Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Matthew D. Merrill

Publications and source records attributed to Matthew D. Merrill.

49 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2014

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: Williston Basin, Central Montana Basins, and Montana Thrust Belt study areas

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). The methodology used by the USGS for the national CO 2 assessment follows that of previous USGS work. This methodology is non-economic and is intended to be used at regional to sub-basinal scales. The Williston Basin of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, along with the Central Montana Basins and Montana Thrust Belt study areas are adjacent and share similar geologic units. In general, the Williston Basin study area is a wide sedimentary basin, whereas the Central Montana Basins study area contains sedimentary rocks along topographic highs and flat plains, and the Montana Thrust Belt study area is more structurally complex. This report identifies and contains geologic descriptions of nine storage assessment units (SAUs) in Cambrian to Upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks within the Williston Basin study area. The Central Montana Basins and Montana Thrust Belt study areas were also investigated for this report. Nevertheless, no SAUs in these study areas were assessed because they contained potential sources of underground drinking water; although sufficient geologic data were available, and suitable storage formations meeting our size, depth, reservoir quality, and regional seal guidelines were found. Ultimately, the report focuses on the characteristics, specified in the methodology, that influence the potential CO 2 storage resource in the SAUs. Specific descriptions of the SAU boundaries as well as their sealing and reservoir units are included. Properties for each SAU, such as depth to top, gross thickness, porosity, permeability, groundwater quality, and structural reservoir traps, are usually provided to illustrate geologic factors critical to the assessment. The geologic information herein was employed, as specified in the USGS methodology, to calculate a probabilistic distribution of potential storage resources in each SAU with these assessment outputs contained in a companion results report. Figures in this report show the study area boundaries along with the SAU extent and cell maps of well penetrations through sealing units into the top of the storage formations. The USGS does not necessarily know the location of all wells and cannot guarantee the full extent of drilling through specific formations in any given cell shown on the cell maps.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS2014

Geographic information system (GIS)-based maps of Appalachian basin oil and gas fields

One of the more recent maps of Appalachian basin oil and gas fields (and the adjoining Black Warrior basin) is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) compilation by Mast and others (1998) (see Trippi and others, this volume, chap. I.1). This map is part of a larger oil and gas field map for the conterminous United States that was derived by Mast and others (1998) from the Well History Control System (WHCS) database of Petroleum Information, Inc. (now IHS Energy Group). Rather than constructing the map from the approximately 500,000 proprietary wells in the Appalachian and Black Warrior part of the WHCS database, Mast and others (1998) subdivided the region into a grid of 1-mi 2 (square mile) cells and allocated an appropriate type of hydrocarbon production (oil production, gas production, oil and gas production, or explored but no production) to each cell. Each 1-mi 2 cell contains from 0 to 5 or more exploratory and (or) development wells. For example, if the wells in the 1-mi 2 cell consisted of three oil wells, one gas well, and one dry well, then the cell would be characterized on the map as an area of oil and gas production. The map by Mast and others (1998) accurately shows the distribution and types of hydrocarbon accumulation in the Appalachian and Black Warrior basins, but it does not show the names of individual fields. To determine the locality and name of individual oil and gas fields, one must refer to State oil and gas maps (for example, Harper and others, 1982), which are generally published at scales of 1:250,000 or 1:500,000 (see References Cited), and (or) published journal articles. Other recent USGS Appalachian basin oil and gas field maps show the distribution of oil and gas production with a cell size as small as 0.25 mi 2 , such as the maps converted by Trippi and others (this volume, chap. I.1) from proprietary well-location maps used in the USGS 2002 assessment of oil and gas resources of the Appalachian basin (Milici and others, 2003). Another set of Appalachian basin oil and gas cell maps (based on a cell size of 0.25 mi 2 ) was created for the USGS 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources (Gautier and others, 1995; Beeman and others, 1996). Between 1991 and 1994, R.T. Ryder (with R.E. Mattick, J.B. Roen, and J.R. San Filipo, USGS, Reston, Va.) compiled oil and gas fields on stable-base mylar greenline base maps (scale 1:500,000) for selected plays in the Appalachian basin. These map compilations included field names and field numbers where assigned by State agencies. The purpose of the maps was to provide supporting data for the USGS 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources (Gautier and others, 1995). In particular, the greenline oil and gas field maps were linked, where possible, with production data from State records and (or) published literature in order to determine ultimate sizes for conventional fields and estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) values for wells in continuous accumulations (for definitions of the conventional and continuous terminology, see USGS National Oil and Gas Assessment Team, 1995; Schmoker, 1997; Schenk and Pollastro, 2002). This approach was used in the 1995 national oil and gas assessment because ultimate field size and EUR data were unavailable in the Appalachian region from Petroleum Information, Inc., and other commercial sources. In 2006 and 2007, the greenline Appalachian basin field maps were digitized under the supervision of Scott Kinney and converted to geographic information system (GIS) files for chapter I.1 (this volume). By converting these oil and gas field maps to a digital format and maintaining the field names where noted, they are now available for a variety of oil and gas and possibly carbon-dioxide sequestration projects. Having historical names assigned to known digitized conventional fields provides a convenient classification scheme into which cumulative production and ultimate field-size databases can be organized. Moreover, as exploratory and development drilling expands across the basin, many previously named fields that were originally treated as conventional fields have evolved into large, commonly unnamed continuous-type accumulations. These new digital maps will facilitate a comparison between EUR values from recently drilled, unnamed parts of continuous accumulations and EUR values from named fields discovered early during the exploration cycle of continuous accumulations.

