Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “well 16B”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2

Utah FORGE: 16B(78)-32 RFS DSS Strain Change Rate vs. Depth During 16A(78)-32 Stimulation

This dataset contains strain change rate versus depth data acquired using a Rayleigh frequency shift (RFS) distributed strain sensing (DSS) system during hydraulic stimulation of well 16A(78)-32 at the Utah FORGE site in April 2024. The data were collected from an optical fiber installed in the annulus of production well 16B(78)-32, approximately 300 feet from the injection well. The dataset includes tabulated strain data and an explanation of the methodology used to generate the frac log, which integrates strain change rate signals over selected time windows to identify fracture events.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Prediction and Analysis of Utah FORGE Injection Activities using a Coupled Thermo-hydro-mechanical and Earthquake (THM+E) Modeling Workflow

A coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) numerical workflow that is capable of modeling seismic slip is critical for the successful development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). By integrating key physical processes, this workflow enables accurate simulation of temperature and pressure diffusions, stress changes, and induced seismicity. As a result, it serves as a vital tool for predicting induced seismicity and optimizing reservoir stimulation strategies. The Utah FORGE (Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy) project, located near Milford, Utah, is a U.S. Department of Energy initiative aimed at advancing EGS technology. In April 2024, eight new stimulation stages (Stages 3R-10) were conducted in well 16A (injection well) subsequent to the first series of stimulation (Stages 1-3) performed in April, 2022. To monitor the induced seismicity, geophones were deployed in wells 58-32, 56-32, and 78B-32, while fiber optic cables were also installed in wells 16B, 78-32, and 78B-32 to collect microseismic data and detect frac hits Preliminary analyses of microseismic catalogs and fiber optic data suggest that the stimulated fractures in Stages 3R–6 closely align with that generated during Stage 3, indicating that the new stimulations were likely reactivating the previously stimulated fracture. To better understand the underlying process, a comprehensive modeling approach that can accurately capture thermal, hydrological, mechanical, and seismic responses is essential. In this work, we propose and utilize a coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical and earthquake (THM+E) simulation workflow to numerically investigate the stimulation activities on well 16A. The specific objective is to confirm whether the new stimulation stages (Stages 3R–6) reactivated fractures previously stimulated during Stage 3. For this purpose, we perform THM+E simulations individually for Stages 3, 3R, 4, and 5, incorporating the discrete fracture networks (DFNs) created by the plane-fitting technique based on the microseismic catalogs. The simulation workflow consists of two separate models: a THM model and an earthquake model, coupled in a one-way manner. Detailed descriptions of the workflow are provided in Section 3. Simulation results are presented in terms of injection pressure, permeability evolution, and predicted seismic catalogs, which are then compared with field data for further analyses. This report is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present detailed analyses of the field data and propose the hypothesis that the new stimulation stages (Stages 3R–6) were probably reactivating the previously stimulated fractures in Stage 3. In Section 3, we introduce the coupled THM+E workflow and the problem setup to validate our hypothesis, followed by the simulation results for each stage in Section 4. Meanwhile, discussions are included to analyze the model predictions and their comparison with field data. Lastly, we conclude the report and outline future plans in Section 5.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Integration of the Biot–Gassmann Fluid Substitution Method and Machine Learning-Based Velocity–Stress Relationship for Estimating In Situ Stresses

