results obtained from the use of geobodies are presented here. The geobodies were

utilized to isolate regions in a 3D seismic volume that are associated with a certain property

range. For example, regions with very high amplitude or frequency could be isolated. Their

geometric distribution could be used to provide information about depositional environments and

reservoir capacity. In this study attempts are made to find a correlation between the top coal in

each coal zone (upper A coal, middle A coal and lower A coal) and the amplitude response in the

depth converted seismic data.

The potential use of geobodies was examined in this study to determine whether they could

isolate and map the extents of the Fruitland coal seams. A box probe is a geobody tool that

allows the user to view a portion of the 3D seismic volume specified by a certain amplitude

range (see Figure F1). Initially, box probes were used to investigate lateral continuity in the three

major coal seams in the Fruitland Formation. These probes were used in an attempt to locate

areas of changing thickness throughout the coal seams. Widess (1973) states that: for a seismic

thin bed, the amplitude response can be used as a direct measure of bed thickness when thickness

is less than the tuning thickness. Amplitudes would be brightest at tuning or ¼ of the dominant

frequency of the wavelet. At this point, constructive interference artificially increases the

amplitude of the reflection; below ¼ of the dominant frequency of the wavelet destructive

interference leads to weaker amplitude reflections. The tuning thickness is defined in Chapter 4

and was determined to be roughly 16ft. As stated in Chapter 3, thickness of the coal beds range

from 3ft to18ft, generally at or below the tuning thickness. Figure F1 shows the range in

amplitude (0 to -85) for the top of the lower coal. The range of visible amplitude decreases from

A-C. A trend of higher amplitudes can be seen (Figure F1).The initial thought was that these

127
amplitude variations would be related to changes in coal bed thickness at and below tuning

thickness. Several ranges of amplitude were used to define the geobodies (Figure F1). As the

amplitude range was decreased toward the higher amplitudes, some well-defined zones were

isolated (Figure F1).

a) b) c)

Figure F1) The lower Fruitland coal viewed in a box probe as seen with a) -5 to -45 amplitudes, b) -15 to -45
amplitudes and c) -25 to -45 amplitudes. Graphs show opacity settings. Warmer colors repersent thicker coals
assuming Widess (1973). Black dots represents wells in the area. The injection well is located in the center of the
data surrounded by three production wells.

The relationship between amplitude and bed thickness was then explored by cross plotting

depth converted seismic amplitude with coal thickness determined using well log derived

isopach maps (Figures F2 and F3). By determining the relationship between layer thickness and

amplitude in each layer, the patterns seen with decreasing amplitude ranges (Figure F1) can be

explained. In each crossplot all negative amplitude responses are examined (negative amplitude

regions in Figures F2 and F3 are highlighted in yellow). In order to better understand the results

of the crossplots, a more in depth examination of tuning thickness is needed. Since each geobody

can be confined to the reflection from one coal zone, the tuning thickness of each zone must be

known to evaluate the relationship between coal thickness and amplitude. Chapter 4 explains that
128
the tuning thickness of a layer with a velocity of 8000ft/s has a tuning thickness of 16ft, which

approximates the velocity of the middle coals. Applying the same formula used in Chapter 4, the

tuning thicknesses for the upper (average velocity 8152.13ft/s) and lower (average velocity

6500.00ft/s) coals are determined to be roughly 16ft and 13ft respectively.

Two sets of crossplots were needed to examine the relationship between thickness and

amplitude variation on two different scales. The first set of crossplots examines data near each of

the 38 wells with log data. These plots will show how coal bed thickness and amplitude compare

on a regional or, study area wide scale (Figure F2). The second set of crossplots examines the

thickness amplitude relationship on a local scale or, in the vicinity of the injection well (Figure

F3). The data points that are being examined are colored blue in Figure F2 and red in Figure F3.

The data points in Figure F2 are within 200ft of the 38 wells that had well logs. The

thickness of each layer can only be certain near these wells. The result from these crossplots

illustrate no significant correlation. Figure F2A shows no correlation (R=0.001) meaning there is

no indication in areas of well top picks that amplitude variations are related to upper A coal bed

thickness. The results from the middle A coal are displayed in figure F2B; here amplitudes

increase as bed thickness increases with an R value of -0.34. The thickness of lower A coal is

just below the 13ft tuning thickness discussed above. To be sure, data below the tuning point is

examined; a second filter was applied and is seen in purple in Figure F2C. Results from the

lower A coal are shown in Figure F2C, where a correlation coefficient of 0.46 was found. The

results from these plots do not reveal any significant correlation between thickness of coal beds

(upper A, middle A and lower A) and depth converted amplitude.

