FINAL REPORT APPALACHIAN BASIN – R.E. BURGER PLANT GEOLOGIC CO SEQUESTRATION 2 FIELD TEST DOE-NETL Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-05NT42589       Prepared by: Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 MRCSP Program Manager: David Ball Prepared for: The U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory 3610 Collins Ferry Road P.O. Box 880 Morgantown, WV 26507-0880 Program Manager: Traci Rodosta JANUARY 4, 2011 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor Battelle, nor any member of the MRCSP makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendations, or favoring by Battelle, members of the MRCSP, the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and the opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the members of the MRCSP, the United States Government or any agency thereof. Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test ii 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by Battelle as part of the CO geologic storage field validation tests conducted 2 by the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP), one of seven partnerships sponsored by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). The report fulfills the requirements of U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Cooperative Agreement # DE-FC26-05NT42589 (Project Manager - Traci Rodosta). This field validation test would not have been possible without the support of the host site, and the authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Ms. Michele Somerday and FirstEnergy staff for providing invaluable guidance, outreach, and logistical support throughout the demonstration. The authors of this report would like to acknowledge the following individuals from project sponsor and vendor organizations whose technical contributions and guidance helped make the project a success: • DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory – Project Manager Traci Rodosta and former project managers Lynn Brickett and Charlie Byrer • FirstEnergy – Michele L. Somerday, Michele L. Kahl, Danielle Schneider, Clayton J. White, Thomas E. Posey, Robert L. Wilson, Amy E. Savage, and many others at the R.E. Burger Plant and FirstEnergy Akron office. • Battelle and Pacific Northwest Division – David Ball, Neeraj Gupta, Joel Sminchak, Matthew Place, Philip Jagucki, Danielle Meggyesy, Judith Bradbury, Jacqueline Gerst, Lydia Cumming, Diana Bacon, Ioan Feier, Charlotte Sullivan, and Frank Spane provided technical and advisory support. • Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey – Larry Wickstrom, Doug Mullet, Ron Riley, Ernie Slucher, and Mark Baranoski were instrumental to the regional and site characterization efforts • Pennsylvania Geological Survey – John Harper and Kristin Carter contributed significantly to the regional and site characterization efforts • West Virginia Geological Survey – Lee Avery and Eric Lewis contributed significantly to the regional and site characterization efforts • Electric Power Research Institute – Rob Steele provided the content for the specification of carbon dioxide compressor and pipeline at R. E. Burger Plant • Independent geologist William Rike participated in site characterization efforts • Praxair – Al Burgunder, Dan Dalton, and Chris Sessions provided technical guidance and field support for CO supply 2 • Oil Field Tools – Matt Fagerstrom provided technical expertise. Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test iii 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership’s (MRCSP’s) Phase II small-scale field validation efforts, carbon dioxide (CO ) sequestration potential was investigated at FirstEnergy’s 2 R.E. Burger power plant located near the town of Shadyside, in Belmont County, Ohio. The objective of the test was to explore geologic storage targets in this area of the Appalachian Basin geologic province and develop CO sequestration technology through drilling of a deep test well and conducting CO 2 2 injection tests. The Appalachian Basin is a regional structure in which sedimentary rocks form an elongated basin stretching across West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Kentucky, and Maryland. The test site location was chosen based on consideration of a variety of factors including its location in a region with many coal-based power plants and the resulting high CO emissions that 2 accompany that; the opportunity to test geologic storage targets in the Appalachian Basin as an important potential regional CO storage area; the possibility of integrating injection operations with a source of 2 CO from an innovative CO capture system planned for pilot testing at the R.E. Burger site in a separate 2 2 program; and the willingness of the host company, FirstEnergy, to provide site access, technical support, and co-sponsorship. The project included a sequence of tasks as follows: Preliminary Geologic Assessment- Prior to any field work, a preliminary geological assessment of the general area was completed by the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia Geological Surveys. This study reviewed the regional geologic setting, stratigraphy, oil and gas horizons, coal seams, seismic setting, groundwater resources, artificial penetrations, and surface features in the area based on existing data. Several deep saline rock formations were identified as potential injection targets, but there was little information on the nature of these formations since few deep wells were located near the site. Seismic Survey- In August 2006, a two-dimensional (2-D) seismic survey was completed at the R.E. Burger Power Plant site to help delineate rock formation depths in the area as well as to gain insight into the structure of geological rock layers. The survey included two 5-mile long transects through the test site and one additional parallel trace approximately 1 mile in length to simulate a “quasi-three-dimensional (3- D)” trace. This additional survey line provided greater geologic coverage in the vicinity of the proposed well. The information provided by this shorter trace helped to better delineate the Oriskany Sandstone and Clinton-Medina Sandstone, which have a somewhat variable distribution in the general area. Survey results indicated that the site is located in a structural setting with flat