Appalachian basin↗
USGS2013

National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources: methodology implementation

In response to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for carbon dioxide (CO2). Storage of CO2 in subsurface saline formations is one important method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb global climate change. This report provides updates and implementation details of the assessment methodology of Brennan and others (2010, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127/) and describes the probabilistic model used to calculate potential storage resources in subsurface saline formations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: Bighorn Basin, Wyoming and Montana: Chapter A in Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act ( Public Law 110–140 ) directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). The methodology used for the national CO 2 assessment follows that of previous USGS work. The methodology is non-economic and intended to be used at regional to subbasinal scales. This report identifies and contains geologic descriptions of twelve storage assessment units (SAUs) in six separate packages of sedimentary rocks within the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming and Montana and focuses on the particular characteristics, specified in the methodology, that influence the potential CO 2 storage resource in those SAUs. Specific descriptions of the SAU boundaries as well as their sealing and reservoir units are included. Properties for each SAU such as depth to top, gross thickness, net porous thickness, porosity, permeability, groundwater quality, and structural reservoir traps are provided to illustrate geologic factors critical to the assessment. Although assessment results are not contained in this report, the geologic information included here will be employed, as specified in the methodology of earlier work, to calculate a statistical Monte Carlo-based distribution of potential storage space in the various SAUs. Figures in this report show SAU boundaries and cell maps of well penetrations through the sealing unit into the top of the storage formation. Wells sharing the same well borehole are treated as a single penetration. Cell maps show the number of penetrating wells within one square mile and are derived from interpretations of incompletely attributed well data, a digital compilation that is known not to include all drilling. The USGS does not expect to know the location of all wells and cannot guarantee the amount of drilling through specific formations in any given cell shown on cell maps.

Wyoming, Montana↗
USGS2012

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: Powder River Basin, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska: Chapter B in Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources

This report presents ten storage assessment units (SAUs) within the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. The Powder River Basin contains a thick succession of sedimentary rocks that accumulated steadily throughout much of the Phanerozoic, and at least three stratigraphic packages contain strata that are suitable for CO 2 storage. Pennsylvanian through Triassic siliciclastic strata contain two potential storage units: the Pennsylvanian and Permian Tensleep Sandstone and Minnelusa Formation, and the Triassic Crow Mountain Sandstone. Jurassic siliciclastic strata contain one potential storage unit: the lower part of the Sundance Formation. Cretaceous siliciclastic strata contain seven potential storage units: (1) the Fall River and Lakota Formations, (2) the Muddy Sandstone, (3) the Frontier Sandstone and Turner Sandy Member of the Carlile Shale, (4) the Sussex and Shannon Sandstone Members of Cody Shale, and (5) the Parkman, (6) Teapot, and (7) Teckla Sandstone Members of the Mesaverde Formation. For each SAU, we discuss the areal distribution of suitable CO 2 reservoir rock. We also characterize the overlying sealing unit and describe the geologic characteristics that influence the potential CO 2 storage volume and reservoir performance. These characteristics include reservoir depth, gross thickness, net thickness, porosity, permeability, and groundwater salinity. Case-by-case strategies for estimating the pore volume existing within structurally and (or) stratigraphically closed traps are presented. Although assessment results are not contained in this report, the geologic information included herein will be employed to calculate the potential storage space in the various SAUs.

Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming↗
USGS2012

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins, Wyoming: Chapter C in Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110-140) directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). The methodology used for the national CO 2 assessment is non-economic and intended to be used at regional to subbasinal scales. This report identifies and contains geologic descriptions of twelve storage assessment units (SAUs) in six separate packages of sedimentary rock within the Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley Basins of Wyoming. It focuses on the particular characteristics, specified in the methodology, that influence the potential CO 2 storage resource in those SAUs. Specific descriptions of SAU boundaries as well as their sealing and reservoir units are included. Properties for each SAU, such as depth to top, gross thickness, net porous thickness, porosity, permeability, groundwater quality, and structural reservoir traps are provided to illustrate geologic factors critical to the assessment. Although assessment results are not contained in this report, the geologic information included herein will be employed, as specified in the methodology, to calculate a statistical Monte Carlo-based distribution of potential storage space in the various SAUs. Figures in this report show SAU boundaries and cell maps of well penetrations through the sealing unit into the top of the storage formation. Cell maps show the number of penetrating wells within one square mile and are derived from interpretations of incompletely attributed well data in a digital compilation that is known not to include all drilling. The USGS does not expect to know the location of all wells and cannot guarantee the amount of drilling through specific formations in any given cell shown on cell maps.

Wyoming↗
USGS2010

A probabilistic assessment methodology for the evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage

In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110-140) authorized the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. The first year of that activity was specified for development of a methodology to estimate storage potential that could be applied uniformly to geologic formations across the United States. After its release, the methodology was to receive public comment and external expert review. An initial methodology was developed and published in March 2009 (Burruss and others, 2009), and public comments were received. The report was then sent to a panel of experts for external review. The external review report was received by the USGS in December 2009. This report is in response to those external comments and reviews and describes how the previous assessment methodology (Burruss and others, 2009) was revised. The resource that is assessed is the technically accessible storage resource, which is defined as the mass of CO 2 that can be stored in the pore volume of a storage formation. The methodology that is presented in this report is intended to be used for assessments at scales ranging from regional to subbasinal in which storage assessment units are defined on the basis of common geologic and hydrologic characteristics. The methodology does not apply to site-specific evaluation of storage resources or capacity.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Chemical analyses in the World Coal Quality Inventory

