Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Gasperikova, Erika

Publications and source records attributed to Gasperikova, Erika.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Application of quantitative risk assessment to address stakeholder questions in geologic carbon storage

Ambitious international greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets demand a rapid transformation to a low-carbon economy. This transformation includes the accelerated adoption of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) technology. However, as with any large-scale engineering enterprise, the widespread commercial-scale deployment of geologic carbon storage (GCS) raises important questions about technology and cost-effectiveness, safety, environmental risk, and long-term liability. Effectively assessing and managing risks and liability associated with GCS projects is a key technical need throughout the project life cycle-from site selection and permitting to monitoring design, operational risk management, and post-operational site closure. This presentation highlights recent advancements in tools for quantitative risk assessment, being developed by the National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP). NRAP is a multi-year, multinational laboratory research collaboration sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Our focus will be on these tools' applications in addressing critical stakeholder questions related to supporting permitting to ensure secure and environmentally protective storage; designing effective and efficient monitoring plans; evaluating the effectiveness of remedial actions and risk management alternatives; and informing liability assessment and investment decisions. This paper will detail the key functionality of NRAP’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM), a computational framework for assessing leakage risk and containment assurance. This model features streamlined workflows for calculating leakage risk profiles, delineating risk-based area of review, and assessing contingency plans and post-injection site care requirements. ORION is an open-source, observation-based ensemble forecasting toolkit to help operators assess the seismic hazard at a carbon storage site. The State of Stress Analysis Tool (SOSAT), designed to assess subsurface stress conditions and evaluate geomechanical risk resulting from CO2 injection in an area of interest will also be presented. We will also introduce a prototype model to evaluate storage project costs and liability associated with risk management. The Technoeconomic and Liability Evaluation for Storage (TALES) model uses results from forecasts of leakage and induced seismicity risk to estimate the lifecycle cost of managing risk. Finally, a preliminary example of how the NRAP Risk-based Adaptive Monitoring Plan (RAMP) tool can be used to design efficient and effective site monitoring plans and estimate the detectability of fluid leakage will be provided. The relevance of these tools for addressing key stakeholder questions amidst uncertainty will be emphasized.

decision support↗
DOE OSTI2024

Underwater unexploded ordnance discrimination based on intrinsic target polarizabilities – A case study

Seabed unexploded ordnance that resulted partly from the high failure rate among munitions from more than 80 years ago and from decades of military training and testing of weapons systems poses an increasing concern all around the world. Although existing magnetic systems can detect clusters of debris, they are not able to tell whether a munition is still intact requiring special removal (e.g. in situ detonation) or is harmless scrap metal. The marine environment poses unique challenges, and transferring knowledge and approaches from land to a marine environment has not been easy and straightforward. On land, the background soil conductivity is much lower than the conductivity of the unexploded ordnance and the electromagnetic response of a target is essentially the same as that in free space. For those frequencies required for target characterization in the marine environment, the seawater response must be accounted for and removed from the measurements. The system developed for this study uses fields from three orthogonal transmitters to illuminate the target and four three-component receivers to measure the signal arranged in a configuration that inherently cancels the system's response due to the enclosing seawater, the sea–bottom interface and the air–sea interface for shallow deployments. The system was tested as a cued system on land and underwater in San Francisco Bay – it was mounted on a simple platform on top of a support structure that extended 1 m below and allowed the diver to place metal objects to a specific location even in low-visibility conditions. The measurements were stable and repeatable. Furthermore, target responses estimated from marine measurements matched those from land acquisition, confirming that the seawater and air–sea interface responses were removed successfully. Thirty-six channels of normalized induction responses were used for the classification, which was done by estimating the target principal dipole polarizabilities. Our results demonstrated that the system can resolve the intrinsic polarizabilities of the target, with clear distinctions between those of symmetric intact unexploded ordnance and irregular scrap metal. The prototype system was able to classify an object based on its size, shape and metal content and correctly estimate its location and orientation.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2024

