Geologic Framework for the National Assessment of 

Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources─Hanna, Laramie, and 

Shirley Basins, Wyoming

By Matthew D. Merrill, Jacob A. Covault, William H. Craddock, Ernie R. Slucher, Peter D. Warwick,

Madalyn S. Blondes, Mayur A. Gosai, Philip A. Freeman, Steven M. Cahan, and Celeste D. Lohr

Chapter C of

Geologic Framework for the National Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources 

Edited by Peter D. Warwick and Margo D. Corum

Open-File Report 2012–1024–C

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Suggested citation:

Merrill, M.D., Covault, J.A., Craddock, W.H., Slucher, E.R., Warwick, P.D., Blondes, M.S., Gosai, M.A., Freeman, P.A., 

Cahan, S.M., and Lohr, C.D., 2012, Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage 

resources─Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming, chap. C of Warwick, P.D., and Corum, M.D., eds., 

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2012–1024–C, 24 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1024/c/.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Editors’ Preface

By Peter D. Warwick and Margo D. Corum

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110–140) directs the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for 

carbon dioxide (CO2) and to consult with other Federal and State agencies to locate the pertinent 

geological data needed for the assessment. The geologic sequestration of CO2 is one possible way to 

mitigate its effects on climate change.

The methodology that is being used by the USGS for the assessment was described by Brennan 

and others (2010), who revised the methodology by Burruss and others (2009) according to comments 

from peer reviewers, members of the public, and experts on an external panel. The assessment 

methodology is non-economic and is intended to be used at regional to subbasinal scales. 

The operational unit of the assessment is a storage assessment unit (SAU), composed of a porous 

storage formation with fluid flow and an overlying fine-grained sealing unit. Assessments are conducted at 

the SAU level and are aggregated to basinal and regional results. SAUs have a minimum depth of 3,000 

feet (ft), which ensures that the CO2 is in a supercritical state (and thus occupies less pore space than a 

gas). Standard SAUs have a maximum depth of 13,000 ft below the surface, a depth accessible with 

average injection pipeline pressures (Burruss and others, 2009; Brennan and others, 2010). Where 

geologic conditions favor CO2 storage below 13,000 ft, an additional deep SAU is assessed. 

The assessments are also constrained by the occurrence of relatively fresh formation water; any 

formation water having a salinity less than 10,000 parts per million (ppm, which is equivalent to 

milligrams per liter, mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS), regardless of depth, has the potential to be used as 

a potable water supply (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2008) has proposed the lower limit of 10,000 ppm (mg/L) TDS for injection of CO2. Therefore, 

the potential storage resources for CO2 in formations where formation waters have salinities less than 

10,000 ppm (mg/L) TDS are not assessed (Brennan and others, 2010). 

This report series contains geologic descriptions of each SAU identified within the assessed basins 

and focuses on the particular characteristics specified in the methodology that influence the potential CO2

storage resource. Although assessment results are not contained in these reports, the geologic framework 

information will be used to calculate a statistical Monte Carlo-based distribution of potential storage space 

in the various SAUs following Brennan and others (2010). Figures in this report series show SAU 

boundaries and cell maps of well penetrations through the sealing unit into the top of the storage 

formation. Wells sharing the same well borehole are treated as a single penetration. Cell maps show the 

number of penetrating wells within one square mile and are derived from interpretations of incompletely 

attributed well data (IHS Energy Group, 2011; and other data as available), a digital compilation that is 

known not to include all drilling. The USGS does not expect to know the location of all wells and cannot 

guarantee the amount of drilling through specific formations in any given cell shown on cell maps.

References Cited

Brennan, S.T., Burruss, R.C., Merrill, M.D., Freeman, P.A., and Ruppert, L.F., 2010, A probabilistic 

assessment methodology for the evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010–1127, 31 p., accessed March 22, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127/. 

Burruss, R.C., Brennan, S.T., Freeman, P.A., Merrill, M.D., Ruppert, L.F., Becker, M.F., Herkelrath, 

W.N., Kharaka, Y.K., Neuzil, C.E., Swanson, S.M., Cook, T.A., Klett, T.R., Nelson, P.H., and Schenk, 
iv

C.J., 2009, Development of a probabilistic assessment methodology for evaluation of carbon dioxide 

storage: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1035, 81 p., accessed March 22, 2011, at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/. 

IHS Energy Group, 2011, ENERDEQ U.S. well data: IHS Energy Group; online database available from 

IHS Energy Group, 15 Inverness Way East, D205, Englewood, CO 80112, U.S.A., accessed January 20, 

2011, at http://energy.ihs.com/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Federal requirements under the underground injection 

control (UIC) program for carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic sequestration (GS) wells: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, proposed rule, accessed March 23, 2011, at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2008/July/Day-25/w16626.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Web site, accessed January 14, 2009, at 

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/sdwa/index.html. 
v

Contents

Editors' Preface ............................................................................................................................................................. iii

References Cited........................................................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Hydrocarbon Exploration............................................................................................................................................ 2

Geologic History......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins Carbon Dioxide Storage Resource Assessment .............................................. 3

Paleozoic Composite SAU C50300101 and Paleozoic Composite Deep SAU C50300102 .......................................... 6

Muddy Sandstone and Cloverly Formation SAU C50300103 and Muddy Sandstone and Cloverly Formation 

Deep SAU C50300104 .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Frontier Sandstone SAU C50300105 and Frontier Sandstone Deep SAU C50300106................................................12

Shannon Sandstone Member SAU C50300107 and Shannon Sandstone Member Deep SAU C50300108................14

Mesaverde Formation SAU C50300109 and Mesaverde Formation Deep SAU C50300110 .......................................16

Dad Sandstone Member SAU C50300111 and Dad Sandstone Member SAU Deep C50300112 ...............................19

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................22

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................22

Figures

1. Map showing the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming, including major structural features and 

basin boundaries..................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Generalized stratigraphic column of geologic units in Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming .................. 5

3. Map showing storage assessment unit (SAU) boundaries for the Paleozoic Composite and Paleozoic 

Composite Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming....................................................... 8

4. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundaries for the Muddy Sandstone and Cloverly 

Formation and Muddy Sandstone and Cloverly Formation Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and 

Shirley Basins, Wyoming ...................................................................................................................................... 11

5. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Frontier Sandstone and Frontier 

Sandstone Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming and Montana............................... 14

6. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Shannon Sandstone Member and 

Shannon Sandstone Member Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming ....................... 15

7. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Mesaverde Formation and Mesaverde 

Formation Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming...................................................... 18

8. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Dad Sandstone Member and Dad 

Sandstone Member Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming....................................... 22
1

Geologic Framework for the National Assessment of 

Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources─Hanna, Laramie, and 

Shirley Basins, Wyoming

By Matthew D. Merrill, Jacob A. Covault, William H. Craddock, Ernie R. Slucher, Peter D. Warwick, Madalyn S. 

