This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]

On: 29 January 2014, At: 20:35

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International

Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taje20

Background research for selection of potential geostorage

targets—case studies from the Surat Basin, Queensland
a a
J. Hodgkinson & M. Grigorescu
a
Geological Survey of Queensland, Department of Employment , Economic Development and
Innovation , Level10, 119, Charlotte Street, Brisbane , Qld 4000 , Australia
Published online: 01 May 2012.

To cite this article: J. Hodgkinson & M. Grigorescu (2013) Background research for selection of potential geostorage targets—case
studies from the Surat Basin, Queensland, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological
Society of Australia, 60:1, 71-89, DOI: 10.1080/08120099.2012.662913

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2012.662913

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 71 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401 ~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01

Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2013)

60, 71–89, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2012.662913

Background research for selection of potential

geostorage targets—case studies from the Surat Basin,
Queensland
J. HODGKINSON AND M. GRIGORESCU*

Geological Survey of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation,

Level 10, 119, Charlotte Street, Brisbane, Qld 4000, Australia.

Carbon dioxide injection into subsurface reservoirs appears to be a promising solution for decreasing
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Results and recommendations of a preliminary investigation of
sedimentary basins suitable for carbon geostorage in Queensland designated the Surat Basin as a
target area for further investigation. As a result, a comprehensive gap analysis of the Surat Basin
datasets was followed by regional desktop studies, hydrodynamic analysis using petroleum well and
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014

groundwater bore data and a program of mineralogical data collection and interpretation.
All available open-file data (petroleum wells, department stratigraphic wells, department of the
environment and resource management and Geological Survey of Queensland groundwater bores
and seismic data) were reassessed, reinterpreted and/or refined. Petroseis1 and GOCAD1 were used
for regional geological modelling of seismic horizons and fault systems, respectively. PressureQCTM was
the quality control platform used for assessing petroleum well pressure data and the Geochemist’s
Workbench software was used for preliminary geochemical simulations of carbon dioxide impacts on
groundwater and host rocks. The precompetitive studies and datasets recently released by the Carbon
Geostorage Initiative address some issues, which are geostorage-specific, such as defining the
supercritical boundary (800 m depth), fault plane geometry, groundwater flow vectors and the
potential impact of carbon dioxide injection on the groundwater system and its mineral framework.
The primary conclusions derived from this work are that the applicability of a given dataset must be
considered prior to implementation. This is of particular importance for geological modelling studies
where quality assurance processes are needed to validate the various datasets that have been used.
In addition to this, the modelling methodologies themselves have been assessed in an appropriate
context for geostorage investigations.

KEY WORDS: Surat Basin, geostorage, seismic reflection, hydrodynamics, mineralogy, hydrochemistry

INTRODUCTION the initial work on aquifer storage has been focused on

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been widely ac-
cepted as playing a role in climate change and numerous
scientific and engineering groups have focused their
efforts on finding ways to reduce/mitigate the effects. In
this context, carbon geostorage, specifically injection of
CO2 into suitable subsurface reservoirs, has become one
of the most promising options. Geostorage in depleted
oil and gas fields, as well as options for enhanced oil
recovery and enhanced coal bed methane recovery have
been assessed, but it is generally accepted that the large
volume storage required can only be satisfied by aquifer
geostorage (Bachu 2000; Michael et al. 2009). Aquifers
can theoretically provide both the required volumes and
the injectivity performance necessary for successful
long-term storage (Bachu & Bennion 2008). Despite this
acknowledgement, limited research into the possible
ramifications of injection has been carried out. Much of
Canadian sedimentary basins (Gunter et al. 1996, 2000;
Bachu 2000; Bachu & Adams 2003). Studies looking at the
potential environmental consequences of injecting CO2
into saline aquifers are now starting to emerge (Nicot
2008; Birkholzer et al. 2009) and informative research
derived from the offshore Sleipner oilfield has been
published (Gaus et al. 2005; Portier & Rochelle 2005).
Volumetric methods of capacity estimation attempt
to provide an indication of geostorage potential (Ains-
worth et al. 2008), but are considered to be inaccurate
and unreliable if a given methodology is applied
inappropriately (Bradshaw et al. 2007). Understanding
the potential for geostorage capacity in a prospective
aquifer requires the incorporation of a realistic effi-
ciency factor (Bradshaw et al. 2009). The efficiency factor
is intended to reduce the total pore volume within a
basin to an effective pore volume, which reflects the
magnitude of the dominant trapping processes. Residual

*Corresponding author: micaela.preda@deedi.qld.gov.au

 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 72 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
72 J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu
gas saturation trapping is one of the most probable
mechanisms by which large volumes of injected CO2
will be immobilised in aquifers over the short to
medium term. This mechanism has been referred to as
migration assisted storage (MAS) by Bradshaw et al.
(2009). The effectiveness of this trapping process is
dictated by the level of residual gas trapping that can
be achieved for CO2 and the irreducible water satura-
tion for a given reservoir (Zhang et al. 2011). The
groundwater in the host aquifer (wetting phase) is
displaced to irreducible water saturation during the
drainage process as CO2 is injected into the system.
During CO2 plume migration, the groundwater imbibes
back into the system forcing the CO2 (non-wetting
phase) to residual gas saturation. It is the level of
residual gas saturation that dictates the volume of CO2
stored by the MAS process and it is this that must be
reflected in the geostorage efficiency factor (Bradshaw
et al. 2009).
d
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
In chemical terms, the principal reactions during
CO2 geostorage into aqueous environments are the
hydration of CO2, which produces carbonic acid and
the subsequent dissociation to form bicarbonate. This
can reduce the pH of circum-neutral groundwater in the
region of the injection well (Gunter et al. 2000). Water–
rock reactions will also take place further changing the
solution composition of the groundwater (Ennis-King &
Paterson 2007; Pauwels et al. 2007; Wigand et al. 2008).
Acidic conditions can lead to calcite dissolution and/or
weathering of silicates to clay minerals; the latter
reaction contributes to the buffering effect and an
increase in pH. All the changes introduced to the
rock/water system by the concomitant dissolution of
minerals in the aquifer and subsequent precipitation
of secondary minerals may vary with distance from the
well and over time (Gaus et al. 2005; Xu et al. 2005; Zhang
et al. 2009).
In the field of geostorage in aquifers, Queensland
represents a unique example, as the potential target
aquifers host predominantly fresh groundwater, are
extensively exploited, and often sealed by heterogeneous
low permeability formations, with poorly constrained
sealing capacity. The extent and mineralogy of the seal
is particularly important as this formation would most
likely be in long-term contact with the injected CO2,
when the plume reaches the aquifer/seal boundary.
Overall, the architecture of potential reservoirs and
their hydrogeology is poorly constrained in all the
sedimentary basins of interest, and a petroleum
systems approach of identifying and characterising a
reservoir–seal pair may not be sufficient for a geosto-
rage project.
In July 2008, the Queensland Government com-
menced the Carbon Geostorage Initiative (CGI), a new
group within the Geological Survey of Queensland
(GSQ); its role is to assess sedimentary basins for
geostorage potential and to reduce the level of explora-
tion risk and provide advice to government, by collect-
ing pre-competitive data and publishing associated
geological interpretations on an open-file basis.
In October 2008, GSQ hosted a geostorage workshop,
which included representatives from industry, both
technical and commercial, federal and state government
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
and the main CCS projects in Queensland. The Surat
Basin was among the areas selected for further work
owing to its promising geological framework and
proximity to emission nodes (Figure 1). Following up
on that recommendation, all the available open-file data
in the basin have been reassessed. Current modelling
(seismic, hydrodynamic, hydrochemical, mineralogical
and geochemical) is aimed at understanding the geolo-
gical framework of potential reservoirs, including
extent, capacity and faulting, as well as seal properties.
Significantly, the assessment and modelling has to
consider hydrodynamic and hydrochemical aspects.
Figure 1 Location of the Surat Basin and its main structural
features.
In this context, the research activity of CGI over the
last two years focused on the reinterpretation and
refining of old datasets (Figure 2) and to a lesser extent
on collection of new data. This paper presents a summary
of the latest findings aimed specifically at the assessment
of the geostorage potential in the freshwater aquifers of
the Surat Basin. To date, the CGI studies range from
regional assessments of seismic data to determine basin
architecture and faulting, to studies of the micro-system,
such as the mineralogy of reservoir and seal rocks.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Surat Basin is a large Jurassic–Cretaceous age
intracratonic sag basin unconformably overlying the
Permian–Triassic Bowen Basin in south-central
Queensland and northern New South Wales (Green
1997; Hoffmann et al. 2009). The basin fill is flat-lying
with a maximum thickness of *2500 m and is largely
undeformed. The Surat Basin is contiguous with the
Clarence-Moreton Basin in the east and the Eromanga
Basin in the west, with the basin margins delineated by
the Kumbarilla Ridge and the Nebine Ridge, respec-
tively (Green 1997). The principal tectonic element is the
Mimosa Syncline (Figure 1), which trends north–south
in the central region of the basin (Hoffmann et al. 2009).
The east and west margins of the Surat Basin experi-
enced minor deformation resulting from reactivation of
 Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 73 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401

Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin

73

Figure 2 Open-file datasets within the Surat Basin: well data (a), groundwater bores (b) and seismic profiles (c), in relation to localities and main roads (d).
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 74 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401 ~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01

74 J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu

the Permian–Triassic Moonie-Goondiwindi, Burunga-

Leichhardt and Hutton-Wallumbilla fault systems
(Korsch et al. 2009). This produced a number of small
low amplitude anticlinal structures along the eastern
margin of the basin. Oil shows were evident in several
wells drilled in these structures, but only the Moonie
field (Figure 2d) produced oil in commercial volumes
(Green 1997). The reactivation of the Permian–Triassic
fault systems caused only minor displacement of the
overlying Jurassic–Cretaceous sequence. There is no
significant vertical offset of the regional reservoir and
seal units (QCGI 2009).
The early history of the Surat Basin is dominated by
terrestrial sedimentation in fluvial to lacustrine deposi-
tional systems (Exon 1976; Green 1997; Hoffmann et al.
2009; Totterdell et al. 2009). Three megacycles of
terrestrial sedimentation are recognised in the Jurassic
strata (Hoffmann et al. 2009), each beginning with a
period of braided stream deposition and evolving into
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014

meandering stream networks and fluvial–lacustrine

dominated systems (Figure 3) (Exon 1976; Green 1997).

