Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Geoscience”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Magnetotelluric Data from Mountain Home, ID

This dataset includes magnetotelluric transfer functions in the form of EDI files for 16 stations collected by the USGS and 40 stations collected by Quantec Geoscience for Lawerence Berkeley National Lab around the Mountain Home area in Idaho. A 3D electrical resistivity model is included that images resistive and conductive bodies in the subsurface that maybe important for geothermal characterization. The model was created using ModEM using the high performance computer Yeti at the USGS.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

GeoDAWN West Central Nevada EarthMRI Data

This submission includes both the original product resolution (OPR) and LiDAR point cloud (LPC) LiDAR data collected as part of GeoDAWN: Geoscience Data Acquisition for Western Nevada. The USGS Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (EarthMRI) and USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP), Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office, Natural Resources Conservation Services, and Bureau of Land Management have partnered to conduct airborne geophysical and 3DEP lidar surveys over parts of Nevada and California to collect information on undiscovered geothermal, critical mineral, and groundwater resources in the western Great Basin and the Walker Lane region.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

GeoDAWN Northwestern Elko County Nevada EarthMRI Data

This submission includes both the original product resolution (OPR) and LiDAR point cloud (LPC) LiDAR data collected as part of GeoDAWN: Geoscience Data Acquisition for Northwestern Elko County, Nevada. The USGS Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (EarthMRI) and USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP), Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office, Natural Resources Conservation Services, and Bureau of Land Management have partnered to conduct airborne geophysical and 3DEP lidar surveys over parts of Nevada and California to collect information on undiscovered geothermal, critical mineral, and groundwater resources in the western Great Basin and the Walker Lane region.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data From: "Warming and snow loss increase reliance on old groundwater in a Colorado River headwater"

This repository contains the data and code associated with the paper titled "Warming and snow loss increase reliance on old groundwater in a Colorado River headwater," published in Nature Geoscience, 2026. This study seeks to answer how various ages of groundwater interact with mountainous streamflow in mountainous headwaters such as the East River. It includes various model-data processing scripts, primarily for ParFlow-CLM analysis of simulated water years 2015-2021, and two numerical warming experiments (+2.5 and +4.0 degrees C), including run scripts, forcing scripts, and post-processing, as well as comparison to observation datasets, detailed below. This data requires the use of R (.r, .rmd), Python (.py), Jupyter Notebook or Jupyter Lab (.ipynb), ParFLOW-CLM, EcoSLIM. Further information on the use of all file formats mentioned below (e.g. .tff. .nc) are provided within the associated scripts and directory where the files are located. Contents & Usage ASO/: ​​Contains the bash and python scripts used to convert airborne snow observatory (ASO) data (ASO, 2023) in various data formats (georeferenced tiff file, NetCDF, UTM, and to latitude/longitude) then regrided to the ParFlow equivalent grid. Output data are in regrid_regll_data.zip and subsequently visualized and analyzed in plot_and_compare.py for Supplementary Figures A14 and A15. The wksht_ASO_comparison.xlsx spreadsheet is used to calculate the data for Supplementary Figure A16. EcoSLIM/: Contains the scripts and input files to run the EcoSLIM particle tracking simulations (/run_scripts) and the post-processing python script (/plot_scripts/eco_agedist_plots.ipynb). Jasechko et al./: Contains the jupyter notebook (Extract_Elevation.ipynb) to determine the outlet elevations of the 260 watersheds used in Jasechko et al. (2016), and the corresponding table, Table_S1_Watersheds_alt.csv. Used to create Supplementary Information Figure A2. PLM_Wells/: Contains the QA/QC-ed groundwater level time series of the PLM-1 and PLM-6 Monitoring Wells from Faybishenko et al. (2023), reformatted to water years used for Supplementary Figures A19 and and A20. ParFlow/: Contains the input files and run scripts to run ParFlow-CLM (/run_scripts), the python and tool command language (Tcl) scripts to create and distribute the ParFlow forcing simulation files (/forcing), and various scripts and intermediary files to analyze the model outputs (/post_process). SQUIRE/: Contains the processing scripts and intermediary files for the Surface QUantitatIve pRecipitation Estimation (SQUIRE) data (Grover, 2023) used to generate Supplementary Figure A18. USGS_Streamflow/: Contains the raw and gap-filled United States Geological Survey streamflow data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2026) used at the Almont station (site number 09112500). Gap-filling is performed in the R script with data from the Taylor station (site number 09110000). (/USGS_09112500_EAST_RIVER_AT_ALMONT_GAP_FILLED/code_almont_streamflow_gap_fill.Rmd). discharge/: Contains the gap-filled discharge data at the Watershed Function SFA East River pumphouse site (Newcomer et al., 2022) used to generate Supplementary Figure A13 and to compute hourly Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficients (NSE) in Table A4. snotel_and_flux_tower/: Contains the snow telemetry data (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2024) from the Butte (site ID 380) and Schofield (site ID 737) stations, reformatted by water year, accessed with the snotelr R package. Used to create Supplementary Figure A17. Also contains the flux tower observational data (FluxTower_Pumphouse_ESS-DIVE.ET_only.h.txt) from Ryken et al. (2022) and sap flux transpiration data (MaxB_Transpiration_5Sites.daily_sums.h.txt) from Ryken (2021), used to create Supplementary Figures A22 and A23, respectively. Raw EcoSLIM model outputs are in excess of 24TB, and are stored on National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) and publicly available via the external link provided in the paper.

