The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed an evaluation of the technically accessible storage resource (TASR) for carbon dioxide (CO2) for 36 sedimentary basins in WKHRQVKRUHDUHDVDQG6WDWHZDWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVJ The TASR is an estimate of the geologic storage resource that may be available for CO2 injection and storage and is based on current geologic and hydrologic knowledge of the subsurface and current engineering practices. By using a geology-based probabilistic assessment methodology, the USGS assessment team members obtained a mean estimate of approximately
120W 110W 100W
3,000 metric gigatons (Gt) of subsurface CO2 storage capacity that is technically accessible below onshore areas and State ZDWHUVWKLVDPRXQWLVPRUHWKDQWLPHVWKHDQQXDO86 energy-related CO2 emissions of 5.5 Gt (U.S. Energy Informa- WLRQ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act (Public /DZGLUHFWHGWKH86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\WRFRQGXFW a national assessment of geologic storage resources for CO2 in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and State
90W 80W 70W
Western Oregon and Washington Basins Columbia Basin of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho
Pacific Northwest
WyomingIdahoUtah Thrust Belt Bighorn Basin
Williston Basin
Powder River Basin
40N
Sacramento Basin
Rocky Mountains
Eastern Great Basin
San Joaquin Basin
Michigan Basin
Eastern Mesozoic Rift Basins
Great Plains
Paradox Basin
Raton Basin
30N
180W 160W 140W
Permian Basin
Coastal Plains
Alaska
60N
Kandik Basin
Eas
tern
Ventura Basin
Arkoma Basin
Me
Atlantic Coastal Plain South Florida Basin
soz
oic
EXPLANATION
Assessed area 0 0 250 250 500 750 1,000 KILOMETERS Evaluated area 500 MILES Base map from Jarvis and others (2008) CGIAR-Consortium for Spatial Information SRTM 90m Database
55N
0 0
250
Figure 1. Map of the conterminous United States and Alaska showing 8 regions (separated by bold dashed lines), evaluated areas (bluish gray) that were not assessed, and 36 areas (pattern) that were assessed by the U.S. Geological Survey for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage. Resources in federally owned offshore areas were not assessed, and Hawaii was considered unlikely to have significant storage resources. Regions and study areas are plotted over a shaded-relief image showing higher elevations in brown and tan and lower elevations in green.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
Printed on recycled paper
Rift
Kansas Basins
Illinois Basin
Bas
California
Eastern Mid-Continent
ins
Fact Sheet 20133020 June 2013
and Northern
Denver Basin
Western Mid-Continent
Appalachian Basin
B
Residual, class 1 (140 Gt) 5%
Eastern Mesozoic Rift Basins (0.44 Gt) <1% Rocky Mountains and Northern Great Plains (270 Gt) 9% Eastern Mid-Continent (230 Gt) 8%
Figure 2. Pie charts showing mean estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012 of technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the United States by (A) type and class and (B) region. Resources were estimated for eight geographic regions shown in figure 1. A mean total of 3,000 metric gigatons (Gt) of storage resources was estimated to exist in buoyant and residual storage types. The known recovery replacement storage resource (KRRSR) is not shown in part A but is included in the buoyant storage type. Resources in federally owned offshore areas were not assessed. Mean values sum to totals but are reported to only two significant figures. Percentages were calculated from unrounded resource estimates.
Table 1. Estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012 of national totals for technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the United States by resource type and class.