SURAT BASIN DATA GAP ANALYSIS

High density exploration drilling for petroleum and gas
has taken place within the boundaries of the Surat Basin
for over 40 years. The majority of these wells targeted the
underlying Bowen Basin, but many contain information
pertaining to the Jurassic stratigraphy of the Surat Basin.
In addition to this, there are a number of wells that
targeted the Jurassic succession, primarily the Precipice
Sandstone and the Evergreen Formation, with some
interest in the Hutton Sandstone. There is also a wealth
of 2D seismic data and some 3D seismic data collected
over the east and west flanks of the basin. These data are
supplemented by some deep seismic lines that traverse
the less-explored central regions of the basin.
Most petroleum and gas exploration in the Surat
Basin took place from the 1960s to the early 1990s, with
the Moonie discovery in the early 1960s. Well completion
reports are of mixed quality, but some provide reliable
pressure data from drill stem tests (DST); wireline
formation tests (WFT) in the area are generally less
Figure 3 Stratigraphic column of the Surat Basin (modified
reliable. As with most petroleum wells, formation water
from McKellar 1998, figure 13; personal communication,
analyses provide an approximation only for chemical
October 2011), with time scale after Gradstein et al. (2004).
character and available bottom hole temperatures are
of mixed quality. Approximately 2400 petroleum wells
have been drilled in the Surat Basin, plus more than Permeability is generally lower than in the Precipice
5000 groundwater bores. Sandstone, particularly on the eastern flanks of the
Available core lengths are predominantly less than basin. Both formations yield oil in the Moonie field.
10 m for the formations of interest and spatial coverage The permeability of the Hutton Sandstone is generally
is concentrated on the east and west flanks of the high on the east and west flanks of the basin. There is a
Mimosa Syncline. Most of the core samples are from the marked reduction in permeability values in the over-
Precipice Sandstone and the Evergreen Formation, with lying Walloon Subgroup; however, fewer measurements
limited coverage in the overlying units. have been acquired compared with the more permeable
The Precipice Sandstone has been the primary target underlying units. Some values 4100 mD have been
for oil and gas exploration, having good porosity and reported from the Walloon Subgroup; these are from
generally high permeability. Shales and siltstones are the sandstone horizons, stringers and ‘pods’ known to
common in the upper Precipice Sandstone, which exist within the mainly fine-grained rocks that are
accounts for most of the lower permeability measure- dominated by siltstone and shale. There are no clear
ments. The overlying Evergreen Formation is domi- trends of porosity and permeability variation with
nated by interbedded sandstones, siltstones and shales. depth. Permeability appears to decrease by an order of
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 75 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin
magnitude below *1500 m in the Precipice Sandstone
and the Hutton Sandstone. Permeability in the Ever-
green Formation and the Walloon Subgroup is largely
unaffected by increasing depth (QCGI 2009).
Most of the 5300 groundwater bores drilled in the Surat
Basin are still used for groundwater production, 900 of
which exhibit artesian flow conditions. Bores exploiting
the lower to middle Jurassic succession are mainly
restricted to the northern and eastern margins of the
basin, where the principal aquifers of the Hutton
Sandstone and the Precipice Sandstone are relatively
shallow (200–300 m). The small number of bores, which
abstract groundwater from the Hutton Sandstone and the
Precipice Sandstone in the west and south, are generally
converted petroleum wells. The majority of the bores in
the central and south exploit groundwater stored in the
Cretaceous units. Large coal seam gas fields in the east
and southeast extract water from the Walloon Subgroup.
Groundwater and more recently coal seam gas produc-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
tion in the Surat Basin has increased dramatically in the
past three to four decades while conventional oil and gas
has been in decline in recent years. All these activities are
likely to have had a major impact on both the local and
regional groundwater flow systems. The gap analysis
results for the Surat Basin (QCGI 2009) show that there are
significant limitations for the assessment of large-scale
regional hydrodynamic geostorage ‘plays.’ Focused data
gathering resulting from oil and gas exploration in the
east and west of the basin provides a reasonable basis on
which to select smaller petroleum systems-style geosto-
rage ‘plays.’ Although adequate seismic and drilling data
are available to put first order constraints on these ‘play’
concepts, the hydrodynamic regime needs to be assessed.
Hydrochemical data are severely lacking across most of
the region and the analyses available from shallow
groundwater bores are of limited use. The potential of
the large deep areas of the Surat Basin in the south cannot
be adequately assessed because of the lack of seismic and
deep well data (no fully cored wells). Regional and
localised hydrodynamic models can be constructed
with the available data; however, the level of confidence
in regions with sparse or no data would be low.
To address some of these gaps, the following studies
have been undertaken by CGI using the available QPED
data, and the seismic, pressure and groundwater
databases: seismic horizon mapping (QPED and seismic
data), fault modelling (QPED and seismic data), hydro-
dynamic modelling (QPED and PressureQC), mineralo-
gical study (based on new core analyses), hydrochemical
assessment (QPED and DERM database) and geochem-
ical modelling (based on the last two studies). Emphasis
has been placed on the following reservoir–seal pairs:
Precipice Sandstone–Evergreen Formation and Hutton
Sandstone–Walloon Subgroup.
METHODOLOGY—DATASETS
Queensland Petroleum Exploration Database
(QPED)
The QPED relational database stores well header
information, stratigraphic picks (both company and
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
75
GSQ), petrophysical and other technical data relating
to hydrocarbon exploration. The analytical data stored
in this database are primarily extracted from company
well completion reports and other exploration reports.
Analytical data are also acquired from university
theses, government reports and GSQ mapping projects.
The stratigraphic and petroleum and gas well data
form the core information platform for integrating the
other datasets. Selected wells are used to build initial
regional stratigraphic correlations using a combination
of petrophysical and petrological data. The distribution
and relative thickness of each stratigraphic unit can be
easily visualised in 2D cross-sections and isopach maps.
Well data form the basis for 2D and 3D facies modelling
studies, the interpretation of depositional environments
and provide first order constraints on reservoir/seal
geometry. It is not only the spatial distribution and
vertical extent of the wells that is of importance in
geostorage studies, but also the range of data types
available, such as the amount of core or chip samples,
and type and number of petrophysical data.
Seismic reflection survey database
The Geological Survey of Queensland holds data and
reports from petroleum exploration seismic surveys
recorded in Queensland. This includes the raw field data
and processed data as hard-copy seismic sections and
for more recent surveys the digital processed data.
Information on the data held is stored in a relational
database and shotpoint location data are available in
standard formats.
Seismic data provide the primary constraints for the
interpretation of large-scale structural faulting and
closures, the geometry of depositional packages and
basin fill. The identification of seismic horizons com-
bined with well data for ground-truthing forms the basis
for 3D seismic horizon mapping. The main objective
of the horizon map is to verify or refute correlations
made on the basis of petrophysical and lithological
interpretations from well logs and core. Fault geometry
interpretation, particularly in 3D is of paramount
importance in the assessment of potential carbon
geostorage plays. Faults may form barriers to, or
conduits for fluid flow, which is a key factor when
evaluating sealing lithology and reservoir capacity.
CSIRO PressureQC database
PressureQCTM has been developed by the Common-
wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) to provide the petroleum industry and research
organisations with a systematic method to quality-
control well bore pressure, temperature and water
chemistry data. Several hundred well completion re-
ports were reviewed and the CSIRO methodology
applied to assess the quality and reliability of pressure
data in the Surat Basin. This methodology applies
a standard set of criteria to each formation pressure
test. Availability of raw data for the pressure test is
considered to be one of the most important of these
criteria. In tests where these data are not available,
there is less confidence that the reported shut-in
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 76 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
76 J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu
pressures represent the actual formation pressure.
These tests are, therefore, considered less reliable and
are given a lower quality control (QC) code. Tests with a
complete set of raw data are considered more reliable
and are given a higher QC code. The relationship
between flow time and shut-in time and the position of
the gauge also play a role in the quality assessment
process.
Groundwater database
The groundwater database was provided by the Depart-
ment of Environment and Resource Management
(DERM) and consists of several tables containing the
following information: registration, casing, stratigra-
phy, aquifer formation, water chemistry and water
levels.
The assessment of the DERM database is considered
necessary for several reasons. First, understanding
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
water occurrence within a potential CO2 injection site
is an intrinsic part of reservoir modelling, as the
characterisation of current water flow systems can help
identify potential CO2 migration paths. Second, the
groundwater database provides information on aquifer
location and characteristics, as well as groundwater
chemistry, which is essential to the determination of
aquifer extent and interactions. Finally, some of the
existing deep bores can be sampled under controlled
conditions to confirm the chemical signature of the
groundwater systems of interest and test interactions
between overlying aquifers.
The assessment of the chemical data available in
the Surat Basin highlighted several deficiencies in the
dataset, such as high uncertainty in terms of sample
depth and aquifer formation. The DERM groundwater
database has been recently subjected to a new quality
control methodology developed by CGI. This process
combines information from QPED, the GSQ groundwater
database and the results of geological modelling to more
tightly constrain the formations from which groundwater
is drawn and the quality of hydrochemical analyses.
PREVIOUS SURAT BASIN STUDIES
Geostorage Studies
Studies on carbon geostorage potential in the Surat
Basin are few and mainly limited to confidential reports
commissioned by power generators. The bias has been
towards conventional petroleum systems approaches
using relative volumetric calculations and providing
limited geoscientific background.
In 2005, the CO2CRC published a desktop study of
sequestration options in southeast Queensland (Sayers
et al. 2005), which included a brief review of the Surat
Basin options. The report also refers to the GEODISC
program, which classified depleted hydrocarbon fields
in the Surat Basin as having a high chance of success for
storage of relatively small CO2 volumes. Other reports
published by the CO2CRC examined carbon geostorage
possibilities in the rock units underlying the Surat
Basin (Kalinowski 2006; Patchett 2006). Both reports
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
highlight the issues related to water resource conflicts
in the overlying Jurassic sequence and discount any
potential ‘play’ concepts. Patchett (2006) provides an
assessment of the Precipice Sandstone in the southwest
using data from the GWH Trelinga 1 well. The lower
Precipice Sandstone in this part of the basin exhibits
excellent reservoir quality and the upper Precipice
contains low permeability shale- and silt-prone beds.
Combined with the interbedded siltstones and shales of
the regionally extensive overlying Evergreen Forma-
tion, there could be a good regional seal (Patchett 2006).
The Queensland Carbon Dioxide Geological Storage
Atlas (Bradshaw et al. 2009) provides a comprehensive
assessment of all open file data for 36 basins in the state.
The basins and their respective plays are evaluated,
scored and ranked according to the level of prospectivity
and the play concepts considered in the CGI gap
analysis (QCGI 2009) were subjected to this process.
The applied methodology establishes the maximum
potential storage reservoir extent, constrained by the
depth at which CO2 remains in the supercritical state
and the extent of the overlying seal rocks. Estimates
of migration-assisted storage capacity are based on
irreducible water saturation and residual gas saturation
calculations, which provide a more accurate theoretical
geostorage capacity estimate than more simplistic
volumetric assessments.
Petroleum and Groundwater Studies
Previous open-file publications of the petroleum and
groundwater systems in the Surat Basin provide impor-
tant foundations for geostorage studies. In the late 1990s,
GSQ and Geoscience Australia (formerly the Australian
Geological Survey Organisation) undertook an integrated
basin analysis study of the Surat, Bowen and Gunnedah
basins, referred to as the Sedimentary Basins of Eastern
Australia (SBEA) Study. Results were published in a
review compilation ‘The Surat and Bowen basins South-
East Queensland’ published by the Queensland Depart-
ment of Mines and Energy (Green 1997). The SBEA study
has provided a regional sequence stratigraphic and
structural framework for petroleum and groundwater
systems in the Surat Basin, as well as for geostorage
studies. A study by Hitchon & Hays (1971) that focused on
the use of hydrodynamic analysis of the Surat Basin for
petroleum prospectivity also provides a useful regional
flow model as a foundation for future geostorage work.
CGI GEOSTORAGE-RELATED STUDIES OF THE
SURAT BASIN
Seismic horizon mapping
RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY
Carbon geostorage studies in areas that show potential
for migration-assisted storage (MAS) in the Surat Basin
require the accurate delineation of basin margins and
sedimentary unit geometry in a regional context. The
migration of both free CO2 and CO2-charged ground-
water needs to be accurately modelled for environmen-
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 77 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin
tal and human health hazard risk management. The
basis of any subsurface fluid flow model is an accurate
geological model, constrained by seismic data, well data
and geological mapping. For this reason, a revision to
the seismic horizons modelled as part of the SBEA
project is warranted. The original well data used for the
SBEA seismic surfaces were of limited spatial distribu-
tion and quality and it was not considered necessary to
tie the margins of the surfaces to the mapped outcrop.
The primary aim of the modelled seismic horizons was
to provide constraints for subsurface volumes used for
petroleum systems evaluation, which do not typically
require accurate surface outcrop ties. Consequently, the
boundaries of these original surfaces are poorly con-
strained and also display some horizon overlap in the
Z axis. These limitations reduce their applicability for
accurate regional basin modelling for carbon geosto-
rage, which requires constraints to be placed on the
entire reservoir volume and also the ultimate dis-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
charge/recharge point for a groundwater system.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The study by Dixon et al. (2011) incorporates a more
holistic approach to integrate seismic data, petroleum
and stratigraphic well data and surface geological
mapping interpretations to constrain the basin margin
extensions of the existing SBEA seismic horizons
(‘S10’—base Precipice Sandstone, ‘S20’—base Evergreen
Formation, ‘S30’—base Hutton Sandstone, and ‘S40’—top
Walloon Subgroup), for key stratigraphic surfaces in the
Surat Basin.
The Petroseis1 software is used to model the
surfaces. The method combines the original surfaces,
well stratigraphic picks (QPED, providing both depth
and derived subcrop extents), outcrop geology and
digital elevation model derived from the Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission (SRTM) (Farr et al. 2007).
The original SBEA interpretation is honoured and
new stratigraphic data are reviewed and interpreted
based on the same methodology originally employed.
This provides an enhanced interpretation of the subsur-
face geometry for each horizon and the aberrations
apparent at the basin margins, where surfaces cross
cut incorrectly have been corrected using the surface
mapping data.
This new version of the SBEA surfaces (Dixon et al.
2011) is intended to form a structural model of the key
reservoir/seal sequences for CO2 storage in the Surat
Basin–Precipice Sandstone sealed by Evergreen Forma-
tion and the Hutton Sandstone sealed by Walloon
Subgroup. A significant outcome of this project is the
ability to visualise structure and show that large areas
of the Surat Basin have suitable depth ranges for
supercritical CO2 storage in the target reservoirs
(Figure 4).
Fault modelling
RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY
The basis of any hydrodynamic model or reservoir
simulation originates within a static geological model
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
77
or regional geological framework (Sayers et al. 2006;
Ainsworth et al. 2008). The behaviour of fault systems is
of particular interest, because of the multiple possibi-
lities associated with displacement, geometry, potential
fault reactivation and frictional heating during slip
movements. In many cases, regional geological frame-
work models ignore faults and gross assumptions are
made as to the impact that they have on the fluid flow
system (e.g. Habermehl 1980; Radke et al. 2000). Regional
groundwater models typically ignore the potential
influence of faults (Hitchon & Hays 1971; Habermehl
1980; Radke et al. 2000; Hodgkinson et al. 2010). In most
cases, this is acceptable where the influence of fault
propagation does not radically displace overlying and
underlying geological units and deformation is mini-
mal. To appropriately assess the migration pathways of
injected CO2 it is vital to know if a fault is breached,
leaky or sealing with regard to fluid flow.
In this study, the fault model of the Moonie-Goondi-
windi and Burunga-Leichhardt fault systems is com-
piled using the Geological Object Computer Aided
Design platform (GOCAD1). All available open-file
seismic data are used in conjunction with stratigraphic
well data from QPED and formation tops from the GSQ
stratigraphy table. Time/depth relational data are taken
from downhole velocity surveys obtained from well
completion reports. Fault traces are interpreted from
seismic images, from which the fault surfaces are
subsequently developed. The objective is to provide the
basis for assessing the potential impact that these large
thrust fault systems may have on the regional flow
dynamics in both Bowen and Surat basins.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The study by McKillop et al. (2011) provides a regional
interpretation of the three dimensional geometry of the
major fault systems on the eastern flanks of the Bowen
and Surat basins. The revised fault model provides
further constraints on the geometry and fault propaga-
tion extent into the Jurassic–Cretaceous succession of
the Surat Basin. Identification of several ‘breakage’
zones beyond the extent of fault displacement propaga-
tion is significant for the analysis of hydraulic relation-
ships across the fault boundaries.
Displacement on these thrusts fault systems at their
origination during the Triassic was up to 2 km. The
Permian and Triassic units of the Bowen Basin exhibit
significant offset owing to the thrusting event. The
hydraulic significance of these faults requires assess-
ment and it should not be assumed that the offset has
provided pathways for upward migration of fluids. The
situation in the overlying Surat Basin is more ambig-
uous, because reactivation of the Triassic thrusts did
not produce significant offset and, in many cases, there
is no displacement evident in the younger strata. The
breakage zones identified in the Jurassic units could
have greater potential to allow the vertical movement of
fluids, owing to seal integrity damage (Evergreen
Formation). There is not the potential for frictional
melting and fault sealing that could be evident in the
underlying Bowen Basin units. There is, however,
the potential for fault-bounded CO2 geostorage traps in
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 78 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401 ~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01

78 J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu

Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014

Figure 4 Images of the seismic horizon grids: base Surat Basin (a), base Precipice Sandstone (b), base Evergreen Formation
(c), base Hutton Sandstone (d), top Walloon Subgroup (e), base Wallumbilla Formation (f). The 800 m depth contour on each
surface indicates the approximate limits of storage of CO2 in the supercritical state.
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 79 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin
the Permian and Triassic strata of the Bowen Basin.
There is also the possibility that ‘leaky’ fault planes
could be sealed subsequent to injection, owing to the
reactive nature of CO2-charged groundwater. Displace-
ment of the Jurassic units in the overlying Surat Basin
is not significant enough to produce this type of
structural trap. Initial trapping of injected CO2 in the
Precipice Sandstone of the Surat Basin would, therefore,
rely on stratigraphic trapping controlled primarily by
the seal integrity of the overlying Evergreen Formation.
Projects that propose to inject CO2 into the Precipice
Sandstone would have to evaluate the potential for
leakage through the breakage zones identified in the
Evergreen Formation regional seal. The model is
intended to provide the basis for integrated three
dimensional geomodelling frameworks that are con-
structed to analyse regional fluid flow regimes. Under-
standing the impacts of fault geometry, stratigraphic
offset and the presence of breakage zones is essential
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
for assessing migration paths of injected CO2 (Figure 5).
Hydrodynamic modelling
RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY
Petroleum systems hydrodynamics has been applied to oil
and gas exploration and production for many years (e.g.
Dahlberg 1995; Michael & Bachu 2001) and can be equally
useful in understanding the potential migration beha-
viour of injected CO2. Numerous regional scale- and site-
specific studies have already been carried out both
globally and in Australia (e.g. Hitchon & Hays 1971;
Bachu 1995; Michael et al. 2005; Hennig 2007). Most of this
research has focused on saline aquifers and the problems
associated with variable density groundwater systems
(e.g. Villegas et al. 1994; Bachu 1995). In Queensland,
onshore saline aquifers are not common and are typically
small with limited storage capacity. In contrast, the state
has large freshwater aquifers with potentially very large
storage capacity; however, this raises the issue of conflict
with groundwater resources. This resource conflict can
potentially be avoided if sites are properly characterised
and appropriate constraints placed on geostorage pro-
jects. For example, the depths at which CO2 remains in
the supercritical phase (4800 m) are typically much
greater than the regions where groundwater is abstracted
for irrigation, stock watering and municipal supply.
The deeper groundwater systems are data poor and
the hydrodynamic regimes not well understood. Pre-
vious studies have sought to extrapolate trends from
shallower regions, but the resulting model output
contains substantial uncertainty (Habermehl 1980).
The latest hydrodynamic model of the Surat Basin
(Hodgkinson et al. 2010) combines formation pressure
data from petroleum wells with groundwater bore
potentiometric measurements to assess groundwater
flow patterns within geostorage target units such as the
Precipice Sandstone, Evergreen Formation and Hutton
Sandstone. The combined data set reduces uncertainty
and increases understanding of the flow regimes in the
deeper unexploited regions of the basin. This study
uses the CSIRO PressureQCTM system to evaluate the
petroleum formation pressure data in detail, producing
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
79
a qualitative context to interpret the consequent impact
of each data point in the model results.
Unlike earlier regional studies (e.g. Hitchon & Hays
1971; Habermehl 1980), this work considers the aquifers
of interest as discrete systems and endeavours to
establish the vertical hydraulic relationships and the
effectiveness of the regional aquitard/seal. The models
derived from the integrated dataset have also been used
to assist in selecting areas for a new data acquisition
program.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Combining data from groundwater bores and petroleum
wells provides greater insight to the regional flow
patterns in the deeper regions of the Lower to Middle
Jurassic aquifers in the Surat Basin. The dominant flow
regime in the north, south and west of the basin is similar
in the three formations investigated, but there are
important interformational variations in the east. Verti-
cal hydraulic communication between the Precipice
Sandstone and the Hutton Sandstone is evident in the
central region of the basin, implying that the Evergreen
Formation is not an effective seal in this area. This
hypothesis is based on the continuous hydrostatic
gradient apparent in the Precipice Sandstone and the
Hutton Sandstone, which overlies the Evergreen Forma-
tion (e.g. SDA Paddy Creek South 1, Figure 6). It should be
considered, however, that hydrostatic gradients that
show continuity across vertically stacked reservoirs do
not guarantee hydraulic communication. Measurement of
the equilibrium hydrostatic gradient in the intervening
sealing unit is also required to provide a more conclusive
picture of the vertical hydraulic regime. There are wells
in other parts of the Surat Basin (e.g. PPC Waggaba 1,
Figure 6) that show a marked discontinuity in hydrostatic
gradients between the overlying Hutton Sandstone and
underlying Precipice Sandstone reservoir units, which
implies a lack of vertical hydraulic communication
across the Evergreen Formation. The most likely expla-
nation for the spatial variability in the potential sealing
capacity of the Evergreen Formation is lithological
heterogeneity and spatial variability in formation thick-
ness. The Evergreen Formation is dominated by fine-
grained lithology but was deposited in a mixed fluvial–
lacustrine environment (Green 1997) and, therefore, has
numerous high permeability ‘streaks’ that have limited
interconnectivity. Potential vertical leakage pathways
could exist owing to channel stacking patterns that have
placed high permeability point bar deposits in contact in
some areas of the basin. Fluvial stacking patterns could
follow predictable patterns that are spatially controlled by
the prevailing depositional environment and basin phy-
siography. These stratigraphic architecture hypotheses
require tighter constraints by employing sequence strati-
graphic analysis, which has seen only limited application
in the Surat Basin, e.g. Hoffmann et al. (2009).
In the southeast and east of the basin, the ground-
water systems behave as discrete aquifers with different
flow regimes (Figure 6). Interbasin flow from the Surat
Basin into the Clarence-Moreton Basin is evident in the
Precipice Sandstone Aquifer. The Hutton Sandstone
Aquifer exhibits the opposite interbasin flow relation-
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 80 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
80 J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
Figure 5 Subsurface modelling of the Moonie–Goondiwindi and Burunga–Leichhardt fault systems in the eastern Surat Basin
(a) using open-file seismic sections in two-way-time (b). Fault traces are picked subsequent to time/depth conversion (c), and
fault surfaces are extrapolated (c), (d).
ship, with groundwater flow from the Clarence-Moreton
Basin into the Surat Basin. Vertical hydraulic commu-
nication between the Precipice Sandstone and Hutton
Sandstone aquifers does not take place or is very limited
in the southeast of the Surat Basin. The Precipice
Sandstone aquifer/reservoir has lower hydraulic head
values relative to the Hutton Sandstone aquifer/reser-
voir in most cases in this region of the basin.
This study shows that the Precipice Sandstone in the
southeast of the Surat Basin is a potential target for CO2
geostorage. The upper Precipice Sandstone and the
Evergreen Formation show suitable seal rock character-
istics essential in the early stages of injection into the
aquifer. There are no suitable pressure tests in wells in
the Walloon Subgroup and the Hutton Sandstone to
reliably assess possible reservoir/seal characteristics
(Hodgkinson et al. 2010).
Mineralogical study
RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY
The Early to Middle Jurassic sandstones targeted for
geostorage are analysed to better constrain vertical
mineralogical variations. Another reason for this
extensive sampling program (400 samples from 16
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
petroleum and stratigraphic wells) is the limited
availability of petrographic and mineralogical infor-
mation for formations other than the classical hydro-
carbon reservoirs (Grigorescu 2011b). An example is
the Walloon Subgroup, which is usually viewed as a
coal-bearing formation; no work has been done on the
interburden and overburden associated with the coal
seams. Furthermore, in the context of carbon geosto-
rage, the Walloon Subgroup is considered to have the
properties of an unconventional seal and the capacity
to prevent vertical migration of CO2 from the under-
lying potential carbon geostorage reservoirs, the
Hutton Sandstone and the Precipice Sandstone (QCGI
2009).
The mineralogy of the Late Jurassic–Early
Cretaceous sandstones has never been investigated in
detail, as these formations are too shallow to be
targeted for hydrocarbons and host uneconomic coal
deposits. Although important aquifers, little is known
about their mineral composition and whether the
associated groundwater is in equilibrium with the
host rock. Even though these sandstones are not
targeted for geostorage owing to their shallow loca-
tion, understanding their mineral framework is essen-
tial in the context of geostorage in the underlying
sandstones. Modelling impacts, in case of leakage into
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 81 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401 ~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01

Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin 81

Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014

Figure 6 Flownets for Hutton

Sandstone, Evergreen Formation
and Precipice Sandstone. The re-
gional groundwater flow regime
in the Precipice Sandstone differs
from that in the overlying Ever-
green Formation and Hutton
Sandstone. Interbasin flow in the
Precipice Sandstone is to the
Clarence–Moreton Basin in
the east. Interbasin flow is
from the Clarence–Moreton Ba-
sin to the Surat Basin in the
Hutton Sandstone and the Ever-
green Formation. Local flow cells
are likely to dominate the Ever-
green Formation because of the
extensive heterogeneity and re-
gional flow interpretations re-
main subjective for this reason.

these formations, are an intrinsic part of data collec- Rock samples from the GSQ core library were
tion and analysis within the current geostorage described, photographed and collected for analysis
program. using X-ray diffraction (XRD). Optical microscopy and
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 82 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
82 J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu
electron microscopy of selected samples are still in
progress; the dataset comprises volcanic basement,
Back Creek Group, Rewan Group, Moolayember For-
mation, Precipice Sandstone, Evergreen Formation,
Hutton Sandstone, Walloon Subgroup, Springbok Sand-
stone, Westbourne Formation, Gubberamunda Sand-
stone, Orallo Formation, Bungil Formation and the
Wallumbilla Formation (Grigorescu 2011b).
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The sedimentary sequence analysed within the perimeter
of the eastern Surat Basin is quite consistent with regards
to mineral composition (Figure 7). With very few excep-
tions, quartz is dominant over feldspar in all the
sandstones analysed. Although the proportion of feld-
spars is quite variable (0–48%), plagioclase is largely
dominant, with minor exceptions. Also of note is the
consistent concentration of K-feldspars, around 5%,
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
which increases to 7–9% at the beginning of the Cretac-
eous, presumably owing to fresh sediment input under
the newly developed marine conditions of sedimentation.
Kaolinite is by far the dominant clay mineral, while
the presence of mixed-layer clays becomes prevalent
only in low energy units such as the coal measures of
the Walloon Subgroup and the Westbourne Formation.
The smectitic or illitic character of the mixed-layer
clays does not present a clear stratigraphic pattern and
it has been interpreted to be the result of localised
processes. Generally, the Permian and the Cretaceous
material tends to be illitic, although the limited number
of samples collected from these formations precludes a
definitive conclusion. The illite content of the mixed-
layer clays also increases with depth.
With respect to carbonates, siderite is ubiquitous and
occurs in various concentrations in all the fluvial units,
as massive sequences or rip-up clasts. Calcite is also
highly variable and mostly found in the Walloon
Subgroup. No stratigraphic or depth controls on the
abundance of carbonates have been observed. Pyrite is
very rare and confirms localised marine influences
or deposition in non-marine sulfate-rich waters
(Grigorescu 2011b).
Preliminary mineral stability work on the Jurassic
target reservoirs showed that from a geochemical
perspective, the most favourable target for CO2 geosto-
rage is the quartzose Precipice Sandstone. In contrast,
the dissolution of abundant labile minerals in the
Hutton Sandstone aquifer may promote the precipita-
tion of secondary minerals that could decrease perme-
ability and subsequently, impact injection performance
(Hodgkinson & Preda (Grigorescu) 2009).
The overall sealing capacity of the Evergreen For-
mation may vary with the proportion of clayey material
present in the sediment matrix. Preliminary modelling
also showed that the clay-rich matrix can accommodate
CO2 injection, with no major changes in the composi-
tion of the mineral framework (Preda (Grigorescu) &
Hodgkinson 2009).
From a mineral stability/reactivity perspective, the
Walloon Subgroup is similar to the Evergreen Forma-
tion. Preliminary assessment showed that, based on the
mineral character and the geochemical behaviour when
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
reacting with CO2, the Walloon Subgroup has poten-
tially good sealing properties (Grigorescu et al. 2010).
These studies are localised (north (Hodgkinson &
Preda (Grigorescu) 2009; Preda (Grigorescu) & Hodgkin-
son 2009) and east (Grigorescu et al. 2010) of the basin)
and could not ascertain the regional character and the
mineral homogeneity of the target formations through-
out the basin. Future work will have to combine the
results of these studies with hydrochemistry, petro-
graphic analysis and stratigraphic modelling, in an
interdisciplinary approach to reservoir and seal rock
characterisation. The first step in supporting geochem-
ical modelling has been to determine the chemical
composition of the associated groundwater.
Hydrochemical study
RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY
Establishing water occurrence and chemistry, and
determining the hydrochemical baseline at a potential
CO2 injection site is an intrinsic part of reservoir
modelling for carbon geostorage. Identifying the hydro-
chemical character of target formations can assist in
understanding the potential geochemical effects of CO2
injection on both aqueous speciation and mineral
stability within these systems.
The primary data source for the study is the ground-
water database provided by DERM; the dataset
contains information on aquifer formation, as well as
groundwater chemistry, which is essential to the
determination of aquifer extent and interactions. The
stratigraphy and depth of the bores are validated
against information contained in QPED, the GSQ
groundwater bore database and the seismic database.
Surface geology, part of the Geology and Resources
Database is also used to confirm aquifer formations for
shallow bores.
The final validated chemical dataset comprises 6023
samples; they are all assigned an aquifer formation,
although the degree of certainty is low for some samples.
Only 1580 samples from 975 bores are available from the
target Jurassic formations.
To identify the main Jurassic hydrochemical types,
the most reliable major ions are considered: Na, Ca, Mg,
Cl, HCO3 (þCO3) and SO4. Minor and trace elements,
as well as parameters such as pH and Si were too sparse
to include (Grigorescu 2011a).
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
As the chemical dataset is biased geographically
(Figure 8) and the uncertainty associated with data
collection and analytical results is high, the conclusions
drawn should be regarded with caution and only used
in a regional context:
. the Precipice Sandstone groundwater is the freshest
Jurassic water analysed and the most consistent in
terms of character (Na–HCO3);
. the Evergreen Formation groundwater has Na con-
centrations higher than the Precipice Sandstone
groundwater and Na–HCO3 character;
 Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 83 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401

Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin

83

Figure 7 Variation of mineral character along a north–south transect in the eastern Surat Basin.
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
 Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014