to mildly undulating Precambrian surface overlain by essentially flat strata, the whole having a slight southeast dip into the heart of the Appalachian Basin. No faults or fracture zones were detected that may have affected the testing. Test Well Drilling- A deep test well, FEGENCO#1, was drilled at the R.E. Burger site to a total depth of 8,384 ft in February 2007 including completion of associated logging and characterization tests. The test well was completed with injection casing in February 2008, which included several casing runs cemented to surface to isolate the well from the shallow groundwater zones. The injection zones were perforated in September 2008. Test Well Characterization- A full program of mud logging, wireline logging, sidewall coring, core testing, and petrophysical analysis was completed to characterize the geologic units. This information was used to identify injection targets, define confining layers, and plan injection testing. A full suite of wireline logs was completed in the well in three runs. Wireline logs showed zones of porosity between 2% and 10% within the key injection targets. A total of 48 rotary sidewall rock cores were collected in the test well from key injection targets and caprocks based on wireline logs. Core samples were tested for porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and density with standard procedures. Results generally showed Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test iv 2 porosity less than 5% and permeability less than 1 mD for most of the cores. Based on characterization efforts, three targets were selected for injection testing: the Oriskany Sandstone, Middle Salina Carbonate, and Clinton/Medina Sandstone. Hydraulic analysis of injection potential suggested that high injection pressures would likely be encountered due to the relatively low permeability and thickness of the injection targets at the test well location. Based on these results, a flexible testing plan was developed to vary injection rates and readily move from one testing zone to another. Underground Injection Control Permitting- The main permits required for the injection tests included well drilling permits and the underground injection control (UIC) permit. The FEGENCO #1 test well was first permitted as a stratigraphic test well with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Mineral Resource Management. The permit form required standard information on well location, construction specifications, and site restoration that any oil and gas well would necessitate. CO 2 injection was regulated by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) UIC program. A UIC Class V permit application was submitted to the Ohio EPA UIC program on January 17, 2008, and the permit was issued on September 3, 2008. During injection, Ohio EPA was notified of daily activities. Monthly reports were submitted to Ohio EPA summarizing maximum injection pressure, annular pressure, injection rates, and total injection volumes. While the test was small in scale, the permit process established familiarity with CO sequestration with regulators and the public. 2 CO Supply and Delivery System Design- A commercial source of liquid food grade CO was used for 2 2 the injection testing at this site. Initially it was hoped that the injection test could be integrated with a pilot CO capture plant being developed by Powerspan and to be tested at the Burger site in a separate 2 project. Because the Powerspan capture pilot plant was not available at the time needed for testing, a decision was made in early 2008 to utilize commercial CO as the backup source. Nevertheless, this test 2 site offered a chance to evaluate various technologies needed to monitor, verify, and account for the CO 2 sequestration at an operating coal-fired power plant. Tanker trucks carrying about 20 tons of CO each from the Praxair Marmet, West Virginia facility 2 delivered the liquid CO at approximately -10ºF and 250 PSIG to the R.E. Burger injection site. Three 50 2 ton mobile storage tanks were set up on the R.E. Burger site to provide an interim holding system before injecting into the well. The tanks were connected to a trailer-mounted injection system which included a triplex pump, a propane fired heater, and a programmable logic controller (PLC). At the wellhead, the system included flow meters, automated annulus pressure system, wellhead and downhole pressure gauges. Because this was a limited injection test with a single injection well, much of the monitoring was focused on assessing hydraulic response in the reservoir, vertical distribution of CO in the injection 2 targets, and health and safety. Test Results and Analysis- A series of injection tests was completed in the Clinton, Salina, and Oriskany formations in the fall of 2008. The testing started in the deepest formation (Clinton) and moved upward to the shallower formations. • Testing of the Clinton formation was conducted in three events. In addition to the attempts at CO injection, the well was stimulated with acid on two separate occasions. During each 2 attempt of injection, injection and formation pressures quickly increased even with relatively low injection rates of about 8 metric tons (tonnes) per day of CO and water/acid (<2 barrels 2 per minute [bpm]). • Several acid treatments were completed in the Salina to remove any cement from the test zone. Overall, high injection pressures and low flow rates were observed in the Salina Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test v 2 Formation. Hydraulic analysis predicted injection rates approaching 50 tonnes per day for the Salina at pressures less than 2000 psi; in actuality, injection rates of less than 20 tonnes per day were not sustainable at twice that pressure. • Finally, the Oriskany was also treated with acid before injection and then CO injection 2 testing was completed. Initial injection rates were relatively low at approximately 0.25 bpm until the desired pressure limit was approached. The flow rates were then reduced to maintain pressures below the limit until they were less than 20 tonnes per day. Analysis of pressure response curves suggest that mainly borehole storage was encountered during the pressure falloff tests. It did not appear that radial flow was observed during the pressure falloff