[Estimates are in billions of metric tons (gigatons, Gt). P5, P50, and P95 are probability percentiles and represent the 5-, 50-, and 95-percent probabilities, respectively, that the true storage resource is less than the value shown. The terminology used in this report differs from that used by the petroleum industry and follows standard VWDWLVWLFDOSUDFWLFHIRUH[DPSOH(YHULWWDQG6NURQGDOZKHUHSHUFHQWLOHVRUIUDFWLOHVUHSUHVHQWWKHYDOXHRIDYDULDEOHEHORZZKLFKDFHUWDLQSURSRUWLRQRI observations falls. The percentiles were calculated by using the aggregation method described in U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources $VVHVVPHQW7HDPEDQGLQ%ORQGHV6FKXHQHPH\HUDQGRWKHUV3HUFHQWLOHYDOXHVGRQRWVXPWRWRWDOVEHFDXVHWKHDJJUHJDWLRQSURFHGXUHXVHGSDUWLDO dependencies between storage assessment units. The P50 (median) values are generally less than mean values because most output distributions are right skewed. The known recovery replacement storage resource (KRRSR) is listed separately as determined from petroleum production volumes; the same type of resource is also LQFOXGHGLQWKHEXR\DQWVWRUDJHW\SHHVWLPDWHGIURPDJHRORJLFPRGHO0HDQYDOXHVVXPWRWRWDOVEXWDUHUHSRUWHGWRRQO\WZRVLJQLFDQWJXUHV@
Name
Buoyant trapping storage resource 5HVLGXDOWUDSSLQJFODVVVWRUDJHUHVRXUFH Residual trapping class 2 storage resource Residual trapping class 3 storage resource Technically accessible storage resource Known recovery replacement storage resource
P5
P50
P95
Mean
geological surveys. The USGS developed a methodology to estimate storage resource potential in geologic formations in the United States (Burruss and others, 2009; Brennan and others, %ORQGHV%UHQQDQDQGRWKHUV,QWKH86*6 completed the assessment, and the results are summarized in WKLV)DFW6KHHWJA,BWDEOHVDQGDUHSURYLGHGLQPRUH detail in companion reports (U.S. Geological Survey Geologic &DUERQ'LR[LGH6WRUDJH5HVRXUFHV$VVHVVPHQW7HDPDE
The goal of this project was to conduct an initial assess- ment of storage capacity on a regional basis, and results are not LQWHQGHGIRUXVHLQWKHHYDOXDWLRQRIVSHFLFVLWHVIRUSRWHQWLDO CO2 storage. The national assessment was a geology-based examination of all sedimentary basins in the onshore and State waters area of the United States that contain storage assessment XQLWV6$8VWKDWFRXOGEHGHQHGDFFRUGLQJWRJHRORJLFDQG hydrologic characteristics. Although geologic storage of CO2
Table 2. Estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012 of basin and regional totals for technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the United States.
[Estimates are in millions of metric tons (megatons, Mt). P5, P50, and P95DUHSUREDELOLW\SHUFHQWLOHVVHHWDEOH0HDQYDOXHVVXPWRWRWDOVEXWDUHUHSRUWHGWRRQO\WZR VLJQLFDQWJXUHVLIWKHYDOXHLVJUHDWHUWKDQ0WDQGDUHURXQGHGWRWKHQHDUHVW0WLIWKHYDOXHLVOHVVWKDQ0W5HJLRQVDUHOLVWHGIURPQRUWKZHVWWRHDVWDQG EDVLQVDUHOLVWHGDOSKDEHWLFDOO\@
Basin name
P95
0.0 1,100
Mean
P95
62,000 62,000
P5
0.0 510
P50
770 0.0 770
P95
0.0 1,100
Mean
790 0.0 790
Aggregated totals
Western Oregon and Washington Basins
Aggregated totals
Los Angeles Basin Sacramento Basin San Joaquin Basin Ventura Basin
California Region 25 32 29
120 180
Aggregated totals
Bighorn Basin Denver Basin Eastern Great Basin Greater Green River Basin Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins Paradox Basin Powder River Basin San Juan Basin Uinta and Piceance Basins Williston Basin Wind River Basin Wyoming-Idaho-Utah Thrust Belt
Rocky Mountains and Northern Great Plains Region 93 93 89 290 850 2.2 23 500 650 500 580
58 66 1,500 75 230 390 1,800 52 59 66 1,500 63 290 1,800 63 73 86 370 2,700 370 37 280 2,000 280 600 6,300
Aggregated totals
Anadarko and Southern Oklahoma Basins Arkoma Basin Bend Arch and Fort Worth Basin Kansas Basins Palo Duro Basin Permian Basin
Aggregated totals
Appalachian Basin Black Warrior Basin Illinois Basin Michigan Basin
Aggregated totals
Atlantic Coastal Plain South Florida Basin U.S. Gulf Coast
2,000 3,200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75,000 78,000 0.0 0.0 120,000 0.0 0.0 180,000 0.0 0.0 120,000 0.0 0.0
Aggregated totals
Eastern Mesozoic Rift Basins
Aggregated totals
Table 2. Estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012 of basin and regional totals for technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the United States.Continued
P50
200,000 200,000
P95
280,000 2,200 280,000
P5
7,600 22 7,700
P50
P95
P5
570 180,000
P50
260,000 260,000
P95
2,700 410,000
Mean
270,000 270,000
Rocky Mountains and Northern Great Plains RegionContinued 86 230 3,000 37 830 300 97 6,200
2,800 670 2,200 7,300 39,000 240,000 25 28 39 5.2 290 780 7,300 380 30 5,200 580 3,800 19,000 3,300 43,000 530 37 6,000 670 22,000
Eastern Mid-Continent RegionContinued 2,500 0.2 7.2 2.7 560
2,700 9,900 25,000 11,000
Coastal Plains RegionContinued 0.0 7,600 9,000 6,300 29,000 82,000
11,000 38,000 95,000 43,000
may be possible in some areas not assessed by the USGS, the 6$8VLGHQWLHGLQWKLVDVVHVVPHQWUHSUHVHQWWKRVHDUHDVZLWKLQ sedimentary basins that met the assessment criteria. A geologic description of each SAU was prepared; descriptions for SAUs LQVHYHUDOEDVLQVDUHLQ:DUZLFNDQG&RUXP The resources were estimated without consideration either of accessibility due to land-management or regulatory restric- tions or of economic viability. Thus, if storage of CO2 within a formation is feasible with current technology, it was consid- ered for this report. Because the legislation that mandated this DVVHVVPHQW3XEOLF/DZUHTXLUHGWKDWWKHDVVHVVPHQW incorporate EPA regulations about underground sources of drinking water, a substantial percentage of potential storage IRUPDWLRQVFRQWDLQLQJZDWHUZLWKOHVVWKDQPLOOLJUDPV per liter (mg/L) of total dissolved solids (TDS) (considered IUHVKZDWHUIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIWKLVDVVHVVPHQWZDVGLVTXDOLHG as a protected underground source of potential drinking water. The SAU is a mappable volume of rock that consists of a porous reservoir and a bounding regional sealing formation. The upper vertical limit chosen for this assessment was 3,000 feet PHWHUVEHFDXVH&22 at this depth is typically subjected to temperatures and pressures that maintain the CO2 in a supercriti- cal state and maximize the storage resource per unit volume. 7KHORZHUYHUWLFDOOLPLWIRUWKH6$8RIIWPLV based on the potential CO2 injection depth at pipeline pressures without additional compression at the surface. Standard SAUs DUHEHWZHHQGHSWKVRIIWPDQGIW m). If reservoir rock properties suggested that a viable storage UHVRXUFHLVSUHVHQWDWGHSWKVEHORZIWPWKH assessment geologist may have added an additional deep SAU for this deeper reservoir. Sedimentary rocks of deep saline formations and of exist- LQJRLODQGJDVHOGVZHUHHYDOXDWHG6SHFLFDOO\VHGLPHQ- tary basins, or combined basin areas, within 8 regions of the United States were assessed (table 2). Numerous other basins VWXG\DUHDVVKRZQLQEOXLVKJUD\LQJZHUHHYDOXDWHGEXW not assessed because existing geologic conditions and avail- able data indicated that the areas failed to meet the minimum requirements for CO2 storage as outlined in Brennan and others :LWKLQWKHDVVHVVHGEDVLQV6$8VZHUHLGHQWLHG as having good storage potential because of the presence of