The main objective of the World Coal Quality Inventory (WoCQI) was to collect and analyze a global set of samples of mined coal during a time period from about 1995 to 2006 (Finkelman and Lovern, 2001). Coal samples were collected by foreign collaborators and submitted to country specialists in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Energy Program. However, samples from certain countries, such as Afghanistan, India, and Kyrgyzstan, were collected collaboratively in the field with USGS personnel. Samples were subsequently analyzed at two laboratories: the USGS Inorganic Geochemistry Laboratory located in Denver, CO and a commercial laboratory (Geochemical Testing, Inc.) located in Somerset, PA. Thus the dataset, which is in Excel (2003) format and includes 1,580 samples from 57 countries, does not have the inter-laboratory variability that is present in many compilations. Major-, minor-, and trace-element analyses from the USGS laboratory, calculated to a consistent analytical basis (dry, whole-coal) and presented with available sample identification information, are sorted alphabetically by country name. About 70 percent of the samples also have data from the commercial laboratory, which are presented on an as-received analytical basis. The USGS initiated a laboratory review of quality assurance in 2008, covering quality control and methodology used in inorganic chemical analyses of coal, coal power plant ash, water, and sediment samples. This quality control review found that data generated by the USGS Inorganic Geochemistry Laboratory from 1996 through 2006 were characterized by quality practices that did not meet USGS requirements commonly in use at the time. The most serious shortcomings were (1) the adjustment of raw sample data to standards when the instrument values for those standards exceeded acceptable limits or (2) the insufficient use of multiple standards to provide adequate quality assurance. In general, adjustment of raw data to account for instrument 'drift' is an acceptable practice within strictly defined limits. During the denoted period, USGS required that the maximum adjustment of instrument values, guided by calibration standards, was not allowed to exceed 10 percent. However, in some cases, the Inorganic Geochemistry Laboratory released data that were adjusted by more than 10 percent and (or) were not constrained by an adequate number of control standards. Original instrument values no longer exist for about 80 percent of the analyses during this period; therefore, the acceptability of drift corrections for most of the samples analyzed cannot be determined. For these reasons, the WoCQI data from the USGS Inorganic Geochemistry Laboratory should be used with care. For more information, individuals may contact laboratory management at EnergyLabs@usgs.gov with specific questions about particular datasets or analytical attributes. Standard USGS sampling methods were provided and recommended to collaborators, but the analyzed samples may or may not be representative of their locale; for some samples, only limited information is available concerning sample provenance. Single samples cannot represent spatial or temporal variability within a coal area. Geochemical datasets of U.S. coals can be found in the COALQUAL database (Bragg and others, 1997) and the National Coal Quality Inventory (Hatch and others, 2006), as only non-U.S. sample data are presented in the WoCQI. Although the WoCQI does not contain worldwide coverage of coal deposits, it is truly a unique and valuable compilation. The information in the WoCQI should prove useful for identifying possible areas for future global coal research.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Geology and assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in Mesozoic (Jurassic and Cretaceous) rocks of the onshore and state waters of the Gulf of Mexico Region, U.S.A

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is in the final phase of the most recent assessment of the undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coastal plain and state waters. Ongoing geologic, geochemical, and petrophysical framework studies have defined the total petroleum systems and assessment units (AUs) in the Gulf Coast region. Current studies examine the Mesozoic (Jurassic and Cretaceous) source rocks and reservoir units, and recent studies have assessed the undiscovered resources in Tertiary and certain Jurassic and Cretaceous units. The Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous Cotton Valley Group and Lower Cretaceous Hosston and Travis Peak formations, as well as the Upper Cretaceous Taylor and Navarro groups and the Tuscaloosa and Woodbine groups downdip shelf-margin deltas, were assessed in 2006. Tertiary strata were assessed in 2007. Jurassic strata presently under evaluation include the Upper Jurassic Norphlet, Smackover, Haynesville, and Bossier formations. Lower Cretaceous units to be assessed in the present study include the Knowles Limestone, Sligo Formation, Trinity Group, Fredericksburg Group, and lower part of the Washita Group. Upper Cretaceous rocks being assessed include the Buda Limestone of the Washita Group, Eagle Ford Group (Eagle Ford shale, and the updip Tuscaloosa and Woodbine groups), Austin Chalk (Group), and Tokio and Eutaw formations. For each AU, a geologic model is developed to define hydrocarbon source, charge, migration, trap, and reservoir, and to estimate technically recoverable undiscovered oil and gas resources. The USGS assessment is focused on evaluating conventional clastic and carbonate deposystems, as well as resource volumes in emerging unconventional gas, shale gas, and shale oil plays currently attracting global attention.

Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida↗
USGS2009

Development of a probabilistic assessment methodology for evaluation of carbon dioxide storage

This report describes a probabilistic assessment methodology developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for evaluation of the resource potential for storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the subsurface of the United States as authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110-140, 2007). The methodology is based on USGS assessment methodologies for oil and gas resources created and refined over the last 30 years. The resource that is evaluated is the volume of pore space in the subsurface in the depth range of 3,000 to 13,000 feet that can be described within a geologically defined storage assessment unit consisting of a storage formation and an enclosing seal formation. Storage assessment units are divided into physical traps (PTs), which in most cases are oil and gas reservoirs, and the surrounding saline formation (SF), which encompasses the remainder of the storage formation. The storage resource is determined separately for these two types of storage. Monte Carlo simulation methods are used to calculate a distribution of the potential storage size for individual PTs and the SF. To estimate the aggregate storage resource of all PTs, a second Monte Carlo simulation step is used to sample the size and number of PTs. The probability of successful storage for individual PTs or the entire SF, defined in this methodology by the likelihood that the amount of CO 2 stored will be greater than a prescribed minimum, is based on an estimate of the probability of containment using present-day geologic knowledge. The report concludes with a brief discussion of needed research data that could be used to refine assessment methodologies for CO 2 sequestration.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