Blondes, Mayur A. Gosai, Philip A. Freeman, Steven M. Cahan, and Celeste D. Lohr 

Abstract

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110–140) directs the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for 

carbon dioxide (CO2). The methodology used for the national CO2 assessment is non-economic and 

intended to be used at regional to subbasinal scales.

This report identifies and contains geologic descriptions of twelve storage assessment units 

(SAUs) in six separate packages of sedimentary rock within the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins of 

Wyoming. It focuses on the particular characteristics, specified in the methodology, that influence the 

potential CO2 storage resource in those SAUs. Specific descriptions of SAU boundaries as well as their 

sealing and reservoir units are included. Properties for each SAU, such as depth to top, gross thickness, 

net porous thickness, porosity, permeability, groundwater quality, and structural reservoir traps are 

provided to illustrate geologic factors critical to the assessment. Although assessment results are not 

contained in this report, the geologic information included herein will be employed, as specified in the 

methodology, to calculate a statistical Monte Carlo-based distribution of potential storage space in the 

various SAUs. Figures in this report show SAU boundaries and cell maps of well penetrations through the 

sealing unit into the top of the storage formation. Cell maps show the number of penetrating wells within 

one square mile and are derived from interpretations of incompletely attributed well data in a digital 

compilation that is known not to include all drilling. The USGS does not expect to know the location of 

all wells and cannot guarantee the amount of drilling through specific formations in any given cell shown 

on cell maps.

Introduction

The Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, formed during the Late Cretaceous to Paleocene, are 

Laramide orogeny structural basins. Bounded by the Laramie Mountains to the east, Rawlins uplift to the 

west, Medicine Bow Mountains to the south, and the Sweetwater uplift and Wind River Basin to the 

north, the basins are separated internally by small subbasins and uplifts that were also formed during the 

Laramide orogeny (fig. 1). These smaller internal structures provide the trapping mechanism for the 

hydrocarbons that are the target for oil and gas exploration in these basins. Though close in proximity, 

these basins exhibit dissimilar structural characteristics. The Hanna Basin is a rather small intermontane 

basin; however, it is notably deep, with depths to basement reaching 40,000 feet (ft), including as much as

15,000 ft of Upper Cretaceous and lower Tertiary rocks (Dyman and Condon, 2007). Shirley Basin, on 

the other hand, is a very shallow south-dipping syncline with maximum depths to basement of 7,000 ft 

(Blackstone, 1989). Laramie Basin is the largest of the three basins in surface area and has produced the 

most hydrocarbons—approximately 63 million barrels of oil (MMBO) and 18 trillion cubic feet of gas 
2

(TCFG) (Nehring Associates, 2010)—much of it along its complex western margin. Depths to basement 

in the Laramie Basin are intermediate to the two other basins, reaching 10,000 ft in the central-western 

section of the asymmetrical basin (Blackstone, 1989).

Cambrian through Miocene strata are present in these basins; however, major sediment 

accumulations in the latest Cretaceous and Paleocene represent the vast majority of the basin thickness 

(Wroblewski, 2002). Structural evolution, stratigraphy, and hydrocarbon exploration have been discussed 

in great detail in the geologic literature published on these basins. For a more in-depth summary of the 

geology of these basins, the reader is referred to the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins USGS National 

Oil and Gas Assessment (Dyman and Condon, 2007) and the further detail that is available in the 

numerous references therein.

Hydrocarbon Exploration

The Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins are not major hydrocarbon producers compared to other 

Wyoming basins; as of 2008, known recovery plus reserves for oil were ≈70 MMBO, and gas recovery 

and reserves were ≈40 TCFG in 17 fields (Nehring Associates, 2010). The majority of fields are located 

in the complex structural highs between the Hanna and Laramie Basins; exploration in Shirley Basin has 

resulted in no producing fields greater than 0.5 MMBO or 3 TCFG (Dyman and Condon, 2007). These 

volumes amount to approximately 5 percent and 2.5 percent of the oil production in the nearby Wind 

River and Bighorn Basins and roughly 0.7 percent and 2 percent of the gas production in these basins. 

Exploration using surface structures and local seismic surveys has already been employed; current and 

future exploration is focused on deeper Hanna Basin wells (Dyman and Condon, 2007).

Geologic History

At a general level, the evolution of the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins can be separated into 

three stages where the broad depositional environment was either favorable or not favorable for producing 

regionally extensive reservoir and sealing formations that are targets for CO2 sequestration. The stages are 

(1) Cambrian through Mississippian carbonate-rich, highly eroded period; (2) upper Paleozoic and 

Mesozoic retro-arc foreland deposits and interior seaway units; and (3) uppermost Cretaceous and 

Paleocene orogenic regime.

The Precambrian Cheyenne belt trends northeastward through the Laramie Basin and represents 

the collision of the Colorado province Paleoproterozoic arc terrane with the Archean craton of the 

Wyoming province; some of these structures were later reactivated during the Late Cretaceous Laramide 

orogeny that produced the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins (Dyman and Condon, 2007).

Paleozoic strata are present in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, though they are not a 

major constituent of the sediment package (fig. 2). Eastward transgression of Cambrian seas deposited 

sands across much of Wyoming including the study area. Ordovician and Silurian seas produced mainly 

carbonate deposits; however, uplift and subsequent erosion during the Devonian have removed much of 

these lower Paleozoic rocks. Continued transgressions and regressions occurred in the Mississippian, with 

later periods of erosion removing much of the older units as well.

The Pennsylvanian-Permian assembly of the supercontinent Pangaea and the associated uplift of 

the Ancestral Rocky Mountains created the second phase of evolution in this area (Mallory and others, 

1972; Dyman and Condon, 2007). A major source located to the west provided sediment to a regional 

retro-arc foreland basin that persisted until the Laramide orogeny. Shale, chert, and evaporite deposition 

was common throughout the Permian in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins. In the Triassic, 

restricted marine input resulted in continent-derived clastic deposits of red beds, eolian sands, and 

evaporites. Marine transgression cycles dominated the Jurassic and Cretaceous, with seas originating first 

from the north and later the east, forming the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway (McGookey and others, 

1972).
3

Mountain building due to the Laramide orogeny beginning in the Late Cretaceous changed the 

major depositional environment in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins region for the third time. The 

regional foreland basin was replaced by numerous structurally complex Laramide basins bounded by 

Precambrian thrust blocks (Dyman and Condon, 2007). The distinct Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins 

were formed at this time. The Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins area no longer received sediment on a 

regional marine transgression and regression scale; the basins were now localized depocenters with source 

areas in the recently uplifted mountains flanking the basins. The closed drainage systems of these basins 

led to fluvial- and lacustrine-dominated systems with restricted carbonate formation and increased clastic 

deposition into and throughout the Tertiary.

Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins Carbon Dioxide Storage Resource Assessment

The major reservoirs and their seals in the storage assessment units (SAUs) in this assessment are 

in formations deposited during the Pennsylvanian to Late Cretaceous regional-scale retro-arc foreland 

basin development; however, some reservoir units from pre-Pennsylvanian formations are incorporated 

into a composite SAU. Storage assessment unit names are based specifically on the reservoir interval 

considered for sequestration. Often this means a formation name; however, member names or the 

inclusion of lithology terms are also used in an effort to refer to the specific reservoir interval assessed 

within a formation. For example, whereas Frontier Formation is the geologic name used in the 

stratigraphic column in figure 2, the SAU is called Frontier Sandstone, because much of the Frontier

Formation is shale and was not considered as part of the assessed reservoir. The reader can refer to the left 

side of figure 2 for stratigraphic names and the right side for SAU names; the stratigraphic and SAU 

names may differ because SAU names are specific to the reservoir interval. SAU names, stratigraphic 

position, and their lithology for CO2 storage in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, from oldest to 

youngest, include (1) Paleozoic Composite SAU consisting of carbonates and sandstones, (2) Lower 

Cretaceous Muddy Sandstone and Cloverly Formation SAU consisting of sandstones, (3) Upper 

Cretaceous Frontier Sandstone SAU, (4) Upper Cretaceous Shannon Sandstone Member SAU, (5) Upper 

Cretaceous Mesaverde Formation SAU consisting of sandstones, and (6) Upper Cretaceous Dad 

Sandstone Member SAU (fig. 2). The geographic extents of storage formations are defined by the 

geologic characteristics of the reservoirs and their overlying seals; they are restricted to subsurface 

conditions favoring supercritical phase CO2 as described in Burruss and others (2009) and Brennan and 

others (2010). Wyoming groundwater quality, as indicated by total dissolved solids (TDS) content, was 

assembled from multiple databases in Blondes and Gosai (2011), including data from USGS Produced 

Waters Database (Breit, 2002), National Water Information System (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010), 

Wyoming Produced Water Database (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2010), Rocky 

Mountains Produced Water Database (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2010), and Wyoming 

EOR Reservoir Database (University of Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute, 2010). The following 

sections describe each of the storage assessment units defined in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins.
4

Figure 1. Map showing the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming, including major structural features and 

contours on the Precambrian basement (Blackstone, 1989) and basin boundaries modified from the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) national oil and gas assessment (NOGA) (Dyman and others, 2005). Structure 

contour in feet.
5

Figure 2. Generalized stratigraphic column of geologic units in Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming 

(modified from Dyman and Condon, 2007). Storage assessment units consist of a reservoir (red) and regional 

seal (blue). Wavy lines indicate unconformable contacts, and gray sections represent nonpreserved lithology. In 

some cases, divisions of units are not shown.
6

Paleozoic Composite SAU C50300101 and Paleozoic Composite Deep SAU 

C50300102

By Ernie R. Slucher and Peter D. Warwick

The Paleozoic Composite SAU and Paleozoic Composite Deep SAU consist of Cambrian to 

Permian reservoirs with primarily siliciclastic rocks with some carbonate lithologies. Most rocks in the 

pre-Pennsylvanian interval are absent or preserved only locally because of the regional paleogeographic 

setting and eustatic changes occurring during Paleozoic time. Rocks in the SAUs include, in ascending 

stratigraphic order, the Cambrian Flathead Sandstone (present in most of the Hanna and northwestern 

Shirley Basins), the Mississippian Madison Limestone (present in most of the Hanna and Shirley Basins

and a small portion of northwestern Laramie Basin), and the Pennsylvanian Amsden Formation and 

Pennsylvanian and Permian Tensleep Sandstone (mainly in the Hanna and Shirley Basins) or their timeequivalents, the Fountain Formation and Casper Formation, respectively (mainly in the Laramie Basin) 

(fig. 2). Regionally, the Permian and Triassic Goose Egg Formation unconformably overlies the Tensleep 

or Casper and acts as the regional sealing formation. Berg (1956), Sloss and others (1960), Mitchell

(1968), Mallory and others (1972), Hinckley and Heasler (1984), Dyman and Condon (2007), Anna 

(2010), and Love and Christiansen (2010) were the main references used to spatially define and 

characterize individual reservoir and seal units in the Paleozoic Composite SAUs. 

The Paleozoic Composite SAU boundaries were based on the depth below the surface of the top of 

the Tensleep or Casper Formations (fig. 3), which are the shallowest reservoirs, and an approximation of 

the depth to the bottom of the sealing formation. The Paleozoic Composite SAU C50300101 boundary 

outlines the subsurface extent of the Tensleep Sandstone or Casper Formation between 3,000 and 13,000 

ft in depth, and the Paleozoic Composite Deep SAU C50070102 boundary is where the top of the 

Tensleep or Casper is 13,000 ft or deeper. In addition to employing commercial database tops, the 

Tensleep or Casper upper surface was projected and delineated from maps of the Cretaceous Cloverly 

Formation (Mitchell, 1968) and Proterozoic basement (Blackstone, 1989). Gross reservoir thickness of 

each of the Paleozoic Composite SAUs ranges from 100–1,250 ft, with a median of 600 ft. In most of the 

Hanna and Shirley Basins, however, the thickness of the SAUs can vary unpredictably because of 

unconformities and the spatial distribution of rocks preserved in the pre-Pennsylvanian interval. Available 

Nehring Associates (2010) and analogous Powder River Basin data (Anna, 2010) suggest that the net 

porous interval for SAU C50300101 ranges between 20–520 ft, with a mode of 300 ft. Likewise, the net 

porous interval for SAU C50300102 ranges between 100–520 ft; 350 ft is the mode. Most thickness of 

both SAUs is represented by porous intervals in the Tensleep Sandstone and the Amsden, Fountain, and 

Casper Formations. 

Petroleum production is limited, being primarily in small areas of the Hanna and Laramie Basins, 

even though exploration has occurred throughout the area (Dyman and Condon, 2007). Consequently, 

meager porosity and permeability data on units within the SAUs exist, and thus analogs from the Powder 

River Basin Minnelusa-Tensleep SAU (C50330101) were used, as were values presented by Geldon 

(2003), Ehrenberg and others (2009), and Thyne and others (2010) for other rock units. These data 

suggest average porosity values within the SAU range between 6–17 percent porosity with permeability 

ranging between 0.01–1,570 millidarcies (mD)—the occurrence and proportion of these values are mainly 

a function of lithology and depth.

Water-quality data (Blondes and Gosai, 2011) for the SAU exist only for areas in the standard 

SAU (C50330101); TDS within groundwater is both below and above the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) underground source of drinking water (USDW) limit of 10,000 parts per million (ppm). 

