Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr96735

Coalbed methane potential in the Appalachian states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee; an overview

Abstract

This report focuses on the coalbed methane (CBM) potential of the central Appalachian basin (Virginia, eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, and Tennessee) and the northern Appalachian basin (Pennsylvania, northern West Virginia, Maryland, and Ohio). As of April 1996, there were about 800 wells producing CBM in the central and northern Appalachian basin. For the Appalchian basin as a whole (including the Cahaba coal field, Alabama, and excluding the Black Warrior Basin, Alabama), the total CBM production for 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, is here estimated at 7.77, 21.51, 29.99, and 32 billion cubic feet (Bcf), respectively. These production data compare with 91.38, 104.70, 110.70, and 112.11 Bcf, respectively, for the same years for the Black Warrior Basin, which is the second largest CBM producing basin in the United States. For 1992-1995, 92-95% of central and northern Appalachian CBM production came from southwestern Virginia, which has by far the largest CBM production the Appalachian states, exclusive of Alabama. For 1994, the average daily production of CBM wells in Virginia was 119.6 Mcf/day, which is about two to four times the average daily production rates for many of the CBM wells in the northern Appalachian basin. For 1992-1995, there is a clear increase in the percentage of CBM being produced in the central and northern Appalachian basin as compared with the Black Warrior Basin. In 1992, this percentage was 8% of the combined central and northern Appalachian and Black Warrior Basin CBM production as compared with 22% in 1995. These trends imply that the Appalachian states, except for Alabama and Virginia, are in their infancy with respect to CBM production. Total in place CBM resources in the central and northern Appalachian basin have been variously estimated at 66-76 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), of which an estimated 14.55 Tcf (3.07 Tcf for central Appalachian basin and 11.48 Tcf for northern Appalachian basin) is technically recoverable according to Ricei s (1995) report. This compares with 20 Tcf in place and 2.30 Tcf as technically recoverable CBM for the Black Warrior Basin. These estimates should be considered preliminary because of unknown CBM potential in Ohio, Maryland, Tennessee, and eastern Kentucky. The largest potential for CBM development in the central Appalachian basin is in the Pocahontas coal beds, which have total gas values as much as 700 cf/ton, and in the New River coal beds. In the northern Appalachian basin, the greatest CBM potential is in the Middle Pennsylvanian Allegheny coal beds, which have total gas values as much as 252 cf/ton. Rice (1995) estimated a mean estimated ultimate recovery per well of 521 MMcfg for the central Appalachian basin and means of 121 and 216 MMcfg for the anticlinal and synclinal areas, respectively, of the northern Applachian basin. There is potential for CBM development in the Valley coal fields and Richmond basin of Virginia, the bituminous region of southeastern Kentucky, eastern Ohio, northern Tennessee, and the Georges Creek coal field of western Maryland and adjacent parts of Pennsylvania. Moreover, the Anthracite region of eastern Pennsylvania, which has the second highest known total gas content for a single coal bed (687 cf/ton) in the central and northern Appalachian basin, should be considered to have a fair to good potential for CBM development where structure, bed continuity, and permeability are favorable. CBM is mainly an undeveloped unconventional fossil-fuel resource in the central and northern Appalachian basin states, except in Virginia, and will probably contribute an increasing part of total Appalachian gas production into the next century as development in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and other Appalachian states continue. The central and northern Appalachian basins are frontier or emerging regions for CBM exploration and development, which will probably extend well into the next century. On the basis of CBM production

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Paul C. Lyons. 1996. Coalbed methane potential in the Appalachian states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee; an overview. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr96735

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona