1. FutureGen in Kentucky
A slide show explaining a KGS preliminary assessment of geologic sequestration potential for future power plants in Kentucky

2. FutureGen
is a DOE program to design a power plant that will integrate advanced coal gasification to produce hydrogen and electric power with CO2 capture and storage (also called sequestration)

3. FutureGen in Kentucky Geologic sequestration potential
Why FutureGen? Concerns about climate change resulting in a need to reduce CO2 emissions
FutureGen will be a near-zero emissions power plant funded by DOE and industry
FutureGen will incorporate geologic carbon sequestration to reduce CO2

4. Limiting future carbon emissions from power plants is a critical component of DOE- sponsored energy research including FutureGen.
“the captured CO2…would then be permanently sequestered in a geologic formation.”
Validating the integrated operation of gasification technology
Proving effectiveness, permanence, and safety of sequestration in a geologic formation
From the DOE FutureGen fact sheet:
Major goals include:

5. The Kentucky Geological Survey is part of three Phase II partnerships
Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
Midwest (Illinois Basin) Geological Sequestration Consortium
Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
More info at DOE’s

6. Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
After Harper (2004)
Unmineable coals
Organic-rich shales
Depleted oil and gas reservoirs
Deep saline aquifers
Power plant
Pipeline
Multiple options at different locations
Regional DOE partnerships are assessing several types of geologic reservoirs
Enhanced oil and gas recovery may be possible for unmineable coals, organic-rich shales, and depleted oil and gas reservoirs

7. Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Unmineable Coal Beds
Injection into unmineable coal beds might allow secondary recovery of methane in some (not all) areas
Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

8. Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Oil and Gas Reservoirs
Injection into depleted oil or gas reservoirs might allow secondary recovery of oil or gas
Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

9. Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Deep Saline Aquifers
Injection into deep saline aquifers offers possibility of storage without negating a potential resource
Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

10. Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
Minimal transport distance
Minimal transport distance
Multiple reservoirs
Power plant
Pipeline
Enough depth to minimize leakage and to keep CO2 in supercritical phase
Coals +
Oil and gas reservoirs +
Saline aquifers
After Harper (2004)
Optimal sites might have multiple reservoirs (stacked or at several locations) at depth, within some distance of the plant based on the transport costs of CO2

11. Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Preliminary requirements:
Large storage volume
For a FutureGen–type plant, DOE estimates 1 million tons CO2 /year for 30 years = 30 million tons CO2
Could be one large or multiple reservoirs
Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

12. Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Preliminary requirements:
Depth (> 2,500’) for existing depleted oil and gas reservoirs
In our area, this is the depth needed to keep any injected CO2 in liquid form (miscible)*
Injection into unmineable coals could be shallower because of a different sequestration mechanism
Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)
* Greater depth also provides more seals to prevent leakage

13. Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Preliminary requirements:
Proximity to existing energy infrastructure and likely a waterway
Most existing KY power plants are near large rivers
Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

14. Existing and proposed power plants
Existing power plants
Proposed plants
Most along rivers
Power plant siting involves many non-geologic decisions
By using existing plant locations to define the study area we incorporated those decisions with the geologic assessment.

15. Existing and proposed power plant counties
Existing power plants
Proposed plants
Future power plants are likely to have at least the existing requirements relative to water.
Study area limited to counties with known and proposed plants, similar water supplies, or large coal resources*
*these might not have water needs for some types of plants

16. Existing and proposed power plant counties
Existing power plants
Proposed plants
Areas might include a 25-mile radius around existing and proposed plants as examples of hypothetical transport areas around each
Circles show possibility for pipeline transport

17. Existing and proposed power plant counties
NATCARB Pipeline cost calculator
Result
Cost is:
$2,860,898
Distance is:
28 miles
The reason for examining the radius around some areas is that pipeline transport to a sequestration site might be needed.

18. Seismicity Seismic potential is greatest in far western Kentucky
Magnitude
Peak ground
acceleration
>0.3g
3.0
4.0
5.0 +
Seismic potential is greatest in far western Kentucky
Seismic potential may be concern for building future large, Federally funded (or co-funded) construction projects
Faults (red lines) will also need to be considered (not for seismic potential but for reservoir leakage and seal potential)

19. Kentucky “unmineable” coal potential
2003 Coal production (Mt)
15+
No production in study area
10-15
5-10
1-5
0-1
Kentucky has two coal fields (the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field and the Western Kentucky Coal Field)
Coal is mined at 1000 ft in western Kentucky
Coal is mined at depths beneath surface of more than 1000 ft in eastern Kentucky, but in some places that is still “above drainage”

20. Kentucky “unmineable” coal potential
Areas with multiple deep coals below drainage
Gray: Coals > 500 ft deep
Red: Coals > 1,000 ft deep
Surface fracturing extends 400 to 500 feet beneath the surface, so potential coals would need to be at least 500 feet beneath drainage
Areas of coals at depth are smaller than the total area of the coal fields
Definition of “unmineable” is variable and will influence potential

21. Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs
Operating and abandoned oil and gas fields
Oil
Gas
Waterflood
Kentucky has hundreds of oil and gas fields
Not all are within the electric power infrastructure area
Not all fields are likely sequestration targets

22. Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs
Fields with sufficient depth or volume
Volumes >15 MM tons (20 fields)
2,500 ft or deeper
Known fields have demonstrated reservoir and trap properties
9 have >30 MM tons estimated capacity for CO2 storage
Many of these fields are not abandoned

23. Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs
Western KY
Central KY
Eastern KY
Oil field (generalized)
Gas field (generalized)
2,500 feet
Kentucky’s geology controls the depth of the known oil and gas fields. Major oil- and gas-bearing units are shallower than 2,500 feet in the central part of the state.
There are speculative possibilities deeper.