Recent advancements have shown that in situ stresses can be reliably estimated through an integrated machine/deep learning (ML/DL)-based framework, which relies on models trained and validated using true triaxial ultrasonic velocity (TUV) experimental data that involve measurements of ultrasonic velocity in saturated rocks under varying stress configurations. However, when the goal is to interpret lower frequency measurements, it may be more appropriate to run experiments on dry rocks and then obtain Biot–Gassmann-derived equivalent saturated velocities (low-frequency approximation) and employ these quantities for training ML/DL models to predict in situ stress. Whether the dispersion effect of frequency on the velocity–stress relationship substantially impacts in situ stress prediction is an important and unresolved question. This work presents an enhancement of ML/DL-based workflow by training and implementing ML/DL models using equivalent saturated acoustic velocities (low-frequency) obtained by applying Biot–Gassmann fluid substitution on the ultrasonic velocities of dry cores. The models were trained on TUV data sets derived from three subsurface cores extracted from the geothermal well 16B(78)-32 at the Utah FORGE site. Each core was subjected to 75 unique stress configurations for velocity measurement in the dry state. The ML/DL trained on the TUV data set with equivalent saturated velocities demonstrated promising performance to predict in situ stress in subsurface geological rocks using velocity–stress relationships with R 2 of 0.86, 0.971, and 0.975 and root mean squared error (RMSE) of 2.59, 1.92, and 1.80 for validation/testing phases of vertical, minimum horizontal, and maximum horizontal stress models, respectively. Additionally, interpretation and explanation by Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) analysis further improved scientific validation and model reliability for estimating in situ stresses.

colloids↗

Utah FORGE: Well 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 Stimulation Production Logging Tests

These are production logging tests (PLT) results from Halliburton collected during the nine hour circulation test performed at Utah FORGE on April 27th, 2024. The circulation test involved injecting into well 16A(78)-32 and producing out of well 16B(78)-32) and was carried out after the fracturing of both of those wells. Data attached here includes raw and processed PLT logs from both wells, as well as technical reports summarizing the data collection and results.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: RESMAN Well 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 Stimulation and Circulation Tracer Test Results - 2024

This dataset contains tracer test results from stimulation and circulation experiments conducted on the Utah FORGE wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 during 2024. The data was collected by RESMAN Energy Technology and includes detailed tracer analysis from flowback, short- and extended-duration circulation tests, and reinjection sampling. Sampling included analysis of tracers during different stages of testing in April, August, and September 2024. The dataset is accompanied by an interpretation report and contains time-series tracer concentration data with identification of test phases and sampling conditions. It includes results for flowback from well 16A, commingling effects with water from well 16B, tracer data from short and extended circulation tests, and reinjection tracer corrections for the August/September test. Users should be aware that proprietary tracer methodologies were applied, and they should consult the interpretation report for insights into experimental procedures and data contextualization.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 Stimulation Program Report - May 2024

This dataset consists of a comprehensive report documenting the stimulation program conducted in May 2024 on Utah FORGE wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32. It includes detailed accounts of operational and scientific objectives, stimulation methodologies, and testing outcomes. The report describes the hydraulic fracturing activities, equipment setups, proppant and fluid usage, and the execution of a nine-hour circulation test. It also includes observations from seismic and fiber optic monitoring systems, providing data on microseismic activity and fracture propagation. Detailed parameters for each stimulation stage are provided, alongside operational challenges and solutions. The dataset includes analyses of injection and production rates, well temperatures, and pressure data, supported by graphical illustrations and logs.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Microseismic Surface Network Catalogs for Wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 Stimulation 2022 and Circulation 2023

This dataset includes microseismic surface network catalogs for Utah FORGE. Data were recorded during the stimulation of well 16A(78)-32 in 2022 and the circulation tests between wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 in 2023. Near-surface seismic monitoring during circulation experiments in wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 revealed fracture growth after shut-in. The catalog provided here offers a comprehensive list of microseismic events, including details on their spatial and temporal distribution, magnitude, and clustering behavior.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 Circulation Test Daily Reports from August 2024

These are the daily reports created during and around the August 2024 circulation test done on wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 at the Utah FORGE site. Information about the rig activity during this period includes details on rig up, depths, pumping, water temperature, safety, and cleanout. The reports span all rig activities from July 29th, 2024 through September 5th, 2024.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 Extended Circulation Test Data - August and September 2024

The dataset includes data collected during an extended circulation test conducted at the Utah FORGE site between August 8 and September 5, 2024. It provides uncorrected, raw digital data from the test, along with calibration information and a final report detailing the test procedures and corrections. The data is bundled in a single .zip file containing both field calibration and test data. Files include manual calibration data for temperature, pressure, and flow meters, as well as uncorrected, time-stamped measurements recorded in 30-second intervals, such as wellhead pressures, flow rates, and temperatures for wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32. Additionally, the final report offers insights into the test methodology and provides guidelines on how to apply field calibrations to correct the raw Pason data.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 Stimulation Pressure and Circulation Data April, 2024

