SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Appalachian Basin”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Researching candidate sites for a carbon storage complex in the Central Appalachian Basin, USA
Not Available
Quantitative mineralogy for facies definition in the Marcellus Shale (Appalachian Basin, USA) using XRD-XRF integration
Not Available
Natural geological seepage of hydrocarbon gas in the Appalachian Basin and Midwest USA in relation to shale tectonic fracturing and past industrial hydrocarbon production
Not provided.
87 Sr/ 86 Sr Concentrations in the Appalachian Basin: A Review
This document reviews 87 Sr/ 86 Sr isotope data across the Appalachian Basin from existing literature to show spatial and temporal variation. Isotope geochemistry presents a means of understanding the geochemical effects hydraulic fracturing may have on shallow ground substrates. Isotope fractionation is a naturally occurring phenomenon brought about by physical, chemical, and biological processes that partition isotopes between substances; therefore, stable isotope geochemistry allows geoscientists to understand several processes that shape the natural world. Strontium isotopes can be used as a tool to answer an array of geological and environmental inquiries. In some cases, strontium isotopes are sensitive to the introduction of a non-native fluid into a system. This ability allows strontium isotopes to serve as tracers in certain systems. Recently, it has been demonstrated that strontium isotopes can serve as a monitoring tool for groundwater and surface water systems that may be affected by hydraulic fracturing fluids (Chapman et al., 2013; Kolesar Kohl et al., 2014). These studies demonstrated that 87 Sr/ 86 Sr values have the potential to monitor subsurface fluid migration in regions where extraction of Marcellus Shale gas is occurring. This document reviews publicly available strontium isotope data from 39 sample locations in the Appalachian Basin (Hamel et al., 2010; Chapman et al., 2012; Osborn et al., 2012; Chapman et al., 2013; Capo et al., 2014; Kolesar Kohl et al., 2014). The data is divided into two sets: stratigraphic (Upper Devonian/Lower Mississippi, Middle Devonian, and Silurian) and groundwater. ArcMap™ (ESRI, Inc.) was used to complete inverse distance weighting (IDW) analyses for each dataset to create interpolated surfaces in an attempt to find regional trends or variations in strontium isotopic values across the Appalachian Basin. 87 Sr/ 86 Sr varies up to ~ 0.011 across the Appalachian Basin, but the current publicly available data is limited in frequency and regional extent, causing artifacts and high uncertainty when interpolating data for locations far from sampling sites. These factors highlight the need for additional strontium isotope sampling across the region. Identifying potential contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluid in Appalachian Basin groundwater using strontium isotopes would require additional sampling. For a more comprehensive strontium isotope database, samples would need to be collected during prefracturing, syn-fracturing, and post-fracturing stages. This would add a temporal component to the spatial data and make tracing of fluid migration with strontium isotopes more accurate. Future research and modeling that incorporates subsurface geology and watershed data would also serve to increase the accuracy and certainty of the interpolations of these analyses. Prospective geospatial Appalachian Basin isotope studies would also benefit from the integration of geologic mapping because surface and subsurface geology influences observed strontium isotope values.
Implementing Large-Scale CCS in Complex Geologic Reservoirs: Insights from Three Appalachian Basin Case Studies
This paper presents three design case studies for implementing large-scale geologic carbon storage in the Appalachian Basin region of the midwestern United States. While the Appalachian Basin has a challenging setting for carbon storage, the three case studies detailed in this article demonstrate that there are realistic options for implementing carbon storage in the basin. Carbonate rock formations, depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs, and moderate-porosity sandstones can be utilized as carbon-storage reservoirs in the Appalachian Basin. While these are not typical concepts for CO2 storage, the storage zones have advantages such as defined trapping mechanisms, multiple caprocks, and defined boundaries that are not always present in thick, permeable sandstones being targeted for many carbon-storage projects. The geologic setting, geotechnical parameters, and hydrologic setting for the three case studies are provided, along with the results of reservoir simulations of the CO2 injection-deployment strategies. The geological rock formations available for CO2 storage in the Appalachian Basin are more localized reservoirs with defined boundaries and finite storage capacities. Simulation results showed that accessing carbon-storage resources in these fields may require wellfields with 2–10 injection wells. However, these fields would have the capacity to inject 1–3 million metric tons of CO2 per year and up to 90 million metric tons of CO2 in total. The CO2 storage resources would fulfill decarbonization goals for many of the natural-gas power plants, cement plants, hydrogen plants, and refineries in the Appalachian Basin region.
Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis For The Appalachian Basin: Phase 1 Revised Report November 18, 2016
Geothermal energy is an attractive sustainable energy source. Yet project developers need confirmation of the resource base to warrant their time and financial resources. The Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis of the Appalachian Basin evaluated risk metrics that communicate the favorability of potential low-temperature geothermal energy resources in reservoirs more than 1000 m below the surface. This analysis is focused on the direct use of the heat, rather than on electricity production. Four risk factors of concern for direct-use geothermal plays in the Appalachian Basin portions of New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are examined individually, and then in combination: 1) thermal resource quality, 2) natural reservoir quality, 3) induced seismicity, and 4) utilization opportunities. Uncertainty in the risk estimation is quantified. Based on these metrics, geothermal plays in the Appalachian Basin were identified as potentially viable for a variety of direct-use-heat applications. The methodologies developed in this project may be applied in other sedimentary basins as a foundation for low temperature (50-150 °C), direct use geothermal resource, risk, and uncertainty assessment. Three methods with which to combine the four risk factors were used. Among these, the averaging of the individual risk factors indicates the most favorable counties within the study area are the West Virginia counties of Monongalia, Harrison, Lewis (dubbed the Morgantown–Clarksburg play fairway), Putnam, and Kanawha (Charleston play fairway), the New York counties of Chemung and Steuben plus adjacent Bradford county in Pennsylvania (Corning–Ithaca play fairway), and the Pennsylvania counties of Mercer, Crawford, Erie, and Warren, and adjacent Chautauqua county in New York (together, the Meadville–Jamestown play fairway). These higher priority regions are surrounded by broader medium priority zones. Also worthy of additional exploration is a broad region near Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, for which the available geological data are insufficient to fully analyze the geological risks but yet the population is high. First, to assess the spatial variation in the depth to which one would need to drill to obtain geothermal temperatures that are useful to a future project, the project used bottom-hole temperature data from Appalachian Basin oil and gas exploration. These bottom hole temperature data are abundant but of low quality. Second, the project examined the potential for sufficient water flow rates through rocks to harvest heat from a geothermal well field, considering only natural reservoirs. This analysis provides a very incomplete picture of spatial variability of natural reservoirs because the oil and gas reservoir data lack key properties and are spatially biased toward those locations with profitable amounts of hydrocarbons in the rock pore spaces. Third, in light of the fact that earthquake activity has been induced in several states by subsurface work related to the oil and gas industry, this project examined the potential for similar activity in the Appalachian Basin. Acknowledging that data for such a task are insufficient, we utilized what was available: records of seismic activity, regional estimates of the orientations of stress in the rocks, and locations and orientations of zones of lateral change in rock properties at depths down to several kilometers below Earth’s surface. With these data, we created a first approximation of spatially variable risks for induced earthquakes. Because no data existed with which to test the reliability of these methods, the results have a high degree of uncertainty. Fourth, we examined the spatial variability of the above-the-ground factors that contribute to the economical viability of projects to tap low-temperature geothermal resources for direct-use. We worked principally with population density as a regionally known variable that would impact the cost of district heating. The resulting maps omit the costs of producing the hot water from the ground, because the below-ground costs are directly coupled to the thermal resource risk factor and natural reservoir risk factor – later analyses of those costs will be needed. The result of the district heating analysis is highly skewed: few census locations yielded a low estimated surface cost. The team also identified more than 165 prospects for high value direct-use geothermal energy opportunities such as industrial sites, university campuses, and federal facilities, among others. At the closure of this regional analysis, the most significant technical uncertainties are 1) reservoir distribution and capacities; 2) validity of thermal resource maps, and 3) the holistic estimation of Levelized Cost of Heat for favorable geological situations.
Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis Thermal Risk Factor and Quality Analyses
*This submission revises the analysis and products for Thermal Quality Analysis for the northern half of the Appalachian Basin (https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/638)* This submission is one of five major parts of a Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis. Phase 1 of the project identified potential Geothermal Play Fairways within the Appalachian basin of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. This submission includes a subset of the necessary shapefiles, rasters, datasets, code, and references to code repositories that were used to create the thermal resource and risk factor maps as part of the project. This subset is those contents that were improved upon during calendar year 2016. Figures are provided as examples of some shapefiles and rasters. See also: Final Report: Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin (https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/899). The 2015 data submission should be visited to obtain: 1) the regional standardized 1 square km grid used in the project as points (cell centers), polygons, and as a raster, 2) the raw well data for the state well temperature databases, 3) the COSUNA section shapefile and formation thermal conductivities by state as *.xlsx files, 4) the sediment thickness map and 30 m Digital Elevation Model for the Appalachian Basin as GeoTIFF raster files, 5) the BHT correction sections shapefile and drilling fluid databases as *.csv files, 6) the unbuffered interpolation regions as shapefiles, 7) several 50 km buffered interpolation regions as shapefiles, 8) several gridded interpolation regions as raster files, 9) an R script for organizing the thermal data and running the local spatial outlier analysis, 10) shapefiles and rasters for the prediction, uncertainty, and cross validation of the temperature at 1.5 km, 2.5 km, and 3.5 km depth, 11) shapefiles and rasters for the prediction, uncertainty, and cross validation depth to 100 degrees C, 12) an ArcGIS toolbox for thermal risk factor models, 13) an ArcGIS model for extracting results specific to each county of interest, 14) thermal resource cross section plots, 15) the geothermal Play Fairways.
Rare Earth Elements (REE) and Critical Minerals (CM) in Middle Pennsylvanian-Age Coals and Associated Sediments in the Central Appalachian Basin, Eastern U.S.A.
The Central Appalachian Basin (CAB) of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia has a long history of coal mining and oil and gas extraction that has empowered the regional and national economies, the development of infrastructure, and a highly trained energy resources work force. As our societal demands for advanced technologies have rapidly increased in recent years, coal-related materials are viewed as an important new unconventional domestic source of critical minerals (CM) that are required for telecommunications, aerospace and transportation industries, electronics, the transition to low-carbon emissions energy production, and many consumer products. Coal-related materials encompass coal, associated sediments, coal mining waste materials, produced waters, and ash residues from coal-fired power plants. An important objective of the Evolve Central Appalachia Project (Evolve CAPP), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is to assess the quantity and distribution of CM resources in the CAB region. The rare earth elements (REE) are considered highest priority, although other important CM such as niobium, gallium, and zirconium are known to occur in the Middle Pennsylvanian-age coals and sediments. Working with coal industry partners who provided access to drill cores, coal-related sediments and waste materials, over 600 samples have been collected for laboratory analysis, and over 730 materials have been scanned using portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF) equipment. The application of pXRF provides the means for real-time semiquantitative analysis of CM content at very close spacings (typically 2-3 inch intervals) along drill core and in-situ channel samples that span the roof, coal seam, and floor rock. The comparison of pXRF geochemical data with laboratory results, geologic data, and downhole spectral gamma logs can provide high resolution input to lithologic and depositional models for future CM resource evaluations. The preliminary findings show that pXRF is capable of accurately measuring low concentrations of many of the CM with a high level of confidence (Ba, Cr, Ga, K, Nb, Rb, Sr, Th, Y), whereas for others (La, Ce, Co, Mn, Nd, Ni, Sc, Ti, V) the detection limits are very high or spectral interferences increase the uncertainty. Notably, the mean abundances of Y (34 ppm), La (86 ppm), Ga (40 ppm), and V (146 ppm) in coal underclays in the CAB region are up to 7X enriched compared with the overlying coal. These values also exceed the reported concentrations in published reference materials for upper continental crustal rocks (Rudnick and Gao, 2003), North American Shale Composite (Gromet et al., 1984), and North American coal (Finkelman, 1993). The pXRF data are in part verified by laboratory results that indicate the mean Y abundance (36 ppm) is highly correlated (R2 = 0.807) with total REE (ΣREE). The correlation is even higher (R2 = 0.957) with heavy REE (ΣHREE). Applying these correlations to the pXRF data for the coal underclays, the mean estimated values for ΣREE+Y and ΣHREE+Y are 270 ppm and 58 ppm, respectively. Although these average values are not considered high, the range of Y measured by pXRF in the coal underclays extended as high as 114 ppm, which would suggest ΣREE+Y equal to 847 ppm. The mean abundances of Zr (192 ppm) and Th (21 ppm) in coal underclays are also enriched compared with the overlying coal and these results likely reflect the presence of resistant detrital heavy minerals such as monazite, xenotime, and zircon in the underclay matrix. Several of the profiled coal seams and associated wall rocks contained thin volcanic ash layers up to 4-5 inches in thickness. The extent to which these ash fall layers provided a source for CM under the paleoenvironmental conditions that resulted in coal deposits in the CAB remains to be fully studied. Continuing investigations in the Evolve CAPP study area will include laboratory determinations of mineralogic and clay compositions, and evaluations of CM geochemical mobility in the coal and coal underclays.
Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis Gravity, Magnetics, and Earthquake Data
This archived dataset contains magnetic and gravity imaging data for the Appalachian Basin, compiled using Poisson Wavelet Multiscale Edge Detection, referred to as 'worm' for brevity, and stored in a PostGIS database, along with shapefiles and CSVs of relevant data. The archive also includes regional earthquake data going back to 1973 and relevant world stress map data. These data are used in estimating the seismic hazards (both natural and induced) for candidate direct use geothermal locations in the Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis by Jordan et al. (2015).
Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis: Revised 2016 Combined Risk Factor Analysis
This submission contains information used to compute the combined risk factors for deep geothermal energy opportunities in the Appalachian Basin, in the context of a the Play Fairway Analysis project. The risk factors are sedimentary rock reservoir quality, thermal resource quality, potential for induced seismicity, and utilization for direct-use heating of neighborhoods. The methods used to combine the risk factors included taking the average, the geometric mean, and the minimum of the four risk factors. Combined risk maps are provided for three different sedimentary rock reservoir metrics. Combined risk maps are also provided for the three geologic risk factors alone (thermal, reservoir, and seismic), and for the three risk factors that exclude reservoir quality (utilization, seismicity, and thermal qualities). The 2015 data submission should be visited to obtain associated shapefiles, which include: 1) definition of the High and Medium priority play fairways (Inner_Fairway, and Outer_Fairway), 2) definition of the US Census Places (usCensusPlaces), 3) places (cities) of interest in the region (Places_of_Interest) identified as geothermal play fairways, 4) the point centers of the raster cells (Raster_Center_Locations), and 5) locations of industries and special-use communities (e.g., colleges and military bases) identified as low temperature heat users (Industries). The 2015 submission also includes: 1) a methodology memo that explains how the risk factors were combined (GPFA-AB_combining_risk_factors.pdf), 2) the earthquake-based seismic risk map, and 3) supporting information with details of the calculations or processing used in generating these data files. More details on each file are given in the spreadsheet "list_of_contents.xlsx" in the folder "Supporting_Information". Code used to calculate values is available at https://github.com/calvinwhealton/geothermal_pfa under the folder "combining_metrics". Note that the 2016 code is currently under the branch named "combining_metrics_2016" in the folder called "combining_metrics". This branch may be merged with the master branch in the future. Many files contained within this submission update and replace the indicated files contained in: Cornell University. (2015). Risk Factor Analysis in Low-Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin (GPFA-AB) [data set]. Retrieved from https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/622. doi:10.15121/1261942
Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis: Thermal Quality Analysis in Low-Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis (GPFA-AB)
This collection of files are part of a larger dataset uploaded in support of Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin (GPFA-AB). Phase 1 of the GPFA-AB project identified potential Geothermal Play Fairways within the Appalachian basin of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. This was accomplished through analysis of 4 key criteria: thermal quality, natural reservoir productivity, risk of seismicity, and heat utilization. Each of these analyses represent a distinct project task, with the fifth task encompassing combination of the 4 risks factors. Supporting data for all five tasks has been uploaded into the Geothermal Data Repository node of the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS). This submission comprises the data for Thermal Quality Analysis (project task 1) and includes all of the necessary shapefiles, rasters, datasets, code, and references to code repositories that were used to create the thermal resource and risk factor maps as part of the GPFA-AB project. The identified Geothermal Play Fairways are also provided with the larger dataset. Figures (.png) are provided as examples of the shapefiles and rasters. The regional standardized 1 square km grid used in the project is also provided as points (cell centers), polygons, and as a raster. Two ArcGIS toolboxes are available: 1) RegionalGridModels.tbx for creating resource and risk factor maps on the standardized grid, and 2) ThermalRiskFactorModels.tbx for use in making the thermal resource maps and cross sections. These toolboxes contain item description documentation for each model within the toolbox, and for the toolbox itself. This submission also contains three R scripts: 1) AddNewSeisFields.R to add seismic risk data to attribute tables of seismic risk, 2) StratifiedKrigingInterpolation.R for the interpolations used in the thermal resource analysis, and 3) LeaveOneOutCrossValidation.R for the cross validations used in the thermal interpolations. Some file descriptions make reference to various 'memos'. These are contained within the final report submitted October 16, 2015. Each zipped file in the submission contains an 'about' document describing the full Thermal Quality Analysis content available, along with key sources, authors, citation, use guidelines, and assumptions, with the specific file(s) contained within the .zip file highlighted. UPDATE: Newer version of the Thermal Quality Analysis has been added here: https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/879 (Also linked below) Newer version of the Combined Risk Factor Analysis has been added here: https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/880 (Also linked below)
Geochemical and multi-isotopic ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr, 143 Nd/ 144 Nd, 238 U/ 235 U) perspectives of sediment sources, depositional conditions, and diagenesis of the Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin, USA
Here, we investigate sediment sources, depositional conditions and diagenetic processes affecting the Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Basin, eastern USA, a major target of natural gas exploration. Multiple proxies, including trace metal contents, rare earth elements (REE), the Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr isotope systems, and U isotopes were applied to whole rock digestions and sequentially extracted fractions of the Marcellus shale and adjacent units from two locations in the Appalachian Basin. The narrow range of εNd values (from –7.8 to –6.4 at 390 Ma) is consistent with derivation of the clastic sedimentary component of the Marcellus Shale from a well-mixed source of fluvial and eolian material of the Grenville orogenic belt, and indicate minimal post-depositional alteration of the Sm-Nd system. While silicate minerals host >80% of the REE in the shale, data from sequentially extracted fractions reflect post-depositional modifications at the mineralogical scale, which is not observed in whole rock REE patterns.