atmospheric warming↗
DOE OSTI2025

Cardinal: Seismic and Geoacoustic Array Processing

Data collected via seismic and infrasound array deployments are leveraged in the geosciences to detect and characterize a myriad of natural and anthropogenic sources. These deployments consist of numerous sensors placed in a predetermined configuration to amplify signal strength and improve the efficacy of array processing techniques used to measure signal directionality and waveform coherence. High‐fidelity feature extraction is often predicated on interstation distance as well as the frequency content and wavelength of an incident signal. Numerous array processing softwares analyze data in sequential frequency bands to obtain a more detailed characterization of a signal. However, current algorithms are limited in their ability to determine optimal array configuration for each band. We introduce an open‐source Python code, called Cardinal, to process seismic and infrasound array data in discretized time–frequency space with the option of applying an adaptive array design to determine optimal subarray configuration for each frequency band. To reduce computational time, the array processing step can be run in parallel using multithreading. Furthermore, the software has the capability to aggregate array processing results from different time–frequency pixels to produce separate sets of detections, or families, with added utility via the application of an adaptive semblance threshold, which aids in isolating signals‐of‐interest from coherent background noise. Upon appropriate configuration, Cardinal exhibits the potential to combine distinct seismic and infrasound phases into separate families.

Adaptive Array↗
DOE OSTI2020

Carbon Storage Open Database

The Carbon Storage Open Database is a collection of spatial data obtained from publicly available sources published by several NATCARB Partnerships and other organizations. The carbon storage open database was collected from open-source data on ArcREST servers and websites in 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022. The original database was published on the former GeoCube, which is now EDX Spatial, in July 2020, and has since been updated with additional data resources from the Energy Data eXchange (EDX) and external public data resources. The shapefile geodatabase is available in total, and has also been split up into multiple databases based on the maps produced for EDX spatial. These are topical map categories that describe the type of data, and sometimes the region for which the data relates. The data is separated in case there is only a specific area or data type that is of interest for download. In addition to the geodatabases, this submission contains: 1. A ReadMe file describing the processing steps completed to collect and curate the data. 2. A data catalog of all feature layers within the database. Additional published resources are available that describe the work done to produce the geodatabase: Morkner, P., Bauer, J., Creason, C., Sabbatino, M., Wingo, P., Greenburg, R., Walker, S., Yeates, D., Rose, K. 2022. Distilling Data to Drive Carbon Storage Insights. Computers & Geosciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2021.104945 Morkner, P., Bauer, J., Shay, J., Sabbatino, M., and Rose, K. An Updated Carbon Storage Open Database - Geospatial Data Aggregation to Support Scaling -Up Carbon Capture and Storage. United States: N. p., 2022. Web. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1890730 Morkner, P., Rose, K., Bauer, J., Rowan, C., Barkhurst, A., Baker, D.V., Sabbatino, M., Bean, A., Creason, C.G., Wingo, P., and Greenburg, R. Tools for Data Collection, Curation, and Discovery to Support Carbon Sequestration Insights. United States: N. p., 2020. Web. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1777195 Disclaimer: This project was funded by the United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, in part, through a site support contract. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor the support contractor, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, 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. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

carbon storage↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

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

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Characterization of the Triassic Newark Basin of New York and New Jersey for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide

The project Characterization of the Triassic Newark Basin of New York and New Jersey for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide is one of 9 site characterization projects that were implemented as part of ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Data from this project was used to improve resolution of data in NATCARB in the area of study. Data related to this study has already been incorporated in NATCARB Atlas. Sandia Technologies, LLC, and co-investigator Conrad Geoscience Corporation, examined the potential for large-scale, permanent CO2 storage in sedimentary strata within the Newark Rift Basin. The Newark Rift Basin underlies an industrialized, developed region comprising parts of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The project characterized and investigated the suitability of Triassic age sedimentary formations for potential geologic CO2 storage. The project team drilled and cored two test wells to define the sedimentary geologic formations underlying the basin and to document or reach basement rock. With this geologic characterization phase, an integration of seismic, geologic, borehole, and formation core results provided a higher resolution assessment of CO2 storage potential. The Stockton Formation is known to be a potentially favorable geologic storage formation in the basin. In 2011, the 1-NYSTA Tandem Lot stratigraphic test well was drilled to a depth of 6,855 feet in the northern portion of the Newark Basin in southern New York State. Approximately 9 miles south-southeast on the Lamont Doherty Campus, TW-4 was drilled and cored in 2013 to a depth of 1,802 feet and contacted apparent igneous basement at a depth of 1,712 feet. Both wells penetrated the Palisades Sill ranging from 800 feet thick in the eastern well to approximately 1,800 feet in thickness at the 1-NYSTA Tandem Lot deep drill site. A diabase sill can provide an excellent seal and dense confining layer for potential CO2 storage reservoirs and flow layers that are situated beneath it within the Stockton Sandstone. The Stockton Sandstone was encountered beneath the sill in the TW-4 well on the Lamont campus, and data integration suggests that it was likely observed near total depth in the deep 1-NYSTA Tandem Lot well. The test wells confirm and define reservoirs are present beneath the sill and offer CO2 storage potential. The integration of geologic and reservoir characterization of well logs, formation cores, and formation fluids indicated Triassic age lacustrine playa lake and mudbank shales of the Upper Passaic Group can provide an effective seal for the porous and permeable underlying sandstone reservoir layers. This project acquired seismic data, drilled borehole well logs, acquired core samples, and integrated these findings to provide a better understanding of the subsurface geologic formations in the Newark Rift Basin. These findings have contributed to a higher degree of accuracy in predicting potential geologic storage opportunities, while refining geologic storage capacity estimates for the indicated reservoirs and flow units.

.las↗
DOE OSTI2020

W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture and Sequestration Demonstration Project (Final Technical Report)

The Petra Nova Project (Project) is a commercial scale post-combustion carbon capture project developed by a joint venture between NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) and JX Nippon Oil Exploration (EOR) Limited (JX). The Project is designed to separate and capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from an existing coal-fired unit’s flue gas slipstream at NRG’s W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station (WAP) located southwest of Houston, Texas. The captured CO2 is dried, compressed, and transported via an 81-mile pipeline to the West Ranch oilfield (West Ranch) in Jackson County, Texas, where it is injected to boost oil production. The Project, which is partially funded by a grant (Grant) from the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) Round 3, uses the Kansai Mitsubishi Carbon Dioxide Recovery advanced amine-based CO 2 absorption technology (KM-CDR Process®), which was jointly developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) and the Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc., to treat and capture at least ninety percent (90%) of the CO 2 from a 240-megawatt equivalent (MWe) flue gas slipstream off of Unit 8 at WAP. When operating at full capacity, the Project captures approximately 5,200 short tons of CO 2 per day, which would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere, representing the largest commercial scale deployment of post-combustion CO2 capture technology at a coal power plant to date. Under the Grant, the Project was managed in 3 phases: (1) Phase 1: Project Definition / Front End Engineering Design (FEED) (2) Phase 2: Detailed Engineering, Procurement & Construction (3) Phase 3: Demonstration and Monitoring. On December 29, 2016, commercial operation of the Project was achieved, ending Phase 2 and starting Phase 3, a 3-year demonstration period running from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. The key objectives of Phase 3 were to (a) demonstrate the specific advanced technologies constructed during Phase 2 and (b) monitor the injected CO 2 at West Ranch to demonstrate technologies and protocols for monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA). As of the end of Phase 3, Petra Nova captured 3,904,978 short tons of CO 2 (3,542,537 metric tons) that was transported to West Ranch. To support the DOE obligation to monitor, verify, and account for the sequestered CO 2 at West Ranch, Petra Nova contracted with the Bureau of Economic Geology (in the Jackson School of Geosciences at The University of Texas at Austin) to (a) design a monitoring program, (b) draft an MVA Plan for DOE review and approval, and (c) working with Petra Nova and the operator of West Ranch to manage and report on the MVA activity. This report discussed the technical aspects of the project during each of the 3 phases of the project as identified above.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2020