after injection. Site Closure- After the injection tests, the well was temporarily abandoned with bridge plugs above the injection intervals. Wellhead pressure readings were completed and monthly reports were submitted to the Ohio EPA UIC program. In the fall of 2009, an oil and gas company inquired about leasing the well for gas production from shallow formations. The possibility was considered, but using the well for gas production was found infeasible in April 2010 due to pipeline siting issues. As a result, the well was closed out beginning in April 2010 according to the Ohio EPA approved plugging and abandonment plan. Stakeholder Outreach- An outreach plan was developed to link outreach activities to technical activities as the research project progressed. The purpose of the plan was to ensure that the partners involved in the test were coordinating with each other in conducting outreach activities aimed at building a solid foundation of public support for this test and for the longer-term concept of geologic sequestration. Major outreach tasks included production of informational materials, informal public-employee meetings, an EPA UIC program public hearing, site tours, and press releases. In general, the project was well received with little opposition, probably due to the importance of the plant for the local economy and familiarity with oil and gas operations in the area. Conclusions- The R.E. Burger Plant was selected as an exploratory CO storage site for several key 2 reasons: 1) It is central to the Appalachian Basin and, in particular, the Upper Ohio River Valley Power Corridor (Gallipolis to East Liverpool, Ohio). Nearly 20,000 MW of coal fired capacity exists in this region including some of the largest and most modern coal fired power plants in the world. 2) The original target formations for this site, the Oriskany and Clinton sandstones, are pervasive throughout the Appalachian Basin and were, thus, of keen geological interest. 3) The Burger plant was also the site for a demonstration of Powerspan’s ECO multi-pollutant control technology, which was to include the addition of the ECO2 capture technology being developed by Powerspan at the time. Thus, this site offered the possibility of integrating the ECO2 capture process with MRCSP subsurface injection, which would have been a world first for a coal fired power plant. The above, combined with excellent support from FirstEnergy, including access to the Burger plant, made the site attractive for a Phase II small-scale validation test. Although injectivity at this site was less than expected the test did help establish familiarity with CO 2 sequestration technologies in the region and provided an important deep well data point in a Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test vi 2 strategically valuable portion of the MRCSP region. The test also highlights the variability of geologic environments, especially in the geologically deep and complex Appalachian Basin. The Burger test described here, as well as the other two MRCSP Phase II tests at East Bend (Mt. Simon Sandstone in the Cincinnati Arch) and Otsego County, Michigan (Bass Island Dolomite in the Michigan Basin) described in separate MRCSP reports, showed that characterization methods (rock core tests, wireline logging, and geologic logging) may only provide indicators of injectivity. True injection potential needs to be proven with field injection tests. A well stimulation/hydraulic fracture operation was not completed in the well per Ohio EPA UIC permit restrictions. The formations that were tested are commonly fractured for oil and gas production in the Appalachian Basin, although fracturing for injection purposes would be looked at differently by regulators than for production operations. It may have been possible to obtain better injection results after hydraulically fracturing the well. Given the relatively low injection volume of 3,000 metric tons initially planned for this test, well stimulation was not considered during the test design and would have added complexity, time and cost to the permitting process. However, the flexibility to complete a hydraulic fracture operation in the near well bore may be an important consideration for future CO sequestration testing and permitting in the Appalachian Basin. 2 This Burger site highlights the value of these smaller, research-oriented tests, which allow valuable experience to be gained in site characterization, permitting, infrastructure implementation, and injection testing with significantly less capital investment compared to full-scale application. Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test vii 2 CONTENTS DISCLAIMER .............................................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... iv APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. ix FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... ix TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... x ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... xi 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Site Description ...................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.2 Geologic Setting ..................................................................................................................... 1-5 2.0 2-D Seismic Characterization ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Planning .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Acquisition ............................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 Processing ............................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Interpretation – Formation Tops ............................................................................................. 2-6 2.5 Interpretation – Structural Setting .......................................................................................... 2-9 3.0 Test Well Drilling ............................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Test Well Description ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Mud Logging .......................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3 Wireline/Geophysical Logging .............................................................................................. 3-6 4.0 Characterization and Testing .