Rare earth elements and radiogenic strontium isotopes in carbonate minerals reveal diagenetic influence in shales and limestones in the Appalachian Basin
Rare earth element (REE) signatures are often applied to interpret paleoenvironmental conditions in sedimentary basins, however the complicated diagenetic histories in dynamic depositional environments can affect interpretation of measured REE signatures. Prior studies on REE content in shales and limestones indicated that REE in specific mineral phases may provide unique information concerning diagenetic reactions occurring in sedimentary rocks during burial and compaction. Application of sequential extraction techniques to target REE signatures in specific mineral fractions may provide greater insight into the complex processes that occurred during diagenesis and catagenesis. Thus, using this technique, this study provides a detailed account for REE, 87 Sr/ 86 Sr, and δ 13 C in the carbonate fraction of the Marcellus Shale and adjacent formations in the Appalachian Basin. A suite of 49 rock samples collected from two cores recovered from Monongalia County, West Virginia, USA was analyzed. The results showed that the carbonate concretions in calcareous shales and carbonate cements in black shales were very distinct. The REE plus yttrium (REY) were more concentrated in the carbonate concretions than in the carbonate cements. The carbonate concretions displayed REY patterns that are closely similar to modern seawater, while MREE-enrichment was observed in the carbonate cements. Likewise, the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr values in the carbonate concretions were similar to those measured for unaltered Middle Devonian carbonates, while the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr in the carbonate cements were much more radiogenic. This observation indicates that the carbonate cement could have been inherited radiogenic 87 Sr expulsed from clays during illite-smectite transition. Overall, this study demonstrated two distinct processes involved with controlling the carbonate geochemistry within Appalachian Basin shales and limestones: one fraction displaying minimal diagenetic alteration relative to depositional conditions (carbonate concretions in calcareous shales and limestone carbonate in limestones), and another fraction displaying the evidence for extensive chemical alteration during illite-smectite transition and catagenesis (carbonate cements in black shales). Here, in addition, highly variable and significant enrichments of U and Mo demonstrate that the Union Spring member and the Lower Oatka Creek member of the Marcellus Shale in the southwestern Appalachian Basin (MSEEL site) were deposited under mainly anoxic environment whereas intermitted episodes of dysoxic to perhaps oxic conditions occurred during the deposition of the Upper Oatka Creek member.
Appalachian Basin Temperature-Depth Maps and Structured Data in support of Feasibility Study of Direct District Heating for the Cornell Campus Utilizing Deep Geothermal Energy
This dataset contains shapefiles and rasters that summarize the results of a stochastic analysis of temperatures at depth in the Appalachian Basin states of New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. This analysis provides an update to the temperature-at-depth maps provided in the Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis of the Appalachian Basin (GPFA-AB) Thermal Quality Analysis (GDR repository 879: https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/879). This dataset improves upon the GPFA-AB dataset by considering several additional uncertainties in the temperature-at-depth calculations, including geologic properties and thermal properties. A Monte Carlo analysis of these uncertain properties and the GPFA-AB estimated surface heat flow was used to predict temperatures at depth using a 1-D heat conduction model. In this data submission, temperatures are provided for depths from 1-5 km in 0.5 km increments. The mean, standard deviation, and selected quantiles of temperatures at these depths are provided as shapefiles with attribute tables that contain the data. Rasters are provided for the mean and standard deviation data. Figures and maps that summarize the data are also provided. For the pixel corresponding to Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, a .csv file containing the 10,000 temperature-depth profiles estimated from the Monte Carlo analysis is provided. These data are summarized in a figure containing violin plots that illustrate the probability of obtaining certain temperatures at depths below Cornell.