CO 2 rock physics modeling for reliable monitoring of geologic carbon storage

Monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) are crucial to ensure safe and long-term geologic carbon storage. Seismic monitoring is a key MVA technique that utilizes seismic data to infer elastic properties of CO 2 -saturated rocks. Reliable accounting of CO 2 in subsurface storage reservoirs and potential leakage zones requires an accurate rock physics model. However, the widely used CO 2 rock physics model based on the conventional Biot-Gassmann equation can substantially underestimate the influence of CO 2 saturation on seismic waves, leading to inaccurate accounting. We develop an accurate CO 2 rock physics model by accounting for both effects of the stress dependence of seismic velocities in porous rocks and CO 2 weakening on the rock framework. We validate our CO 2 rock physics model using the Kimberlina-1.2 model (a previously proposed geologic carbon storage site in California) and create time-lapse elastic property models with our new rock physics method. We compare the results with those obtained using the conventional Biot-Gassmann equation. Our innovative approach produces larger changes in elastic properties than the Biot-Gassmann results. Using our CO 2 rock physics model can replicate shear-wave speed reductions observed in the laboratory. Our rock physics model enhances the accuracy of time-lapse elastic-wave modeling and enables reliable CO 2 accounting using seismic monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Geothermal play fairway analysis, part 1: Example from the Snake River Plain, Idaho

The Snake River Plain (SRP) volcanic province overlies the track of the Yellowstone hotspot, a thermal anomaly that extends deep into the mantle. Most of the area is underlain by a basaltic volcanic province that overlies a mid-crustal intrusive complex, which in turn provides the long-term heat flux needed to sustain geothermal systems. Previous studies have identified several known geothermal resource areas within the SRP. For the geothermal study presented herein, our goals were to: (1) adapt the methodology of Play Fairway Analysis (PFA) for geothermal exploration to create a formal basis for its application to geothermal systems, (2) assemble relevant data for the SRP from publicly available and private sources, and (3) build a geothermal PFA model for the SRP and identify the most promising plays, using GIS-based software tools that are standard in the petroleum industry. The study focused on identifying three critical resource parameters for exploitable hydrothermal systems in the SRP: heat source, reservoir and recharge permeability, and cap or seal. Data included in the compilation for heat source were heat flow, distribution and ages of volcanic vents, groundwater temperatures, thermal springs and wells, helium isotope anomalies, and reservoir temperatures estimated using geothermometry. Reservoir and recharge permeability was inferred from the analysis of stress orientations and magnitudes, post-Miocene faults, and subsurface structural lineaments based on magnetics and gravity data. Data for cap or seal included the distribution of impermeable lake sediments and clay-seal associated with hydrothermal alteration below the regional aquifer. These data were used to compile Common Risk Segment maps for heat, permeability, and seal, which were combined to create a Composite Common Risk Segment map for all southern Idaho that reflects the risk associated with geothermal resource exploration and identifies favorable resource tracks. Our regional assessment indicated that undiscovered geothermal resources may be located in several areas of the SRP. Two of these areas, the western SRP and Camas Prairie, were selected for more detailed assessment, during which heat, permeability, and seal were evaluated using newly collected field data and smaller grid parameters to refine the location of potential resources. These higher resolution assessments illustrate the flexibility of our approach over a range of scales.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis, Part 2: GIS methodology

Play Fairway Analysis (PFA) in geothermal exploration originates from a systematic methodology developed within the petroleum industry and is based on a geologic, geophysical, and hydrologic framework of identified geothermal systems. We tailored this methodology to study the geothermal resource potential of the Snake River Plain and surrounding region, but it can be adapted to other geothermal resource settings. We adapted the PFA approach to geothermal resource exploration by cataloging the critical elements controlling exploitable hydrothermal systems, establishing risk matrices that evaluate these elements in terms of both probability of success and level of knowledge, and building a code-based ‘processing model’ to process results. A geographic information system was used to compile a range of different data types, which we refer to as elements (e.g., faults, vents, heat flow, etc.), with distinct characteristics and measures of confidence. Discontinuous discrete data (points, lines, or polygons) for each element were transformed into continuous interpretive 2D grid surfaces called evidence layers. Because different data types have varying uncertainties, most evidence layers have an accompanying confidence layer which reflects spatial variations in these uncertainties. Risk layers, as defined here, are the product of evidence and confidence layers, and are the building blocks used to construct Common Risk Segment (CRS) maps for heat, permeability, and seal, using a weighted sum for permeability and heat, but a different approach with seal. CRS maps quantify the variable risk associated with each of these critical components. In a final step, the three CRS maps were combined into a Composite Common Risk Segment (CCRS) map, using a modified weighted sum, for results that reveal favorable areas for geothermal exploration. Additional maps are also presented that do not mix contributions from evidence and confidence (to allow an isolated view of evidence and confidence), as well as maps that calculate favorability using the product of components instead of a weighted sum (to highlight where all components are present). Our approach helped to identify areas of high geothermal favorability in the western and central Snake River Plain during the first phase of study and helped identify more precise local drilling targets during the second phase of work. By identifying favorable areas, this methodology can help to reduce uncertainty in geothermal energy exploration and development.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Clean Energy Technology Applications on US Mine Land: Technical Analysis