GIS Representation of Coal-Bearing Areas in North, Central, and South America

Worldwide coal consumption and international coal trade are projected to increase in the next several decades (Energy Information Administration, 2007). A search of existing literature indicates that in the Western Hemisphere, coal resources are known to occur in about 30 countries. The need exists to be able to depict these areas in a digital format for use in Geographic Information System (GIS) applications at small scales (large areas) and in visual presentations. Existing surficial geology GIS layers of the appropriate geologic age have been used as an approximation to depict the extent of coal-bearing areas in North, Central, and South America, as well as Greenland (fig. 1). Global surficial geology GIS data were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for use in world petroleum assessments (Hearn and others, 2003). These USGS publications served as the major sources for the selection and creation of polygons to represent coal-bearing areas. Additional publications and maps by various countries and agencies were also used as sources of coal locations. GIS geologic polygons were truncated where literature or hardcopy maps did not indicate the presence of coal. The depicted areas are not adequate for use in coal resource calculations, as they were not adjusted for geologic structure and do not include coal at depth. Additionally, some coal areas in Central America could not be represented by the mapped surficial geology and are shown only as points based on descriptions or depictions from scientific publications or available maps. The provided GIS files are intended to serve as a backdrop for display of coal information. Three attributes of the coal that are represented by the polygons or points include geologic age (or range of ages), published rank (or range of ranks), and information source (published sources for age, rank, or physical location, or GIS geology base).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

GIS Representation of Coal-Bearing Areas in Africa

The African continent contains approximately 5 percent of the world's proven recoverable reserves of coal (World Energy Council, 2007). Energy consumption in Africa is projected to grow at an annual rate of 2.3 percent from 2004 through 2030, while average consumption in first-world nations is expected to rise at 1.4 percent annually (Energy Information Administration, 2007). Coal reserves will undoubtedly continue to be part of Africa's energy portfolio as it grows in the future. A review of academic and industrial literature indicates that 27 nations in Africa contain coal-bearing rock. South Africa accounts for 96 percent of Africa's total proven recoverable coal reserves, ranking it sixth in the world. This report is a digital compilation of information on Africa's coal-bearing geology found in the literature and is intended to be used in small scale spatial investigations in a Geographic Information System (GIS) and as a visual aid for the discussion of Africa's coal resources. Many maps of African coal resources often include points for mine locations or regional scale polygons with generalized borders depicting basin edges. Point locations are detailed but provide no information regarding extent, and generalized polygons do not have sufficient detail. In this dataset, the polygons are representative of the actual coal-bearing lithology both in location and regional extent. Existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital geology datasets provide the majority of the base geologic polygons. Polygons for the coal-bearing localities were clipped from the base geology that represented the age and extent of the coal deposit as indicated in the literature. Where the 1:5,000,000-scale geology base layer's ages conflicted with those in the publications, polygons were generated directly from the regional African coal maps (1:500,000 scale, approximately) in the published material. In these cases, coal-bearing polygons were clipped to the literature's indicated coal extent, without regard to the underlying geology base or topographic constraints. Indication of the presence of African coal is based on multiple sources. However, the quality of the sources varies and there is often disagreement in the literature. This dataset includes the rank, age, and location of coal in Africa as well as the detailed source information responsible for each coal-bearing polygon. The dataset is not appropriate for use in resource assessments of any kind. Attributes necessary for tasks, such as number of coal seams, thickness of seams, and depth to coal are rarely provided in the literature and accordingly not represented in this data set. Small-scale investigations, representations and display uses are most appropriate for this product. This product is the first to show coal distribution as bounded by actual geologic contacts for the entire African continent. In addition to the spatial component of this dataset, complete references to source material are provided for each polygon, making this product a useful first step resource in African coal research. Greater detail regarding the creation of this dataset as well as the sources used is provided in the metadata file for the Africa_coal.shp file.

Open-File Report↗