Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “technical cooperation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

206 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, 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, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, 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, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2022

EERC Final Topical Report – Findings on Subtask 3.2 – Produced Water Management Through Geologic Homogenization, Conditions, and Reuse

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was awarded a contract by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Oil and Gas Research Program (NDIC No. G-051-101) to conduct a study on the recycling of water used in oil and gas operations, also known as produced water, from oil- and gas-producing regions of North Dakota as directed by Section 19 of North Dakota House Bill 1014. This final report provides a compilation of results of the study, which include regulatory, scientific, technological, and feasibility methods and considerations associated with North Dakota produced water management. The report provides a synopsis of this project’s previously submitted produced water assessment report entitled “Produced Water Management and Recycling Options in North Dakota” (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020), with updated values provided as appropriate. The report provides the results from the investigation of a novel produced water management strategy, referred to as geologic homogenization, conditioning, and reuse (GHCR), which aims to use a subsurface geologic formation as a natural medium for managing produced water recycling and reuse. Water management is a significant technical and economic challenge for sustainable oil and gas production, and water volumes are intrinsically linked to oil production volumes. North Dakota oil production rose to over 1.5 million barrels (MMbbl)/day in 2019, and despite a downturn in oil price in early 2020, North Dakota oil production has recovered to 1.1 MMbbl/day as of August 2021. Bakken petroleum system development between 2008 and 2020 has resulted in a nearly fourfold increase in produced water volumes to 642 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after peaking at 740 MMbbl/yr in 2019 and a fivefold increase in saltwater disposal (SWD) volumes to 565 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after a peak of 682 MMbbl/yr in 2019. Produced water and SWD volumes are forecasted to double by 2030. SWD is the primary method of produced water management used in North Dakota, with approximately 95% of the SWD volume occurring through subsurface injection into sandstones of the Dakota Group (Dakota). Localized pressurization of the Dakota resulting from SWD and projected increases in produced water volumes could impact the economics of North Dakota oil production. As a result, there is an emerging need to pursue alternative produced water management approaches, including recycling and reuse. While produced water recycling is not yet widespread, commercial operators are making strides in overcoming the technical challenges of using high salinity produced water in completion operations (Marathon Oil, 2020). As water management continues to be a key focal point in companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, focus on water management, including recycling, will likely continue to increase. Laboratory column testing, field sample collection, geologic modeling and numerical simulation, and techno-economic analysis all indicate that GHCR could feasibly be implemented as a potential water management option. Laboratory column testing and field sample collection indicate that the Inyan Kara sandstone and native formation fluid are capable of homogenizing with the Bakken produced water to a point where the fluid composition appears to stabilize. Extracting that stabilized fluid could be considered homogeneous and capable of providing individual batches of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Numerical simulation results indicate that extraction of fluids from the Inyan Kara in a GHCR implementation scenario is capable of reducing formation pressure, which would help ease localized pressurization of the Inyan Kara and extend the available capacity for nearby existing SWD wells. Economic analysis indicates that there are scenarios where GHCR implementation can be a competitive or even lower-cost option than a conventional water management approach. Site-specific conditions will dictate the economic potential of GHCR, but potentially attractive sites for GHCR implementation will be those that are located above a pressurized zone of the Inyan Kara, need six or more Bakken infill wells, and face high costs for conventional SWD and/or freshwater. Based on the regulatory review, drilling into the Inyan Kara for SWD and to harness as a source water for industrial use have precedent in North Dakota, and a workable regulatory solution for GHCR seems likely. However, restrictions in the state regarding surface storage and transport of produced fluids may limit some activities, which will affect how GHCR could ultimately be implemented. In summary, this study reveals pursuing GHCR can be a viable approach to water management in North Dakota. The GHCR concept addresses some of the challenges that hinder the more traditional approaches to recycling in the industry. Furthermore, an assessment of the current landscape of water management within the state reveals the ongoing trend of increasing volumes of produced water and SWD. Projections reveal that the volumes of produced water that need to be managed are expected to double over the next decade (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020). With the continued development of the Bakken and continuing driving factors related to ESG initiatives, implementing a practice such as GHCR is a feasible approach to adding recycling of produced water to industry within the state. This subtask was cofunded through the EERC–U.S. Department of Energy Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission Oil and Gas Research Program. References Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020, Produced water management and recycling options in North Dakota: Final Report for North Dakota Legislative Management Energy Development and Transmission Committee and North Dakota Industrial Commission. Marathon Oil, 2020, Sustainability report: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ghcnw9z2/website/ 91744eb6ef8fbe59505a911c6b8d2e8dd9a537fa.pdf?dl (accessed November 2021).

