U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Fact Sheet 2013–3020

Version 1.1, September 2013

National Assessment of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources—

Summary

Printed on recycled paper

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed 

an evaluation of the technically accessible storage resource 

(TASR) for carbon dioxide (CO2) for 36 sedimentary basins in 

the onshore areas and State waters of the United States (fig. 1). 

The TASR is an estimate of the geologic storage resource that 

may be available for CO2 injection and storage and is based on 

current geologic and hydrologic knowledge of the subsurface 

and current engineering practices. By using a geology-based 

probabilistic assessment methodology, the USGS assessment 

team members obtained a mean estimate of approximately 

3,000 metric gigatons (Gt) of subsurface CO2 storage capacity 

that is technically accessible below onshore areas and State 

waters; this amount is more than 500 times the 2011 annual U.S. 

energy-related CO2 emissions of 5.5 Gt (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012).

In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act (Public 

Law 110–140) directed the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct 

a national assessment of geologic storage resources for CO2 in 

consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and State 

Figure 1. Map of the conterminous United States and Alaska showing 8 regions (separated by bold dashed lines), evaluated areas (bluish gray) that 

were not assessed, and 36 areas (pattern) that were assessed by the U.S. Geological Survey for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage. Resources in federally 

owned offshore areas were not assessed, and Hawaii was considered unlikely to have significant storage resources. Regions and study areas are 

plotted over a shaded-relief image showing higher elevations in brown and tan and lower elevations in green.

120°W 110°W 100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W

40°N

30°N

160°W 140°W

65°N

60°N

55°N

180°W

Evaluated area

Assessed area

EXPLANATION 0 250 500 750 1,000KILOMETERS

0 250 500 MILES 0 250 500 KILOMETERS

0 250 MILES

Pacific

Northwest

Rocky Mountains

and Northern

Great Plains

Western

Mid-Continent Eastern Mesozoic Rift Basins

Eastern Mid-Continent

Coastal Plains

Alaska

California

Bighorn Basin

Powder

River

Basin

Wind River Basin

Greater Green

River Basin

Hanna, 

Laramie, and 

Shirley Basins

Western

Oregon and Washington

Basins

Columbia Basin of 

Oregon, Washington, 

and Idaho

Wyoming–Idaho–Utah 

Thrust Belt

Alaska 

North Slope

Kandik 

Basin

U.S. Gulf Coast Bend Arch

and Fort

Worth Basin

Arkoma Basin

Denver 

Basin

Anadarko and Southern 

Oklahoma Basins

Eastern 

Great 

Basin

Sacramento

Basin

San 

Joaquin 

Central Basin California 

Coast Basins

Ventura 

Basin

Los Angeles 

Basin

Uinta and Piceance Basins

Paradox 

Basin

San Juan

Basin

Raton 

Basin

Williston 

Basin

Illinois 

Basin

Michigan 

Basin

South Florida 

Basin

Black 

Warrior 

Basin

Appalachian 

Basin

Kansas 

Basins

Palo Duro 

Basin

Permian Basin

Eastern 

Mesozoic 

Rift Basins

Atlantic 

Coastal Plain

Base map from Jarvis

and others (2008)

CGIAR-Consortium

for Spatial Information

SRTM 90m Database
Table 1. Estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012 of national totals for technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for carbon 

dioxide (CO2) in the United States by resource type and class.

[Estimates are in billions of metric tons (gigatons, Gt). P5, P50, and P95 are probability percentiles and represent the 5-, 50-, and 95-percent probabilities, respectively, 

that the true storage resource is less than the value shown. The terminology used in this report differs from that used by the petroleum industry and follows standard 

statistical practice (for example, Everitt and Skrondal, 2010), where percentiles, or fractiles, represent the value of a variable below which a certain proportion of 

observations falls. The percentiles were calculated by using the aggregation method described in U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources 

Assessment Team (2013b) and in Blondes, Schuenemeyer, and others (2013). Percentile values do not sum to totals because the aggregation procedure used partial 

dependencies between storage assessment units. The P50 (median) values are generally less than mean values because most output distributions are right skewed. 

