Unraveling the stratigraphy of the Oriskany Sandstone: A necessity in assessing its site-specific carbon sequestration potential

Kostelnik, Jaime; Carter, Kristin M.

doi:10.1306/eg.04210909005

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 60% of sample MDC-6 (Tully Limestone) was extracted by HOAc and HCl, while only 31% of more quartz-rich sample MDC-78 (Onondaga Limestone) dissolved, consistent with its locally siliceous character (Brett and Baird, 1996). The Oriskany Sandstone is calcareous in places and often calcite-cemented (Basan et al, 1980;Kostelnik and Carter, 2012), and calcite as well as quartz is abundant in sample MDC-82 (Table 1) silicate fractions could also result from the presence of small carbonate or sand lenses within the cuttings sampling interval that were incorporated into the bulk sample.…”

Section: Mineralogy and Carbonate Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Origin of brines, salts and carbonate from shales of the Marcellus Formation: Evidence from geochemical and Sr isotope study of sequentially extracted fluids

Stewart

Chapman

Capo

et al. 2015

Applied Geochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluids co-produced with methane from hydraulically fractured organic-rich shales of the Marcellus Formation (USA) are characterized by high total dissolved solids (TDS), including elevated levels of Ba, Sr and Br. To investigate the source and geologic history of these high-TDS fluids and their dissolved constituents, we carried out a series of sequential extraction experiments on dry-drilled cuttings extracted within, below and above the Marcellus Shale from a well in Tioga County, New York State. The experiments were designed to extract (1) water soluble components, (2) exchangeable cations, (3) carbonate minerals, and (4) hydrochloric acidsoluble constituents. The geochemistry of the resultant leachates highlights the different geochemical reservoirs for extractable elements within the shale; notably, Na and Br were largely water-soluble, while Ba was extracted primarily from exchangeable sites, and Ca and Sr were found both in exchangeable sites and carbonate. Strontium isotope ratios measured on the leachates indicate that each of the element reservoirs has a distinct value. Measured 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios in the water soluble component are similar to those of Marcellus produced water, while the ion exchange reservoir yields lower ratios, and carbonate Sr is lower still, approaching Devonian-Silurian seawater values. Despite the isotopic similarity of water leachates and produced water, the total water chemistry argues against generation of produced water by interaction of hydraulic fracturing fluid with "dry" shale. The high-TDS produced water is most likely trapped formation water (within and/or adjacent to the shale) that is released by hydraulic fracturing. The formation water was affected by multiple processes, possibly including basin scale, tectonically-driven fluid flow. Significant chemical and isotopic differences between Marcellus Shale produced water and overlying Upper Devonian/Lower Mississippian produced waters suggests a hydrologic barrier has been maintained in parts of the Appalachian Basin since the late Paleozoic.

show abstract

Section: Mineralogy and Carbonate Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Origin of brines, salts and carbonate from shales of the Marcellus Formation: Evidence from geochemical and Sr isotope study of sequentially extracted fluids

Stewart

Chapman

Capo

et al. 2015

Applied Geochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A relatively simple baseline ss/sh mineralogy was chosen ( Table 2). The shale mineralogy (Hosterman and Whitlow, 1983) was chosen to be close to that of a black shale like that of the Marcellus formation (Table 2), which is of interest for shale gas research, but is also considered a secondary caprock for the Oriskany formation (a formation under consideration for geologic storage of CO2; Kostelnik and Carter, 2009).…”

Section: Mineralogy Thermodynamics and Kineticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Modeling of CO<sub>2</sub> Sequestration and Storage in Deep Saline Sandstone Reservoirs: Sensitivity Analysis of Mineral Rates in Reactive Transport

Balashov

Brantley

Guthrie

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Oriskany (Ridgeley) Sandstone is considered the most promising siliciclastic saline reservoir for CO 2 sequestration in northeastern Pennsylvania (Skeen and Carr, 2009;Kostelnik and Carter, 2009b;DCNR, 2009a). The Oriskany Formation occurs across New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky (Diecchio, 1985;Bruner and Smosna, 2008;Dilmore et al, 2008).…”

