COMPILATION OF GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR THE RICHTON SALT DOME
PERRY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
MMRI Open-file Report 14-01S
By
Charles T. Swann, R.P.G.
Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute
111 Brevard Hall
University, Mississippi 38677
September, 2014
Table of Contents
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….………….2
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..3
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..…………….4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…………….4
Published Literature…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………5
Professional Literature……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..6
Publications of the U.S. Department of Energy and other agencies of the U.S. Government…..………….7
Reports from Mississippi governmental agencies ……………………………………………………………………...……11
Literature and Document Collections Dedicated to the Richton Dome………………………………..…………..12
Subsurface Information (Well locations, information sources)…………………………………..……….……………13
Drilling History……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………13
Hydrocarbon Exploration Wells………………………………………………………………….………….…..….……13
East Apollo Field Wells and Field Production……………………………………………………………..……..…14
Sulfur Exploration Wells………………………………………………………………..…….……………………..………16
U.S. Department of Energy Test Wells………………………………………….……….…………………….………19
Potential Uses of the Richton Salt Structure………………………………………………….…………….………..…………21
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………….……………….…………….…22
Certification………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………..…………….23
pg. 1
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Location map of the Richton Salt Dome, Perry County, Mississippi. Elevations are depth
relative to sea level…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5
Figure 2 – Oil and Water Production in East Apollo (in barrels)………………………….………..…………………..16
pg. 2
List of Tables
Table 1 - Hydrocarbon Exploration Wells……………………………………………………….…..………………..…………14
Table 2 – East Apollo field Wells….....................................................................................................15
Table 3 – Sulfur Exploration Wells……………………………………………………………………………….………………….16
Table 4 – U.S. Department of Energy Test Wells………………………………………………….…………………………..19
pg. 3
COMPILATION OF GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR THE RICHTON SALT DOME
PERRY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
Abstract
The Richton Salt Dome is located in Perry County, Mississippi, and partially underlies the town of
Richton. This dome is the largest in Mississippi as well as the shallowest, with salt encountered at a
depth of 767 feet. At a depth of 2000 feet, there is an estimated 4,376 acres of salt. Large areas of salt
and at shallow depths, are characteristics ideal for economic development of the resource. The goal of
this report is to summarize the geological data generated by private industry as well as State and
Federal governmental agencies. A total of 75 bibliographic entries are included as well as information
on 92 over-dome wells. Hopefully, these data will assist in dome utilization studies by providing a single
source for pertinent literature and well information regarding Richton Dome.
Introduction
Common salt (NaCl) is one of Mississippi’s most underutilized mineral resources. With a number
of salt domes within the State, Mississippi is utilizing only six for gas storage. The Richton Salt Dome,
located in Perry County near the town of Richton, is Mississippi’s largest and shallowest salt dome and is
not utilized at present (see Figure 1). The majority of the Richton Dome literature is associated with its
use as a potential site for storage of high-level nuclear waste. This controversial use of the dome ended
when both Mississippi sites were abandoned in favor of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site. This set of
studies did produce an abundance of literature relating to geology and groundwater in the vicinity of the
dome. These repository studies are public documents and could be used to build a geologic framework.
Many of these documents are listed below. Documents that do not have significant bearing on the
dome geology are not included in the listing. A companion set of digital data suitable for spatial analysis
is also available through the Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute (MMRI) web site
(www.mmri.olemiss.edu). These digital data will allow the user to download hydrocarbon well logs,
mineral exploration well logs and the locations of wells drilled by the U.S. Department of Energy in the
Richton area.
The Richton Dome is both large and shallow. It has been drilled extensively by private industry
as well as the U.S. Government (see Thieling and Moody, 1997). The MRIG-9 well drilled by the U.S.
Department of Energy sampled salt at a depth of approximately 767 feet (see also Lord and others
(2007). Lord and others, (2007), estimated that there are 3885 acres of limestone cap rock at a depth of
600 feet and 4,376 acres of salt at a depth of 2,000 feet. These two characteristics make the dome
attractive for economic utilization, particularly for hydrocarbon storage and perhaps for salt mining. The
dome’s edges are not clearly defined and vary with depth becoming more extensive in the shallower
subsurface. At a depth of 4000 feet the dome is contained on the Rhodes and Richton 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangles although it approaches the western edge of both maps. Ovett and Ovett SE
are the topographic maps adjoining the western edge.
pg. 4
The purpose of this report is to support the potential economic development of this
underutilized resource, one of the primary responsibilities of the MMRI. Background literature search is
the precursor to any utilization project and is the basis on which many decisions will be made. Here we
have compiled and summarized the geological information regarding the dome. The goal is to provide
one source of background information on Richton Dome and hopefully save time and effort for others in
need of this type of information.
Published Literature
The literature regarding Richton is significant in its abundance and it is here divided into three
categories: professional, U.S. Department of Energy, other Federal agencies and reports
Figure 1 - Location map and structure contours map of Richton Salt Dome, Perry County, Mississippi.