As the United States transitions toward a clean energy economy, an opportunity exists for redeveloping the more than 17,000 mine land sites located across the nation with clean energy technologies, which have a combined potential for generating more than 85 GW of clean electricity. This report provides an overview of the potential of demonstrating and deploying clean energy projects on current and former mine land. Clean energy project refers to a project that demonstrates one or more of the following technologies: solar; microgrids; geothermal; direct air capture; fossil-fueled electricity generation with carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration; energy storage, including pumped storage hydropower and compressed air energy storage; and advanced nuclear technologies. The report discusses the following technologies and their potential for creating jobs and generating tax revenue that would result in direct and indirect benefits to the local economy: Solar photovoltaics (PV) is being developed on current and former mine land in various parts of the world, including the United States. This approach is attractive because it requires limited infrastructure investment and would utilize the bare surfaces of mines and tailing ponds. Solar resource availability may be greater in the southern regions, including the Interior and Appalachian Basins and the southwestern United States. However, since some mine land sites include areas of significant change in elevation, the deployment of PV on mine land may require sophisticated planning to account for shading and irradiance, or may require regrading of the areas. PV does not create significant environmental risks and generally does not face public resistance; Geothermal systems are often spatially and genetically associated with ore deposits, and in some cases, they have been discovered while in search for epithermal mineral resources. Numerous diverse geothermal applications have been employed at mine land around the world, including power generation, mineral extraction from geothermal brines, process heating, direct use for other mining operations, and direct use for non-mining operations and subsurface energy storage, including geothermal heat pumps. Case studies highlighting these applications provide key lessons relating to identifying drivers and barriers to geothermal resource deployment and can be used to create screening tools for identifying the types and locations of mine land most amenable to utilizing geothermal resources; Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies include direct air capture (DAC) and enhanced weathering. DAC technologies include air contactors, regeneration systems, and CO 2 compression systems. Captured CO 2 can be converted to valuable feedstocks or possibly injected into abandoned subsurface mines where it would be absorbed by alkaline rock waste and mine tailings or by the porous minerals along the walls of the mine. DAC systems can be coupled with energy sources such as wind, solar, grid, or geothermal. Many DAC systems require a source of water or steam; however, some are expected to be net producers of water. Local impacts of DAC systems are expected to be low, and are related to land footprint, material disposal, and upstream impacts of energy and material production; Compressed air energy storage is an established energy storage technology in salt caverns. It has the potential for implementation in underground mines by pressurizing and storing a large amount of air using electrical compressors when excess electricity is available. When a need for discharge emerges, the air is used to spin turbines and produce the necessary volume of electricity. Abandoned or unused mine openings, including shafts, adits, access tunnels, and mined workings of any orientation, offer potential for vast amounts of compressed air energy storage if the site characteristics meet operational requirements; Pumped hydropower storage can be implemented in surface and subsurface mines. In surface mine applications, both reservoirs may be located in a mine pit or artificial reservoirs made of excavated materials. In subsurface mines, the lower reservoir may be implemented by waterproofing and flooding mine shafts and tunnels. The water is then pumped from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir during periods of low load and high production, and it is discharged through the turbines during periods of peak demand. The potential environmental damages associated with acidity of mine water or the presence of toxic chemicals incentivizes the development of closed-loop technologies, in which water circulates inside the pumped hydropower facility without being discharged into the external water basins; Advanced nuclear energy technologies include small modular reactors, which can be deployed locally to produce electricity and heat. Such units require seismic stability and a supply of cooling water, but population constraints may exist in some areas. Therefore, remote mine land could represent an optimal location for siting advanced nuclear energy technologies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Novel Approach to Map Permeability Using Passive Seismic Emission Tomography

Newly acquired magnetotelluric data and passive seismic data collected with tightly spaced geophone arrays are combined with historic drilling, active seismic, and potential fields data to generate 3-D permeability maps. A cooperative inversion methodology has been developed using active seismic, magnetotelluric, and gravity data in order to produce more robust velocity models for passive seismic data processing without requiring expensive 3-D active seismic surveys. The cooperative inversion estimates velocities from other geophysical data where no prior seismic velocity information is available at two geothermal sites in Nevada: San Emidio and Crescent Valley.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Kimberlina synthetic multiphysics dataset for CO 2 monitoring investigations