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection Description This dataset contains input and output data for the manuscript Mongird, K. et al. (under review) titled "Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection". Input data corresponds to gridded spatial siting attributes that are necessary to conduct a random forest machine learning analysis of siting feature importance. Output data includes SHAP feature analysis outputs, and classification report values. For data on power plant siting results referred to in the manuscript, please refer to the CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations data download page. The downloadable data includes values for eight different future scenarios for the Western US. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Technical Information The dataset includes two sets of data files: (1) CERF gridded siting parameters and (2) Feature analysis outputs and classification reports. All downloadable data is in csv file format. Files with x/y coordinate information use the Albers Equal Area Conic projection (ESRI:102003). 1. CERF Gridded Siting Parameters This directory provides a balanced sample of gridded CERF siting parameters data for eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055, seven different technologies, and eight timesteps. This data serves as input to the feature analysis. It contains the following parameters. region_name - name of region (i.e., state) sited - binary value representing whether the grid cell received a siting of that technology type (1=True) rcp - binary value representing scenario resource concentration pathway (0 = RCP4.5, 1 = RCP8.5) ssp - binary value representing scenario shared socioeconomic pathway (0 = SSP3, 1 = SSP5) climate - binary value representing cooler (0) or hotter (1) GCM forcing tech_name - generation technology name sited_year - year that values correspond to transmission_cost - cost of transmission interconnection pipeline_cost - cost of natural gas pipeline interconnection interconnection_cost - total interconnection cost (sum of transmission cost and gas pipeline cost) lmp - associated locational marginal value ($/MWh) associated with the grid cell, timestep, scenario, and technology xcoord - x-coordinate of location ycoord - y-coordinate of location 2a. Feature Analysis Output The dataset includes the feature analysis shap output for locational marginal price and interconnection cost. It contains the following parameters. technology - generator technology name scenario - name of scenario feature - name of feature, either locational_marginal_price or interconnection_cost value - the mean of absolute value of SHAP values for given feature 2b. Feature Analysis Classification Report This download includes the classification report associated with each random forest model. The dataset contains the following parameters. technology - generation technology name scenario - name of scenario test - one of precision (the proportion of predicted positives that are actually correct), recall (the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified), f1-score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) 0.0 - value of test for classification of 0 (grid cell not chosen for siting) 1.0 - value of test for classification of 1 (grid cell chosen for siting) accuracy - accuracy of model (i.e., fraction of all predictions that were right) macro avg - Simple average of test values for all classes weighted avg - Weighted average of test values for all classes, weighted based on Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, 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, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2022

Findings on Subtask 3.1 - Bakken Rich Gas Enhanced Oil Recovery Project

Total in-place oil for the Bakken petroleum system (BPS) (which includes the Bakken and Three Forks Formations) has been estimated to be 600 billion barrels (bbl). However, BPS wells have decline rates as high as 85% over the first 3 years of their lives, and primary recovery factors typically range from 3% to 10% of original oil in place. Given the low initial recovery rates, even small incremental productivity improvements could dramatically increase technically recoverable oil in the BPS. One potential solution is enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using gas injection, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) or hydrocarbon (HC) gases. While commonly used in conventional reservoirs, CO2 EOR in unconventional tight oil reservoirs has been limited to pilot tests. EOR using rich gas (mixture of methane, ethane, and propane) has also been employed in numerous pilots in several unconventional plays and has recently been successfully applied in the Eagle Ford play. If successful, large-scale gas-based EOR in the BPS could dramatically increase oil productivity and recovery factors and extend the life of the play for decades. While CO2 may be a technically suitable working fluid for EOR in the BPS, supplies are limited and costs for using CO2 in EOR pilots are prohibitively high. Meanwhile, produced gas flaring has presented challenges for BPS operators in North Dakota. Analysis conducted by the North Dakota Pipeline Authority indicates that the current gas-gathering infrastructure in North Dakota is insufficient to accommodate all of the associated gas that is produced from the BPS. The geographically isolated location of North Dakota relative to large natural gas markets, combined with suppressed natural gas prices, has made it economically challenging for industry to invest capital in expanding gas-gathering infrastructure in the state. These circumstances led to a research program conducted by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) in partnership with Liberty Resources Management Company LLC (LR) to examine the potential to use rich gas injection for EOR and mitigate flaring. A rich gas EOR pilot test was designed and executed by LR at its Stomping Horse development area in Williams County, North Dakota. From July 2018 through May 2019, a total of 160 million standard cubic feet (MMscf) of rich produced gas was injected into the BPS using five different wells in a sequential injection strategy. LR’s Leon–Gohrick drill spacing unit (DSU) was used as the test site. Regulatory oversight was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC). Technical support was provided by the EERC through a series of laboratory, modeling, and field-based activities, and additional post-pilot research activities incorporated learnings from the test, developed new laboratory data, improved fracture modeling methods, and developed machine learning and big data analytics. The results from the Stomping Horse rich gas EOR pilot activities indicate that developing an effective, economical EOR approach for the BPS will require more field tests. Another key lesson learned from the Stomping Horse tests is that detailed pre- and posttest data on reservoir conditions and fluids production are essential. Robust reservoir characterization provides information that is crucial to creating realistic geomodels and conducting valid dynamic simulations of potential EOR scenarios. A detailed understanding of the completions and production history of offset wells is also necessary for valid test result interpretations. This knowledge is essential to designing the operational parameters of injectivity tests and interpreting the results. A conformance control strategy is also essential to success. Laboratory-based examinations of rich gas interactions with reservoir fluids and rocks were conducted, with an emphasis on determining the ability to mobilize oil in the tight reservoir rocks and shales of the BPS. Injection fluid composition was shown to have a positive impact on reducing reservoir oil minimum miscibility pressure (MMP), reducing interfacial tension (IFT), and altering wettability. IFT and contact angle measurements demonstrated that wettability can be altered in the presence of rich gas, suggesting the potential to improve oil recovery. Iterative modeling of surface infrastructure and reservoir performance using data generated by the various project activities was conducted. A geologic model of the Stomping Horse area was built; history-matched oil, gas, and water production was used in simulations of various EOR scenarios. Early programmatic modeling results were used to support LR’s design and operation of the EOR pilot and to provide insight regarding optimization of future commercial-scale BPS EOR design and operations. Post-pilot modeling focused on alternative methods of understanding complex fracture networks and accelerating simulation time. These led to improved simulation run times and provide excellent history-matching results. Several of these iterative models were used as the bases for developing algorithms into machine learning and big data analytics. History matching in reservoir simulation is time-consuming and computer processing-intensive. Machine learning algorithms were created, and an automated history-matching tool was developed. A large set of synthetic reservoir simulations were created to generate well responses (oil, gas, and water production, well bottomhole pressure [BHP], and tracer or propane breakthrough) for a set of EOR operating parameters that included offset well status (open or closed), injectate (rich gas or propane), injection rate, and injection well BHP. A user interface was developed to provide real-time visualization. Machine learning-based models were developed to provide rapid forecasting of well performance given a set of user-defined EOR operating parameters. These predictive models allow the user to modify the offset well status, injection rate, and injection well BHP and rapidly forecast future production performance. The combination of real-time visualization tools with real-time forecasting tools provides a framework for real-time control—operational changes that the EOR site operator can enact (e.g., changing gas injection rates) to affect the observed performance and potentially improve the EOR outcome. There is great reason to be optimistic about the future of EOR in the Bakken. The results of the laboratory studies suggest significant potential for high rates of oil mobilization using produced field gas injection under the right conditions. The results of the lab studies, combined with rigorous statistical analysis of well production data and associated modeling efforts, confirm the notion that fluid mobility within the reservoir is controlled by fractures. As more knowledge is gained about the nature and distribution of fracture networks in the Bakken, the industry will be in a better position to predict and, ultimately, influence fluid mobility. New field tests are necessary to develop a more complete understanding of those conditions. Thoughtful and creatively engineered field tests within a well-characterized geologic setting will yield the fundamental knowledge needed to take Bakken oil production to the next level. This subtask was cofunded through the EERC–U.S. Department of Energy Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission’s Oil and Gas Research Program and Computer Modelling Group.

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Development of High-efficiency and Cost-effective Forged Ingot Niobium Technology for Science Frontiers and Accelerator Applications

