Cited by 163CO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis

Estimating the Carbon Sequestration Capacity of Shale Formations Using Methane Production Rates

Tao, Zhiyuan, Clarens, Andres·2013·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Hydraulically fractured shale formations are being developed widely for oil and gas production. They could also represent an attractive repository for permanent geologic carbon sequestration. Shales have a low permeability, but they can adsorb an appreciable amount of CO2 on fracture surfaces. Here, a computational method is proposed for estimating the CO2 sequestration capacity of a fractured shale formation and it is applied to the Marcellus shale in the eastern United States. The model is based on historical and projected CH4 production along with published data and models for CH4/CO2 sorption equilibria and kinetics. The results suggest that the Marcellus shale alone could store between 10.4 and 18.4 Gt of CO2 between now and 2030, which represents more than 50% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from stationary sources over the same period. Other shale formations with comparable pressure-temperature conditions, such as Haynesville and Barnett, could provide significant additional storage capacity. The mass transfer kinetic results indicate that injection of CO2 would proceed several times faster than production of CH4. Additional considerations not included in this model could either reinforce (e.g., leveraging of existing extraction and monitoring infrastructure) or undermine (e.g., leakage or seismicity potential) this approach, but the sequestration capacity estimated here supports continued exploration into this pathway for producing carbon neutral energy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es401221j

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tao, Z., & Clarens, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of Virginia , , Thornton Hall, 351 McCormick Road , Charlottesville , Virginia 22904 ,
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2013-08-29
Volume
47
Issue
19
Pages
11318-11325
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1966336294
Cited by
163
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8
FWCI
9.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Hydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Keywords
carbon sequestration, shale formations, CO2 storage capacity, methane production rate, Marcellus Shale, Haynesville shale, Barnett Shale, CO2 adsorption, sorption kinetics, mass transfer, hydraulic fracturing, CO2 geological storage
MeSH terms
Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Geological Phenomena, Carbon Sequestration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review