SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This is the conference paper accompanying an oral presentation made at the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Western Regional Meeting (WRM) held in Bakersfield, California, April 26–28, 2022. The paper provides the results of a basin-scale CO2 storage modeling project investigating subsurface pressure interference among CO2 injection wells located in proximity to each other.
The presentation was intended for the EMI SIG Annual Meeting Subcommittee on Technical Analysis and Response Support in August 2020 and included strategies and policies regarding essential workers and returning to work.
This technical report is provided to US Department of Energy for progress made on the AGGERGATE project led by the Washington State University. This report is specifically related to the deliverable: ’D6: Technical report discussing the viability of the developed data-driven models and co-simulation architecture for models for operation in a real-world operational setting and the results of Tasks 1 to 8, summarizing the project findings and accomplishments to date’.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
As Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program policies and management practices are revised over time, it might be useful to periodically reflect on the DOE EM program's past to identify practices that have worked and those that might be appropriate for possible reuse in the future. An added impetus to examine alternative approaches is the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled 'Nuclear Waste Cleanup - DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices.' The February 2019 GAO report states that EM categorizes most of its work in a way that does not adequately involve independent experts and DOE senior leadership. It also noted that EM has not followed leading practices for program and project management that could help keep the cleanup efforts on schedule and control costs. The GAO report recommended that EM, working with DOE Office of Project Management (PM): - Establish requirements and then assess EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if some activities should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on these newly established requirements. - Review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. - Update the cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. - Develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort (LOE) only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. - Integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. To assist with improving program performance and implementing audit recommendations, this paper reviewed past successful cleanups such as Weldon Springs, Rocky Flats, Fernald, Ashtabula, Battelle Columbus (abs, and other historical resources and people with experience during the early years of EM program. As such, there are several past practices which may well be suited for reuse today. Some of these practices include: - In 1990's, as the DOE EM cleanup program, known as Environmental Restoration came into effect, the known cleanup scope at each geographic location or site was organized into four levels ranging from overall site-wide cleanup effort to the individual 'release sites', providing high granularity to the program. - The cleanup program was organized by geography (Northwest, Southwest, Eastern Area Programs, etc.). These 'sub-program' managers provided a degree of Headquarters oversight and management allowing upper management (EM-1, 2, and 3) to focus on major decisions and issues. - Budget levels at selected cleanup sites were funded above 'minimum-safety' levels to accelerate actual cleanup work. - Past practice utilized EVM techniques and uniform EM oversight over all discrete project-like activities, providing for a coordinated cleanup effort. - EM managed LOE activities using benchmarking and best in class management practice techniques to help manage costs. - EM managed and reviewed entire site cleanup baselines, not only individual projects, focusing on a successful overall outcome. - Sites had a 'Road map' or 'Management Action Plan' that provided the overall strategy or plan for that site's cleanup - this helped with understanding and coordination of efforts. - EM had a robust lessons-learned program and database to capture and transmit worthy ideas. - EM had well-structured cleanup baseline change control policies to control cost and schedule changes, at the contractor and higher Headquarters levels. Finally, some of the GAO observations may be valid, however it is not clear as to their extent. For example, for some operation types of work, the use of the Level of Effort (LOE) earned value method to track progress may be appropriate. Also, to ensure independence of thought, and to obtain useful insight on past practices, it may be suitable to have former EM employees to assist with understanding past practices or to verify that activities have been properly identified. (authors)
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).
Native species are plants and animals that continually occupy a natural range without direct or indirect introduction and/or care by humans. They are adapted to the environmental conditions and processes of the ecosystem in which they reside. A species introduced into a novel ecosystem can either exploit that ecosystem and thrive or be unable to survive in that ecosystem (Hobbs et al. 2006). Alien or non-native species are species that are intentionally or accidentally introduced into a novel ecosystem and are capable of living and propagating within the physical parameters of that ecosystem. Invasive species is a species that is non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and a noxious species are those whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm. The term invasive species is applicable to plants and animals alike; however, this invasive species management plan currently focuses on invasive vegetation. Invasive plant species are usually capable of rapid colonization of disturbed ground, such as after a change in wildfire regime intensity and frequency (Reilly et al. 2020) or anthropogenic ground disturbance (Burke and Grime 1996; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992). Climate change facilitates the spread and establishment of many alien species and creates new opportunities for them to become invasive (Turbelin and Catford 2021). As climate change impacts increase in the coming decades, we may see in an increase in invasive species establishment. See a list of definitions of terms pertinent to this document in Appendix A: Definitions. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) hosts populations of non-native and invasive species all typical of the northern New Mexico region (Martin 2004; NMDA 2020). By implementing an invasive species management plan, LANL will have readily accessible management strategies for invasive species that are found on-site. The benefits of managing invasive species include a decrease in wildland fire risks, an increase in soil productivity, an increase in (productive or beneficial) wildlife habitat, an increase in water quantity and quality, and the restoration of impacted areas (Burke and Grime 1996; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992; D’Antonio and Hobbie 2005; MacDougall et al. 2013; Reilly et al. 2020). The aforementioned benefits from invasive species management directly enable the LANL mission by ensuring compliance requirements are met and site-wide programs, such as the Vulnerability Assessment and Resilience Plan, are supported for a mutually beneficial outcome. An example for the LANL site specifically, controlling non-native annual plant species, for example, could reduce the costs associated with stabilizing soils during the stormwater pollution prevention compliance process. Roadway and utility right-of-way areas are another place where an integrated vegetation management strategy would promote low growing perennial plants in a way that is mutually beneficial to habitat and the institution through lowered maintenance costs. There is also an economic benefit to managing invasive species. In one nationwide study, invasive plants had an estimated impact cost of $190.45 billion (Fantel-Lepczyk et al. 2022). Investing in preventative measures and surveillance could help to offset future control and management costs of invasive species that have the potential to become established. The State of New Mexico has developed plant species lists and recommendations through the New Mexico Department of Agriculture’s Noxious Weeds Management Act, Article 7D (NM Statute § 76-7D-4 2021); however, effective invasive species management must rely on local knowledge of the site and region. Los Alamos County (LAC) has already compiled a target invasive plant species list and species-specific management objectives (Martin 2004). Therefore, the New Mexico Noxious Weed List and the LAC invasive plant species list, as well as management objectives from those documents, are integrated into LANL’s invasive plant species management plan.