The known recovery replacement storage resource (KRRSR) is listed separately as determined from petroleum production volumes; the same type of resource is also 

included in the buoyant storage type estimated from a geologic model. Mean values sum to totals but are reported to only two significant figures]

CO2 storage resource type and class P5 P50 P95 Mean

Symbol Name

Storage resource estimated from geologic models

BSR Buoyant trapping storage resource 19 31 110 44

R1SR Residual trapping class 1 storage resource 97 140 200 140

R2SR Residual trapping class 2 storage resource 2,100 2,600 3,300 2,700

R3SR Residual trapping class 3 storage resource 58 120 230 130

TASR (total) Technically accessible storage resource 2,300 3,000 3,700 3,000

Storage resource estimated from petroleum production volumes

KRRSR Known recovery replacement storage resource 11 13 15 13

Figure 2. Pie charts showing mean estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012 of technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for carbon 

dioxide (CO2) in the United States by (A) type and class and (B) region. Resources were estimated for eight geographic regions shown in figure 1. 

A mean total of 3,000 metric gigatons (Gt) of storage resources was estimated to exist in buoyant and residual storage types. The known recovery 

replacement storage resource (KRRSR) is not shown in part A but is included in the buoyant storage type. Resources in federally owned offshore areas 

were not assessed. Mean values sum to totals but are reported to only two significant figures. Percentages were calculated from unrounded resource 

estimates.

geological surveys. The USGS developed a methodology to 

estimate storage resource potential in geologic formations in the 

United States (Burruss and others, 2009; Brennan and others, 

2010; Blondes, Brennan, and others, 2013). In 2012, the USGS 

completed the assessment, and the results are summarized in 

this Fact Sheet (fig. 2A,B; tables 1, 2) and are provided in more 

detail in companion reports (U.S. Geological Survey Geologic 

Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team, 2013a,b).

The goal of this project was to conduct an initial assessment of storage capacity on a regional basis, and results are not 

intended for use in the evaluation of specific sites for potential 

CO2 storage. The national assessment was a geology-based 

examination of all sedimentary basins in the onshore and State 

waters area of the United States that contain storage assessment 

units (SAUs) that could be defined according to geologic and 

hydrologic characteristics. Although geologic storage of CO2

Buoyant storage

(44 Gt)

2%

Residual, class 2

(2,700 Gt)

89%

Residual, class 3

(130 Gt)

4%

Residual, class 1

(140 Gt)

5%

A Alaska

(270 Gt)

9%

Pacific Northwest

(14 Gt)

<1% California

(90 Gt)

3% Western

Mid-Continent 

(150 Gt)

5%

Eastern Mesozoic

Rift Basins

(0.44 Gt)

<1%

Rocky Mountains 

and Northern 

Great Plains

(270 Gt)

9%

Eastern

Mid-Continent 

(230 Gt)

8%

Coastal Plains

(1,900 Gt)

65%

B
Table 2. Estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012 of basin and regional totals for technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for 

carbon dioxide (CO2) in the United States.

[Estimates are in millions of metric tons (megatons, Mt). P5, P50, and P95 are probability percentiles; see table 1. Mean values sum to totals but are reported to only two 

significant figures if the value is greater than 1 Mt and are rounded to the nearest 0.1 Mt if the value is less than 1 Mt. Regions are listed from northwest to east, and 

basins are listed alphabetically]

Basin name

KRRSR

Known recovery replacement 

storage resource

BSR

Buoyant trapping 

storage resource

R1SR

Residual trapping class 1 

storage resource

P5 P50 P95 Mean P5 P50 P95 Mean P5 P50 P95 Mean 

Alaska Region 

Alaska North Slope 700 910 1,100 910 2,400 8,600 62,000 18,000 510 770 1,100 790 

Kandik Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 13 150 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aggregated totals 700 910 1,100 910 2,400 8,600 62,000 18,000 510 770 1,100 790 