Development of Forged Ingot Niobium Technology: Worlds science frontier programs and SRF accelerator applications demand high performance and cost-effective SRF accelerator technology [1-8]. Fine-grain (FG) and Large-grain (LG) ingot niobium technologies have been very well developed and implemented in all the present-day accelerator projects. However, forged ingot niobium technology which is the focus of this development proposal will be much more cost-effective and expected to have several technical advantages. FG niobium sheet production is very complex involving more than ten processing steps making them prone to contamination. As a result, they are very expensive to produce and require stringent QA procedure to be ready for SRF cavity production. The accelerating cavity process steps are also numerous and require strict procedures in order to achieve high accelerating gradients and quality factors needed for science frontier programs. LG niobium disc production, directly sliced from the ingot, is relatively simple and straight forward to keep surface cleanness. The disc production cost is significantly low compared to FG niobium sheet production. However, there are (some) draw backs due to non-homogeneity of the grain boundary distribution, resulting in non-uniform mechanical properties and complex cavity fabrication, although the LG cavities achieve the expected high-gradient performance goals with lower cost. Medium-grain (MG) niobium disk production may be realized with a new approach/process, the disc directly sliced from the forged ingot, involves a simpler process steps contributing major production cost reduction [9]. These discs are expected to be superior as they tend to be homogenous with uniform sub millimeter grains and mechanical properties. We are eagerly looking forward to developing the forged ingot niobium SRF accelerator technology for the benefit of the world-wide science frontier programs, green energy subcritical nuclear energy systems and a wide variety of industrial applications including the production of radio isotopes and nuclear transmutation applications. Measurement of thermal characteristics of the forged ingot niobium: Measurement of the thermal diffusivity, D, of superconducting MG niobium is important to be understood in comparison with FG sheet and LG disc, as well as that of advanced composite material of Nb3Sn film sputtered on forged ingot Nb, which will be determined using transient pump-probe thermo-modulation [10,11]. Transient thermo-modulation is based on using an ultrafast laser pulse to heat the superconducting materials by a few K, then a synchronized laser pulse probes the reflectance of the heated material. For thin films on a substrate (e.g, 100-nm Nb3Sn on Nb), it takes <100 ps for the heat to reach the substrate by diffusion. Therefore, an ultrafast method is needed to probe D of the studied material. D will be measured from room temperature to liquid helium temperatures. Fundamental Research: The increase of rf loss in SRF cavities is related to trapping of residual magnetic field during the cavity cool-down. The study suggested that the micro structure plays the role in flux trapping sensitivity. The research includes the flux trapping and expulsion study as forged ingot niobium goes through several mechanical deformations, crystallization leading to the optimal SRF cavity performance. Furthermore, the cavity made from FG, MG, and LG sheet/disc will be compared to understand the optimal re-crystallization temperature that cavity needed to be heat treated which minimize the flux trapping and increase SRF cavity performance. References: 1. S. Belomestnykh, Overview of recent SRF developments for ERLs, presented at the SRF 2015, Whistler, BC, Canada (2015). 2. A. Yamamoto, M. Yamanaka and G. Myneni, Ingot Nb based SRF Technology for the International Linear Collider, in Science and Technology of Ingot Niobium for Superconducting Radio Frequency Applications, AIP Conf. Proc. 1687, 030005-1 ? 03005-6, 2015 3. Report of the Workshop on Energy and Environmental Applications of Accelerators, DOE Workshop Report. https://science.osti.gov/-/media/hep/pdf/Reports/2020/CASM_WorkshopReport.pdf? la=en&hash=AEB0B318ED0436B1C5FF4EE0FDD6DEB84C2F15B2 4. G. Ciovati, et al., Design of a cw, low-energy, high-power superconducting linac for environmental applications, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 21, 091601 (2018). 5. P. Dhakal, et al., Effect of high temperature heat treatments on the quality factor of a large-grain superconducting radio-frequency niobium cavity, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 16, 042001 (2013). 6. P. Kneisel et al., Review of ingot niobium as a material for superconducting radio frequency accelerating cavities, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 774, 133 (2015). 7. G. Ciovati, P. Dhakal, and G. R, Myneni, Superconducting radio-frequency cavities made from medium and low-purity niobium ingots, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 29, 064002 (2016). 8. M. Drury et al., commissioning of the prototype C75 cavities in a CEBAF cryomodule, in Proc. of IPAC 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2018) 9. Feasibility of forged-ingot niobium disc and SRF cavity fabrication technology recently demonstrated in cooperation of ATI, BSCE, and KEK (2020). 10. Hani E. Elsayed-Ali, ?Measurements of heat transport in thin films by ultrafast laser-based techniques,? 3rd International Conference on Thermal Issues in Emerging Technologies Theory and Applications, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 347 ? 350 (2010). DOI: 10.1109/ThETA17616.2010 11. W. M. G. Ibrahim, H. E. Elsayed-Ali, M. Schinn, and C. A. Bonner, Jr., ?Ultrafast investigation of electron dynamics in multilayer metals,? Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 47(10?11), 2261?2268 (2004).

Myneni, G.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Atomate2: modular workflows for materials science

High-throughput density functional theory (DFT) calculations have become a vital element of computational materials science, enabling materials screening, property database generation, and training of “universal” machine learning models. While several software frameworks have emerged to support these computational efforts, new developments such as machine learned force fields have increased demands for more flexible and programmable workflow solutions. This manuscript introduces atomate2, a comprehensive evolution of our original atomate framework, designed to address existing limitations in computational materials research infrastructure. Key features include the support for multiple electronic structure packages and interoperability between them, along with generalizable workflows that can be written in an abstract form irrespective of the DFT package or machine learning force field used within them. Our hope is that atomate2's improved usability and extensibility can reduce technical barriers for high-throughput research workflows and facilitate the rapid adoption of emerging methods in computational material science.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