Areas identified as being above the 10,000 ppm limit are available for CO2 storage in the SAU. Water-
7

quality trends in the deeper portions of the Laramie Basin and in similar units in the southwestern 

Wyoming basins and Wind River Basin assessments suggest that deep areas in the Hanna Basin contain 

groundwater with TDS values in excess of 10,000 ppm; thus, this water quality was assigned to SAU 

C50330102, which occurs in the Hanna Basin only. Given available data, approximately 1 percent of the 

areas of both SAUs was estimated to contain suitable structural or stratigraphic closure for use in the 

methodology’s (Brennan and others, 2010) probabilistic calculation for buoyant trapping. 

The attributes described herein will be used in accordance with the USGS Carbon Sequestration 

Assessment Methodology (Brennan and others, 2010) to calculate the available storage space for CO2

within the two Paleozoic Composite SAUs for (1) areas occurring between 3,000–13,000 ft in depth and 

(2) areas greater than 13,000 ft in depth.
8

Figure 3. Map showing storage assessment unit (SAU) boundaries for the Paleozoic Composite and Paleozoic 

Composite Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming. Grid cells (one square mile) 

represent counts of wells derived from ENERDEQ well database (IHS Energy Group, 2011) that have penetrated 

the reservoir formation top. Basin boundaries modified from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) national oil and 

gas assessment (NOGA) (Dyman and others, 2005).
9

Muddy Sandstone and Cloverly Formation SAU C50300103 and Muddy Sandstone 

and Cloverly Formation Deep SAU C50300104

By Jacob A. Covault

The combined Lower Cretaceous Cloverly Formation and Muddy Sandstone Member of the 

Thermopolis Shale constitute two potential reservoir units for CO2 storage in the Hanna and Laramie 

Basins, one above and one below 13,000-ft subsurface depth. The Cloverly Formation comprises

siliciclastic sandstone and gravel that thins from ≈231 ft in the Hanna Basin to <100 ft in the southern 

Laramie Basin (Bowen, 1917; Dobbin and others, 1929; Dyman and Condon, 2007). The Cloverly 

Formation includes strata equivalent to the Fuson Shale and Dakota and Lakota Sandstones (Stone, 1966; 

Dyman and Condon, 2007; IHS Energy Group, 2010). The Cloverly Formation unconformably overlies 

the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation and progressively fines up-section into the overlying Thermopolis 

Shale (Dyman and Condon, 2007) (fig. 2). The Thermopolis Shale includes two predominantly finegrained members, the Skull Creek Shale and Shell Creek Shale Members (Dyman and Condon, 2007), 

interstratified with coarser grained sandstone of the Muddy Sandstone Member (Eicher, 1960; Dyman and 

Condon, 2007). The Thermopolis Shale ranges from ≈200 ft thick in the northern Hanna and Laramie 

Basins to 50 ft thick in the southern Laramie Basin (Mitchell, 1968). The regionally extensive Mowry 

Shale overlies the Thermopolis Shale and is as much as 200 ft thick in the Hanna and Laramie Basins 

(Dobbin and others, 1929). The Mowry Shale is interpreted to be a sealing unit for the underlying 

combined Cloverly Formation and Muddy Sandstone Member potential reservoir units. Well data from

IHS Energy Group (2010) indicate a maximum thickness of 455 ft from the base of the Cloverly 

Formation to the top of the Muddy Sandstone Member. The Cloverly Formation, Thermopolis Shale, and 

Mowry Shale are interpreted to be regionally extensive in the Hanna and Laramie Basins, whereas the 

Muddy Sandstone Member of the Thermopolis Shale is locally absent (Stone, 1966; Dyman and Condon, 

2007). The relatively coarse-grained Cloverly Formation and Muddy Sandstone Member generally 

represent continental fluvial and marginal-marine incised valley systems, respectively, that transition up 

the stratigraphic section to fully marine systems of the fine-grained Skull Creek Shale Member of the 

Thermopolis Shale and Mowry Shale in the Cretaceous Western Interior foreland basin (Stone, 1966; 

Cardinal, 1970; Dolson and others, 1991; Dyman and Condon, 2007).

A subsurface-depth contour map of the top of the Muddy Sandstone Member of the Thermopolis 

Shale was created from Cloverly Formation structure contours of Mitchell (1968) and Rocky Mountain 

Map Company (1992) and from approximately 400 wells that penetrate the member (IHS Energy Group, 

2010). This map provided depth ranges and areal extents of two potential reservoir units: (1) between 

3,000- and 13,000-ft (C50300103) and (2) greater than 13,000-ft (C50300104) subsurface depth (fig. 4). 

The range of total storage formation thickness for reservoir units from the base of the Cloverly Formation 

to the top of the Muddy Sandstone Member was determined from IHS Energy Group (2010) wells. The 

thickness of the net porous interval was calculated by subtracting the thickness of the intervening Skull 

Creek Shale Member of the Thermopolis Shale from the total storage formation thickness and multiplying 

the remaining thickness by a net-to-gross sandstone ratio of 0.60 measured from maps of Cardinal (1970). 

Sparse petrophysical data indicate a porosity range of 8–19 percent, with an average porosity of 15

percent for the Cloverly Formation and 16 percent for the Muddy Sandstone Member. Permeability 

ranges from 0.10 to 138 millidarcies (mD) with an average permeability of 90 mD for the Cloverly 

Formation and 26 mD for the Muddy (Hollis and Potter, 1984; Dyman and Condon, 2007; Nehring

Associates, 2010). Additional Cloverly and Muddy petrophysical data from the entire Rocky Mountain 

region (380 data points) exhibit a porosity range of ≈5–30 percent and a permeability range of 0.10 to 

>1,000 mD between 3,000- and 13,000-ft subsurface depth (Nehring Associates, 2010). These analog data 
10

were used in order to populate porosity and permeability ranges for the storage assessment unit between 

3,000 and 13,000 ft (C50300103). Porosity and permeability values are interpreted to diminish with depth 

(Ehrenberg and others, 2009). Thus, we reduced the porosity range of the storage assessment unit 

>13,000-ft subsurface depth (C50300104) by ≈50 percent of the range of the shallower assessment unit 

(C50300103). These adjustments to petrophysical properties with depth are consistent with empirical data 

from Cretaceous siliciclastic sandstone reservoirs of the Rocky Mountain region (Nehring Associates, 

2010). Maximum buoyant trapping pore volume was calculated from the product of the (1) area of 

structural reservoir traps mapped from a structure map created by subtracting the surface elevation from 

the depth-to-top map of the Muddy Sandstone Member, (2) maximum net-porous-interval thickness, and 

(3) maximum porosity.
11

Figure 4. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundaries for the Muddy Sandstone and Cloverly 

Formation and Muddy Sandstone and Cloverly Formation Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley

Basins, Wyoming. Grid cells (one square mile) represent counts of wells derived from ENERDEQ well database 

(IHS Energy Group, 2011) that have penetrated the reservoir formation top. Basin boundaries modified from the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) national oil and gas assessment (NOGA) (Dyman and others, 2005).
12

Frontier Sandstone SAU C50300105 and Frontier Sandstone Deep SAU 

C50300106

By Matthew D. Merrill

In the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins of Wyoming, the sandstone of the Frontier Formation 

is a Late Cretaceous-age (Cenomanian to Turonian) progradational clastic wedge enclosed between the 

underlying marine Mowry Shale and the overlying Niobrara Formation and Sage Breaks and Steele 

Shales (Dyman and Condon, 2007) (fig. 2).

Boundaries for the Frontier Sandstone SAU (C50300105) and Frontier Sandstone Deep SAU 

(C50300106) are based on the extent of the Frontier Formation at 3,000–13,000 ft depth from surface and 

greater than 13,000-ft depth from surface respectively (fig. 5). These boundaries were created using 

interpretations of formation tops in wells from a commercial database (IHS Energy Group, 2010). 

Structure contour maps of the Cloverly Formation from Mitchell (1968) and Rocky Mountain Map 

Company (1992), as well as basement structures (Blackstone, 1989), also aided in the creation of the SAU 

boundaries for the Frontier Formation.

Within the Frontier Sandstone SAU, formation thickness ranges from 550 to 800 ft, with net 

porous sand thicknesses of 25 ft in the southwestern and far eastern part of the SAU area to 110 ft in the 

center and northwestern part (Goodell, 1962). Within the Frontier Sandstone Deep SAU, formation 

thickness ranges from 680 to 725 ft with net porous sand thicknesses of 40–60 ft, with a most likely 

thickness of 45 ft (Goodell, 1962).

Limited hydrocarbon production from the Frontier, as well as a lack of exploration at depth, has

resulted in a paucity of available rock-property information. Field averages for the Rock River field, one 

of few sources of data, indicate an average porosity of 12 percent (Hollis and Potter, 1984); this averaged 

value was supplemented with analog data in order to complete the assessment process. Frontier Formation 

sandstone data collected during the carbon sequestration assessments of the Wind River, Bighorn, and 

Powder River Basins suggest that reservoir properties such as porosity and permeability may not vary 

significantly between these basins. Porosity values of 10–25 percent for Frontier sandstone reservoirs at 

depths between 3,000–13,000 ft were present in all three analog basins, and values of 2–12 percent for 

Frontier sandstone reservoirs at 13,000 ft and deeper were present or projected. Permeability showed the 

same consistency, with values ranging from as low as 0.1 mD to around 500 mD; when projected to 

depths below 13,000 ft, analog basin permeabilities were essentially completely below the 1-mD level. 

Water-quality data (Blondes and Gosai, 2011) for the Frontier Formation are limited; however, a 

majority of samples (8 of 11) collected from available databases suggests that the formation water in the 

3,000–13,000 ft deep Frontier Sandstone SAU is greater than the EPA USDW limit of 10,000 ppm TDS. 

With additional depth, this water quality is expected to persist, if not become more saline.

The boundaries, thicknesses, rock properties, and water-quality information mentioned above will 

be used in accordance with the USGS CO2 Sequestration Assessment Methodology (Brennan and others, 

2010) to calculate the available storage space within the Frontier Sandstone SAU (C50300105) and 

Frontier Sandstone Deep SAU (C50300106).
13

Figure 5. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Frontier Sandstone and Frontier 

Sandstone Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming and Montana. Grid cells (one 

square mile) represent counts of wells derived from ENERDEQ well database (HIS Energy Group, 2011) that 

have penetrated the reservoir formations top. Basin boundaries modified from the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) national oil and gas assessment (NOGA) (Dyman and others, 2005).
14

Shannon Sandstone Member SAU C50300107 and Shannon Sandstone Member 

Deep SAU C50300108

By Matthew D. Merrill

In the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins of Wyoming, the Shannon Sandstone and Sussex 

Sandstone Members of the Steele Shale (fig. 2) were deposited in a shallow-marine to marginal-marine 

environment along the edge and seaward of a large delta complex (Stone, 1966). Sandstone members like 

the Shannon and younger Sussex are located toward the top of the Steele Shale; they have 550–1,000 ft of 

shale in between them, and 300–3,500 ft of Steele Shale overlies the stratigraphically higher Sussex (IHS, 

2010).

Boundaries for the Shannon Sandstone Member SAU (C50300107) and Shannon Sandstone 

Member Deep SAU (C50300108) include both the Shannon Sandstone and the Sussex Sandstone

Members. The SAU boundaries are based on the 3,000–13,000 ft subsurface isopach and the greater than 

13,000-ft subsurface isopach respectively. Depth contours were created using interpretations of well tops 

from commercial databases (IHS Energy Group, 2010). Structure contour maps of the Cloverly Formation 

from Mitchell (1968) and Rocky Mountain Map Company (1992), as well as basement structures 

(Blackstone, 1989), also aided in the creation of the SAU boundaries (fig. 6).

Within both Shannon Sandstone Member SAUs, formation thickness ranges from 550 to 1,000 ft,

with net porous sandstone thicknesses of 50–350 ft observed in nine well logs. These thicknesses are in 

agreement with net-porous-interval observations from the Wind River and Powder River Basins. 

Limited oil and gas production from the Shannon Sandstone Member, as well as a lack of 

exploration at depth, has resulted in a paucity of available reservoir property information. Analog data 

from the Steele Shale sandstones in other basins were incorporated here in order to complete the 

assessment evaluation. Shannon and Sussex Members data collected during the CO2 sequestration 

assessments of the Wind River and Powder River Basins suggest that porosity and permeability may not 

vary significantly between these basins. Analog basins suggest that porosity values of 5–25 percent for 

Shannon reservoirs at 3,000–13,000 ft depth and values of 3–12 percent for sandstones below 13,000 ft 

are realistic. Permeability showed similar consistency across basins, with values ranging from as low as 

0.5 to about 400 mD in the standard SAU and exhibiting permeabilities less than 1mD in the deep SAU. 

Water-quality data (Blondes and Gosai, 2011) for the Steele Shale sandstones are limited. Only 

two data points are present in the reservoir, and both are outside the SAU. With one sample above the 

EPA USDW limit of 10,000 ppm TDS and the other below, there are not enough data to attempt to 

quantify distinct areas of formation-water quality at this time.

The boundaries, thicknesses, rock properties, and water-quality information mentioned above will 

be used in accordance with the USGS Carbon Sequestration Assessment Methodology (Brennan and 

others, 2010) to calculate the available storage space within the Shannon Sandstone Member SAU 

(C50300107) and Shannon Sandstone Member Deep SAU (C50300108).
15

Figure 6. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Shannon Sandstone Member and 

Shannon Sandstone Member Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming. Grid cells (one 

square mile) represent counts of wells derived from ENERDEQ well database (IHS Energy Group, 2011) that 

have penetrated the reservoir formation top. Basin boundaries modified from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

national oil and gas assessment (NOGA) (Dyman and others, 2005).
16

Mesaverde Formation SAU C50300109 and Mesaverde Formation Deep SAU 

C50300110

By William H. Craddock

The Mesaverde Formation (fig. 2) comprises several lobate packages of fine-grained, yellowishgray sandstone encased within sheet-like beds of black, dark-gray, or brownish-gray marine shale. The 

sandstones exhibit trough and hummocky cross stratification, and they contain burrows and plant debris. 