129
A B

R= 0.001 R= -0.34

Figure F2) Crossplots relating layer thickness with

negative amplitude response for upper A coal (A),
middle A coal (B) and lower A coal (C). Data
points (blue) are within 200ft of wells with well
log picks. Correlation coefficients are placed
below each crossplot. No strong correlations are
seen in any of these plots.

R= 0.46

130
 The second set of crossplots contain a limited number of data points from within 200ft of the

injection well as well as two wells which are roughly 0.3 mi northeast and southeast of the

injection well. Data points used in these crossplots are seen in white in Figure F3D. Using

thickness and amplitude data at these three wells will provide an insight into any correlation

between thickness change and amplitude in the vicinity of the injection well. The results from

these crossplots are shown in Figure F3. The location of the three wells used in the crossplots can

be seen in Figure F3D. The crossplot constructed for the upper coal shows only two wells with

negative amplitude values. The correlation coefficient (R) value of the remaining data points is

0.38, suggesting a positive correlation between thickness and negative amplitude response. A

positive correlation suggests that amplitudes approach 0 as the coal bed thickens. This is the

opposite of what would be expected assuming Widess (1973) is correct. This relationship is not

strongly supported by the correlation coefficient (0.38). The results from the middle A coal show

no correlation between thickness and negative amplitude (R=0.03). The crossplot representing

lower A coal shows the strongest correlation of the group (R= -0.5). This correlation is in line

with Widess (1973) and suggests that negative amplitude increases as the tuning thickness is

approached. Results from each set of crossplots are at odds with each other. This suggests that

the relationship between thickness and negative amplitude strength in beds that are below tuning

thickness are more complicated then suggested by Widess (1973) for this area.

The initial premise of this work is generally not a valid one in an area where the stratigraphy

is as complex as it is in this strandplain depositional environment. The idea has potential when

isolated layers are clearly represented in the seismic signal; however, this is not the case for the

Fruitland sequence. Reflection amplitude in this thin bed sequence will be influenced by

131
constructive and destructive interference with bounding reflections. In addition, any velocity

variations related to compositional differences within individual coal seams will influence

reflection amplitude response. There is no clear indication from the work done here that the

patterns seen in Figure F1C are related to thickness change within the coal seams.

Additional work with geobodies was not pursued due to a lack of a simple correlation

between amplitude and thickness. Recommended future work is to isolate geobodies in a genetic

inversion volume. The increased resolution made possible by the inversion might allow isolation

of individual coal seams and help uncover relationships between changes of reflection amplitude

related to changes of coal seam thickness and help uncover relationships between change of

amplitude versus thickness.

132
 Figure F3)
Crossplots of layer
thickness of upper
A coal (A), middle
A coal (B) and
lower A coal (C)
versus negative
reflection
amplitude. Data for
these plots come
from the injection
A B well and two
nearby wells (D).
X-axis thickness,
Y-axis seismic
R= 0.38 R= 0.03 amplitude.
Correlation
coefficient {R} is
listed beneath each
plot. Data point
used to determine
correlation shown
in red.

C
D
D

R= -0.50

133
 Appendix G: Basic fracture modeling

This appendix will describe the efforts that have been under taken to construct an initial

fracture model of the Fruitland Formation. This required some attribute analysis, construction of

a 3D model using well log and seismic data, as well as the construction of the fracture model

itself. The preliminary results are then tested to determine whether the properties of the moel

might be related to production trends.

The Ant Tracking attribute is used to locate and highlight discontinuities in the 3D

seismic volume. The Ant Tracks are of interest in this type of work because they indicate areas

of possible faults and fracture zones; of particular concern are those that extend through the

caprock that may facilitate CO2 escape and jeopardize long term storage potential.