Pacific Northwest Region 

Western Oregon and Washington 

Basins 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 35 8.2 860 1,600 2,700 1,700 

Aggregated totals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 35 8.2 860 1,600 2,700 1,700 

California Region 

Los Angeles Basin 10 13 16 13 43 75 140 81 66 130 230 130 

Sacramento Basin 34 48 67 49 42 57 180 80 460 740 1,100 760 

San Joaquin Basin 18 24 32 25 31 98 980 270 1,600 2,400 3,400 2,500 

Ventura Basin 23 32 43 32 29 52 290 93 76 160 300 170 

Aggregated totals 94 120 150 120 180 320 1,500 520 2,500 3,500 4,700 3,500 

Rocky Mountains and Northern Great Plains Region 

Bighorn Basin 75 93 110 93 89 120 290 150 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Denver Basin 76 100 130 100 110 170 850 300 35 100 250 120 

Eastern Great Basin 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.2 2.2 23 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Greater Green River Basin 380 500 650 500 440 580 1,500 740 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hanna, Laramie, and Shirley 

Basins 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.1 17 74 370 120 5.2 12.0 23 12 

Paradox Basin 36 51 71 52 45 63 160 78 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Powder River Basin 96 120 150 120 120 180 710 280 0.3 1.8 4.1 2.0 

San Juan Basin 9.4 12 16 12 11 15 37 19 3.8 8.4 17 9.1 

Uinta and Piceance Basins 46 58 75 59 47 73 280 110 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Williston Basin 150 180 230 180 340 710 2,000 880 1,600 2,700 4,400 2,800 

Wind River Basin 52 66 81 66 63 86 280 130 0.6 1.4 3.3 1.6 

Wyoming-Idaho-Utah Thrust Belt 240 310 390 310 290 370 600 400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aggregated totals 1,300 1,500 1,800 1,500 1,800 2,700 6,300 3,200 1,700 2,900 4,600 3,000 

Western Mid-Continent Region 

Anadarko and Southern Oklahoma 

Basins 220 300 420 310 1,000 1,400 3,300 1,700 450 920 1,700 990 

Arkoma Basin 3.7 5.2 7.3 5.3 14 25 66 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Bend Arch and Fort Worth Basin 210 290 370 290 230 310 500 340 330 660 1,100 680 

Kansas Basins 4.5 5.6 6.9 5.7 4.8 6.1 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Palo Duro Basin 120 150 190 150 1.6 4.1 32 9.3 72 110 170 120 

Permian Basin 1,000 1,300 1,700 1,300 1,600 2,000 4,000 2,400 2,200 3,900 6,700 4,100 

Aggregated totals 1,700 2,100 2,500 2,100 3,100 3,800 7,800 4,500 3,600 5,700 8,900 5,900 

Eastern Mid-Continent Region 

Appalachian Basin 21 28 37 28 38 79 370 130 160 270 440 280 

Black Warrior Basin 14 23 32 23 13 17 30 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Illinois Basin 69 85 100 85 94 290 1,300 440 900 1,400 2,300 1,500 

Michigan Basin 140 180 220 180 190 280 790 360 2,800 4,500 6,800 4,600 

Aggregated totals 260 310 370 320 380 740 2,200 940 4,100 6,200 9,100 6,400 

Coastal Plains Region 

Atlantic Coastal Plain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 100 270 120 2,000 3,100 4,700 3,200 

South Florida Basin 6.7 8.5 10 8.5 21 97 900 240 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U.S. Gulf Coast 6,400 8,000 9,800 8,000 7,800 11,000 39,000 16,000 75,000 120,000 170,000 120,000 

Aggregated totals 6,400 8,000 9,900 8,000 8,000 11,000 40,000 17,000 78,000 120,000 180,000 120,000 