24. Additional potential oil and gas reservoirs
Organic shales: a different type of potential CO2 reservoir
Red has most potential
Blue has least potential
Tan has no potential
KGS is currently funded by DOE to investigate the potential of black (organic-rich) shales to adsorb CO2 as a sequestration mechanism
The black shales are widespread with large potential capacity
Not a proven CO2 sequestration reservoir; behaves like coals

25. Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
Deep sands (saline aquifers)
Net Sand Thickness
Red is thickest
Blue is thinnest
Tan is no sand
DOE partnerships have shown that deep saline aquifers (mostly sandstone) have greatest potential for large storage volume
Possible cumulative thickness is > 800 ft in western KY
Limited well penetrations and reservoir data in KY

26. Rock units beneath Kentucky
“Vuggy” Copper Ridge
Rose Run
Strata vary in characteristics
Some are known reservoirs
Some are potential reservoirs
Some are seals
Deep saline reservoirs shown with arrows
Mt. Simon
Rome sands
Middle Run/
Four Sand
Diagram from MRCSP research
St. Peter

27. Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
Mount Simon Sandstone
Isopach Map
No Mt. Simon south of the Kentucky River and Rough Creek FZs
Based on ~20 wells
Potential for as much as 6 Bmt capacity

28. Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
Thick, Porous Rome Sandstone Wedge ( up to 700’ thick)
Contour Interval = 50 ft
Deep sands south of the Kentucky River Fault Zone

29. Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
150 ft contour interval
Top Conasauga Structure Map
Possibility for closed structure traps in Rome Trough
Depth here 4,000 to 5,000 ft
Potential capacity 3.5 Bmt CO2

30. Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
Middle Run (“4 Sand”) Reservoir N S 3
4 S 4
1mi 5
Precambrian Unconformity
Paleozoic
“4 Sand” (4S) is a mappable seismic sequence
Reflection seismic will be needed for sequestration site evaluations and for monitoring after CO2 injection

31. Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
Middle Run (“4 Sand”) Reservoir
81 sq. mi. lens in Hart Co.
Averages 440 ft. thick
7,000-9,500 feet depth
~3 Bmt potential capacity
Are there other similar lenses?
Additional study needed N
100 ft contour interval

32. Assessment of carbon sequestration options along the power plant infrastructure areas
Seismic concern area
Next we will compare the infrastructure area (in tan) to the number of known and speculative sequestration options by county

33. Areas with known oil and gas field options
Outside study area
Study area (no large oil and gas fields)*
1 option
2 options
This area is away from large water supplies
Known =
O&G fields >15 MM tons
O&G fields >2,500’ deep
Areas with no “known” options do have potential/speculative options.

34. Areas with known and possible/speculative geologic options
Outside study area
Fewest (1)
Most (6)
Based on:
O&G fields >15 MM tons
O&G fields >2,500’ deep
Coals below 1,000 ft
Number of deep sands
Potential in black shale
Other speculative reservoirs

35. Preliminary Summary
There are areas with multiple sequestration options in both eastern and western KY along existing river corridors or within coal fields for short fuel-transport distances
There are known and more speculative (but possible) reservoir options in the same regions

36. Preliminary Summary
All reservoirs would need further testing to determine reservoir characteristics (permeability, water chemistry, etc.) for reservoir modeling
Permitting and regulations for test (small quantity) and future large quantity CO2 injections will be important in determining the potential future application of this technology in Kentucky

37. Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants
Best
Good
Thick, but deep
Thin and/or shallow
Based on:
Thickness of Mt. Simon
Depth of Mt. Simon
Depth of vuggy Copper Ridge
Thickness of Rome Ss.
Depth of Rome Ss
St. Peter and Rose Run Ss
Thickness of Middle Run Ss
Depth of Middle Run Ss
More explanation follows

38. Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants
Best
Good
Thick, but deep
Thin and/or shallow
Best here, is the area in the river corridor that had the most options at optimal depths, i.e. moderately deep (5,000-8,000 ft) and thick ( ft) Mt. Simon Sandstone and thin St. Peter (<60 ft) and Rose Run (<80 ft) at moderate depth (3,000-4,000 ft)

39. Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants
Best
Good
Thick, but deep
Thin and/or shallow
Good here, are the areas in the infrastructure region that had some deep saline reservoir potential (but with fewer options, i.e. thinner, or deeper potential reservoirs) in combination with other known or speculative options

40. Final Summary
In terms of potential volume, deep saline reservoirs are likely the best option for large-scale, permanent CO2 storage
Several lie in central and eastern Kentucky on or near navigatible waterways
These reservoirs would require further testing to determine reservoir characteristics (permeability, water chemistry, etc.) for reservoir modeling

41. Acknowledgements
This presentation was developed by the Energy and Mineral Section of the Kentucky Geological Survey
Contributors:
Stephen F. Greb
Brandon C. Nuttall
James A. Drahovzal
James C. Cobb
Cortland F. Eble
John B. Hickman
Paul D. Lake
Thomas M. Parris
Michael P. Solis
Kathryn G. Takacs

42. For more information: DOE Carbon Sequestration Program
MRCSP Partnership
DOE FutureGen Initiative
MGSC (Illinois Basin) Partnership
DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan for 2005
SECARB Partnership
DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan for 2005