Enhanced Recovery Opportunities in the Appalachian Basin
The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) has incorporated the work of geologic research teams (Geoteams) in its regional characterization, project planning and carbon dioxide (CO2) injection implementation work since the partnership was established by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2003. Over this 16-year period, the cohort of Geoteams has grown from five to ten states and has contributed to the characterization of geologic sequestration opportunities, refinement of reservoir and seal data, and supported injection efforts through both predictive and post-injection assessments. The regional characterization work conducted by the Geoteams during the MRCSP Phase III project period (2010 – 2019) focused on the following tasks: (1) refinement of geologic seals/reservoir systems; (2) assessment of Atlantic Coastal Plain and offshore opportunities; (3) expanded assessments of oil and gas fields, particularly as they relate to enhanced recovery opportunities; (4) regional support for implementation of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) in the partnership area; and (5) communication and data sharing. The findings of this work are summarized in the final report entitled Final Report of Geologic Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Opportunities in the form of a state-by-state presentation for the MRCSP Region. In addition to the capstone deliverable mentioned above, the Geoteams have also prepared a series of topical reports to elaborate on specific geologic intervals and/or geographic areas of study completed during the Phase III project period. Specifically, these topical reports address: (1) the Atlantic Coastal Plain and adjacent offshore; (2) Cambro-Ordovician reservoirs/seals in the region; (3) enhanced oil and gas recovery opportunities in the Appalachian Basin; and (4) enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the Michigan Basin. The remainder of this topical report presents our findings relative to enhanced recovery opportunities in the Appalachian Basin.
Enhanced Recovery Opportunities in the Appalachian Basin
The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) has incorporated the work of geologic research teams (Geoteams) in its regional characterization, project planning and carbon dioxide (CO2) injection implementation work since the partnership was established by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2003. Over this 16-year period, the cohort of Geoteams has grown from five to ten states and has contributed to the characterization of geologic sequestration opportunities, refinement of reservoir and seal data, and supported injection efforts through both predictive and post-injection assessments. The Appalachian Basin Geoteam consists of geologists from the state geological surveys of Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Pennsylvania and West Virginia led the research related to enhanced recovery opportunities in oil and gas fields, while Kentucky led the work associated with enhanced gas recovery (EGR) opportunities in organic-rich shales. The Appalachian Basin Geoteam evaluated reservoirs amenable to CO2-EOR and EGR using a combination of data sources and technical approaches. The Geoteam characterized the subsurface geology of the area in stepwise fashion, starting with existing geologic maps and fields/pools data generated as part of previous MRCSP regional characterization research. With this data, the Geoteam correlated stratigraphy and generated cross sections to delineate the extent, depths and thicknesses of those formations that may serve as reservoirs for either miscible or immiscible enhanced recovery projects. In addition, the team prepared structure and isopach maps for prospective formations, as well as assessments of gross and net porosity of these units. Once prospective localities were identified, the Geoteam selected a short list of oil fields in each of the three states for assessment for case study preparation.
Leveraging operational information from wastewater injection wells to evaluate CO 2 injection performance for carbon storage applications in the Appalachian Basin
Abstract Geologic parameters, geophysical logging, injection testing, and operational metrics from wastewater injection wells were integrated to develop a preliminary design of a carbon storage facility in the Appalachian Basin. A scattered group of 10–20 commercial wastewater injection wells dispose off produced water from oil and gas wells in the region, utilizing a sequence of stacked deep saline formations for injection zones. These wastewater injection wells provide practical benchmarks for understanding the feasibility of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage. Geologic models were developed based on characterization data from the wastewater injection wells. Reservoir simulations were calibrated according to injection testing and operational data from the wastewater injection wells. Long‐term operational data on injection flow rates and pressures measured in the wastewater injection wells were especially useful to evaluate the performance of carbon storage applications. The simulations were used to estimate injection pressures, radius of CO 2 saturation, and pressure response for industrial scale CO 2 storage applications. Results were also used to provide a design basis in terms of number of injection wells, well spacing, area of review, injection system components, monitoring plan, and CO 2 pipeline distribution system. The analysis demonstrates that there is sufficient injectivity in the deep saline formations in the west‐central Appalachian Basin to store commercial volumes of anthropogenic CO 2 . The geologic system appears suitable for supporting CO 2 injection rates of 0.5–1.0 million metric tons per year at injection pressures below formation fracture pressure in a single well. The long‐term operational data of wastewater injection wells within the study area suggested a lower permeability‐thickness values than indicated by initial reservoir tests. A workflow for developing realistic permeability values for input into reservoir simulations is presented. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.