Eastern Mesozoic Rift Basins Region 

Eastern Mesozoic Rift Basins 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 19 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aggregated totals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 19 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Table 2. Estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012 of basin and regional totals for technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for 

carbon dioxide (CO2) in the United States.—Continued

R2SR

Residual trapping class 2 

storage resource

R3SR

Residual trapping class 3 

storage resource

TASR

Technically accessible 

storage resource

P5 P50 P95 Mean P5 P50 P95 Mean P5 P50 P95 Mean

Alaska Region—Continued

150,000 200,000 280,000 210,000 7,600 38,000 110,000 45,000 170,000 260,000 400,000 270,000

480 1,100 2,200 1,200 22 170 630 230 570 1,400 2,700 1,500

150,000 200,000 280,000 210,000 7,700 39,000 110,000 45,000 180,000 260,000 410,000 270,000

Pacific Northwest Region—Continued

6,600 12,000 20,000 12,000 0.6 10 43 14 7,500 14,000 22,000 14,000

6,600 12,000 20,000 12,000 0.6 10 43 14 7,500 14,000 22,000 14,000

California Region—Continued

2,000 3,300 5,600 3,500 0.1 1.6 6.2 2.2 2,200 3,500 5,800 3,700

19,000 28,000 39,000 29,000 0.0 2.3 10 3.2 20,000 29,000 40,000 29,000

33,000 48,000 65,000 48,000 25 120 300 130 36,000 51,000 69,000 51,000

3,100 5,500 9,200 5,700 0.5 9.0 35 12 3,200 5,700 9,600 6,000

63,000 85,000 110,000 86,000 35 130 320 150 67,000 90,000 120,000 90,000

Rocky Mountains and Northern Great Plains Region—Continued

890 1,500 2,400 1,500 21 86 230 100 1,100 1,700 2,800 1,800

1,000 2,700 5,900 3,000 37 210 830 300 1,400 3,300 7,200 3,700

80 170 360 190 1.9 24 97 34 98 210 430 230

21,000 30,000 43,000 31,000 1,700 6,200 17,000 7,400 26,000 38,000 57,000 39,000

1,100 2,000 3,200 2,100 25 91 240 110 1,300 2,200 3,600 2,300

1,000 2,500 5,300 2,800 28 380 1,600 530 1,300 3,100 6,300 3,400

11,000 17,000 25,000 18,000 39 170 510 210 11,000 18,000 26,000 18,000

380 640 1,100 670 5.2 30 94 37 430 710 1,200 740

1,300 2,200 3,300 2,200 290 1,200 3,300 1,400 2,000 3,500 6,300 3,800

99,000 140,000 180,000 140,000 1,100 5,200 14,000 6,000 110,000 140,000 190,000 150,000

4,100 7,100 11,000 7,300 150 580 1,500 670 4,600 7,800 12,000 8,100

26,000 39,000 55,000 39,000 780 3,800 12,000 4,700 28,000 43,000 63,000 44,000

180,000 240,000 310,000 240,000 7,300 19,000 43,000 22,000 200,000 270,000 350,000 270,000

Western Mid-Continent Region—Continued

34,000 55,000 88,000 57,000 670 2,500 6,100 2,800 38,000 60,000 96,000 62,000

3,500 7,000 13,000 7,400 39 360 1,300 480 3,800 7,500 13,000 7,900

7,000 13,000 20,000 13,000 170 1,100 3,800 1,400 8,600 15,000 24,000 15,000

160 280 480 300 1.5 12 48 17 180 300 510 320

4,900 6,900 9,400 7,000 9.0 56 170 67 5,100 7,100 9,600 7,200

31,000 48,000 75,000 50,000 460 2,200 6,400 2,600 37,000 57,000 89,000 59,000

93,000 130,000 190,000 130,000 2,600 6,800 15,000 7,500 110,000 150,000 210,000 150,000

