Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Geological Carbon Sequestration in New York State
Alexa Stolorow, Reservoir Characterization Group, New York State MuseumRichard Nyahay, Reservoir Characterization Group, New York State MuseumTaury Smith, Reservoir Characterization Group, New York State Museum
MRCSP Phase I Geological Characterization Report (2005)
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Geological Work with the MRCSP
Geological Carbon Sequestration
Sequestration Targets in New York
Other Options in New York
Solubility vs. Volumetric Storage
offshore
onshore
offshore
onshore
Deepcoalseam
Coalbedmethaneproduction
Injection ofCO2 intogeologicreservoirs
Pipelinetransporting CO2from power plantsto injection site
Deepbrineformation
Depletedhydrocarbonreservoir
Reservoirtrap/seal
Naturalgasreservoir
Brineformation
sequestration
Offshore natural gasproduction with CO2separation and
Deepcoalseam
Coalbedmethaneproduction
Injection ofCO2 intogeologicreservoirs
Pipelinetransporting CO2from power plantsto injection site
Deepbrineformation
Depletedhydrocarbonreservoir
Reservoirtrap/seal
Naturalgasreservoir
Brineformation
sequestration
Offshore natural gasproduction with CO2separation and
Volumetric storage is the amount of CO2 that can be stored by displacing the fluid cur-rently residing in the pores of the target formation. Volumetric storage is heavily de-pendent on the storage efficiency factor, which is the percent of the pore space where the in situ fluid can be displaced which is variably estimated at between 0.5 and 30%. Any formation fluids in the pore space will have to be displaced as the CO2 is injected, and over time, some of the CO2 will dissolve into these fluids. Solubility of CO2 greatly decreases as salinity rises. Most of the prospective sequestration formations in New York contain high salinity brine near 300,000 ppm, so there will be very little solubility storage capacity in NY. In Phase I of the MRSCP project, the CO2 storage capacity for the Mt. Simon Sandstone (Potsdam) was estimated using both volumetric and solubility storage equations. The resulting potential storage capacity decreased by a factor of 2.6 when salinity concentrations in the formation fluids was included in the calcula-tion.
The main opportunities for geological sequestration are depleted gas reservoirs and saline aquifers.
Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs New York has produced natural gas for more than a century, and there are many de-pleted reservoirs. Most of the reservoirs are currently used for natural gas storage which is a lucrative business. Most fields used for storage would not be available for carbon sequestration. The biggest gas reservoirs in the State are in the Black River For-mation. Assuming these reservoirs produce 500 BCF and that all of the pore space was filled with CO2 they could store the amount captured from one large powerplant for 40 years.
Glodes Corners
Muck Farm
Wilson Hollow
00
5080
MiKm
Pine Hill
Sugar Hill
Cutler Creek
County Line
Terry Hill South
Langdon HillQuakenbush Hill
Trenton Black River Hydrothermal Dolomite Fields
Ballyhack Creek
Whiskey Creek
West River
Auburn Geothermal
Bean Stations
Caton Seeley Creek
Moreland
Hydrothermal Dolomite Fields in Central New York
Wolpert #1 discoveryPANY
Rochester
Binghamton
Lake Ontario
Onshore Saline AquifersSaline aquifers are formations deep in the subsurface that are filled with very salty water. The formations need to have porosity and permeability and be at least 2500 feet deep. All formations will be evaluated. At present, the best options are thought to be in the Cambrian Potsdam (which has few wells drilled to it) and the Cambrian Rose Run Sandstone.
Offshore Saline AquifersThe greatest potential for geological carbon sequestration in saline aquifers is offshore. There more than 25 different layers with up to 30% porosity (compared to a maximum of 10-15% onshore). These Formations would require pipelines and platforms in off-shore areas which are expensive, but many of the regulatory and safety issues would be avoided with offshore sequestration.
Black River Core
Carbon capture and sequestration is the process by which carbon dioxide from station-ary sources is captured and stored below ground or offshore under the ocean. New York will be focusing on geologic storage (below ground).
In order to effectively and efficiently sequester carbon dioxide underground, it must be in a supercritical state, which has the density of a liquid but flows like a gas. In a given space, one can store about 260 times more CO2 when it’s in a supercritical state as com-pared to a gas or liquid state. Supercritical CO2 requires temperatures and pressures of at least 31.1°C and 73atm, respectively. Supercritical storage potential in New York State occurs in formations at least 2500’ below ground. The potential for supercritical storage in NY is mainly in western and central portions of the state.
The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) began in 2003 and is one of seven USDOE regional partnerships exploring CCS. New York recently joined the partnership and the NYS Museum Reservoir Characterization Group is now in the process of integrating its geological data with that of the other member states. The first step for New York in the MRCSP CCS research plan is to perform a detailed charac-terization of geological formations in NYS to identify storage opportunities.
Thickness map of Cambrian Rose Run Sandstone Number of feet of porosity >5% in Cambrian Rose Run SandstoneRose Run Core
In addition to depleted gas reservoirs, enhanced gas recovery (EGR) is also being ex-plored. In gas shales, methane is adsorbed onto the surfaces of clay particles. When CO2 is injected into a carbonaceous gas shale formation, it can displace and desorb the meth-ane, thus sequestering the CO2 and mobilizing the natural gas. At this point EGR is moreof a theory than a reality, however since there are large volumes of shale in NY it wouldbe beneficial to be able to apply this method of sequestration. NYSERDA has funded two shale gas projects that are currently be researched at the New York State Museum.
Georges Bank Cross-section
LL
L
L
L
LLL
L
LL
L
L
L
LLL
L
??
?CLAY
&SHALE
SILT&
SILTSTONE
SAND&
SANDSTONE
ERODED BLOCKS&
LITHOCLASTS
HALITELIMESTONEDOLOMITEACOUSTICBASEMENT
0
0
6
5
4
3
0
1
2
5
5 10KM
10MI2 - W
AY T
RAV
EL T
IME
(SEC
ON
DS)
4400420040003800360034003200300028002600240022002000
COST G-1 COST G-1
BANQUEREAU
BACCARO LS
EURYDICE?
EURYDICE?EURYDICE?
IROQUOIS
ARGO
MOHICAN
MOHAWK - MIC MAC
SCATARIE LS
MISAINE SHMOHAWK - MIC MAC
IROQUOIS
MOHICAN
MOHICAN
MISSISAUGA MISSISAUGA
MISSISAUGA MISSISAUGA
LAURENTIAN
LAURENTIAN
Sea Floor
BLAKE RIDGE
BLAKE BAHAMA
HATTERAS
PLANTAGENET
CAT GAP (part)
BERMUDA RISE
LAURENTIANLOGAN CANYON - DAWSON CANYON DAWSON CANYONDAWSON CANYON
DAWSON CANYON
BANQUEREAU
“O” MARKER
MISSISAUGA
AB
ENA
KI
“O” MARKER
“O” MARKER
ABENAKI
IROQUOIS
NW SESea
Level
HETTANGIAN - RHAETIAN?
COST G-1
PLIENSBACHIAN - SINEMURIAN?
TOARCIAN - PLIENSBACHIAN?
BAJOCIAN - AALENIAN?
BATHONIAN?
CALLOVIAN?
OXFORDIAN?
EARLY KIMMERIDGIAN
TITHONIAN - LATE KIMMERIDGIAN
BERRIASIAN
VALANGINIAN
HAUTERIVIAN
BARREMIAN
APTIAN
CENOMANIAN
TURONIAN
CONIACIAN
SANTONIAN
PALEOGENE
PLIOCENE - MIOCENE
PLEISTOCENE
IRO
QU
OIS
- M
OH
ICA
NM
IC M
AC
- M
OH
AW
KM
ISSI
SAU
GA
MISSISAUGA
“O” MARKER
MIS
SISA
UG
ALO
GA
N C
AN
YON
-D
AW
SON
CA
NYO
NFO
RMAT
ION
SPO
NTA
NEO
US
POTE
NTI
AL
(mill
ivo
lts)
BANQUEREAU
LAURENTIAN
BACCARO LS
AGE
CENOZOIC
LATE
CRE
TAC
EOU
SEA
RLY
CRE
TAC
EOU
SEA
RLY
JU
RASS
ICM
IDD
LE J
URA
SSIC
EARL
Y J
URA
SSIC
?LA
TE T
RIA
SSIC
TOEA
RLY
JU
RA
SSIC
?