The shales contain marine fossils, including ammonites (Gill and others, 1970; Martinsen and others, 

1993). Individual sandstones are inches to feet thick, and successions of sandstone are ≈30–100 ft thick. 

The mudstone-prone intervals that separate the sandstones are generally thicker than the sand successions. 

A range of depositional environments is represented within the Mesaverde sandstones, including 

prodelta, lower shoreface, distal stream-mouth bar, upper shoreface, proximal stream-mouth bar, 

foreshore, distributary channel, delta plain, and incised valley fill (Gill and others, 1970; Perman, 1990; 

Martinsen and others, 1993; Dyman and Condon, 2007). The interfingered shale beds are hemipelagic 

fallout deposits. The unit was deposited during the latest part of the Cretaceous Period, in the western part 

of the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway basin. 

Boundaries for the Mesaverde Formation SAUs are defined by 3,000–13,000 ft subsurface 

contours and faults (fig. 7). One-thousand-foot structural contour maps were constructed using well tops 

(IHS Energy Group, 2010), a basement contour map (Blackstone, 1989), a structural contour map for 

Lower Cretaceous strata (Mitchell, 1968), the outcrop pattern of the units, and a seismic reflection profile 

that extends from north to south across the Hanna Basin (Pritchett, 1985). A map of major faults was 

constructed by combining structural contour maps of Lower Cretaceous strata and the basement (Mitchell, 

1968; Blackstone, 1989). Gross and net thickness maps for the SAU units were constructed from outcropbased regional stratigraphic correlations (Gill and others, 1970; Martinsen and others, 1993). The gross 

thickness of the Mesaverde decreases slightly from west to east. At a maximum, the unit is ≈5,000 ft

thick, and at a minimum, it is 4,400 ft thick; the median thickness is 4,800 ft. Due to the fact that the 

Mesaverde Formation Deep SAU is confined to a small area, it exhibits less variability in thickness, 

ranging from 4,400 to 4,600 ft, with a median thickness of ≈4,500 ft (Gill and others, 1970; Martinsen, 

and others, 1993). Examination of several measured stratigraphic sections from across the region indicates 

that the net porous sandstone thickness decreases from west to east, ranging from 1,400 to 450 ft, and has 

a median value of ≈1,100 ft thick (Martinsen and others, 1993). Within the relatively small Mesaverde 

Formation Deep SAU, net porous sand thickness ranges from 1,050 to 1,200 ft and exhibits a median 

value of 1,130 ft.

Due to a paucity of information about the porosity and permeability of the Mesaverde Formation 

in Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, analog data from a compilation of Cretaceous rocks in the Rocky 

Mountain region were used to describe these two properties for the various SAUs (Nehring Associates, 

2010). A sandstone compaction curve generated from these data suggests that the shallow Mesaverde is 

characterized by minimum, mean, and maximum porosity of 5, 15, and 35 percent, respectively. 

Corresponding values for the Mesaverde Formation Deep SAU are 3, 8, and 15 percent. Permeability data 

from Rocky Mountain Cretaceous sandstones suggest that the Mesaverde contains a small amount of rock 

with permeability in excess of 1,000 mD (2 percent), a large amount of rock with permeability between 

1–1,000 mD (84 percent), and a small amount of rock with permeability less than 1 mD (14 percent). In 

contrast, the Mesaverde Formation Deep SAU contains no rock with permeability in excess of 1,000 mD 

and is entirely composed of rocks with permeability of 1–1,000 mD (50 percent) and less than 1 mD (50 

percent). 
17

The Mesaverde is considered to be an aquifer in the Hanna Basin (Bartos and others, 2006), such 

that the presence of potable water appears to restrict the area available for CO2 storage. The standard SAU

contains a mix of formation waters with TDS above and below 10,000 ppm (Bartos and others, 2006; 

Blondes and Gosai, 2011). The scarcity of salinity data in these aquifers, however, renders interpretation 

of the extent of fresh versus saline formation water equivocal. The formation exhibits a weak trend of 

increasing salinity with depth, such that larger swaths of the deep SAU are more likely to have formation 

water that is sufficiently saline to host carbon sequestration.

The Mesaverde does not produce oil or gas from within the SAU boundaries; therefore, the pore 

volume available within structural and stratigraphic traps is difficult to define. In order to estimate the 

volume that may be available for buoyant CO2 storage, we combined upper bounds on trap size, number 

of traps, net sandstone thickness, and porosity. Upper bounds on trap size were based on comparison to 

reservoirs in the Mesaverde Formation in neighboring Powder River Basin (Nehring Associates, 2010).
18

Figure 7. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Mesaverde Formation and Mesaverde 

Formation Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming. Grid cells (one square mile) 

represent counts of wells derived from ENERDEQ well database (IHS Energy Group, 2011) that have penetrated 

the reservoir formation top. Basin boundaries modified from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) national oil and 

gas assessment (NOGA) (Dyman and others, 2005).
19

Dad Sandstone Member SAU C50300111 and Dad Sandstone Member SAU Deep 

C50300112

By William H. Craddock

The Dad Member is part of the Lewis Shale (fig. 2). It is an approximately 500-ft-thick succession 

of light-yellowish-gray, very fine to fine-grained sandstone beds encased within, and interfingered with, a 

thick package of gray shale. The thickness of individual beds is similar to the underlying Mesaverde with 

beds on the order of inches to feet in thickness. The sandstones exhibit ripple lamination, trough and 

hummocky cross stratification, shale rip-ups, and contorted bedding. The unit contains marine fossils such 

as Ophiomorpha and mollusks (Gill and others, 1970).

A range of depositional environments is represented in the Dad Member, including lower and 

upper shoreface, foreshore, and lagoon (Gill and others, 1970; Perman, 1990; Dyman and Condon, 2007). 

The unit was deposited during the latest part of the Cretaceous Period in the western part of the 

Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway basin.