Eastern Mid-Continent Region—Continued

13,000 18,000 27,000 19,000 180 840 2,500 1,000 14,000 20,000 29,000 20,000

170 280 450 290 0.2 2.1 7.2 2.7 180 300 480 310

110,000 140,000 200,000 150,000 1,000 5,100 14,000 6,100 110,000 150,000 210,000 150,000

33,000 47,000 66,000 48,000 560 3,300 11,000 4,200 40,000 56,000 78,000 57,000

160,000 210,000 280,000 210,000 2,700 9,900 25,000 11,000 170,000 230,000 300,000 230,000

Coastal Plains Region—Continued

6,900 11,000 16,000 11,000 0.0 0.1 4.7 1.1 9,200 14,000 20,000 14,000

120,000 160,000 200,000 160,000 1,400 7,600 21,000 9,000 120,000 160,000 210,000 170,000

1,100,000 1,600,000 2,200,000 1,600,000 6,600 30,000 83,000 35,000 1,300,000 1,700,000 2,400,000 1,800,000

1,300,000 1,700,000 2,400,000 1,800,000 11,000 38,000 96,000 44,000 1,400,000 1,900,000 2,600,000 1,900,000

Eastern Mesozoic Rift Basins Region—Continued

130 280 510 290 7.6 100 410 140 180 400 830 440

130 280 510 290 7.6 100 410 140 180 400 830 440
may be possible in some areas not assessed by the USGS, the 

SAUs identified in this assessment represent those areas within 

sedimentary basins that met the assessment criteria. A geologic 

description of each SAU was prepared; descriptions for SAUs 

in several basins are in Warwick and Corum (2012).

The resources were estimated without consideration either 

of accessibility due to land-management or regulatory restrictions or of economic viability. Thus, if storage of CO2

 within 

a formation is feasible with current technology, it was considered for this report. Because the legislation that mandated this 

assessment (Public Law 110–140) required that the assessment 

incorporate EPA regulations about underground sources of 

drinking water, a substantial percentage of potential storage 

formations containing water with less than 10,000 milligrams 

per liter (mg/L) of total dissolved solids (TDS) (considered 

freshwater for the purpose of this assessment) was disqualified 

as a protected underground source of potential drinking water.

The SAU is a mappable volume of rock that consists of a 

porous reservoir and a bounding regional sealing formation. The 

upper vertical limit chosen for this assessment was 3,000 feet 

(914 meters) because CO2 at this depth is typically subjected to 

temperatures and pressures that maintain the CO2 in a supercritical state and maximize the storage resource per unit volume. 

The lower vertical limit for the SAU of 13,000 ft (3,962 m) is 

based on the potential CO2 injection depth at pipeline pressures 

without additional compression at the surface. Standard SAUs

are between depths of 3,000 ft (914 m) and 13,000 ft (3,962 

m). If reservoir rock properties suggested that a viable storage 

resource is present at depths below 13,000 ft (3,962 m), the 

assessment geologist may have added an additional deep SAU

for this deeper reservoir.

Sedimentary rocks of deep saline formations and of existing oil and gas fields were evaluated. Specifically, 33 sedimentary basins, or combined basin areas, within 8 regions of the 

United States were assessed (table 2). Numerous other basins 

(study areas shown in bluish gray in fig. 1) were evaluated but 

not assessed because existing geologic conditions and available data indicated that the areas failed to meet the minimum 

requirements for CO2 storage as outlined in Brennan and others 

(2010). Within the assessed basins, 202 SAUs were identified 

as having good storage potential because of the presence of 

a robust regional seal, adequate reservoir rock, and sufficient 

areas containing saline formation waters. Ten of the SAUs did 

not have sufficient data to build a robust geologic model to 

accurately estimate the storage resource and were designated as 

nonquantitative SAUs; no storage resources were estimated for 

the 10 nonquantitative SAUs. Three basins (Central California 

Coast Basins; Columbia Basin of Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho; and Raton Basin) contain only nonquantitative SAUs, 

bringing the total number of basins shown in figure 1 to 36. For 

nonquantitative SAUs, surficial geographic boundaries were 

defined and a geologic description was prepared.