Abstract We present a synthetic multi‐scale, multi‐physics dataset constructed from the Kimberlina 1.2 CO 2 reservoir model based on a potential CO 2 storage site in the Southern San Joaquin Basin of California. Among 300 models, one selected reservoir‐simulation scenario produces hydrologic‐state models at the onset and after 20 years of CO 2 injection. Subsequently, these models were transformed into geophysical properties, including P‐ and S‐wave seismic velocities, saturated density where the saturating fluid can be a combination of brine and supercritical CO 2 , and electrical resistivity using established empirical petrophysical relationships. From these 3D distributions of geophysical properties, we have generated synthetic time‐lapse seismic, gravity and electromagnetic responses with acquisition geometries that mimic realistic monitoring surveys and are achievable in actual field situations. We have also created a series of synthetic well logs of CO 2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells. These were constructed by combining the low‐frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high‐frequency variations of actual well logs collected at the potential storage site. In addition, to better calibrate our datasets, measurements of permeability and pore connectivity have been made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit. These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic dataset to be as close to a real‐world situation as possible. This dataset consisting of the reservoir models, geophysical models, simulated time‐lapse geophysical responses and well logs forms a multi‐scale, multi‐physics testbed for designing and testing geophysical CO 2 monitoring systems as well as for imaging and characterization algorithms. The suite of numerical models and data have been made publicly available for downloading on the National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) Energy Data Exchange (EDX) website.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

NRAP Recommended Practices for Containment Assurance and Leakage Risk Quantification

This report presents recommendations for quantitatively assessing and managing leakage risk and effective containment assurance at geologic carbon storage (GCS) sites, amidst uncertainty in site characteristics and performance. These recommended practices are a product of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP)—a multi-year collaborative research effort of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. These recommended practices are organized as a set of conceptual workflows that correspond with the stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They consider aspects of site characterization, quantification of potential leakage, assessing the spatial extent of potential environmental impacts, optimizing monitoring design for detection of potential leakage, evaluation of concordance between monitored and forecasted reservoir response, assessing conformance with expected/accepted performance, and determination of the timeline over which risk of impactful leakage can be expected to abate. These conceptual workflows are intended to aid stakeholders in making risk management decisions at GCS sites and to support development of sound, risk-based justifications for characterizing the subsurface, defining area of potential leakage impact, designing site monitoring plans, selecting leakage risk management/mitigation alternatives, and estimating site closure timelines.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Computational Tools and Workflows for Quantitative Risk Assessment and Decision Support for Geologic Carbon Storage Sites: Progress and Insights from the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership

The 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on CCS raised the profile of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) as an important technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CCS is now recognized as a key component of most climate change mitigation scenarios. Since publication of that report the international research, development, and deployment (RD&D) community has advanced key technical aspects, clarified regulatory requirements, explored value chain and infrastructure solutions, and developed incentive paradigms to enable and promote large-scale deployment of CCS. These efforts have included research to better characterize geologic storage resources, to improve injection performance and storage efficiency, to assess and manage subsurface environmental risks, and to advance monitoring technologies to assure system conformance. These efforts have helped to build confidence in the viability of geologic carbon storage (GCS), but stakeholder concerns about long-term risks and liability associated with GCS remain a hurdle to broad acceptance and large-scale deployment of CCS. Since 2010, the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) – a research collaboration between five contributing national laboratories – has worked to establish and demonstrate methods and tools to quantify and manage the subsurface environmental risks associated with GCS, amidst uncertainty. This work supports the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Carbon Transport and Storage Program’s goal of advancing safe and secure commercial-scale GCS deployment. To address the technical challenge of simulating the physical response of the GCS site to large-scale CO2 injection, NRAP has adopted an approach that relies on coupling computationally efficient reduced-order and/or data-driven proxy models of important system components (i.e., storage reservoir, sealing caprock, leakage pathways, intermediate formations, overlying groundwater aquifers, and the atmosphere) in integrated assessment framework. That integrated model of the physical system is complemented with fit-for purpose functionality to support site characterization and risk-related decisions. The recently released NRAP Phase II toolset includes the Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) for evaluation of trends in leakage risk and potential impact, tools to support monitoring design optimization (Designs for Risk Evaluation and Management – DREAM v3.0 and Passive Seismic Monitoring Tool - PSMT), and tools for state of stress evaluation (State-of-Stress Analysis Tool - SOSAT) and forecasting induced seismicity risk. The NRAP team has also released a pair of reports describing conceptual workflows to incorporate physics-based, quantitative risk assessment into many of the design, planning, operation, and closure decisions for GCS projects. An online catalogue highlights published studies where these tools and methods are demonstrated. In this presentation, the utility of these products to assess risks and address key stakeholder questions will be highlighted through examples, and related insights about the safety and security of geologic carbon storage in qualified storage sites will be discussed. The prospect of rapid, large-scale deployment of GCS technology to aggressively reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions requires careful consideration of interference between multiple commercial-scale storage projects within a basin. Going forward, NRAP is expanding and adapting site-scale risk quantification tools and methods to enable assessment of risks and inform management decisions for basin-scale deployment. Increasingly, this work will leverage next-generation approaches for surrogate modelling, fast prediction, and advanced visualization enabled by machine learning and artificial intelligence to promote virtual learning, scenario evaluation, and augment risk-based decision making.