Section: Lower Devonian Co 2 Storage Sandstonesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are 32 Oriskany gas storage fields with a cumulative total of over one Tcf storage capacity (Skeen, 2010). The primary risk for Oriskany CO 2 storage in Bradford County, and elsewhere parallel to the Alleghany structural front, is the presence of fractured and leaky caprock (Kostelnik and Carter 2009b). Seismic detection of faults and fracture systems is therefore critical to evaluating the non-hydrocarbon bearing Oriskany for CO 2 storage potential.…”

Section: Lower Devonian Co 2 Storage Sandstonesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This model could correspond to the Lower Devonian Oriskany/Ridgeley sandstone that lies below the Onandaga Limestone/Needmore Formation in our study area. This sandstone has relatively low porosity and limited storage capacity, but is considered as a potential target for CO 2 injection (Kostelnik and Carter, 2009b). Figure 5.6 presents a plot of the differences between P-wave velocity in a brine-saturated rock and in a CO 2 -saturated rock, as a function of effective pressure and temperature.…”

Section: Effects Of In Situ Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving the Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO<sub>2</sub> Sequestered in Geologic Systems with Multicomponent Seismic Technology and Rock Physics Modeling

Alkan¹,

DeAngelo²,

Hardage³

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research done in this study showed that P-SV seismic data provide better spatial resolution of geologic targets at our Appalachian Basin study area than do P-P data. This finding is important because the latter data (P-P) are the principal seismic data used to evaluate rock systems considered for CO 2 sequestration. The increase in P-SV 1 resolution over P-P resolution was particularly significant, with P-SV 1 wavelengths being approximately 40-percent shorter than P-P wavelengths. CO 2 sequestration projects across the Appalachian Basin should take advantage of the increased resolution provided by converted-shear seismic modes relative to P-wave seismic data.In addition to S-wave data providing better resolution of geologic targets, we found S-wave images described reservoir heterogeneities that P-P data could not see. Specifically, a channel-like anomaly was imaged in a key porous sandstone interval by P-SV 1 data, and no indication of the feature existed in P-P data. If any stratigraphic unit is considered for CO 2 storage purposes, it is important to know all heterogeneities internal to the unit to understand reservoir compartmentalization. We conclude it is essential that multicomponent seismic data be used to evaluate all potential reservoir targets whenever a CO 2 storage effort is considered, particularly when sequestration efforts are initiated in the Appalachian Basin.Significant differences were observed between P-wave sequences and Swave sequences in data windows corresponding to the Oriskany Sandstone, a popular unit considered for CO 2 sequestration. This example demonstrates that S-wave sequences and facies often differ from P-wave sequences and facies and is a principle we have observed in every multicomponent seismic interpretation our research laboratory has done. As a result, we now emphasis elastic wavefield seismic stratigraphy in our reservoir characterization studies, which is a science based on the concept that the same weight must be given to S-wave sequences and facies as is given to P-wave sequences and facies. This philosophy differs from the standard practice of depending on only conventional P-wave seismic stratigraphy to characterize reservoir units.The fundamental physics of elastic wavefield seismic stratigraphy is that Swave modes sense different sequences and facies across some intervals than does a P-wave mode because S-wave displacement vectors are orthogonal to Pwave displacement vectors and thus react to a different rock fabric than do P waves. Although P and S images are different, both images can still be correct in terms of the rock fabric information they reveal.ii

show abstract

Unraveling the stratigraphy of the Oriskany Sandstone: A necessity in assessing its site-specific carbon sequestration potential

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

Origin of brines, salts and carbonate from shales of the Marcellus Formation: Evidence from geochemical and Sr isotope study of sequentially extracted fluids

Origin of brines, salts and carbonate from shales of the Marcellus Formation: Evidence from geochemical and Sr isotope study of sequentially extracted fluids

Predictive Modeling of CO<sub>2</sub> Sequestration and Storage in Deep Saline Sandstone Reservoirs: Sensitivity Analysis of Mineral Rates in Reactive Transport

Improving the Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO<sub>2</sub> Sequestered in Geologic Systems with Multicomponent Seismic Technology and Rock Physics Modeling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About