The Ant Track algorithm was developed by Schlumberger (2009) and is incorporated in

their Petrel software as a volume attribute. The input volume used to compute Ant Tracks is

normally another attribute volume. 3D volumes typically used for Ant Track computation are

variance and chaos. This study employs the variance attribute, where computation of local

variance of seismic amplitude is done throughout the seismic volume. Areas of higher variance

are usually associated with some kind of local discontinuity or region of high variability in

seismic amplitude.

In this study, the Ant Tracks (or seismic discontinuities) are interpreted as minor faults

and possible fracture zones. The parameters used to compute Ant Tracks consisted of: initial ant

Boundary: 5, ant track deviation: 2, ant step size: 3, illegal steps: 2, legal steps: 2, stop criteria

(%): 10. Ant Track computations made using these parameters are referred to as “aggressive”

(Schlumberger 2010). Aggressive computation means that the criteria for identifying a region as

134
“discontinuous” or as an “Ant Track” are less stringent. An aggressive approach to computation

will highlight subtle discontinuity in the 3D seismic.

Once the Ant Tracking volume was computed, the orientation, length, and height of the

discontinuities were measured. Orientation measurements were made on a series of four time

slices that start at the top of the upper coal and were taken every 30ms. Two clear orientations

were determined from this process, a dominant NE (N52E) trend and a secondary NW (N48W)

trend (Figure G1). These fracture trends have 95% confidence levels of 2.94 degrees and 4.62

degrees respectively. This procedure was used by Wilson et al. (2012) to the same end. Results

from Wilson et al. (2010) show similar trends with a dominant trend of N56E and a secondary

trend of N54W with confidence intervals of 11 degrees and 10 degrees respectively. The length

of the ant tracks were measured from the same time slices. Statistical analyses of the resulting

length measurements show a log-normal distribution. This may be indicative of a power law

distribution since the shorter ant tracks are under-sampled because they are too small to be

measured. Ant track height measurements were made using eight interpretation windows in the

x-line direction. When the average height and length are compared, a ratio of 2:1 is seen

(Appendix H), resulting in an elongation ratio of 2. Elongation ratio is a parameter in Petrel’s

fracture modeling process.

135
 A) B)

Figure G1) Results from Ant Tracking orientation analysis, A) NE filtering, B) NW filtering.

Building of 3D Model: Constructing a 3D model consists of making a 3D grid, inputting

horizons, then making specific zones for each interpreted layer. The 3D grid used to construct

the model consists of grid cells that are 200ft by 200ft in the N-S and E-W directions. The inline

and crossline spacing in the data set is 100 feet; thus, the 200ft by 200ft grid cells ensures that

upscaling will be based on actual trace data within each cell. This model covers strata from the

top of the Kirtland Shale to the top of the Lewis Shale. All eleven layer of the Fruitland

Formation (Chapter 3) are modeled. The construction of this model utilized the depth converted

seismic horizons, well tops and, isopach maps. This model (Figure G2) is will provide the

necessary area for the construction of a fracture model.

136
 Kirtland
Shale

Fruitland
Formation
Pictured Cliffs
Sandstone

Figure G2) E-W view of 3D model. Coals shown in black, blue is Kirtland Shale, yellow denotes interbeds of
sandstone and shale, red indicates shale parting layers, orange is the Pictured Cliffs sandstone. Grid cells are 200ft
by 200ft.

Fracture Modeling: The purpose of this model was to gain some initial insight into

fracture systems within the Fruitland Formation. This is a preliminary model; further refinement

is needed in order to accurately portray fracture distribution in the Fruitland strata and the

Kirtland Shale caprock. Completion of this model will provide better insight into the possibility

of injected CO2 leakage through the fracture network.

The input parameters included dip azimuths for the N52E and N48W sets identified in the

Ant Track analysis. Ant Track analysis also suggested use of an elongation ratio of 2 and a

power law distribution for fracture lengths. A maximum length of 200ft was set for the model

fractures. The rest of the parameters were assigned default values. Other parameters included the

number of sides per fracture (4), a log- normal distribution of apertures, and aperture mean and

standard deviation of 0.000075 and 0.0000015 respectively.

137
 To describe the distribution of fractures, the 3D curvature attribute was used. Curvature

can be described as a non-linear change in dip. Thus this attribute clearly shows folds in the data.