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Lithologic Description ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Rock Core Testing .................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3 Petrographic Analysis ............................................................................................................. 4-9 4.4 Injection Targets and Confining Layers ............................................................................... 4-16 4.5 Hydraulic Analysis of Reservoir Behavior ........................................................................... 4-20 5.0 Permitting ............................................................................................................................................ 5-1 6.0 CO Supply and Delivery .................................................................................................................... 6-1 2 6.1 CO Source and Composition ................................................................................................. 6-1 2 6.2 Delivery and Injection System ............................................................................................... 6-2 7.0 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 System Flow Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Hydraulic Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-1 7.3 Wireline Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 7-2 7.4 Health and Safety Monitoring ................................................................................................ 7-2 7.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan ................................................................................ 7-2 8.0 Test Results and Analysis ................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Injection Testing Field Work ................................................................................................. 8-2 8.2 Well Test Analysis ................................................................................................................. 8-8 Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test viii 2 9.0 Outreach .............................................................................................................................................. 9-1 9.1 Outreach Plan ......................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Information Materials ............................................................................................................. 9-2 9.3 Employee and Public Informational Meetings ....................................................................... 9-3 9.4 Public Hearing ........................................................................................................................ 9-3 9.5 Presentations, Facility Tours, Media Interviews and Press Releases ..................................... 9-4 10.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................... 10-2 11.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 11-1 APPENDICES Appendix A: PRELIMINARY GEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE GENERAL AREA Appendix B: 2-D SEISMIC SURVEY MATERIALS Appendix C: WELL DRILLING PERMIT Appendix D: CORE ANALYSES Appendix E: UIC PERMIT Appendix F: MRCSP/EPRI DESIGN STUDY FOR POWERSPAN PILOT PLANT Appendix G: PUBLIC OUTREACH MATERIALS FIGURES Figure 1-1. Conceptual Diagram of Injection System ............................................................................ 1-3 Figure 1-2. Site Location Map ................................................................................................................ 1-4 Figure 1-3. First Energy R.E. Burger Facility ........................................................................................ 1-5 Figure 1-4. Chart Illustrating the Estimated Depth of Geologic Units Identified in Preliminary Geological Assessment of the Test Site ............................................................................... 1-7 Figure 2-1. Initial Proposed Routes for Seismic Survey at R.E. Burger Site ......................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2. Seismic Acquisition Parameters for R.E. Burger Site .......................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3. Seismic Lines and Well Location Map for R.E. Burger Site ............................................... 2-4 Figure 2-4. Full Section Presentation of Seismic Line Burger-V1-06 (E-W line) as Processed by ESP .................................................................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-5. Full Section Presentation of Seismic Line Burger-V2-06 (N-S line) as Processed by ESP ....................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-6. Synthetic Seismogram Created from Sonic Data in FEGENCO #1 Well at R.E. Burger Site ........................................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-7. Diagram following Seismic Line Burger-V2-06 (N-S) ...................................................... 2-10 Figure 3-1. Water Rig Drilling Conductor Casing for FEGENCO#1 Test Well .................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2. FEGENCO#1 Well Diagram ................................................................................................ 3-4 Figure 3-3. Cement Evaluation Showing Galaxy Patterns around 7200 ft ............................................. 3-5 Figure 4-1. Sequence Stratigraphy Interpretation in the Salina Formation ............................................ 4-5 Figure 4-2. Sidewall Core Locations and Rock Testing Results ............................................................ 4-7 Figure 4-3. Chagrin-Huron Shale ........................................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-4. Lower Huron Shale ............................................................................................................ 4-10 Figure 4-5. Upper Olentangy Shale ...................................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-6. Hamilton Shale ................................................................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-7. Onondaga Limestone ......................................................................................................... 