Two general storage types, buoyant and residual, were 

defined in the methodology used in this assessment. Buoyantly 

trapped CO2 can be held in place in porous formations by top 

and lateral seals. Residually trapped CO2 can be held in porous 

formations as individual droplets within pores by capillary 

forces. The residual storage resource consists of three injectivity classes based on reservoir permeability: residual trapping 

class 1 (R1SR) represents storage in rocks with permeability 

greater than 1 darcy (D); residual trapping class 2 (R2SR) represents storage in rocks with moderate permeability, defined as 

permeability between 1 millidarcy (mD) and 1 D; and residual 

trapping class 3 (R3SR) represents storage in rocks with low 

permeability, defined as permeability less than 1 mD.

The known recovery replacement storage resource (KRRSR) 

is the mass of CO2 that can be stored in existing hydrocarbon reservoirs. The KRRSR is a minimum range of values that 

represent the amount of CO2 at subsurface conditions that could 

replace the volume of known hydrocarbons in petroleum reservoirs. KRRSR is determined from production volumes rather than 

the geologic model of buoyant and residual resources that make 

up the TASR. The same type of resource is also included in the 

buoyant storage type estimated from a geologic model.

Regions with the largest technically accessible storage 

resources (TASR) are the Coastal Plains Region (mean estimate 

of 1,900 Gt, of which about 1,800 Gt, or 91 percent, is in the 

U.S. Gulf Coast) and the Alaska Region (mean estimate of 

270 Gt), where the resource is almost entirely in the Alaska 

North Slope. Most (89 percent) of the TASR is in the residual 

trapping class 2 storage resource category (mean estimate of 

2,700 Gt; fig. 2A). Residual trapping classes 1 and 3 account 

for 5 and 4 percent of the TASR, respectively. The USGS team 

obtained a mean estimate of 44 Gt for storage in buoyant traps, 

BSR. The mean estimate for KRRSR storage resources available in 

petroleum reservoirs within the assessed areas is 13 Gt (table 1).

The 44 Gt (mean estimate) of buoyant trapping storage 

resources includes non-hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir formations, but most of the resources are well defined by hydrocarbon 

exploration data. Existing oil in hydrocarbon reservoirs may 

be produced in the near future by using enhanced-oil-recovery 

technology that utilizes anthropogenic CO2 (fig. 3), and then the 

reservoirs could be used for CO2 storage. Because of the depth 

of knowledge about the hydrocarbon reservoirs, buoyant trapping storage resources in these reservoirs may be more attractive for storage of CO2

 than residual trapping storage resources.

Figure 3. CO2 injection well at the Pump Canyon test site in New 

Mexico. The well was drilled by the Southwest Regional Partnership 

on Carbon Sequestration (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy) 

to test the effectiveness of storing CO2 in deep, unminable coal seams 

(Koperna and others, 2009). Similar wells could inject CO2 for storage in 

depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Photograph by Eelco Kruizinga; used 

with permission.
References Cited

Blondes, M.S., Brennan, S.T., Merrill, M.D., Buursink, M.L., Warwick, 

P.D., Cahan, S.M., Cook, T.A., Corum, M.D., Craddock, W.H., 

DeVera, C.A., Drake, R.M., II, Drew, L.J., Freeman, P.A., Lohr, 

C.D., Olea, R.A., Roberts-Ashby, T.L., Slucher, E.R., and Varela, 

B.A., 2013, National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage 

resources—Methodology implementation: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2013–1055, 26 p., accessed May 10, 2013, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1055/.

Blondes, M.S., Schuenemeyer, J.H., Olea, R.A., and Drew, L.J., 2013, 

Aggregation of carbon dioxide sequestration storage assessment 

units: Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 

DOI:10.1007/s00477-013-0718-x, 21 p., accessed May 31, 2013, at 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00477-013-0718-x.