Elevations are depth relative to sea level.
pg. 5
generated by Mississippi government agencies. Each entry contains the bibliographic information to
allow the citation to be found in public records and libraries. The U.S. Department of Energy literature
consists of reports to the U.S. Department of Energy from its various contractors. These reports are
public information and can be accessed through libraries designated as repositories of U.S. Government
documents, or through interlibrary loan arrangements. Some documents are in digital form and can be
downloaded, but others are in paper form only. The listing of professional literature consists of
publications in professional journals (largely geology-related publications). The Mississippi Office of
Geology has retained a set of reports by Mississippi contractors investigating various aspects of the
dome. To view a more complete set of these reports, one should contact the Office of Geology in
Jackson, Mississippi, (ph. 601-961-5500). Included in this listing are only publications that include
Richton Dome in a significant manner rather than a passing mention.
Professional Literature
Alexander, C.W., C.L. Morgan and M.E. Norman, 1945, Developments in southeastern states in 1944:
Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, vol., 29, no. 6, pp. 815 -835.
Berger, Z., and J. Aghassy, 1980, Geomorphic manifestations of salt dome stability: Applied
Geomorphology, Binghamton Symposia, Kent State University, vol. 11, pp. 72-84.
Corcoran, A.E., 1972, The feasibility of storing large quantities of crude oil in salt dome solution
cavities: unpublished Master of Science thesis, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 82 p.
Corcoran, A.E., F.W. Jessen and H. von Schonfeldt, 1973, Feasibility of storing large quantities of crude
oil in salt dome solution cavities: Fourth International Symposium on Salt – Northern Ohio Geological
Society, vol. 2, pp. 277 – 283.
George, S.M., 1991, An interpretation of geologic conditions at Richton Salt Dome for possible
selection as a nuclear waste repository site: Association of Engineering Geologists, 34th Annual Meeting
Proceedings, pp. 403 – 408.
Karges, H.E., 1975, Petroleum potential of Mississippi shallow salt domes: Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies Transactions, vol. 25, pp. 168 – 181.
Mullin, C. W., 1982, Geology, Caprock and salt stock of the Richton Salt Dome: unpublished Master of
Science Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 157 p.
Swann, C.T. , 1989, Review of geology of Mississippi salt domes involved in nuclear research:
Transactions – Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, vol. 39, pp. 543-551.
Thieling, S.C. and J.S. Moody, 1997, Atlas of shallow Mississippi salt domes: Mississippi Office of
Geology, Bulletin 131, 328 p.
pg. 6
Werner, M.L., M.D. Feldman, and L.P. Knauth, 1988, Petrography and geochemistry of water-rock
interactions in Richton Dome cap rock (southeastern Mississippi, U.S.A.): Chemical Geology, v.74, p.
113-135.
Publications of the U.S. Department of Energy and other agencies of the U.S.
Government
Bechtel National, Inc., 1980, Regional environmental characterization report for the Gulf Interior
Region and surrounding territory: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI67, 463 p.
_____________, 1982, Environmental characterization report for the Gulf Interior Region Mississippi
study area: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-193, 211 p.
Bechtel Group Inc. and Law Engineering Testing Company, 1983, Site characterization plan: Gulf Coast
salt domes: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-293, 630 p.
Beckman, J.D. and A.K. Williamson, 1990, Salt dome locations in the Gulf Coastal Plain, South-Central
United States: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 90-4060, 44p.
Bentley, C. B., 1983, Preliminary report on the geohydrology near Cypress Creek and Richton Salt
Domes, Perry County, Mississippi: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 834169, 40p.
Brandwein, S.S. and R.M. White, 1983, Surface geologic reconnaissance of Richton Dome, Perry
County, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-298, 10 P.
Dames and Moore, 1978, Preliminary site selection report inland domes-Mississippi/Alabama:
Technical Report of the U.S. Department of Energy, contract EL-78-C-01-7191, 78p.
Drumheller, J.C., S. I. Furest, B.P. Cavan, and J.A. Saunders, 1982, Petrographic and geochemical
characteristics of the Richton salt core: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation,
ONWI-277, 85p.
Dunrud, R.C., and B.B. Nevins, 1981, Solution mining and subsidence in evaporite rocks in the United
States: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1298, 1:5,000,000, 2 sheets.
pg. 7
Earth Technology Corporation, 1984, Near-dome geologic findings – Richton Dome, Mississippi:
Annual Status Report for FY 83: U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI555, 27 p.
____________, 1984, Comments on a letter by George D. DeBuchananne (U.S. Geological Survey)
regarding the use of salt domes for high-level waste disposal: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-511, 97 p.
____________, 1986, Potentiometric-level monitoring program—Mississippi and Louisiana: Annual
status report for fiscal year 1984: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI613, 80 p.
_____________, 1986, Potentiometric-level monitoring program---Mississippi and Louisiana: Annual
Status Report for Fiscal Year 1985, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI623, 83 p.
_____________, 1987, Deposition of Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments in the eastern Mississippi Salt
Basin (with emphasis on the Richton Dome area) - Vol. 1: U.S. Department t of Energy, Office of
Nuclear Waste Isolation, BMI/ONWI-657, 256 p.