LITHOLOGY RESISTIVITY(ohms) LITHOLOGY
SEA LEVEL 98 ft. BELOW KB
SEA FLOOR 255 ft.. BELOW KB
14000
4000
13000
3500
11000
12000
8000
2500
9000
100003000
2000
7000
6000
15005000
4000
1000
3000
1000
500
2000
0
DEPTH
feet meters
15000
4500
16000
5000
17000
0.2 2000
SANDSTONE and GRAVEL unconsolidated coarse,abundant shell fragments, glauconite
LIMESTONE gray, mottled, microcrystalline to finecrystalline, hard, tight, thin streaks of SHALE, gray,gray-green
EARLYCAMBRIAN?
UNAMED
BASEMENT
TD 16,071 ft.
SHALE gumbo-like, interbeds of coarse sand, gravel,glauconite
SANDSTONE unconsolidated coarse to very coarse,in part calcareous, interbeds of red and graygumbo-like shale, lignite, pyrite, argillaceousDOLOMITE near base
SHALE gray (gumbo) few beds of unconsolidatedSANDSTONE, coal near top
SAND very coarse, scattered pebbles, thin beds of graySHALE (gumbo), coal or LIGNITE at base
SHALE and CLAY light gray, interbeds of coarse SAND,thin beds of DOLOMITE and SHALE near base
SAND and loosely cemented SANDSTONE, medium to coarse, few COAL and lignite beds, in part shaly,pyritic, micaceous
SHALE orange-brown, dolomitic, abundant lignite,pyrite, few thin interbeds of fine to coarse SANDSTONE
SANDSTONE and SHALE about 60-40 SANDSTONEcoarse to very coarse, loose; traces of pyrite, ligniteSHALE red, yellow, gray, brown, in part silty, micaceous
SANDSTONE unconsolidated, coarse to very coarse,slightly arkosic, some pea-gravel, thin interbeds of brown-red and variegated SHALE
SAND very coarse, unconsolidated, thick interbedsof SHALE, red-brown, gray, some COAL, pyrite
SANDSTONE consolidated, medium, interbeddedSHALE, red brown, green, silty, traces of COAL, thinbeds of micrite
LIMESTONE fine to medium crystalline pelletalfossiliferous, micrite at base
SHALE gray-green, abundant carbonaceous flecks,LIMESTONE, dense, fossiliferous, few thin beds of very fine SANDSTONE
SANDSTONE thinly, interbedded, very fine-crystallinelight DOLOMITE, SHALE, red--brown and gray, gradingto SILTSTONE, thin LIMESTONE at base
SANDSTONE thin interbeds fine to medium, SHALE, gray, gray-green,red brown, thin LIMESTONE beds, thick SHALE grading to SANDSTONE,COAL at base
DOLOMITE, light gray-beff, dense-fine crystalline, part limy,trace COAL
SHALE, red, brown, gray, silty, micaceous, dolomitic, interbeddedSANDSTONE, fine to medium, consolidated trace COAL
DOLOMITE light gray-buff, cryptocrystalline, in part sandy,silty or pelletal, interbeds of ANHYDRITE, scattered GYPSUMnodules, few thin beds of red-brown SHALE
SANDSTONE light gray-pink, very fine to fine, DOLOMITE,cream-buff, brown, dense, a little red SHALE and ANHYDRITE
SHALE red-brown, streaks and inclusion of DOLOMITE andANHYDRITE, thin interbeds of DOLOMITE, few thin beds of tightSANDSTONE
SANDSTONE fine to medium, rust-red, argillaceous, interbedsof SHALE, red, brown, micaceous, part dolomitic, conglomeratezones with interbedded SANDSTONE and SHALE, few thin beds of DOLOMITE, gray-tan microcrystalline
QUARTZ CONGLOMERATE, red-pink, red dolomitic SHALEmatrix, few interbeds of red SHALE, SANDSTONE and denseLIMESTONE and DOLOMITE, thick, red sandy, SHALE, pink-red,medium to coarse-grained SANDSTONE at base
SERICITIC METADOLOMITE, light-gray to white, fine densecrystalline, black SLATE partingsPHYLLITE with wedges and layers of metaquartzite, pyrite,pyrite cubes and masses, some schistose foliation and graphite stain
2500 ft
Georges Bank stratigraphic column
Georges BankCross-section
MASS
CONN. RI
N.H.
MAINE
AMCOR6017
AMCOR 6019
AMCOR6016
AMCOR 6013
AMCOR6014
ASP17-18
COSTG-1
COSTG-2
AMCOR6015
NORTHEAST CHANNEL
N.Y.
V.T.
