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