84
TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 84 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401

J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu

Figure 8 Spatial distribution of Jurassic groundwater bores and the respective aquifer formation: circled locations show samples from depths greater than 800 m (a), spatial
relationship between the dominant anions (b) and cations (c), and examples of representative water character (d).
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 85 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin
. the Hutton Sandstone groundwater has the highest
variability in terms of salinity and character;
. the Walloon Subgroup groundwater is the most
saline Jurassic water analysed and generally of
Na–Cl character;
. at depth, the Walloon Subgroup groundwater tends to
become fresher and of Na–HCO3 character;
. salinity appears to decrease with depth in the Hutton
Sandstone and the Walloon Subgroup and increase
with depth in the Precipice Sandstone and the
Evergreen Formation; limited deep data, however,
precludes a definitive conclusion;
. data variance is inversely proportional with age:
higher standard deviations for younger formations;
and
. the concentration of Cl is the most variable, while
HCO3 has the smallest standard deviations.
In conclusion, the available hydrochemical infor-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
mation is restricted to shallow depths, only a few
hundreds of metres below ground level (Figure 8); this
is of limited relevance to carbon geostorage, which
requires depths greater than 800 m to remain in the
supercritical state. Information on deep water is
sparse and inconclusive, and specific sampling
will need to be undertaken to better constrain the
hydrochemical character of deep groundwaters
(Grigorescu 2011a).
Geochemical modelling
RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY
To analyse the likely impact of carbon dioxide injec-
tion, the hydrochemical changes that may take place
in groundwater have to be assessed in conjunction
with the mineral framework of the reservoir and its
seal.
Basic geochemical simulations, using the Geoche-
mist’s Workbench (GWB) software package (Bethke &
Yeakel 2007), are run to examine the possible water–
rock reactions that may take place subsequent to
CO2 injection in the formations of interest. The
mineralogical (Grigorescu 2011b) and hydrochemical
(Grigorescu 2011a) characterisation of aquifer forma-
tion and its groundwater have been used to run more
than 100 simulations; each consisted of 1 L of ground-
water of representative composition reacted with 100 g
of rock of representative mineral composition and a 1
molar CO2 solution (Hodgkinson & Preda (Grigorescu)
2009; Preda (Grigorescu) & Hodgkinson 2009; Grigor-
escu 2011a).
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
All simulations show consistent changes in the mineral
composition (representative examples in Figure 9).
Quartz concentration remains constant, kaolinite pre-
cipitates, while feldspars and mica dissolve. The beha-
viour of mixed-layer clays and carbonates is variable
and depends on the initial system, specifically the
concentration of Na. Dawsonite precipitates only when
there is sufficient Na in the system, e.g. plagioclase.
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
85
Most major elements dissolved in the water do not seem
to influence the impact of CO2 on rock composition.
Overall, there is limited published experimental
work on the impact of supercritical CO2 on reservoir
mineralogy and even less on the associated fluids.
However, the few available experimental studies also
include geochemical modelling and discuss its valida-
tion by laboratory results. Carbonates, either as reser-
voir rocks or cements, tend to dissolve (Wigand et al.
2008; Assayag et al. 2009; Credoz et al. 2009) and may
precipitate as euhedral crystals or fine-grained coatings
(Kaszuba et al. 2005), although some authors have not
observed this process over the short time of their
laboratory experiments (Wigand et al. 2008; Busch
et al. 2009; Hangx & Spiers 2009). There is clear evidence
for silicate dissolution (Gunter et al. 1993; Wigand
et al. 2008; Assayag et al. 2009), with the possibility of
precipitation of amorphous silica (Kaszuba et al. 2005).
The behaviour of clay minerals is highly variable and it
is presumably controlled by the initial clay composition
and the dissolved ions available after CO2 injection.
Kaolinite dissolves first, being less stable than mixed-
layer clays (Credoz et al. 2009), but can also precipitate
as very fine crystals on feldspars (Kaszuba et al. 2005;
Hangx & Spiers 2009). The most controversial modelling
output is dawsonite, which has been reported by many
modellers. Although present in the Bowen Basin (Baker
1991; Baker et al. 1995) and in deep basins with a source
of magmatic CO2 (Golab et al. 2006; Worden 2006;
Limantseva et al. 2008; Gao et al. 2009), very little is
understood about dawsonite. A comprehensive review
of synthesis of dawsonite from the 1940s to present
(Bénézeth et al. 2007) showed that a ratio of 43 for Na/Al,
temperatures of 175 to 2008C, a pH of 10.3 and 1 atm CO2
partial pressure are optimal for dawsonite precipitation.
Although dawsonite can be readily produced under
controlled laboratory conditions, in as little as 24 h
(Álvarez-Ayuso & Nugteren 2005), it has not been
reported as a product in specific experiments involving
reaction with supercritical CO2; consequently, its long-
term stability as a carbon sink is in doubt.
The chemistry of the fluid system in the Surat Basin
appears to be reasonably constant regardless of the
initial composition; this may suggest that the GWB
sensitivity of simulating changes occurring in water is
quite limited. Sodium, Cl–, SO42– and silicic acid are
constant overall, while Kþ increases substantially in all
simulations. Calcium, Mg2þ and HCO3– concentrations
can vary slightly depending on the initial concentration,
but they mostly increase. Regardless of the elements
involved, the salinity of the water increases about
10 times, largely owing to Kþ and Ca2þ, and the pH
drops 2–3 units.
Regardless of the rocks tested in experimental
studies (whether reservoir sandstone or clay-rich seal
rocks), it has been observed that indeed the pH of the
fluid system drops 1–2 units when flushed with CO2
(Gunter et al. 1993; Kaszuba et al. 2003, 2005; Emberley
et al. 2004; Wigand et al. 2008). It has been also
demonstrated that salinity increases significantly, at
least initially, owing to increased major ions in solution
(Druckenmiller & Maroto-Valer 2005; Druckenmiller
et al. 2006; Wigand et al. 2008). Some decrease in
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 86 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401 ~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01

86 J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu

Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014

Figure 9 Examples of modelled changes to representative mineral (left) and aqueous (right) systems: quartz–feldspar–
kaolinite þ fresh Na–CO3 water (a), quartz–kaolinite–feldspar þ brackish Na–CO3 water (b), quartz–kaolinite–feldspar–mica–
siderite–hematite–calcite þ brackish Na–CO3 water (c), and quartz–feldspar–mixed layer clays–kaolinite þ brackish Na–CO3–
Cl water (d).
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 87 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin
concentrations has been observed later in the experi-
ment, presumably owing to the precipitation of second-
ary minerals (Kaszuba et al. 2003, 2005).
The findings of the Surat Basin geochemical assess-
ment are based on opportunistically collected samples
of groundwater and rocks, and geographic extrapolation
is not advised; specific and localised sampling has to be
undertaken from depths greater than 800 m, close to or
at the potential injection sites, to better constrain the
hydrochemical character of deep groundwater and the
mineralogy of host formations (Grigorescu 2011a).
Although the results of these desktop simulations
are consistent with the relevant literature (experimen-
tal + modelling), comparisons are problematic. This is
due to major differences in terms of the initial mineral–
aqueous system, the experimental conditions (usually
high temperatures and Na–Cl type saline waters) and
the modelling platform. Queensland’s sedimentary
basins are predominantly low temperature, largely
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
quartzose, kaolinite-dominated and host fresh to brack-
ish Na–HCO3 groundwaters. Considering the modelling
limitations of the present study and some of the
experimental findings published internationally, it
can be assumed that the results of this study are
plausible, although experimental work should be
ultimately undertaken to cater for the specificity of
target reservoirs in the Surat Basin or elsewhere in
Australia.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
A comprehensive gap analysis of the Surat Basin (QCGI
2009) was followed by regional desktop studies (Dixon
et al. 2011; Grigorescu 2011a, b; McKillop et al. 2011), a
hydrodynamic assessment of well and groundwater bore
data (Hodgkinson et al. 2010) and a program of miner-
alogical data collection and interpretation (Grigorescu
2011b). All available open-file data (petroleum wells,
department stratigraphic wells, DERM and GSQ ground-
water bores and seismic data) were reassessed, reinter-
preted and/or refined. Petroseis1 and GOCAD1 were
used for regional geological modelling of seismic
horizons and fault systems, respectively. PressureQCTM
was the quality control platform for assessing petroleum
well pressure data and GWB was used for preliminary
geochemical simulations of carbon dioxide impact on
groundwater and host rocks.
Conceptual carbon geostorage ‘plays’ have been
identified (Precipice Sandstone–Evergreen Formation
and Hutton Sandstone–Walloon Subgroup) with a view
to collecting further data and confirm or refute their
suitability (Bradshaw et al. 2009; Hodgkinson et al. 2009,
2010; QCGI 2009). Not all the play concepts follow a
conventional petroleum systems approach; for example,
the concept of unconventional seals has been explored
for the Walloon Subgroup (QCGI 2009; Grigorescu 2011b)
and emphasis has been placed on the hydrodynamic
trapping potential of deep aquifers (Hodgkinson et al.
2010).
The Surat Basin has received most interest to date in
Queensland and much of the work carried out by CGI
focused on the Jurassic geostorage ‘plays’ already
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
87
mentioned. Data points are clustered along the east
and west flanks of the basin and large areas along the
Mimosa Syncline have no information available. Struc-
tural culminations in the eastern Surat Basin, similar
to the Moonie oilfield have been assessed as potential
geostorage ‘plays’, but need further data to prove their
suitability. The deepest strata of the Surat Basin have
also been considered in the context of a large regional
hydrodynamic trap, but the assessment remains sub-
jective owing to the paucity of available data. To address
some of these issues and further assess potential storage
sites, a drilling program in the Surat Basin will soon
commence. The target areas are the deep sections of the
basin (i.e. west of Moonie and east of Surat) where
supercritical storage is effective and resource conflicts
are minimal.
To increase the chances of identifying and proving
suitable storage in Queensland, a second location is
being considered. The southern section of the Galilee
Basin is regarded as the most prospective area in the
basin, based on existing information, and warrants
further investigation (Marsh et al. 2008; Bradshaw
et al. 2009; QCGI 2009). Preliminary studies show that
much of the Triassic sequence provides supercritical
geostorage potential in the deep sections of the basin.
Additional desktop studies (seismic interpretation and
mineralogical studies of existing core) are in progress.
To test storage capacity and to confirm the existence,
extent and properties of seal rocks, a drilling program
has also been planned to target prospective sites.
CONCLUSIONS
The comprehensive review of open-file data (well
completion reports, seismic profiles, hydrogeological
and hydrochemical data) and applied quality assurance
methods provided the basis for studies aimed at
constraining the structure, hydrodynamics and geo-
chemical character of areas with perceived geostorage
potential. The precompetitive studies and datasets
recently released by CGI address some issues, which
are geostorage-specific, such as defining the super-
critical boundary (800 m depth), fault plane geometry,
groundwater flow vectors and the potential impact of
carbon dioxide injection on the groundwater system and
its mineral framework.
The primary conclusions derived from this work are
that the applicability of a given dataset must be
considered prior to implementation. This is of particu-
lar importance for geological modelling studies. A major
component of the CGI work has been focused on the
quality assurance processes required for the validation
of the various datasets that have been used for such
modelling studies. In addition to this, the modelling
methodologies themselves have been assessed and
deployed in an appropriate context for geostorage
investigations. The principal purpose of the research
program has been to produce meaningful interpreta-
tions by assessing the limitations of the modelling tools
employed.
Although data coverage in the Surat Basin is reason-
ably good, geostorage volumes, trapping mechanisms,
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 88 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
88 J. Hodgkinson and M. Grigorescu
potential impacts and resource conflicts remain un-
known until detailed site-specific characterisation takes
place. The most important aspect of any data-collection
program is that the correct types of data are obtained for
the intended purpose. The background research that has
been carried out as part of the CGI program has
endeavoured to do this, by guiding proposals for future
data-collection programs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following are gratefully acknowledged for their
contribution to this report: David Mason and Brad John,
former and current General Managers, GSQ, for approv-
ing this study, Owen Dixon and Mike McKillop for
technical editing and contributions to the sections
referring to their respective research, and Liam Hogan
of the GSQ Spatial and Graphic Services for drafting the
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
illustrations. We would also like to thank the two
reviewers for their constructive review, which greatly
improved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
AINSWORTH B., ALLINSON G., BERLY T., CAUSEBROOK R., CHIRINOS A.,
CINAR Y., COOK P. J., DANCE T., DANIEL R., DODDS K., ESTERLE J.,
FAIZ M., FUNNELL R., GIBSON-POOLE C., GOLAB A., GURBA L.,
HENNIG A., KALDI J. G., KIRSTE D., PATERSON L., SHERLOCK D.,
TINGATE P., UNDERSCHULTZ J., VAKARELOV B., VAN RUTH P.,
WATSON M. & WERNER M. 2008. Storage capacity estimation, site
selection and characterisation for CO2 storage projects. CO2 CRC
Report Series RPT08-1001.
ÁLVAREZ-AYUSO E. & NUGTEREN H. W. 2005. Synthesis of dawsonite:
A method to treat the etching waste streams of the aluminium
anodising industry. Water Research 39, 2096–2104.
ASSAYAG N., MATTER J., ADER M., GOLDBERG D. & AGRINIER P. 2009.
Water–rock interactions during a CO2 injection field-test:
Implications on host rock dissolution and alteration effects.
Chemical Geology 265, 227–235.
BACHU S. 1995. Synthesis and model of formation-water flow, Alberta
Basin, Canada. AAPG Bulletin 79, 1159–1178.
BACHU S. 2000. Sequestration of CO2 in geological media: criteria and
approach for site selection in response to climate change. Energy
Conversion and Management 41, 953–970.
BACHU S. & ADAMS J. J. 2003. Sequestration of CO2 in geological
media in response to climate change: capacity of deep saline
aquifers to sequester CO2 in solution. Energy Conversion and
Management 44, 3151–3175.
BACHU S. & BENNION B. 2008. Effects of in-situ conditions on relative
permeability characteristics of CO2-brine systems. Environmen-
tal Geology 54, 1707–1722.
BAKER J. C. 1991. Diagenesis and reservoir quality of the Aldebaran
Sandstone, Denison Trough, east-central Queensland, Australia.
Sedimentology 38, 819–838.
BAKER J. C., BAI G. P., HAMILTON J., GOLDING S. D. & B. K. J. 1995.
Continental-scale magmatic carbon dioxide seepage recorded by
dawsonite in the Bowen-Gunneedah-Sydney Basin System, East-
ern Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Research A65, 522–530.
BÉNÉZETH P., PALMER D. A., ANOVITZ L. M. & HORITA J. 2007.
Dawsonite synthesis and reevaluation of its thermodynamic
properties from solubility measurements: Implications for
mineral trapping of CO2. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 71,
4438–4455.
BETHKE C. M. & YEAKEL S. 2007. The Geochemist’s Workbench release
7.0 collection of manuals (7.0 edition). Rockware, Golden, CO.
BIRKHOLZER J. T., ZHOU Q. & TSANG C-F. 2009. Large-scale impact of
CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers: A sensitivity study on
pressure response in stratified systems. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 181–194.
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
BRADSHAW B. E., SPENCER L. K., LAHTINEN A. C., KHIDER K., RYAN
D. J., COLWELL J. B., CHIRINOS A. & BRADSHAW J. 2009.
Queensland carbon dioxide geological storage atlas. Report by
Greenhouse Gas Storage Solutions on behalf of Queensland
Department of Employment, Economic Development and
Innovation, Brisbane.
BRADSHAW J., BACHU S., BONIJOLY D., BURRUSS R., HOLLOWAY S.,
CHRISTENSEN N. P. & MATHIASSEN O. M. 2007. CO2 storage
capacity estimation: issues and development of standards.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1, 62–68.
BUSCH A., ALLES S., KROOSS B. M., STANJEK H. & DEWHURST D. 2009.
Effects of physical sorption and chemical reactions of CO2 in
shaly caprocks. Energy Procedia 1, 3229–3235.
CREDOZ A., BILDSTEIN O., JULLIEN M., RAYNAL J., PÉTRONIN J-C.,