4-11 Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test ix 2 Figure 4-8. Oriskany Sandstone ............................................................................................................ 4-12 Figure 4-9. Helderberg Limestone ........................................................................................................ 4-12 Figure 4-10. Salina Anhydrite/Dolomite (6,500 ft) ................................................................................ 4-13 Figure 4-11. Salina Anhydrite/Dolomite (6782 ft) ................................................................................. 4-13 Figure 4-12. Salina Anhydrite/Dolomite (6,865 ft) ................................................................................ 4-14 Figure 4-13. Salina Anhydrite/Dolomite (6,905 ft) ................................................................................ 4-14 Figure 4-14. Lockport Dolomite ............................................................................................................. 4-15 Figure 4-15. Red Clinton Sandstone ....................................................................................................... 4-15 Figure 4-16. White Clinton Sandstone .................................................................................................... 4-16 Figure 4-17. Composite Wireline Log from Oriskany Sandstone .......................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-18. Composite Wireline Log from Salina Carbonate Interval.................................................. 4-18 Figure 4-19. Composite Wireline Log from Clinton Formation ............................................................. 4-19 Figure 4-20. Calculated Bottomhole Pressure Increase in Clinton Interval ............................................ 4-23 Figure 4-21. Calculated Bottomhole Pressure Increase in Salina Interval .............................................. 4-23 Figure 5-1. Key Steps in Permitting Process for Appalachian Basin R.E. Burger FEGENCO #1 UIC Permit ........................................................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2. Area of Review for Appalachian Basin FEGENCO #1 Permit ............................................ 5-3 Figure 6-1. CO Injection Setup at the R.E. Burger Power Plant ........................................................... 6-2 2 Figure 6-2. CO Injection Setup at the R.E. Burger Power Plant ........................................................... 6-3 2 Figure 6-3. Annular Monitoring and Injection System Process Flow Diagram………………… .......... 6-4 Figure 8-1. Flow Chart Outlining Injection Procedure ........................................................................... 8-1 Figure 8-2. Downhole Pressures for CO Injection in the Clinton Formation ........................................ 8-3 2 Figure 8-3. Test Sequence in the Clinton Formation .............................................................................. 8-3 Figure 8-4. Downhole Pressures for CO Injection in the Salina Formation .......................................... 8-6 2 Figure 8-5. Test Sequence in Salina Interval .......................................................................................... 8-7 Figure 8-6. Injection Sequence in Clinton/Medina Analyzed for Pressure Falloff ................................. 8-9 Figure 8-7. Injection Sequence in Salina Analyzed for Pressure Falloff .............................................. 8-10 Figure 8-8. Injection Sequence in Oriskany Analyzed for Pressure Falloff ......................................... 8-10 Figure 8-9. Typical Log-log Diagnostic and Horner Plot for Well Test Shut-in Analysis ................... 8-11 Figure 8-10. Log-log Diagnostic and Horner Plot for Clinton Falloff 01 ............................................... 8-12 Figure 8-11. Log-log Diagnostic and Horner Plot for Clinton Falloff 02 ............................................... 8-13 Figure 8-12. Log-log Diagnostic and Horner Plot for Salina Falloff 01 ................................................. 8-14 Figure 8-13. Log-log Diagnostic and Horner Plot for Salina Falloff 02 ................................................. 8-15 Figure 8-14. Log-log Diagnostic and Horner Plot for Oriskany Falloff ................................................. 8-16 Figure 8-15. Semi-log Plot of Pressure Falloff Curves ........................................................................... 8-17 Figure 9-1. R.E. Burger Plant Employee Meeting Held on March 6, 2008 ............................................ 9-4 TABLES Table 3-1. Summary of Wireline Logging Program in FEGENCO#1 Test Well .................................... 3-7 Table 4-1. Litholgy of FEGENCO #1 Test Well ..................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2. Rotary Sidewall Core Test Results from FEGENCO #1 Test Well ....................................... 4-8 Table 4-3. Summary of Petrographic Analysis ........................................................................................ 4-9 Table 4-4. Summary of Average Parameters for Injection Intervals based on Wireline Logs .............. 4-21 Table 4-5. Summary of Average Parameters for Injection Intervals based on Rock Core Tests........... 4-21 Table 4-6. Hydraulic Analysis Results Based on Wireline Input Parameters ....................................... 4-22 Table 4-7. Hydraulic Analysis Results Based on Core Test Input Parameters ...................................... 4-22 Table 6-1. Typical Laboratory Analysis Composition as Provided by the Vendor ................................. 6-1 Table 8-1. Clinton Formation Testing ..................................................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2. Measured Pressures at Each Flow Rate .................................................................................. 8-4 Table 8-3. Pressures Measured Over Time .............................................................................................. 8-4 Table 8-4. Pressure Levels ....................................................................................................................... 8-5 Final Appalachian Basin – R.E. Burger Plant Geologic CO Sequestration Field Test x 2