____________, 1987, Regional ground-water flow near Richton and Cypress Creek Domes, Mississippi:
Annual status report for fiscal year 1984, U.S. Department t of Energy, Office on Nuclear Waste
Isolation, BMI/ONWI-640, 222 p.
____________, 1987, Probable maximum flood analysis, Richton Dome, Mississippi---Phase I: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-634, 28 p.
____________, 1987, Hypocenters (1977 – 1984) around the Richton Dome and the Melvin, Alabama,
1978 earthquake: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-659, 40 p.
Ertec, Inc., 1983, Midyear FY 83 Richton Dome screening and suitability review: U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-484, 103 p.
___________, 1983, Preliminary overburden characterization at Richton Dome: U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-481, 66 p.
___________, 1983, Basin Analysis---Richton Dome area, Mississippi: Annual status report for fiscal
year 1982: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-442, 68 p.
___________, 1983, Regional ground-water flow near Richton Dome, Mississippi: Annual status report
for fiscal year 1982: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-456, 147 p.
pg. 8
_____________, 1984, Potentiometric-level monitoring program----Mississippi and Louisiana: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-525, 27 p.
_____________, 1985, Gravity modeling study – Richton Dome, Mississippi: U.S. Department of
Energy, contract DE-ACO2- 38CH10140, 66 p.
Gandl, L.A., and C.A. Spiers, 1980, Results of water quality sampling near Richton, Cypress Creek and
Lampton Salt Domes, Mississippi: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 80-443, 14 p., plus maps.
Grant, C.M. and R.M. White, 1981, Gravity studies of seven interior salt domes: report to Law
Engineering Testing, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 132 p.
INTERA Environmental Consultants, Inc., 1984, First status report on regional and local ground-water
flow modeling for Richton Dome, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste
Isolation, ONWI-502, 162 p.
INTERA Technologies, Inc., 1986, Second status report on regional and local ground-water modeling
for Richton and Cypress Creek Domes, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste
Isolation, ONWI-605, 129 p.
Law Engineering Testing Company, 1980, Final draft—area characterization: U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, vol. IV A – Text Mississippi Study Area, vol. IV B – Figures
Mississippi Study Area, pagination not continuous.
____________, 1981, An analysis of ground-water flow times near seven interior salt domes: report to
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 85p.
_____________, 1982, Gulf Coast salt domes—geologic area characterization report – introduction:
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-117, 256 p.
_____________, 1982, Gulf Coast Salt Domes Geologic Area Characterization Report --- Mississippi
Study Area: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-120, pagination not
continuous.
______________, 1982, Gulf Coast salt domes well completion report: Site MRIG-9: U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-178.
_____________, 1982, Gulf Coast salt domes shallow borings report: U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-167, pagination not continuous.
pg. 9
Lord, A.S., C.A. Rautman and K.M. Looff, 2006, Geologic technical assessment: Richton salt dome,
Mississippi: Sandia National Laboratories, Report to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project
Management Office, New Orleans, La., 29 p.
____________, 2007, Geologic technical assessment of the Richton Salt Dome, Mississippi, for
potential expansion of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Sandia National Laboratories, Sandia
Report SAND2007-0463, 51 p.
McCauley, V.S. and G.E. Raines, 1987, Expected brine movement at potential nuclear waste repository
salt sites: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, BMI/ONWI-654, 151 p.
Pfeifle, T.W., K.D. Mellegard and P.E. Senseny, 1983, Preliminary constitutive properties for salt and
nonsalt rocks from four potential repository sites: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste
Isolation, ONWI-540, 230 p.
_____________, 1983, Constitutive properties of salt from four sites: U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-314, 93 p.
Simcox, A.C., and S. L. Wampler, 1982, Borehole locations on seven interior salt domes: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-280, 93 p.
Spiers, C.A. and L.A. Gandl, 1980, A preliminary report on the geohydrology of the Mississippi Salt
Dome Basin: U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations, Open-file Report 80-595, 45p.
United States Department of Energy, 1980, Summary characterization and recommendation of study
areas for the Gulf Interior Region: Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-18, 75 p.
____________, 1981, Geologic evaluation Gulf Coast Salt Domes: Overall assessment of the Gulf
Interior Region: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-106, 160 p.
____________, 1982, Evaluation of area studies of the U.S. Gulf Coast Salt Dome Basins: location
recommendation report: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-109,
192 p.
____________, 1982, Gulf Coast salt domes – geologic area characterization report, Mississippi study
area: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-120, 464 p.
____________, 1986, Environmental Assessment - Richton Dome Site, Mississippi: U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, vols. 1, 2, 3, DOE/RW-0072, page numbers by
chapter.
pg. 10
____________, 2006, Site selection for the expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – Final
Environmental Impact Statement: U.S. Department of Energy, Chapters 1-8, Office of Petroleum
Reserves (FE-47), Washington, D.C., 776p.
U.S. Government, 2011, Cancellation of supplemental environmental impact statement for ancillary
facilities for the Richton site of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Federal Register, vol. 76, no. 175, p.
55890.
Werner, M.L., 1986, Evaluation of the structure and stratigraphy over Richton Dome, Mississippi: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, BMI/ONWI-585, 105 p.
Werner, M.L., 1986, Structure and mineralization of the Richton Dome caprock boring MRIG-9: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-610, 84 p.
Reports From Mississippi Governmental Agencies
BCM Engineers, 1985, Review of groundwater modeling related to the suitability of Richton Dome as a
nuclear waste repository: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, Contract
#85-195-011, subcontract Task 2, 35p.
_____________, 1986, An investigation of hydrology related to the suitability of Richton Dome as a
nuclear repository: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, Contract #85195-011, Task 1, 35 p., plus appendices and 3 maps.
_____________, 1986, An investigation of dissolution and salt tectonics related to the suitability of
Richton Dome as a nuclear repository: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and
Transportation, Contract #85-195-011, Task 2, 24 p., plus map.
BCM Converse, Inc., 1985, Performance assessment for a nuclear waste repository at Richton Dome:
Status, uncertainties, requirements: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and
Transportation, Contract #85-195-011, subcontract Task 3, 44p.
______________, 1985, Environmental Impacts: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and
Transportation, Contract #85-195-011, subcontract Task 3, 20 p.
______________, 1985, Review comments on draft environmental assessments Richton Dome Site,
Mississippi: internal report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, 139 p.
______________, 1985, Review of geophysical data and assessment of the uncertainty of the shape
and size of the Richton Dome, Mississippi: Contract No. 85-195-011, subcontract task 4, prepared for
the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, 69p.
pg. 11
Bowen, R.L., 1985, Geologically recent uplift and warping in southeastern Mississippi: report to
Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning and Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation,
METB contract 85-195-011, 35p., plus 4 maps.
Burns, D.R., 1985, Review of the geophysical data and assessment of the uncertainty of the shape and
size of the Richton Dome, Mississippi: internal report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and
Transportation, BCM Converse, Inc. / Arthur D. Little, Inc., Contract #85-195-011, Subcontract Task 4,
Jackson, Mississippi, 69p.
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 1993, A geologic report on the feasibility of largequantity brine disposal in the Richton Dome area: Mississippi Office of Geology, Open-file Report 20,
not uniformly numbered, plus maps.
Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board , 1997, Petition of Denbury Management, Inc. to establish special
field rules for East Apollo Field, Perry County, Mississippi, Docket No. 362-97-818, Order No. 509-97,
7p.
____________, 2010, Oil & gas field maps of Mississippi: Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board, E. Apollo
Field, Vol. 1, p. 9.
Schutts, L.D., 1987, Re-evaluation of gravity readings taken in the vicinity of Richton Dome, Perry
County, Mississippi: Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute, internal report, 54 p.
Spigener, Sarah and Stephanie Showalter, 2008, Expansion of Strategic Petroleum Reserve under fire:
University of Mississippi, Water Log, vol. 28, no. 1.
Swann, C.T., and K.H. Walton, 1988, Review of hydrocarbon producing zones near the Richton Dome
high-level nuclear waste site, Perry County, Mississippi: Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute, Openfile Report 88-10, 31 p.
Literature and Document Collections Dedicated to the Richton Dome
Blackman, Carolyn, 1990, Nuclear Waste Disposal Research Collection, Collection M427, University of
Southern Mississippi, McCain Library and Archives, Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
Note: This collection is focused on the correspondence of the Perry County Citizens Against Nuclear
Waste Disposal, Inc. (PCCANW), a citizens group opposing the proposed high level nuclear waste
repository. The collection contains various correspondence (PCCANW-related), notes, technical reports
from various governmental agencies, maps, newspaper clippings and various articles. The material
dates from about 1969 to 1987. The collection was donated by Carolyn Blackmon in August 1990.
pg. 12
The library at the University of Mississippi (on the main campus in University, Mississippi)
contains a set of D.O.E. reports that was originally used by the MMRI and other University of Mississippi
researchers when the nuclear waste project was active. The MMRI retains a limited amount of Richton
Dome data in its files and library. Many of the reports and data used by the Mississippi Office of
Geology were donated to the University of Southern Mississippi library in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, after
the end of their nuclear waste studies, although they also retain a limited set of Richton data in their
files.
Subsurface Information (Well locations, information sources)
Drilling History
The Richton Dome has been the focus of exploratory drilling at least since the 1940’s. Some of
the earliest wells that verified Richton as a salt structure were drilled in the exploration for elemental
sulfur resources. Records of these wells still exist and are the most extensive source of information on
the Richton caprock. In the 1980’s , Richton was considered a potential site for a national high-level
nuclear waste repository, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) drilled a set of wells to evaluate the
dome’s potential use as a repository. These DOE wells were drilled both on and off the structure and
contain the most complete set of data regarding subsurface lithologies. Since Richton was removed
from consideration in favor of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, these wells have been largely
forgotten and are seldom used. Salt domes tend to be targets for oil and gas exploration, especially
along the flanks. Richton has seen oil and gas exploration mostly focused on potential traps along the
flanks and beneath the salt overhang. East Apollo Field is the only field currently producing from the
Richton structure (producing liquid hydrocarbons from the Eutaw Formation).
Most recently, the dome was considered a potential candidate for an expansion of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. Although these studies did not result in new drilling, they did summarize the wells
in and around Richton Dome, reviewed dome geometry and cataloged the geophysics data available at
the dome (see Lord, Rautman and Looff, 2007). This report is recommended as a summary report. It
should be noted, however, that operator and well names used in this report do not always correspond
to the records maintained by the Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB). They list a number of
wells in Table A-1, for example, with Exploration Drilling as well operator. The MSOGB well permits list
the operator as Exploro Corporation for the same wells. Herein, the MSOGB well name usage is
followed, as they are the controlling regulatory agency. The MSOGB records are incomplete in some
cases. Various scout card collections have been consulted to acquire the missing data in the MSOGB
records.
Hydrocarbon Exploration Wells
There have been a number of hydrocarbon test wells drilled near the salt structure. Most of
these have been dry holes or encountered hydrocarbons in uneconomical amounts. The small East
Apollo field was not developed until 1995 and still produces. Table 1 contains a listing of these wells
exclusive of the East Apollo Field, which has a dedicated section following Table 1.
pg. 13
Table 1 – Hydrocarbon Exploration Wells
Operator
Lease /
Well
Status
API Number
Donald Oil
Company
Donald
(Richton),
No. 1
Gerald L.
Reasor
Estate, No.
1
APS
23111000850000 31.36695
P&A
Louisiana
Land &
Exploration
Co.
Chevron
U.S. A., Inc.
– TX
Shell Oil
Company –
NOLA
Shell Oil
Company –
NOLA
Shell Oil
Company –
NOLA
Final Oil
and
Chemical
Co.
Fina Oil and
Chemical
Co.
Gulf
Refining
Co.
Latitude
Longitude
-89.00727
Total
Depth
(ft)
3100
Spud /
Permit
Date
Feb.,
1924
23111200300000 31.358
-88.977
16,540
12/19/77
P&A
23111200890000 31.38828
-89.00439
P&A
23111200060000 31.38623
-88.99644
14,497
7/27/72
P&A
23111200050000 31.38276
-88.96719
14,930
4/16/72
P&A
23111200020000 31.39224
-88.97633
12,920
10/11/71
P&A
23111201070000 31.35968
-88.9884
10,600
3/29/94
P&A
23111201090000 31.35839
-88.99241
9,025
9/11/94
P&A
23111000320000 31.36984
-89.00446
8,874
10/15/45
Leaf River
21-3, 1
Masonite
21-1, 1
Masonite
Et. Al., 237, 1
Masonite
Et. Al., 1
Ridgeway
34-3, No. 1
Ridgeway
34-4, No. 1
B.M.
Stevens
Co., No. 1
East Apollo Field Wells and Field Production
East Apollo is the only established field associated with the Richton Dome. It is producing liquid
hydrocarbons from the Eutaw Formation. From 1995 to 2013 (end of the calendar year) it has produced
510,509 barrels of oil and 13,910,863 barrels of produced water. The East Apollo wells are summarized
in Table 2, below. The E. C. Sellers well remains closed in as of this date.
pg. 14
Table 2 – East Apollo Field Wells
Status
API Number
Latitude
Longitude
Operator
Lease /
Well
-88.9588
Total
Depth
(ft)*1
7558
Spud /
Permit
Date
7/30/95
Petro
Harvester
Operating
Co., LLC
Petro
Harvester
Operating
Co., LLC
Petro
Harvester
Operating
Co., LLC
Denbury
Onshore, LLC
Petro
Harvester
Operating
Co., LLC
Fina Oil and
Chemical
Sellers,
E. C., 364, No. 1
Closed In
23111201110100
31.35884
J.C.
Hillman,
36, H-1
Oil
production
23111201241000
31.35557
-88.955
8600
3/19/97
East
Apollo
SWD #1
Salt water
disposal
23111201280000
31. 36121
-88.9476
5990
12/30/97
Fairley,
1-5, 1
Chris
Dunn
25-12
No Report
Submitted
Salt water
disposal
23111201170100
31.33854
-88.9441
8647
1/30/04
2311120157
31.36448
-88.9590
5/18/13
Leaf
DH, P&A
2311120115
31.37352 -88.9509
8224
6/9/96
River 262, 1
Denbury
Lee J.
EX
23111201291000 31.362
-88.953
7000
2/18/98
Management Ball 2514, No.
H1
Notes:1) total depth derived from permit or completion data; 2)DH=dry hole, P&A=plugged and
abandoned.