Rocks tend to be more highly fractured in areas where folding has occurred; therefore curvature

can be used to predict areas of higher fracture intensity. The curvature of the lower A coal can be

seen in the 3D model in Figure G3. In Figures G4 and G5, the curvature based fracture model is

shown.

Figure G3) 3D curvature seen in the lower A coal of the 3D model. Higher curvature is shown in darker blue. Grid
cells on the edge of the data indicating high curvature have anomalous values.

Figure G4 shows the resulting fracture model with the dominant NE-SW trending set and

the secondary NW-SE trending set. Distribution of fractures in this model is controlled by 3D

138
curvature calculated on the depth converted seismic data. Higher fracture intensity can be seen in

the area with the most structural deformation, along the southern portion of the site, where folds

are the largest (Figure G4). Figure G5 shows a local view around the injection well. The

injection well penetrates an area of moderate fracture intensity, with higher density of fractures

to the south.

Figure G4) Fracture model of lower coal A generated using 3D curvature of the depth converted seismic volume as
fracture distribution input .These fractures are oriented in the dominant N52E trend and N48W. Fractures are

139
colored by fracture length. Wells colored brown are wells with production data available for this study. Dots seen at
the top of production well indicate the amount of gas produced in the first 6 months of production.

Figure G5) Local view of fractures modeled around the injection well. Wells colored brown are wells with
production data available for this study. Dots seen at the top of production well indicate the amount of gas produced
in the first 6 months of production.

Wells with production data available for this study can be seen in Figures G4 and G5.

The amount of gas production from each well is indicated by a circle at the top of each well. This

circle is difficult to see in wells with smaller production numbers. There is no correlation (R=-

0.026) between 3D curvature and 6 month production numbers. FC State com 1 well is the

largest gas producer in this study and penetrates the Fruitland Formation in an area of very low

fracture density as modeled from the curvature distribution (Figure G5). This suggests that the

140
fracture model constructed from the 3D curvature volume gives little insight into production

trends at the site.

Additional information needed to develop a realistic fracture model including the

aperture and the ratio of healed to open fractures, which were available in FMI logs from the

injection well. A thorough analysis of the FMI log fracture data is presented by Wilson et al.

(2012) including an analysis of hydraulic and aperture fracture aperture distributions. This data

could be added in later version of the fracture model for a more detailed realistic fracture system.

141
 Appendix H: Ant Track length and heights

Table 1) Length of Ant Tracks measured in mm.

Length *
Length(mm) Frequency Frequency
1 2 2
2 3 6
3 5 15
4 15 60
5 19 95
6 17 102
7 17 119
8 25 200
9 27 243
10 19 190
11 18 198
12 26 312
13 11 143
14 10 140
15 18 270
16 16 256
17 8 136
18 19 342
19 11 209
20 10 200
21 4 84
22 6 132
23 8 184
24 7 168
25 8 200
26 8 208
27 2 54
28 0 0
29 2 58
30 5 150
31 2 62
32 3 96

142
 33 5 165
34 6 204
35 1 35
36 1 36
37 3 111
38 1 38
39 2 78
40 1 40
41 1 41
42 0 0
43 0 0
44 0 0
45 1 45
46 0 0
47 0 0
48 0 0
49 0 0
50 1 50
51 0 0
52 0 0
53 1 53
54 1 54
55 1 55
56 0 0
57 0 0
58 1 58
59 0 0
60 1 60
61 0 0
62 1 62
Total = 5819
Number of observations = 380

Average length = total /Number of observations = 5819/380

Average length = 15.31316

143
Table 2) Height of Ant Tracks.

Height (mm) Frequency Height*Frequency

1 1 1
2 11 22
3 12 36
4 36 144
5 27 135
6 29 174
7 13 91
8 21 168
9 15 135
10 11 110
11 4 44
12 8 96
13 3 39
14 4 56
15 2 30
16 3 48
17 0 0
18 1 18
19 2 38
20 2 40
21 0 0
22 1 22
23 2 46
24 1 24
25 0 0
26 0 0
27 1 27
28 1 28
29 1 29
30 1 30
Total = 1631
Number of observations= 213
Average height = total/ number of observations = 1631/213

Average height = 7.657277

144
Length to height ratio = average length/ average height

Length to height ratio = 1.99982

145