Conserving coral reefs is critical for maintaining marine biodiversity, protecting coastlines, and supporting livelihoods in many coastal communities. Climate change threatens coral reefs globally, but researchers have identified a portfolio of coral reefs (bioclimatic units [BCUs]) that are relatively less exposed to climate impacts and strongly connected to other coral reef systems. These reefs provide a proactive opportunity to secure a long-term future for coral reefs under climate change. To help guide local management efforts, we quantified marine cumulative human impact (CHI) from climate, marine, and land pressures (2013 and from 2008 to 2013) in BCUs and across countries tasked with BCU management. Additionally, we created a management index based on common management measures and policies for each pressure source (climate, marine, and land) to identify a country's intent and commitment to effectively manage these pressures. Twenty-two countries (79%) had increases in CHI from 2008 to 2013. Climate change pressures had the highest proportional contribution to CHI across all reefs and in all but one country (Singapore), but 18 BCUs (35%) and nine countries containing BCUs (32%) had relatively high land and marine impacts. There was a significant positive relationship between climate impact and the climate management index across countries (R 2 = 0.43, p = 0.02), potentially signifying that countries with greater climate impacts are more committed to managing them. However, this trend was driven by climate management intent in Fiji and Bangladesh. Our results can be used to guide future fine-scale analyses, national policies, and local management decisions, and our management indices reveal areas where management components can be improved. Cost-effectively managing local pressures (e.g., fishing and nutrients) in BCUs is essential for building a climate-ready future that benefits coral reefs and people.
Successful implementation of forest management as a nature-based climate solution is dependent on the durability of management-induced changes in forest carbon storage and sequestration. As forests face unprecedented stability risks in the face of ongoing climate change, much remains unknown regarding how management will impact forest stability, or how interactions with climate might shift the response of forests to management across spatiotemporal scales. Here, we used a process-based model to simulate multidecadal projections of forest dynamics in response to changes in management and climate. Simulations were conducted across gradients in forest type, edaphic factors, and management intensity under two alternate radiative forcing scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). This allowed for the quantification of forest stability shifts in response to climate change, and the role of management in modulating that response, where ecosystem stability is characterized as the resilience and temporal stability of net primary production, aboveground biomass, and soil carbon. Our results indicate that forest structure is primarily shaped by management, but the same management strategy often produced divergent structures over time, due to interactions with regional climate change. We found that management can be used to increase stability and minimize the release of stored carbon by reducing mortality, but also highlight the regional dependency of management-induced changes in resilience to climate change.
In late 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) implemented a Headquarters-supported nationwide records management initiative managed by the USACE-New England District to address the digitization and organization of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) project files. This initiative will prepare USACE FUSRAP for moving toward a fully electronic system of records management. Additionally, the records management initiative streamlines the process and prepares the Administrative Record (AR) and Permanent Record (PR) file for transfer from USACE to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Legacy Management (LM) following project closeout. Over the past couple of years, USACE and DOE-LM have been working to finalize a joint guidance document to assist in the FUSRAP records transition process. However, there remain key records management topics that require further discussion and development. Specifically, these topics include the implementation, process, and procedure for the capture of social media records and compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794d), as amended. Due to advances in technology and the ease of communication it provides, USACE is using social media more often to interface with the public than 5, 10 or 15 years ago. The identification and capture of these records are challenging because it requires each USACE district or producer of a record to track what has been released through social media so that it can be captured as part of the AR or PR. USACE is currently evaluating processes and procedures for social media records capture. This paper explores how social media is being used by USACE across FUSRAP projects and best practices for the capture of social media records. Public accessibility to the project AR is required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which USACE FUSRAP must follow. As USACE FUSRAP ARs are converted to a digital format, greater accessibility to the files can be provided through web sites or other electronic media. However, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act must be considered when releasing electronic files to the public. Under Section 508, government agencies must ensure that information is made available to the public in a format that provides equal access to persons with disabilities. This paper discusses the electronic records requirements under Section 508 and addresses broad implementation of compliance across large digital records sets. Records management challenges are presented in the context of the FUSRAP records management program; however, these records management considerations and best practices are applicable across all Federal agency records management programs. Examples presented will further aid in understanding electronic records requirements that may be included on new USACE FUSRAP contracts as well as upcoming National Archives Records Administration requirements that will move us toward an electronic government. (authors)
Highlights No-till and no-till residue systems were effective in reducing runoff particulate and total nutrients but increased dissolved nutrients. Maintaining >30% residue cover reduced most runoff constituents, irrespective of no-till or tillage. No-till-residue prevented runoff nutrient losses and benefitted farm revenue by avoiding tillage. Abstract. Reduced tillage management conservation practices (No-till and Reduced-till) are widely adopted in agriculture; however, understanding their overall effectiveness for water quality protection is challenging. A meta-analysis was conducted to understand and quantify the effectiveness of residue and tillage management on runoff, sediment, and nutrient losses from agricultural fields. Annual runoff and the associated sediment, and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loads were compiled from 60 peer reviewed research articles published across the United States and Canada. A total of 1575 site-years of data were categorized into tillage (<30% surface cover), no-tillage (<30% surface cover), tillage with residue (>30% surface cover), no-tillage with residue (>30% surface cover), and pasture management. No-tillage, no-tillage-residue, and tillage-residue managements were evaluated for their effectiveness in reducing runoff, nutrients, and sediment loads compared to tillage. Synthesized and surveyed corn yield data were used to evaluate the economic cost effectiveness of no-tillage-residue management with respect to tillage. Across the site years (1968-2019) studied, median runoff depth for no-tillage and no-tillage-residue were 84% and 70% greater than tillage and tillage-residue management, respectively. No-tillage-residue management had up to 86% less sediment losses than tillage systems, on average, for both >30% and <30% surface cover. No-tillage-residue management was most effective, with a positive performance effectiveness of 65% to 90% in controlling sediments, particulate, and total nutrient losses in runoff compared to tillage. Cost effectiveness analysis revealed the benefits of no-tillage-residue management in reducing nutrient loads and increasing net-farm revenue by avoiding tillage operational costs. Except for dissolved phosphorus, no-tillage-residue management cost effectiveness for sediments and nutrient loads ranged from negative $6 to negative $102 per every Mg or kg of load reduction, indicating it had both economic and environmental benefits compared to tillage management. Overall, these results indicate that over the long-term, no-tillage and tillage, combined with greater than 30% residue cover, can effectively reduce sediment and nutrient losses. This work highlights the importance of crop residues on the soil surface to reduce runoff losses, even in no-tillage systems. Keywords: Conservation tillage, No-tillage, Residue cover, Tillage, Water quality.
The Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) has experienced substantial growth in terms of staff, research, and production in recent years. MFC operational performance has effectively kept pace with this growth. However, to capture the continuous improvement actions needed to improve effectiveness and increase the efficiency of our management systems, a broad operations management strategy is necessary. The MFC Operations Management Improvement (OMI) Strategy is complementary to the MFC Five-Year Mission and Investment Strategies and the MFC Management Plan. The OMI strategy is structured to address the management systems outlined in the Nuclear Facility Management Standard Operations Model. Selected management systems are evaluated independently in chapters that describe the prior 5 years of performance improvement, a description of improvement actions for the MFC staff that directly perform within or contribute to the management system, process improvements, and any needed equipment improvements. Chapter selection is based on a management system’s need for improvement. In some cases, management systems may be combined in a single chapter. Additional chapters are added to address subject areas not formally described in the standard operations model.
Anthropogenic land use and land cover change (LULCC) is projected to continue in the future. However, the influence of forest management on forest productivity change and subsequent LULCC projections remains under-investigated. This study explored the impacts of forest management-induced change in forest productivity on LULCC throughout the 21st century. Specifically, we developed a framework to softly couple the Global Change Analysis Model and Global Timber Model to consider forest management-induced forest productivity change and projected future LULCC across the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). We found future increases in forest management intensity overall drive the increase of forest productivity. The forest management-induced forest productivity change shows diverse responses across all SSPs, with a global increase from 2015 to 2100 ranging from 3.9% (SSP3) to 8.8% (SSP1). This further leads to an overall decrease in the total area with a change of land use types, with the largest decrease under SSP1 (-7.5%) and the smallest decrease under SSP3 (-0.7%) in 2100. Among land use types, considering forest management-induced change significantly reduces the expansion of managed forest and also reduces the loss of natural land in 2100 across SSPs. This suggests that ignoring forest management-induced forest productivity change underestimates the efficiency of wood production, overestimates the managed forest expansion required to meet the future demand, and consequently, potentially introduces uncertainties into relevant analyses, for example, carbon cycle and biodiversity. Thus, we advocate to better account for the impacts of forest management in future LULCC projections.
Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.