As can be seen in Figure 2, below, the oil production in East Apollo has been slowly declining
since 2003. The produced water was on an upward trend and peaked in 2009, but has been generally
declining since. Although water production is declining, these wells still produce significant amounts of
brine that must be disposed of by way of underground injection.
pg. 15
Figure 2 - Oil and Water Production in East Apollo
(in barrels)
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
Oil
600000
400000
200000
0
Sulfur Exploration Wells
The earliest exploration wells drilled on the Richton Dome were completed in 1944 – 1945 as
part of a regional-scale search for elemental sulfur. Gravity anomalies guided the exploration drilling
program and, as a result, several Mississippi salt domes were confirmed. At this early date, geophysical
logging was in its infancy, so only a few wells had geophysical logs. Written core descriptions and
cuttings logs are common for these early wells. No trace of the original core could be located and is
presumed to have been discarded as no economic amounts of sulfur were discovered. These wells are
useful to characterize the cap rock over the salt stock.
Table 3 – Sulfur Exploration Wells
API Number
Latitude
Longitude
Operator
Lease / Well
Status
Spud /
Permit Date
-88.95536
Total
Depth
(ft)
935
Minsearch
Corp.
Minsearch
Corp.
Minsearch
Corp.
J.B. Cantrell
Estate, No.1
Grafton Rich,
No. 1
E. C. Fishel,
No. 1
P&A
2311100051
31.35698
P &A
23111000570000
31.36409
-88.96011
872
1/12/45
P& A
23111000540000
31.33864
-88.95197
979
1/28/45
1/3/45
pg. 16
Operator
Lease / Well
Minsearch
Corp.
Minsearch
Corp.
Minsearch
Corp.
J. T. Smith,
No. 1
J. W. Pope,
No. 1
J. W. Pope,
No. 2
Exploro
Corp.
Minsearch
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No. 2
Eliza
Backstrom,
No. 1
Eliza
Backstrom,
No. 2
Minsearch
Corp.
Eva Carey
No. 1
Minsearch
Corp.
L.E. Ridgeway
“B” 10
Minsearch
Corp.
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No.1
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No. 3
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No. 5
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No. 6
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No 7
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No. 8
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No. 9
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No. 10
Exploro
Corp.
Masonite
Corp., No. 4
Table 3 – Sulfur Exploration Wells
Status API Number
Latitude
Longitude
P&A
23111000640000
31.34923
-88.98148
Total
Depth
(ft)
1050
Spud /
Permit Date
P&A
23111000550000
31.34413
-88.96421
583
1/10/45
P&A
23111000560000
31.33506
-88.96458
1591
1/2/45
P &A
23111000140000
31.37251
-88.9588
1862.31 10/31/1944
P &A
23111000480000
31.35137
-88.95141
3000
1/18/45
P&A
23111000490000
31.34955
-88.95893
722
1/28/45
P&A
23111000500000
31.34472
-88.95044
1312
1/30/45
P&A
23111000620000
31.55589
-88.97303
717
12/18/44
P&A
23111000130000
31.38577
-88.97715
856
10/28/44
P&A
23111000150000
31.37517
-88.99258
738.7
10/24/44
P&A
23111000170000
31.37641
-88.96464
969
11/11/44
P&A
23111000180000
31.37511
-88.97265
632
11/9/44
P&A
23111000190000
31.37955
-88.97855
735
11/30/44
P&A
23111000200000
31.37658
-88.9855
765
11/23/44
P&A
23111000210000
31.38194
-88.98644
740
11/22/44
P&A
23111000220000
31.36978
-88.96643
713
11/17/44
P&A
23111000160000
31.38234
-88.97111
771
11/14/44
2/5/45
pg. 17
Operator
Lease / Well
Minsearch
Corp.
Minsearch
Corp.
Eva Carey,
No. 2
Mrs. Eva
Carey, No. 2A
Exploro
Corp.
L.E. Ridgway,
B-5
Minsearch
Corp.
L.E. Ridgway,
B-6
Minsearch
Corp.
L. E. Ridgway,
B-7
Minsearch
Corp.
L.E. Ridgway,
B-8
Minsearch
Corp.
L.E. Ridgway,
B-11
Exploro
Corp.
L.E. Ridgway,
B-1
Exploro
Corp.
L.E. Ridgway,
B-2
Exploro
Corp.
L.E. Ridgway,
B-3
Minsearch
Corp.
L. E. Ridgway,
B-12
Minsearch
Corp.
L.E. Ridgway,
B, B-9
Exploro
Corp.
W.E. Carter,
No. 1
Minsearch
Corp.