Map location of Georges Bank
12345678
Targets UnitsFormation at 2500 ft depthColor
Lorraine
PotsdamGalway
Little FallsBlack River
TrentonUtica
Queenston
2500’ Depth Lines forGeological Formations
Oil and Gas Fieldsin New York
Canadaway
Penn
sylva
nia
Sout
h
La
ke
Sh
ore
North
05
11
6-0
0
05
11
4-0
0
06
71
9-0
0
05
09
5-0
0
10
89
3-0
0
17
55
9-0
0
04
71
5-0
00
47
68
-0
0
22
90
7-0
0
04
20
3-0
0
22
76
2-0
0
22
76
1-0
02
27
63
-0
0
06
39
5-0
0
20
44
6-0
0
22
82
8-0
0
22
79
1-0
02
27
76
-0
0
22
79
6-0
02
27
95
-0
02
27
74
-0
02
27
73
-0
0
22
74
6-0
0
22
75
0-0
02
17
26
-0
0
21
72
5-0
02
27
99
-0
02
17
04
-0
02
04
17
-0
0
19
69
2-0
0
04
46
7-0
0
22
84
1-0
0
22
82
9-0
0
22
83
0-0
0
22
94
2-0
0
22
83
9-0
0
22
90
1-0
0
22
90
8-0
02
27
71
-0
02
28
25
-0
02
28
14
-0
02
28
52
-0
02
28
53
-0
02
28
31
-0
0
22
88
5-0
02
28
71
-0
0
Potsdam
Black RiverTrenton
Queenston
MedinaClintonLockpor t
Salina
HelderbergOnondagaHamiltonTullyGeneseeSonyea
Westfalls
Canadaway
Lorraine
Little FallsGalway
Beekmantown
Oriskany
2000
1000
0 Feet
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
-7000
-8000
-9000
-10000
Devonian
Silurian
Ordovician
Cambrian
WestfallsSonyeaGenesee
Hamilton Tully
Salina
Onondaga
OriskanyHelderberg
Queenston
Medina Clinton Lockport
Trenton Lorraine
(Theresa)
Precambrian Complex
Little Falls
Black River
Potsdam
Beekmantown
Galway
Canadaway
Well Sapinos
20 0
Scale In MilesN
Approximate Location ofCross Section
Lake Ontario
Lake Erie
New York State
20 40
Data used was taken from this area.
Prepared by : Courtney Lugert, NYSM
Potsdam
2500 ft2500 ft
S
S
S
Impermeablebasement
rocks
Central New York Cross-section of Sequestration TargetsStarred layers have sequestration potential; “S” denotes a sealing layer
Supercritical Fluid Phase Diagram
Typ
ical
Sea
wat
er
NY
Jarrel and Others, 2002
CO2 solubility decreases as salinity increases
Parameter (mg/L)Sodium (Na)Calcium (Ca)Magnesium (Mg)Strontium (Sr)Barium (Ba)Potassium (K)Iron (Fe)Manganese (Mn)Chloride (Cl)Bromide (Br)Sulfate (SO4)Bicarbonate (HCO3)Iodine (I)Lithium (Li)Trace MetalsHydrocarbonsMeasured TDSCalculated TDSIONIC RATIOSNa/CaCa/MgMg/KCl/BrNo. of Analyses
Potsdam/Theresa36, 71231,2564,449
-790
3,367170
183,7011,417
18899
54--
300,763299,137
2.49.751.07
142.849
Medina69,89337,1242,766
---
67684
181,2981,7217362518---
292,121292,723
1.8915.90
-102.49
8
Queenston73,50036,6032,887
00-
1,124195
182,4181,120
--
10---
298,358302,609
2.0112.762.64
255.072
Oriskany45,45733,6843,169
--
1,307215
-145,442
1,68757
20310---
231,836232,743
1.426.934.00
104.664
Bass Island60,75036,4003,160
---
180
208,000-
18050----
323,500323,558
1.0834.17
--2
UpperDevonianOil Zones
36,36716,4672,733107
871
1897
92,167860619
0200
-0.74
107.5156,267149,582
2.246.04
47.03104.60
3
Table 2.4BRINE QUALITY DATA FROM
NEW YORK’S GAS AND OIL PRODUCING ZONES
DEC, 1988
156,267Measured TDS 300,763 292,121298,358 231,836 323,500
Salinity concentrations are very high. What type of reactions might occur between the CO2 and other elements in the brine?
Original illustration by Eric A. Morissey, USGSIllustration modified by Sean Brennan, USGS