Storage assessment unit (SAU) boundaries for the unit are defined by the 3,000–13,000 ft depth 

from subsurface isopach contours and faults (fig. 8). One-thousand-foot structural contour maps were 

constructed using well tops (IHS Energy Group, 2010), a basement contour map (Blackstone, 1989), a 

structural contour map for Lower Cretaceous strata (Mitchell, 1968), the outcrop pattern of the units, and 

a seismic reflection profile that extends from north to south across Hanna Basin (Pritchett, 1985). A map 

of major faults was constructed by combining structural contour maps of Lower Cretaceous strata and the 

basement (Mitchell, 1968; Blackstone, 1989). Gross and net thickness maps for the unit were constructed 

from outcrop-based regional stratigraphic correlations (Gill and others, 1970). The Dad Member ranges in 

thickness from 440–650 ft with a median thickness of ≈500 ft. Due to the fact that the Dad Sandstone 

Member Deep SAU covers only a small portion of the basin, the range of thickness is relatively narrow, 

ranging from 440–580 ft, with a median thickness of ≈520 ft. Net sandstone thickness was determined by 

examining measured stratigraphic sections and reducing gross thickness by the regional trend of net

sandstone to gross sandstone ratio. The standard SAU exhibits net porous sand thicknesses of 220–320 ft

with a median thickness of 250 ft, and the Dad Sandstone Member Deep SAU exhibits net porous 

sandstone thickness of 220–280 ft with a median thickness of 250 ft.

Due to a paucity of information about the porosity and permeability of the Dad Member in Hanna, 

Laramie, and Shirley Basins, analog data from a compilation of Cretaceous rocks in the Rocky Mountain 

region were used to describe these properties for the SAUs (Nehring Associates, 2010). A sandstone 

compaction curve generated from these data suggests that the standard SAU is characterized by minimum, 

mean, and maximum porosity of 5 percent, 15 percent, and 35 percent, and corresponding values for the 

deep SAU are 3 percent, 8 percent, and 15 percent. Permeability data from Rocky Mountain Cretaceous 

sandstones suggest that a small amount of the Dad sandstone has permeability in excess of 1,000 mD (2 

percent), a large amount has permeability between 1–1,000 mD (84 percent), and a small amount has

permeability less than 1 mD (14 percent). In contrast, the deep SAU contains no rock with permeability in 

excess of 1,000 mD and is entirely composed of sandstone with permeability of 1–1,000 mD (50 percent) 

and less than 1 mD (50 percent). 

The Lewis Shale is considered to be an aquifer in the Hanna Basin (Bartos and others, 2006), such 

that the presence of potable water appears to restrict the area available for CO2 storage. The shallow SAU

contains a mix of formation waters with TDS above and below 10,000 ppm (Bartos and others, 2006; 

Blondes and Gosai, 2011). The scarcity of salinity data from the aquifer, however, renders interpretation 

of the extent of fresh versus saline formation water equivocal. The formation exhibits a weak trend of 
20

increasing salinity with depth, such that larger swaths of the deep SAU are more likely to have formation 

water that is sufficiently saline for carbon sequestration.

The Dad Sandstone Member does not produce oil or gas from within the SAU boundaries, and the 

pore volume within structural and stratigraphic traps is difficult to define. In order to place upper bounds 

on the enclosed pore volume within the SAUs, we adapted the method described for the Mesaverde 

Formation to the Dad Sandstone Member.

The attributes described herein will be used in accordance with the USGS Carbon Sequestration 

Assessment Methodology (Brennan and others, 2010) to calculate the available storage space for CO2

within the Dad Sandstone Member SAU for areas occurring between 3,000–13,000 ft in depth and areas 

greater than 13,000 ft in depth.
21

Figure 8. Map showing the storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Dad Sandstone Member and Dad 

Sandstone Member Deep SAUs in the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming. Grid cells (one square 

mile) represent counts of wells derived from ENERDEQ well database (IHS Energy Group, 2011) that have 

penetrated the reservoir formation top. Basin boundaries modified from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

national oil and gas assessment (NOGA) (Dyman and others, 2005).
22

Acknowledgments

The authors thank James L. Coleman, Jr., for his assistance with water-quality data compilations. 

Paul G. Schuben and Brian Varela maintained drilling and hydrocarbon production data, and Hossein

Jahediesfanjani interpreted petroleum engineering data for the basin. We thank the Big Sky Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership for their help in supplying geologic information used in this review. The 

content and presentation of this report benefited greatly from the technical reviews of Russell Dubiel and 

Paul Lillis.

References Cited

Anna, L.O., 2010, Geologic assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Powder River Basin Province,

Wyoming and Montana, chap. 1 of U.S. Geological Survey Powder River Basin Assessment Team, 

Total petroleum systems and geologic assessment of oil and gas resources in the Powder River Basin 

Province, Wyoming and Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–U, 97 p., 

revised April 2010, accessed 1/19/2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-

u/REPORTS/69_U_CH_1.pdf.

Bartos, T.T., Hallberg, L.L., Mason, J.P., Norris, J.R, and Miller, K.A., 2006, Water resources of Carbon 

County, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5027, 191 p. 

Berg, R.R., 1956, Subsurface stratigraphy of the pre-Niobrara formations in the Shirley and Laramie 

Basins, Wyoming, in Wyoming stratigraphy, Part 1, Subsurface stratigraphy of the pre-Niobrara 

formations in Wyoming: Casper, Wyoming Geological Association, p. 77–83. 

Blackstone, D.L., Jr., 1989, Precambrian basement map of Wyoming; outcrop and structural 

configuration: Laramie, Wyo., Geological Survey of Wyoming Map Series Report 27, 1 sheet, scale 

1:1,000,000.

Blondes, M.S., and Gosai, M.A., 2011, An expanded Wyoming water quality database [abs.]: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Rocky Mountain Section, Annual Meeting, Cheyenne, Wyo., June 

25–29, 2011, accessed 1/19/2011, at 

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/pdf/2011/rocky/abstracts/ndx_blondes.pdf.

Bowen, C.F., 1917, Stratigraphy of the Hanna Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 108–L, p. 227–235. 

Breit, G.N., 2002, Produced waters database: U.S. Geological Survey online database, accessed 

1/19/2011, at http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/prov/prodwat/.

Brennan, S.T., Burruss, R.C., Merrill, M.D., Freeman, P.A., and Ruppert, L.F., 2010, A probabilistic 

assessment methodology for the evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010–1127, 31 p., accessed 1/19/2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127/. 

Burruss, R.C., Brennan, S.T., Freeman, P.A., Merrill, M.D., Ruppert, L.F., Becker, M.F., Herkelrath, 

W.N., Kharaka, Y.K., Neuzil, C.E., Swanson, S.M., Cook, T.A., Klett, T.R., Nelson, P.H., and Schenk, 

C.J., 2009, Development of a probabilistic assessment methodology for evaluation of carbon dioxide 

storage: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1035, 81 p., accessed 3/22/2011, at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/. 

Cardinal, D.F., 1970, Lower Cretaceous stratigraphy and its relationship to oil production in the Laramie 

Basin: The Mountain Geologist, v. 7, p. 123–138.

Dobbin, C.E., Bowen, C.F., and Hoots, H.W., 1929, Geology and coal and oil resources of the Hanna and 

Carbon Basins, Carbon County, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 804, 88 p. 

Dolson, J.C., Muller, Dave, Evetts, M.J., and Stein, J.A., 1991, Regional paleotopographic trends and 

production, Muddy Sandstone (Lower Cretaceous), central and northern Rocky Mountains: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 75, p. 409–435. 

Dyman, T.S., and Condon, S.M., 2007, 2005 geologic assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources, 

Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins Province, Wyoming and Colorado, chap. 2 of U.S. Geological 
23

Survey Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins Assessment Team, Petroleum systems and geologic 

assessment of undiscovered oil and gas, Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins Province, Wyoming and 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–K, 62 p.

Dyman, T.S., Condon, S.M., Ahlbrandt, T.S., Charpentier, R.R., Cook, T.A., Klett, T.R., Lewan, M.D., 

Lillis, P.G., Pawlewicz, M.J., Pollastro, R.M., and Schenk, C.J., 2005, 2005 geologic assessment of 

undiscovered oil and gas resources in Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins Province, Wyoming : U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005–3125, 2 p.

Ehrenberg, S.N., Hadeau, P.H., and Steen, Øyvind, 2009, Petroleum reservoir porosity verses depth—

Influence of geological age: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 93, n. 10, 

p. 1281–1296. 

Eicher, D.L., 1960, Stratigraphy and micropaleontology of the Thermopolis Shale: Peabody Museum of 

Natural History Bulletin 15, 121 p. 

Geldon, A.L., 2003, Hydrologic properties and ground-water flow systems of the Paleozoic rocks in the 

Upper Colorado River basin in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, excluding the 

San Juan Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1411–B, 153 p.

Gill, J.R., Merewether, E.A., and Cobban, W.A., 1970, Stratigraphy and nomenclature of some Upper 

Cretaceous and lower Tertiary rocks in south-central Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 667, 53 p.

Goodell, H.G., 1962, The stratigraphy and petrology of the Frontier Formation of Wyoming; Symposium 

on Early Cretaceous rocks of Wyoming and adjacent areas: Wyoming Geological Association, 17th 

Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 173–210. 

Hinckley, B.S., and Heasler, H.P., 1984, Geothermal resources of the Laramie, Hanna, and Shirley 

Basins, Wyoming: Geological Survey of Wyoming Report of Investigations No. 26 (work performed 

under Contract No. FC07-79ID12026, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical 

Information, Technical Information Center DOE/ID/12026-T7 (DE84016104)), 26 p. 

Hollis, S.H., and Potter, E.C., eds., 1984, SE Wyoming oil and gas fields symposium—Laramie, Hanna 

and D-J Basins: Wyoming Geological Association, 133 p. 

IHS Energy Group, 2010 [includes data current as of December 23, 2009], PIDM relational U.S. well 

data: IHS Energy Group; database available from IHS Energy Group, 15 Inverness Way East, D205, 

Englewood, CO 80112, U.S.A.

IHS Energy Group, 2011, ENERDEQ U.S. well data: IHS Energy Group; online database available from 

IHS Energy Group, 15 Inverness Way East, D205, Englewood, CO 80112, U.S.A. (accessed January 

20, 2011). 

Love, J.D., and Christianson, A.C., 2010, Geologic map of Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey, Denver 

Co., scale 1:500,000, accessed 1/19/2011, at 

http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/GIS_and_online_maps/DigitalData/shapefiles/Bedrock_500k.zip.

Mallory, W.W., Bachman, G.O., Maughan, E.K., McKee, E.D. Prichard, G.E., and Wilson, R.F., 1972, 

Regional synthesis of the Pennsylvanian System, in Mallory, W.W., ed., Geologic atlas of the Rocky 

Mountain region: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 111–127.

Martinsen, O.J., Martinsen, R.S., and Steidtmann, J.R., 1993, Mesaverde Group (Upper Cretaceous), 

southeastern Wyoming: Allostratigraphy versus sequence stratigraphy in a tectonically active area: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, no. 8, p. 1351–1373.

McGookey, D.P., Haun, J.D., Hale, L.A., Goodell, H.G., McCubbin, D.G., Weimer, R.J., and Wulf, G.R., 

1972, Cretaceous System, in Mallory, W.W., ed., Geologic atlas of the Rocky Mountain region: Rocky 

Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 190–228.

Mitchell, S.D., 1968, Geology and occurrence of natural gas in Laramie and Hanna Basins, Wyoming, in

Natural gases of North America—Pt. 2, Natural gases in rocks of Mesozoic age: Tulsa, Okla., American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, no. 9, v.1, p. 828–839. 
24

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2010, Rocky Mountain basins produced water database: 

Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory online database, accessed 1/19/2011, at

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/software/database.html.

Nehring Associates, 2010 [data current as of December 2008], The significant oil and gas fields of the 

United States: Colorado Springs, Colo., Nehring Associates, Inc.; database available from Nehring

Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 1655, Colorado Springs, CO 80901, U.S.A.

Perman, R.C., 1990, Depositional history of the Maastrichtian Lewis Shale in south-central Wyoming: 

Deltaic and interdeltaic, marginal marine through deep-water marine, environments: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 74, no. 11, p. 1695–1717.

Pritchett, R.W., 1985, Seismic profiles of the western Laramie Basin—Wyoming, in Gries, R.R, and 

Dyer, R.C., eds., Seismic exploration of the Rocky Mountain region: Rocky Mountain Association of 

Geologists and Denver Geophysical Society, p. 225–232.

Rocky Mountain Map Company, 1992, Structure contour map of the Hanna Basin, Wyoming (revised 

2002): Casper, Wyo., Barlow & Haun, Inc., scale 1 inch = 2 miles, 1 sheet.

Sloss, L.L., Dapples, E.C, and Krumbein, W.C., 1960, Lithofacies maps, an atlas of the United States and 

southern Canada: New York, Wiley, 108 p.

Stone, D.S., 1966, Geologic and economic evaluation of the Laramie-eastern Hanna Basin area, 

Wyoming: The Mountain Geologist, v. 3, no. 2, p. 55–73.

Thyne, G.D., Tomasso, Mark, Bywater-Reyes, S.V., Budd, D.A., and Reyes, B.M., 2010, 

Characterization of porosity and permeability for CO2 sequestration models in the Mississippian 

Madison Group, Moxa arch–LaBarge platform, southwestern Wyoming: Rocky Mountain Geology, v. 

45, no. 2, p. 133–150.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010, National water information system: U.S. Geological Survey online 

database, accessed 1/19/2011, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.

Wroblewski, A.F.J., 2002, The role of the Hanna Basin in revised paleogeographic reconstructions of the 

Western Interior sea during the Cretaceous-Tertiary transition: Wyoming Geological Association, 

Guidebook, Fifty-Third Field Conference, p. 17–40.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2010, Produced water database: Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission online database, accessed 1/19/2011, at http://wogcc.state.wy.us/.

University of Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute, 2010, Wyoming EOR reservoir database: 

Laramie, University of Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute, online database version 2.1 updated 

3/16/2010, accessed 1/19/2011, at http://www.uwyo.edu/eori/_files/eori_database/wyoming EOR 

Database _100215v2.1.xls.