W.E. Carter,
No.2
Table 3 – Sulfur Exploration Wells
Status API Number
Latitude
Longitude
*1
*1
Total
Depth
(ft)
941
23111000520000
31.34448
-88.94592
2000
Jan. 26, 1945
P&A
23111000260000
31.37034
-88.98546
682
11/28/44
P&A
23111000580000
31.36661
-88.99282
765
12/3/44
P&A
23111000590000
31.36278
-88.98122
702
12/5/44
P&A
23111000600000
31.35569
-88.98143
779
12/11/44
P&A
23111000270000
31.36765
-88.97344
640
11/17/44
P&A
23111000230000
31.37271
-88.97857
672
10/14/44
P &A
23111000240000
31.35897
-88.99025
896
10/17/44
P&A
23111000250000
31.36186
-88.97119
730
11/3/44
P&A
23111000630000
31.34283
-88.9742
873
12/15/44
P&A
23111000610000
31.35227
-88.98876
2601
12/9/44
P&A
23111000120000
31.35086
-88.96582
700
10/9/44
P&A
23111000530000
31.34095
-88.96004
682
2/6/45
P&A
N/A
P&A
Spud /
Permit Date
1/17/45
NOTES: *1 – The drill stem twisted off in the Eva Carey No. 2 well and it could not be recovered, so, the Eva
Carey No. 2A was drilled eight feet north of the Eva Carey No. 2.
pg. 18
U. S. Department Of Energy Test Wells
The DOE contractors drilled a number of wells on and adjacent to the salt stock in order to
characterize and evaluate the dome for a potential high-level nuclear waste repository. The MRIG-9
well was cored to characterize the cap rock in detail. It is noteworthy as the DOE published a detailed
report on the core (see Werner, 1986). Some wells were drilled off the structure to characterize the
adjacent aquifers and some were “nested”, meaning a set of wells was drilled in one location, but to
different depths (MRIH-11, for example).
Stone &
Webster
Engineering
Table 4 – U. S. Department of Energy Repository Characterization Wells
Well Name
Status
API
Latitude
Longitude
Total
Number
Depth
(ft) *1
D.O.E., J. R.
P&A
231112004 31.324486 -88.997553 6041
Smith, MRIH
50000
#11A
Stone &
Webster
Engineering
D.O.E., J. R.
Smith, MRIH
#11B
P&A
231112004
60000
31.324486 -88.997553
2565
Stone &
Webster
Engineering
D.O.E., J. R.
Smith, MRIH
#11D
P&A
231112004
70000
31.324486 -88.997553
1620
Stone &
Webster
Engineering
P&A
231112005
00000
P&A
231112004
90000
31.372308 -88.970381
1275
Stone &
Webster
Engineering
D.O.E.,
Masonite
Corp, #MRIG
10
D.O.E.,
Masonite
Corp, #MRIG
9
D.O.E., J. R.
Smith, MRIH
#11 WS
P&A
N/A
31.324486 -88.997553
400
Stone &
Webster
Engineering
D.O.E., J.R.
Smith, MRIH
#11D
P&A
231112004
80000
31.324486 -88.997553
940
Masonite,
MRIG-201
Masonite,
MRIG-202
P&A
N/A
31.375441 -88.985436
79
P&A
N/A
31.361886 -88.970302
200
Operator
Stone &
Webster
Engineering
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
2699
Notes /
Comments
Component of
11A well
“nest” with
same location
Component of
11A well
“nest” with
same location
Component of
11A well
“nest” with
same location
Outside of
study area
Component of
11A well
“nest” with
same location
Component of
11A well
“nest” with
same location
Start date
12/12/79
Start date
10/16/79
pg. 19
Operator
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Dept. of
Energy
Table 4 – U. S. Department of Energy Repository Characterization Wells
Well Name
Status
API
Latitude
Longitude
Total
Number
Depth
(ft) *1
Masonite,
P&A
N/A
31.380253 -88.972312 120
MRIG-203
Masonite,
P&A
N/A
31.388643 -88.977529 175
MRIG-204
Masonite,
P&A
N/A
31.386653 -88.991881 140
MRIG-205
Masonite,
P&A
N/A
31.386277 -88.956322 75
MRIG-208
Masonite,
P&A
N/A
31.388539 -88.962094 50
MRIG-209
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.355946 -88.954648 180
MRIG-210
McCardle,
P&A
N/A
31.362732 -88.953381 140
MRIG-211
Valentine,
P&A
N/A
31.355921 -88.962906 180
MRIG-212
McLendon,
P&A
N/A
31.346386 -88.945015 100.5
MRIG-213
Hillman,
P& A
N/A
31.344372 -88.957817 120
MRIG-215
McLendon,
P&A
N/A
31.338678 -88.959451 120
MRIG-216
Godfrey,
P&A
N/A
31.326936 -88.971391 170
MRIG-217
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.366164 -88.98397
140
MRIG-219
Oliphant,
P&A
N/A
31.335094 -88.945431 120
MRIG-220
Oliphant,
P&A
N/A
31.348119 -88.960342 124
MRIG-222
Oliphant,
P&A
N/A
31.345772 -88.97498
160
MRIG-223
Oliphant,
P&A
N/A
31.340817 -88.983461 129
MRIG-224
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.360861 -88.970534 150
MRIG-226
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.359598 -88.98504
140
MRIG-227
Ridgway,
P&A
N/A
31.358833 -88.996208 120
MRIG-228
Beasley,
P&A
N/A
100
MRIG-229
Notes /
Comments
Outside of
study area
pg. 20
Table 4 – U. S. Department of Energy Repository Characterization Wells
Operator
Well Name
Status
API
Latitude
Longitude
Total
Notes /
Number
Depth
Comments
(ft) *1
Dept. of
Smith, MRIG- P & A
N/A
31.346648 -88.984841 159.5
Energy
230
Dept. of
Masonite,
P&A
N/A
120.5
Outside of
Energy
MRIG-232
study area
Dept. of
Masonite,
P&A
N/A
31.398327 -88.961673 500
Energy
MRIG-301
Dept. of
Masonite,
P&A
N/A
31.38443
-88.974766 500
Energy
MRIG-302
Dept. of
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.362014 -88.979667 491
Energy
MRIG-303
Dept. of
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.355018 -88.985946 500
Energy
MRIG-304
Dept. of
McSwain,
P&A
N/A
31.33287
-88.993344 550.9
Energy
MRIG-305
Dept. of
Clearman,
P&A
N/A
31.345711 -88.971552 490
Energy
MRIG-306
Dept. of
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.350075 -88.96213
533.5
Energy
MRIG-307
Dept. of
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.355946 -88.954648 500
Energy
MRIG-308
Dept. of
Ridgway,
P&A
N/A
31.34705
-88.988463 360
Energy
MRIG-309
Dept. of
Hillman,
P&A
N/A
31.359519 -88.983821 400
Energy
MRIG-310
Notes: *1 – Depths are derived from drillers depths as listed on geophysical logs and may vary slightly from
other listed depths such as logged depth or ONWI-167 listing.