quantitative risk assessment, geologic carbon stor↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Improved geophysical monitoring of carbon sequestration through parameter linkage to reservoir modeling

Predictive reservoir modeling, even if present in the form of only basic hydrogeological model assumptions, is expected to accompany the majority of carbon capture and sequestration monitoring activities. It thus represents a source of prior information about the migration of injected fluids that can benefit geophysical survey planning and ensuing monitoring. Constraining the imaging of geophysical monitoring data with reservoir modeling is preferable over standalone geophysical imaging because of additional complementary hydrogeological information. However, fully coupled hydrogeophysical data inversion for flow-modeling parameters that control saturation predictions is an involved process. Within the context of three-dimensional electromagnetic (EM) inversion of data from borehole-to-surface layouts, we employ a "poor people's" alternative. The approach constrains geophysical inversion parameters through saturation predictions. The coupling is realized through spatially variable lower and upper parameter bounds that scale with gas saturation magnitudes, the latter provided by reservoir modeling. In this work, enhancement of three-dimensional time-lapse plume EM imaging is demonstrated for simulated sequestration into a depleted gas reservoir.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Deep learning multiphysics network for imaging CO 2 saturation and estimating uncertainty in geological carbon storage

Multiphysics inversion exploits different types of geophysical data that often complement each other and aims to improve overall imaging resolution and reduce uncertainties in geophysical interpretation. Despite the advantages, traditional multiphysics inversion is challenging because it requires a large amount of computational time and intensive human interactions for preprocessing data and finding trade-off parameters. These issues make it nearly impossible for traditional multiphysics inversion to be applied as a real-time monitoring tool for geological carbon storage. In this paper, we present a deep learning (DL) multiphysics network for imaging CO 2 saturation in real time. The multiphysics network consists of three encoders for analysing seismic, electromagnetic and gravity data and shares one decoder for combining imaging capabilities of the different geophysical data for better predicting CO 2 saturation. The network is trained on pairs of CO 2 label models and multiphysics data so that it can directly image CO 2 saturation. Here we use the bootstrap aggregating method to enhance the imaging accuracy and estimate uncertainties associated with CO 2 saturation images. Using realistic CO 2 label models and multiphysics data derived from the Kimberlina CO 2 storage model, we evaluate the performance of the deep learning multiphysics network and compare its imaging results to those from the deep learning single-physics networks. Our modelling experiments show that the deep learning multiphysics network for seismic, electromagnetic, and gravity data not only improves the imaging accuracy but also reduces uncertainties associated with CO 2 saturation images. Our results also suggest that the deep learning multiphysics network for the non-seismic data (i.e., electromagnetic and gravity) can be used as an effective low-cost monitoring tool in between regular seismic monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Magnetotelluric Investigations of the Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii

In 2002 and 2003 a collaborative effort was undertaken between Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Menlo Park, the USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, and Electromagnetic Instruments Inc. to study the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii using the magnetotelluric (MT) technique. The work was motivated by a desire to improve understanding of the magma reservoirs and conduits within Kilauea and the East and Southwest Rift zones, which has implications for understanding Kilauea's plumbing system. An improved understanding of the rift zones has implications in understanding large-scale landslides that are generated in the Hilina Slump, which produce significant impacts on coastal communities. Up to eight stations operated simultaneously, with multiple remote reference sites, and data were processed using multi-station robust processing techniques. Data was acquired at 70 sites over the Southwest and East rift zones. Good to excellent quality data were obtained even in the harshest conditions, such as those encountered on the fresh lava flows of the East Rift Zone, where electrical contact resistances are on the order of 100 kΩ. A three-dimensional (3D) MT model study was done to guide interpretation of the observed MT measurements. Synthetic modeling demonstrates that conductive bodies in the upper 3 km can be spatially resolved where MT station sampling is good. Resistivity anomalies in the 3D inversions have a high degree of spatial correlation with previously published seismic velocity anomalies beneath Kilauea. Melt fractions between 0.096 and 0.117 are calculated for the Kilauea and Pu'u'ō'ō low resistivity anomalies, respectively.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