Brennan, S.T., Burruss, R.C., Merrill, M.D., Freeman, P.A., and Ruppert, L.F., 2010, A probabilistic assessment methodology for the 

evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010–1127, 31 p., accessed September 19, 

2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127.

Burruss, R.C., Brennan, S.T., Freeman, P.A., Merrill, M.D., Ruppert, 

L.F., Becker, M.F., Herkelrath, W.N., Kharaka, Y.K., Neuzil, C.E., 

Swanson, S.M., Cook, T.A., Klett, T.R., Nelson, P.H., and Schenk, 

C.J., 2009, Development of a probabilistic assessment methodology 

for evaluation of carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009–1035, 81 p., accessed September 19, 2012, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/.

Everitt, B.S., and Skrondal, Anders, 2010, The Cambridge dictionary 

of statistics (4th ed.): Cambridge, England, Cambridge University 

Press, 478 p.

Jarvis, A., Reuter, H.I., Nelson, Andrew, and Guevara, Edward, 2008, 

Hole-filled SRTM [Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission] for the 

globe, version 4: available from the CGIAR [Consultative Group 

for International Agricultural Research]-Consortium for Spatial 

Information SRTM 90m Database; accessed January, 15, 2012, at 

http://www.cgiar-csi.org/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-databasev4-1#acknowledgements.

Koperna G.J., Jr., Oudinot, A.Y., McColpin, G.R., Liu, Ning, Heath, 

J.E., Wells, Arthur, and Young, G.B., 2009, CO2-ECBM/storage 

activities at the San Juan Basin’s Pump Canyon test site: Society 

of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4–7 October 2009, New Orleans, Louisiana, Conference 

Paper 124002–MS, 13 p., http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/

onepetropreview?id=SPE-124002-MS.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012, U.S. energy-related 

carbon dioxide emissions, 2011: U.S. Energy Information Administration Web site, accessed December 20, 2012, at http://www.eia.

gov/environment/emissions/carbon/.

U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources 

Assessment Team, 2013a, National assessment of geologic carbon 

dioxide storage resources—Data (ver. 1.1, September 2013): U.S. 

Geological Survey Data Series 774, 13 p., plus 2 appendixes and 2 

large tables in separate files, http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/774/.

U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources 

Assessment Team, 2013b, National assessment of geologic carbon 

dioxide storage resources—Results (ver. 1.1, September 2013): 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1386, 41 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/

circ/1386/.

Warwick, P.D., and Corum, M.D., eds., 2012, Geologic framework for 

the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1024, accessed February 21, 2013, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1024/. (Chapters A–C 

were posted by November 1, 2012.)

For information, please contact:

Peter D. Warwick

U.S. Geological Survey

Mail Stop 956

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

Telephone: (703) 648–6469

E-mail: pwarwick@usgs.gov

http://energy.usgs.gov/GeneralInfo/ScienceCenters/Eastern.aspx

Or

Director, Eastern Energy Resources Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

Mail Stop 956

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

http://energy.usgs.gov/

Madalyn S. Blondes

Sean T. Brennan

Marc L. Buursink

Steven M. Cahan

James L. Coleman

Troy A. Cook

Margo D. Corum

Jacob A. Covault

William H. Craddock

Christina A. DeVera

Colin Doolan

Ronald M. Drake II

Lawrence J. Drew

Joseph A. East

Philip A. Freeman

Christopher P. Garrity

Kevin J. Gooley

Mayur A. Gosai

Hossein Jahediesfanjani2

Celeste D. Lohr

John C. Mars

Matthew D. Merrill

Ricardo A. Olea

Tina L. Roberts-Ashby

William A. Rouse

Paul G. Schruben

John H. Schuenemeyer2

Ernie R. Slucher

Brian A. Varela

Mahendra K. Verma

1 All members are or were with the U.S. Geological Survey unless otherwise 

indicated. 2

 Contractor.

By U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide 

Storage Resources Assessment Team1

Peter D. Warwick, Project Chief