Potential Uses of the Richton Salt Structure
The shallow depth and size of the salt structure make it attractive for a number of potential
economic uses. Perhaps the most obvious potential use of the dome is mining the salt as a product or as
raw material for other industrial processes. Salt domes in Louisiana have been mined for decades and
are a major producer of table salt. Although additional analysis is required, the salt purity should be
adequate for most purposes. Considering Richton’s shallow depth and its lateral extent, underground
mining should be a feasible use for the resource. The extensive lateral extent allows a mining operation
to develop that could provide years of resource utilization. The room and pillar mining methods
typically used in salt mining is a well-developed technology as are the various methods of advancing the
initial access shaft through the water-saturated overburden. There is railroad access as well as suitable
highways over or near the dome improving the economic feasibility of salt prospects. Much of the over
dome area is sparsely populated with the town of Richton above only a small portion of the
southeastern edge of the dome.
pg. 21
Petroleum storage is another potential salt dome use. Mississippi has six salt domes used for
underground natural gas storage. As the United States produces increased amounts of natural gas,
adequate storage becomes increasingly important. As illustrated in the Sandia National Laboratories
review (Lord, Rautman and Looff, 2007), there are a number of gas pipelines near or over the dome.
Gas storage in salt caverns is considered a superior method of storage because the gas can be moved in
and out of the storage cavern quickly and the gas input/output ratio is high. The caverns in which the
gas is stored are solution caverns formed by dissolving the salt around a well by circulating fresh water
in a controlled fashion. A source of freshwater is needed as is an injection well to dispose of saltsaturated waters used in the process. As in salt mining, the technology to construct these solution
caverns is well developed and the six operating salt dome storage facilities have successfully used this
technology. The primary goal of Lord, Rautman and Looff, 2007, was to evaluate the feasibility of
constructing caverns within Richton Dome to supplement the liquid hydrocarbon storage capabilities of
the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Their conclusion was that it could be successfully done at Richton.
Liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon products could also be stored in dome solution caverns.
Compressed air energy storage (CAES) is a novel use of salt dome storage space. In 1986 the
Alabama Electric Cooperative proposed that either the Petal Dome in Hattiesburg, (Forrest County)
Mississippi, or the McIntosh Dome in Washington County, Alabama, be developed for compressed air
energy storage (see Alabama Electric Cooperative, 1986*1). The preferred site was the McIntosh Dome
in Alabama. The CAES technology consists of mining or dissolving salt to form cavities within the dome.
The cavity is sealed and air compressors on the surface pump air into the cavity. The cavern air is
compressed to a high degree. The air compressors work in times of minimal electrical demands. When
demand peaks and additional generating capacity is needed, the air inside the caverns is released to
operate generators at the surface which produces electricity to the grid.
*1) Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., 1987, Alternatives evaluation and site selection study for
compressed air energy storage: Nine chapters individually numbered, plus appendices, and attached
maps.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the assistance of Mr. Michael B.E. Bograd, Mississippi Office of
Geology. Mr. Bograd assisted in identifying Richton-related documents held in the Office of Geology
files and helped us recall publications and data used by the MMRI and the Office of Geology during the
nuclear waste studies in the 1980s. Scott Milo, University of Mississippi graduate student assisted with
the preparation of the digital data and Paul Mitchell prepared the illustrations used in this report. Many
thanks to Carol Lutken, MMRI Associate Director, for her critique of the manuscript.
pg. 22
Certification
The geological work described in this report, COMPILATION OF GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR THE
RICHTON SALT DOME, PERRY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, contains facts and the interpretation of facts
standard to the practice of geology. I have reviewed the contents of this document in sufficient detail to
accept responsibility for its geological content.
pg. 23