DUREXVWUHJLRQDOVHDODGHTXDWHUHVHUYRLUURFNDQGVXIFLHQW areas containing saline formation waters. Ten of the SAUs did QRWKDYHVXIFLHQWGDWDWREXLOGDUREXVWJHRORJLFPRGHOWR accurately estimate the storage resource and were designated as nonquantitative SAUs; no storage resources were estimated for WKHQRQTXDQWLWDWLYH6$8V7KUHHEDVLQV&HQWUDO&DOLIRUQLD Coast Basins; Columbia Basin of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; and Raton Basin) contain only nonquantitative SAUs, EULQJLQJWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIEDVLQVVKRZQLQJXUHWR)RU QRQTXDQWLWDWLYH6$8VVXUFLDOJHRJUDSKLFERXQGDULHVZHUH GHQHGDQGDJHRORJLFGHVFULSWLRQZDVSUHSDUHG Two general storage types, buoyant and residual, were GHQHGLQWKHPHWKRGRORJ\XVHGLQWKLVDVVHVVPHQW%XR\DQWO\ trapped CO2 can be held in place in porous formations by top and lateral seals. Residually trapped CO2 can be held in porous formations as individual droplets within pores by capillary forces. The residual storage resource consists of three injectiv- ity classes based on reservoir permeability: residual trapping FODVVR1SR) represents storage in rocks with permeability
JUHDWHUWKDQGDUF\'UHVLGXDOWUDSSLQJFODVVR2SR) rep- UHVHQWVVWRUDJHLQURFNVZLWKPRGHUDWHSHUPHDELOLW\GHQHGDV SHUPHDELOLW\EHWZHHQPLOOLGDUF\P'DQG'DQGUHVLGXDO trapping class 3 (R3SR) represents storage in rocks with low SHUPHDELOLW\GHQHGDVSHUPHDELOLW\OHVVWKDQP' The known recovery replacement storage resource (KRRSR) is the mass of CO2 that can be stored in existing hydrocar- bon reservoirs. The KRRSR is a minimum range of values that represent the amount of CO2 at subsurface conditions that could replace the volume of known hydrocarbons in petroleum reser- voirs. KRRSR is determined from production volumes rather than the geologic model of buoyant and residual resources that make up the TASR. The same type of resource is also included in the buoyant storage type estimated from a geologic model. Regions with the largest technically accessible storage resources (TASR) are the Coastal Plains Region (mean estimate RI*WRIZKLFKDERXW*WRUSHUFHQWLVLQWKH U.S. Gulf Coast) and the Alaska Region (mean estimate of 270 Gt), where the resource is almost entirely in the Alaska North Slope. Most (89 percent) of the TASR is in the residual trapping class 2 storage resource category (mean estimate of *WJA5HVLGXDOWUDSSLQJFODVVHVDQGDFFRXQW IRUDQGSHUFHQWRIWKHTASR, respectively. The USGS team REWDLQHGDPHDQHVWLPDWHRI*WIRUVWRUDJHLQEXR\DQWWUDSV BSR. The mean estimate for KRRSR storage resources available in SHWUROHXPUHVHUYRLUVZLWKLQWKHDVVHVVHGDUHDVLV*WWDEOH 7KH*WPHDQHVWLPDWHRIEXR\DQWWUDSSLQJVWRUDJH resources includes non-hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir forma- WLRQVEXWPRVWRIWKHUHVRXUFHVDUHZHOOGHQHGE\K\GURFDUERQ exploration data. Existing oil in hydrocarbon reservoirs may be produced in the near future by using enhanced-oil-recovery technology that utilizes anthropogenic CO2JDQGWKHQWKH reservoirs could be used for CO2 storage. Because of the depth of knowledge about the hydrocarbon reservoirs, buoyant trap- ping storage resources in these reservoirs may be more attrac- tive for storage of CO2 than residual trapping storage resources.
Figure 3. CO2 injection well at the Pump Canyon test site in New Mexico. The well was drilled by the Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy) to test the effectiveness of storing CO2 in deep, unminable coal seams (Koperna and others, 2009). Similar wells could inject CO2 for storage in depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Photograph by Eelco Kruizinga; used with permission.