LILLO M., POZO C. & GENIAUT G. 2009. Experimental and
modeling study of geochemical reactivity between clayey
caprocks and CO2 in geological storage conditions. Energy
Procedia 1, 3445–3452.
DAHLBERG E. C. 1995. Applied hydrodynamics in petroleum explora-
tion (2nd edition). Springer, New York.
DIXON O., MCKILLOP M. & HODGKINSON J. 2011. Seismic horizon
mapping in the Surat Basin – refinement of key stratigraphic
surfaces as a foundation for subsurface fluid flow modelling.
Queensland Geological Record 2011/6.
DRUCKENMILLER M. L. & MAROTO-VALER M. M. 2005. Carbon
sequestration using brine of adjusted pH to form mineral
carbonates. Fuel Processing Technology 86, 1599–1614.
DRUCKENMILLER M. L., MAROTO-VALER M. M. & HILL M. 2006.
Investigation of carbon sequestration via induced
calcite formation in natural gas well brine. Energy Fuels 20,
172–179.
EMBERLEY S., HUTCHEON I., SHEVALIER M., DUROCHER K., GUNTER W.
D. & PERKINS E. H. 2004. Geochemical monitoring of fluid–rock
interaction and CO2 storage at the Weyburn CO2-injection
enhanced oil recovery site, Saskatchewan, Canada. Energy 29,
1393–1401.
ENNIS-KING J. & PATERSON L. 2007. Coupling of geochemical
reactions and convective mixing in the long-term geological
storage of carbon dioxide. International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control 1, 86–93.
EXON N. F. 1976. Geology of the Surat Basin in Queensland (Bureau of
Mineral Resources Australia, Bulletin 166, 160 pp., Canberra.
FARR T. G., ROSEN P. A., CARO E., CRIPPEN R., DUREN R., HENSLEY S.,
KOBRICK M., PALLER M., RODRIGUEZ E., ROTH L., SEAL D., SHAFFER
S., SHIMADA J., UMLAND J., WERNER M., OSKIN M., BURBANK D. &
ALSDORF D. 2007. The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission.
Reviews of Geophysics 45, RG2004.
GAO Y., LIU L. & HU W. 2009. Petrology and isotopic geochemistry of
dawsonite-bearing sandstones in Hailaer basin, northeastern
China. Applied Geochemistry 24, 1724–1738.
GAUS I., AZAROUAL M. & CZERNICHOWSKI-LAURIOL I. 2005. Reactive
transport modelling of the impact of CO2 injection on the
clayey cap rock at Sleipner (North Sea). Chemical Geology 217,
319–337.
GOLAB A. N., CARR P. F. & PALAMARA D. R. 2006. Influence
of localised igneous activity on cleat dawsonite formation in
Late Permian coal measures, Upper Hunter Valley, Australia.
International Journal of Coal Geology 66, 296–304.
GRADSTEIN F. M., OGG J. G. & SMITH A. G. 2004. Geological time scale
2004. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
GREEN P. M. ed. 1997. The Surat and Bowen Basins South-East
Queensland. Queensland Minerals and Energy Review Series.
Queensland Department of Mines and Energy, Brisbane.
GRIGORESCU M. 2011a. Jurassic groundwater hydrochemical types,
Surat Basin, Queensland – a carbon geostorage perspective.
Queensland Geological Record 2011/05.
GRIGORESCU M. 2011b. Mineralogy of the south-eastern Bowen Basin
and north-eastern Surat Basin, Queensland. Queensland Geolo-
gical Record 2011/02.
GRIGORESCU M., HODGKINSON J. & DRAPER J. J. 2010. To seal or not to
seal – The Walloon Subgroup, Eastern Surat Basin. Geological
Survey of Queensland Record 2010/04.
GUNTER W. D., BACHU S., LAW D. H. S., MARWAHA V., DRYSDALE D. L.,
MACDONALD D. E. & MCCANN T. J. 1996. Technical and economic
feasibility of CO2 disposal in aquifers within the Alberta
sedimentary basin, Canada. Energy Conversion and Management
37, 1135–1142.
 TAJE_60-01_O.indd Page 89 11/03/13 9:03 PM user-f-401
Potential geostorage targets in the Surat Basin
GUNTER W. D., PERKINS E. H. & HUTCHEON I. 2000. Aquifer disposal of
acid gases: modelling of water–rock reactions for trapping of
acid wastes. Applied Geochemistry 15, 1085–1095.
GUNTER W. D., PERKINS E. H. & MCCANN T. J. 1993. Aquifer disposal
of CO2-rich gases: Reaction design for added capacity. Energy
Conversion and Management 34, 941–948.
HABERMEHL M. A. 1980. The Great Artesian Basin, Australia. Bureau
of Mineral Resources Journal of Australian Geology and Geophy-
sics 5, 9–38.
HANGX S. J. T. & SPIERS C. J. 2009. Reaction of plagioclase feldspars
with CO2 under hydrothermal conditions. Chemical Geology 265,
88–98.
HENNIG A. 2007. Hydrodynamic interpretation of the formation
pressures in CRC-1: Vertical and horizontal hydraulic commu-
nication. CO2 CRC Reports RPT07-0626.
HITCHON B. & HAYS J. 1971. Hydrodynamics and hydrocarbon
occurrences Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia. Water Re-
sources Research 7, 658–676.
HODGKINSON J., HORTLE (HENNIG) A. & MCKILLOP M. 2010. The
application of hydrodynamic analysis in the assessment of
regional aquifers for carbon geostorage: Preliminary results
for the Surat Basin, Queensland. APPEA Conference, Brisbane,
CD of Proceedings.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 20:35 29 January 2014
HODGKINSON J. & PREDA (GRIGORESCU) M. 2009. The potential
influence of carbon geostorage on the hydrochemistry and
mineralogy of fresh groundwater systems, Queensland, Austra-
lia: Part I – Aquifers. International Congress of Chemistry and
Environment, Thailand (unpubl.).
HODGKINSON J., PREDA (GRIGORESCU) M., HORTLE A., MCKILLOP M. &
DIXON O. 2009. The potential impact of carbon dioxide injection on
freshwater aquifers: The Surat and Eromanga basins in Queens-
land. Geological Survey of Queensland.
HOFFMANN K. L., TOTTERDELL J. M., DIXON O., SIMPSON G. A., BRAKEL
A. T., WELLS A. T. & MCKELLAR J. L. 2009. Sequence stratigraphy
of Jurassic strata in the lower Surat Basin succession, Queens-
land. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 461–476.
KALINOWSKI A. A. 2006. CO2 storage potential in the southeast Bowen
Basin. CO2 CRC Report Series RPT06-0042.
KASZUBA J. P., JANECKY D. R. & SNOW M. G. 2003. Carbon dioxide
reaction processes in a model brine aquifer at 2008C and 200 bars:
implications for geologic sequestration of carbon. Applied
Geochemistry 18, 1065–1080.
KASZUBA J. P., JANECKY D. R. & SNOW M. G. 2005. Experimental
evaluation of mixed fluid reactions between supercritical carbon
dioxide and NaCl brine: Relevance to the integrity of a geologic
carbon repository. Chemical Geology 217, 277–293.
KORSCH R. J., TOTTERDELL J. M., FOMIN T. & NICOLL M. G. 2009.
Contractional structures and deformational events in the
Bowen, Gunnedah and Surat Basins, eastern Australia. Austra-
lian Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 477–499.
LIMANTSEVA O., MAKHNACH A., RYZHENKO B. & CHERKASOVA E. 2008.
Formation of dawsonite mineralization at the Zaozernyi deposit,
Belarus. Geochemistry International 46, 62–76.
MARSH C., RAWSTHORN K., CAUSEBROOK R., KALINOWSKI A. A. &
NEWLANDS I. 2008. A geological review of the Galilee basin,
Queensland for possible storage of carbon dioxide. CRC Green-
house Gas Technologies, Australia, CO2CRC Publication Num-
ber RPT08-0983, 91 pp.
MCKILLOP M., DIXON O. & HODGKINSON J. 2011. A new interpretation
and model of the Moonie-Goondiwindi and Burunga-Leichhardt
fault systems in Queensland. Geological Survey of Queensland
Record 2011/1.
MICHAEL K. & BACHU S. 2001. Fluids and pressure distributions in the
foreland-basin succession in the west-central part of the Alberta
basin, Canada: Evidence for permeability barriers and hydrocarbon
generation and migration. AAPG Bulletin 85, 1231–1252.
MICHAEL K., ARNOT M., COOK P., ENNIS-KING J., FUNNELL R., KALDI
J., KIRSTE D. & PATERSON L. 2009. CO2 storage in saline aquifers
I – Current state of scientific knowledge. Energy Procedia 1,
3197–3204.
MICHAEL K., HAUG K., RUBIN E. S., KEITH D. W., GILBOY C. F., WILSON
M., MORRIS T., GALE J. & THAMBIMUTHU K. 2005. Hydrodynamic
trapping of injected acid gas in the Alberta Basin, Western
Canada. In: Greenhouse gas control technologies 7, pp. 1029–1034.
Elsevier Science, Oxford.
~/Desktop/11.03.2013/TAJE_60-01
89
NICOT J-P. 2008. Evaluation of large-scale CO2 storage on fresh-water
sections of aquifers: An example from the Texas Gulf Coast
Basin. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2,
582–593.
PATCHETT A. M. 2006. CO2 storage potential of environmentally
sustainable sites for carbon dioxide injection (UEI 37 & 39)
eastern Bowen Basin, Queensland. CO2 CRC Report Series
RPT06-0037.
PAUWELS H., GAUS I., LE NINDRE Y. M., PEARCE J. & CZERNICHOWSKI-
LAURIOL I. 2007. Chemistry of fluids from a natural analogue for
a geological CO2 storage site (Montmiral, France): Lessons for
CO2–water–rock interaction assessment and monitoring. Applied
Geochemistry 22, 2817–2833.
PORTIER S. & ROCHELLE C. 2005. Modelling CO2 solubility in pure
water and NaCl-type waters from 0 to 3008C and from 1 to 300 bar:
Application to the Utsira Formation at Sleipner. Chemical
Geology 217, 187–199.
PREDA (GRIGORESCU) M. & HODGKINSON J. 2009. The potential
influence of carbon geostorage on the hydrochemistry and
mineralogy of fresh groundwater systems, Queensland, Austra-
lia: Part II – regional seal. The International Congress of
Chemistry and Environment, Thailand (unpubl.).
QCGI 2009. Potential for carbon geostorage in the Taroom Trough,
Roma Shelf and the Surat, Eromanga and Galilee Basins –
Preliminary Report. Geological Survey of Queensland Carbon
Geostorage Initiative.
RADKE B. M., FERGUSON J., CRESWELL R. G., RANSLEY T. R. &
HABERMEHL M. A. 2000. Hydrochemistry and implied hydrody-
namics of the Cadna-owie-Hooray aquifer Great Artesian Basin.
Bureau of Rural Science, Canberra, Australia.
SAYERS J., MARSH C., A. S., CINAR Y., BRADSHAW J., HENNIG A.,
KALINOWSKI A. A. & PACHETT A. 2005. Site specific studies for
geological storage of carbon dioxide. Southeast Queensland CO2
storage sites – Geological basins desk-top study. Cooperative
Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies. CO2 CRC
Report Series RPT05-0225.
SAYERS J., MARSH C., SCOTT A., CINAR Y., BRADSHAW J., HENNIG A.,
BARCLAY S. & DANIEL R. 2006. Assessment of a potential storage
site for carbon dioxide: A case study, southeast Queensland,
Australia. Environmental Geosciences 13, 123–142.
TOTTERDELL J. M., MOLONEY J., KORSCH R. J. & KRASSAY A. A. 2009.
Sequence stratigraphy of the Bowen-Gunnedah and Surat Basins
in New South Wales. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 56,
433–459.
VILLEGAS M. E., BACHU S., RAMON J. C. & UNDERSCHULZ J. R. 1994.
Flow of formation waters in the Cretaceous–Miocene succes-
sion of the Llanos Basin, Columbia. AAPG Bulletin 78, 1843–
1862.
WIGAND M., CAREY J. W., SCHÜTT H., SPANGENBERG E. & ERZINGER J.
2008. Geochemical effects of CO2 sequestration in sandstones
under simulated in situ conditions of deep saline aquifers.
Applied Geochemistry 23, 2735–2745.
WORDEN R. H. 2006. Dawsonite cement in the Triassic Lam
Formation, Shabwa Basin, Yemen: A natural analogue for a
potential mineral product of subsurface CO2 storage for
greenhouse gas reduction. Marine and Petroleum Geology 23,
61–77.
XU T., APPS J. A. & PRUESS K. 2005. Mineral sequestration of carbon
dioxide in a sandstone-shale system. Chemical Geology 217,
295–318.
ZHANG W., LI Y., XU T., CHENG H., ZHENG Y. & XIONG P. 2009.
Long-term variations of CO2 trapped in different mechanisms in
deep saline formations: A case study of the Songliao Basin,
China. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3,
161–180.
ZHANG Y., FREIFELD B., FINSTERLE S., LEAHY M., ENNIS-KING J.,
PATERSON L. & DANCE T. 2011. Single-well experimental
design for studying residual trapping of supercritical carbon
dioxide. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5, 88–
98.
Received 17 July 2011; accepted 7 December 2011