This dataset consists of all of the pressure pumping data for Utah FORGE Well16A78-32 fracturing stages, Well 16B78-32 fracturing stages, and a 9-hour circulation test which took place after all of the frac plugs were drilled out. Fracturing in the wells took place in stages from April 3rd to April 17th, while the circulation test occurred on April 27th, 2024. Data is in excel files, with ReadMe files for each of the .zip folders that detail what data is available. Also attached here is wellhead pressure data from Pason that is referred to in the ReadMe files.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Cape EGS: Frisco Pad Wells Flow Test Microseismic Data

This dataset contains microseismic data acquired during the Frisco pad flow test project led by Fervo Energy, conducted between July 17th - Aug 12th 2024, near the Utah FORGE geothermal site. The microseismic data was collected from various Utah FORGE wells: via Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) fiber in 16B, and two 3-component geophones located in wells 56-32 and 78B. The dataset is structured in SEGY format, where the first six traces represent data from the geophones, and the remaining traces capture DAS data from well 16B. Each SEGY file in this dataset contains triggered microseismic events, with event initiation based on Short-Time Average over Long-Time Average (STA/LTA) detection criteria during the stimulation process. Files are grouped by time intervals and named following the structure "[WellPad][WellName][Month]_[Year]Divine_Trigger[EventNumber].sgy," indicating well pad, well name, date, and event number. Sampling parameters include a spatial sampling of approximately 2 meters for DAS channels and a temporal sampling rate of 2000 Hz, with each data record spanning 1.2 seconds. The files' coordinates are referenced to the location of the FORGE 16A-32 wellhead, positioned at UTM coordinates: Easting 334641.1891 m and Northing 4263443.693 m. The geographic coordinates for this origin are 38.50402147 latitude and -112.8963897 longitude, with an elevation of 1650.0249 meters above sea level.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Cape EGS: Frisco 2-P Well Stimulation Microseismic Data

This dataset contains microseismic data acquired during the Frisco 2-P well stimulation project led by Fervo Energy, conducted between June 1 and June 11, 2024, near the Utah FORGE geothermal site. The microseismic data was collected from various Utah FORGE wells: via Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) fiber in 16B, and three 3-component geophones located in wells 56-32, 78B, and 32. The dataset is structured in SEGY format, where the first nine traces represent data from the geophones, and the remaining traces capture DAS data from well 16B. Each SEGY file in this dataset contains triggered microseismic events, with event initiation based on Short-Time Average over Long-Time Average (STA/LTA) detection criteria during the stimulation process. Files are grouped by time intervals and named following the structure "[WellPad][WellName][Month]_[Year]Divine_Trigger[EventNumber].sgy," indicating well pad, well name, date, and event number. Sampling parameters include a spatial sampling of approximately 2 meters for DAS channels and a temporal sampling rate of 2000 Hz, with each data record spanning 1.2 seconds. The files' coordinates are referenced to the location of the FORGE 16A-32 wellhead, positioned at UTM coordinates: Easting 334641.1891 m and Northing 4263443.693 m. The geographic coordinates for this origin are 38.50402147 latitude and -112.8963897 longitude, with an elevation of 1650.0249 meters above sea level.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Analysis of Rig Parameter Data Using Drilling Process Modeling Constraints, Volume 1: Summary of Utah FORGE Wells 16A(78)-32, 56-32, 78B-32 and 16B(78)-32

