MRCSP Phase I Geologic Characterization Report - Midwest ...

INTRODUCTION TO THE MRCSP REGION’S GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
11
Table 1.—Summary of geologic layers mapped and map type, responsible state for each layer,
interpolation methods and software used to create the maps
Geologic Layer(s) Mapped Type of Map(s) State Responsible Methodology Software
Precambrian Structure Structure Ohio Kriging with extensive ArcGIS
hand interpolation
Cambrian basal sandstones Structure & thickness Ohio Kriging, hand Geostatistical Analyst
interpolation in Ky (ArcGIS)
Top of basal sands to Structure & thickness Indiana Local polynomial Geostatistical Analyst
Copper Ridge interval interpolation (ArcGIS)
Rose Run Sandstone Structure & thickness Ohio Kriging, with extensive Geostatistical Analyst
hand interpolation in (ArcGIS)
Ky and Pa portions
Knox to Lower Silurian interval Structure (2) & Ohio Kriging Geostatistical Analyst
thickness
(ArcGIS)
St. Peter Sandstone Structure & thickness Indiana Local polynomial Geostatistical Analyst
interpolation
(ArcGIS)
Medina Sandstone Structure & thickness Pennsylvania Proprietary method, Petra (geoPLUS, 2005)
“Highly Connected
Features” setting in
“Create Contour Grid”
procedure, and
manual editing
Lockport to Onondaga interval Structure & thickness Indiana Local polynomial Geostatisical Analyst
interpolation
(ArcGIS)
Niagaran Reefs Structure Michigan Kriging Surfer
Oriskany Sandstone Structure & thickness Pennsylvania Proprietary method, Petra
“Highly Connected
Features” setting in
“Create Contour Grid”
procedure, and
manual editing
Sylvania Sandstone Structure & thickness Michigan Kriging Surfer
Needmore Shale Structure & thickness Maryland Kriging Geostatistical Analyst
Devonian Shales Structure & thickness Kentucky Kriging Geostatistical Analyst
Appalachian Basin coal Aggregate thickness Ohio/ Kentucky Kriging and hand Geostatistical Analyst
thickness
editing
Saginaw Coal Structure & thickness Michigan Kriging Surfer
Waste Gate Structure & thickness Maryland Kriging Geostatistical Analyst
depending on the detail, and scale, of an individual analysis. Rather,
this Phase I analysis delineates stratigraphic intervals that have the
potential to be used as reservoirs and seals for CO 2 sequestration
across the region and provides a basis for approximating the carbon
storage potential of the region in much the same way as the availability
of future energy resources are assessed throughout the world.
Over time, with the application of new technology and a refinement
of those that now exist, coupled with an increase in available data,
the reserve/sequestration potential numbers will inevitably change
for many years to come following an area’s initial assessment.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
This project was the first time Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maryland have worked collectively
on a project. In itself, this represents a significant milestone
for each state that will have many benefits in future years. Most previous
regional geologic consortia focused on research topics within
an individual basin. However, the MRCSP project is the first consortium
in this section of the U.S. to embark upon mapping multiple
geologic units across multiple basins. Such an approach allowed the
various geologists from the multiple states a unique opportunity to
map and analyze many regionally complex geologic intervals, all
the while maintaining a common goal of developing an understanding
of the total geologic system across multiple geologic provinces
(a challenge most geologists relish, yet rarely have!).
Compiling data into a usable format from a seven-member state
working group proved challenging because each state (and members
within states) collects and stores data differently. Much of the
data used for mapping deeper, subsurface-geology units came from
oil and gas wells; hence, the variability in data from state to state
reflects differences in regulatory requirements as enacted in each
state. The age of the available records also varied across the region.
Drilling began in some MRCSP member states over 150 years ago,
yet others, like Michigan, did not experience petroleum production
until 1925 (1951 in Maryland). Records are missing or inadequate
on some older wells mostly because there were no regulations in
place or agencies charged with gathering these data at these early
dates. Thus, inconsistencies in the types and amounts of data varied
from state to state. The form of the data was another challenge. All
member states are in the process of converting their paper records to
digital format—some just beginning, others are nearing completion.