References Cited
Blondes, M.S., Brennan, S.T., Merrill, M.D., Buursink, M.L., Warwick, P.D., Cahan, S.M., Cook, T.A., Corum, M.D., Craddock, W.H., DeVera, C.A., Drake, R.M., II, Drew, L.J., Freeman, P.A., Lohr, C.D., Olea, R.A., Roberts-Ashby, T.L., Slucher, E.R., and Varela, %$1DWLRQDODVVHVVPHQWRIJHRORJLFFDUERQGLR[LGHVWRUDJH resourcesMethodology implementation: U.S. Geological Survey 2SHQ)LOH5HSRUWSDFFHVVHG0D\DW KWWSSXEVXVJVJRYRI. %ORQGHV066FKXHQHPH\HU-+2OHD5$DQG'UHZ/- Aggregation of carbon dioxide sequestration storage assessment units: Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, '2,V[SDFFHVVHG0D\DW KWWSOLQNVSULQJHUFRPDUWLFOH)V[ Brennan, S.T., Burruss, R.C., Merrill, M.D., Freeman, P.A., and Rup- SHUW/)$SUREDELOLVWLFDVVHVVPHQWPHWKRGRORJ\IRUWKH evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological 6XUYH\2SHQ)LOH5HSRUWSDFFHVVHG6HSWHPEHU DWKWWSSXEVXVJVJRYRI. Burruss, R.C., Brennan, S.T., Freeman, P.A., Merrill, M.D., Ruppert, L.F., Becker, M.F., Herkelrath, W.N., Kharaka, Y.K., Neuzil, C.E., Swanson, S.M., Cook, T.A., Klett, T.R., Nelson, P.H., and Schenk, C.J., 2009, Development of a probabilistic assessment methodology for evaluation of carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological Survey 2SHQ)LOH5HSRUWSDFFHVVHG6HSWHPEHU at KWWSSXEVXVJVJRYRI. (YHULWW%6DQG6NURQGDO$QGHUV7KH&DPEULGJHGLFWLRQDU\ RIVWDWLVWLFVWKHG&DPEULGJH(QJODQG&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVVS Jarvis, A., Reuter, H.I., Nelson, Andrew, and Guevara, Edward, 2008, +ROHOOHG6570>6KXWWOH5DGDU7RSRJUDSKLF0LVVLRQ@IRUWKH
JOREHYHUVLRQDYDLODEOHIURPWKH&*,$5>&RQVXOWDWLYH*URXS IRU,QWHUQDWLRQDO$JULFXOWXUDO5HVHDUFK@&RQVRUWLXPIRU6SDWLDO ,QIRUPDWLRQ6570P'DWDEDVHDFFHVVHG-DQXDU\DW http://www.cgiar-csi.org/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database- YDFNQRZOHGJHPHQWV. Koperna G.J., Jr., Oudinot, A.Y., McColpin, G.R., Liu, Ning, Heath, J.E., Wells, Arthur, and Young, G.B., 2009, CO2-ECBM/storage activities at the San Juan Basins Pump Canyon test site: Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhi- ELWLRQ2FWREHU1HZ2UOHDQV/RXLVLDQD&RQIHUHQFH 3DSHU06Shttp://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/ RQHSHWURSUHYLHZ"LG 63(06. 86(QHUJ\,QIRUPDWLRQ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ86HQHUJ\UHODWHG FDUERQGLR[LGHHPLVVLRQV86(QHUJ\,QIRUPDWLRQ$GPLQ- LVWUDWLRQ:HEVLWHDFFHVVHG'HFHPEHUDWhttp://www.eia. gov/environment/emissions/carbon/. U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources $VVHVVPHQW7HDPD1DWLRQDODVVHVVPHQWRIJHRORJLFFDUERQ dioxide storage resourcesData: U.S. Geological Survey Data 6HULHVSSOXVDSSHQGL[HVDQGODUJHWDEOHVLQVHSDUDWH OHVKWWSSXEVXVJVJRYGV U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources $VVHVVPHQW7HDPE1DWLRQDODVVHVVPHQWRIJHRORJLFFDUERQ dioxide storage resourcesResults: U.S. Geological Survey Circu- ODUSKWWSSXEVXVJVJRYFLUF :DUZLFN3'DQG&RUXP0'HGV*HRORJLFIUDPHZRUNIRU the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: U.S. *HRORJLFDO6XUYH\2SHQ)LOH5HSRUWDFFHVVHG)HEUX- DU\DWKWWSSXEVXVJVJRYRI&KDSWHUV$& ZHUHSRVWHGE\1RYHPEHU
By U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team1
Peter D. Warwick, Project Chief Madalyn S. Blondes Sean T. Brennan Marc L. Buursink Steven M. Cahan James L. Coleman Troy A. Cook Margo D. Corum Jacob A. Covault William H. Craddock Christina A. DeVera Colin Doolan Ronald M. Drake II Lawrence J. Drew Joseph A. East Philip A. Freeman Christopher P. Garrity Kevin J. Gooley Mayur A. Gosai Hossein Jahediesfanjani2 Celeste D. Lohr John C. Mars Matthew D. Merrill Ricardo A. Olea Tina L. Roberts-Ashby William A. Rouse Paul G. Schruben John H. Schuenemeyer2 Ernie R. Slucher Brian A. Varela Mahendra K. Verma
Or Director, Eastern Energy Resources Science Center U.S. Geological Survey Mail Stop 956 6XQULVH9DOOH\'ULYH 5HVWRQ9$
http://energy.usgs.gov/
All members are or were with the U.S. Geological Survey unless otherwise indicated. 2 Contractor.