Drill rig parameter measurements are routinely used during deep well construction to monitor and guide drilling conditions for improved performance and reduced costs. While insightful into the drilling process, these measurements are of reduced value without a standard to aid in data evaluation and decision making. In the main body of this work (Volume 1), a method is demonstrated whereby rock reduction model constraints are used to interpret drilling response parameters; the method could be applied in real-time to improve decision-making in the field and to further discern technology performance during post-drilling evaluations. Drilling parameters are evaluated using laboratory-validated rock reduction models for predicting the phenomenological response of drag bits (Detournay and Defourny, 1992) in computational algorithms. The method presented has applicability to development of advanced analytics on future geothermal wells using real-time electronic data recording for improved performance and reduced drilling costs. A drilling cost model is also used to show the tradeoff between rate of penetration and bit life and the influence on interval drilling costs. Details of the bit specifications and performance are cataloged in an independent volume, documented under separate cover, for each of the four wells, and include Volume 2: Utah FORGE 16A(78)-32; Volume 3: Utah FORGE 56-32; Volume 4: Utah FORGE 78B-32 and Volume 5: Utah FORGE 16B(78)-32.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE Project 3-2417: DAS Microseismic Event Catalog from the 16A/16B Circulation Test, 2023

This preliminary data archive includes the relocated microseismic event catalog, 1D velocity model, and methods report from DAS acquisition conducted during the Well 16A and 16B circulation test (July 19th and 20th, 2023) at Utah FORGE. The methods report describes all processing steps, including real-time event detection, hierarchical clustering, joint velocity/hypocenter inversion, and relocation. The resulting work is accepted and will be presented at IMAGE 2024. This dataset was acquired by the FOGMORE R&D project (Fiber Optic MOnitoring for Reservoir Evolution), Utah FORGE R&D Project 3-2417.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Seismic DAS and Geophone Borehole Data Processing and 3D Imaging of Vp/Vs Ratio in the 2024 Stimulated Reservoir

This dataset includes a final report and a 3D velocity model derived from seismic DAS and geophone borehole data collected during the April 2024 stimulation of the reservoir at Utah FORGE. The report details the processing of over 50,000 P- and S-wave travel times used in a tomographic inversion to estimate the Vp/Vs ratio, revealing anomalies adjacent to wells 16A and 16B that may be associated with injected fracturing fluids. Additionally, Wadati analysis of more than 27,000 pairs of differential P- and S-wave travel times supports this interpretation with a high Vp/Vs estimate of 1.86, averaged over the dimensions of the earthquake cluster. The accompanying data file provides a 3D model of P- and S-wave velocities and Vp/Vs ratios, structured with spatial coordinates and velocity values.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: EGS Reservoir Produced Fluids Geochemistry 2022-2024

This dataset contains geochemical analyses of produced fluids from the Utah FORGE site, specifically from wells 16A(78)-32, 16B(78)-32, and 58-32, collected during various stimulation, flowback, and circulation tests conducted between 2022 and 2024. The data contains element concentrations, pH, and dissolved gas compositions. Geochemical analyses for 2022 and 2023 were performed at the Brigham Young University geochemistry laboratory, while the 2024 results were obtained from Thermochem. Dry gas samples were collected using a mini-separator attached to the single-phase production line between the wellhead and separator, where fluid was flashed to atmospheric pressure. Gas concentrations were recalculated to a single phase reservoir liquid based on heat and mass balance expressions. Additional contextual information, including interpretations of geochemical trends and reservoir behavior, is available in the included report from Simmons et al. (2025), which was presented at the Stanford Geothermal Workshop in February 2025.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Injection and Production Test results and Reports from August 2024

This dataset includes results and reports from the injection/production test for wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 in August, 2024 at Utah FORGE. Materials include injection, post stimulation production, flow rate, gamma, temperature and pressure survey results. For the respective wells, injection and production profile results and interpretations are provided in .xlsx and .las file formats. Additionally, for both wells, preliminary and final reports are included and provide logging procedures and visualizations of the results.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Well 16A(78)-32/Well16B(78)-32 Circulation Test Data

This dataset encompasses the collected data and associated reports from the low-rate injection circulation test conducted on wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 in July 2023 at Utah FORGE. It includes comprehensive raw circulation data, captured by Pason and Schlumberger (SLB). The dataset details various parameters recorded during circulation testing such as produced fluid, injection pressure, injection rate, produced rate, temperature, downhole pressure difference, bottom hole pressure in the well, and surface treating pressure. Note that the Pason data is presented in Mountain Time, whereas the SLB data is in Pacific Time.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