Advanced Simulation and Experiments of Strongly Coupled Geomechanics and Flow for Gas Hydrate Deposits: Validation and Field Application. Final Report

The objectives of the proposed research are (1) to investigate geomechanical responses induced by depressurization experimentally and numerically; (2) to enhance the current numerical simulation technology in order to simulate complex physically coupled processes by depressurization and (3) to perform in-depth numerical analyses of two selected potential production test sites: one based on the deposits observed at the Ulleung basin UBGH2-6 site; and the other based on well-characterized accumulations from the westend Prudhoe Bay. To these ends, the recipient will have the following specific objectives: 1). Information obtained from multi-scale experiments previously conducted at the recipient’s research partner (the Korean Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM)) that were designed to represent the most promising known Ulleung Basin gas hydrate deposit as drilled at site UBGH2-6 will be evaluated (Task 2). These findings will be further tested by new experimental studies at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and Texas A&M (TAMU) (Task 3) that are designed capture complex coupled physical processes between flow and geomechanics, such as sand production, capillarity, and formation of secondary hydrates. The findings of Tasks 2 and 3 will be used to further improve numerical codes. 2) Develop (in Tasks 4 through 6) an advanced coupled geomechanics and non-isothermal flow simulator (T+MAM) to account for large deformation and strong capillarity. This new code will be validated using data from the literature, from previous work by the project team, and with the results of the proposed experimental studies. The developed simulator will be applied to both Ulleung Basin and Prudhoe Bay sites, effectively addressing complex geomechanical and petrophysical changes induced by depressurization (e.g., frost-heave, strong capillarity, cryo-suction, induced fracturing, and dynamic permeability).

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2020

Analysis of Tempered Fractional Operators

Tempered fractional operators provide an improved predictive capability for modeling anomalous effects that cannot be captured by standard partial differential equations. These effects include subdiffusion and superdiffusion (i.e. the mean square displacement in a diffusion process is proportional to a fractional power of the time), that often occur in, e.g., geoscience and hydrology. We analyze tempered fractional operators within the nonlocal vector calculus framework in order to assimilate them to the rigorous mathematical structure developed for nonlocal models. First, we show they are special instances of generalized nonlocal operators by means of a proper choice of the nonlocal kernel. Then, we present a plan for showing tempered fractional operators are equivalent to truncated fractional operators. These truncated operators are useful because they are less computationally intensive than the tempered operators.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) on Opportunistic Networks_ A Feasibility Study Utilizing Fiber Optic Infrastructure at NEON Sites for DAS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of using Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) on the opportunistic optical fiber infrastructure presented by NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) sites. The test took place at the NEON Terrestrial Site designated D10 CPER. Unlit portions of the local fiber network were successfully spliced together and optimized for length and a Silixa iDAS sensor was installed. The resulting array (composed of 12 spliced fiber runs) totaled 875m in length. Over a period of 2 weeks, we gathered a high spatial and temporal resolution data set to characterize discernable signals and understand background noise. The data set was reviewed to extract wave signatures of identifiable origin, both anthropogenic and otherwise. Continent wide distribution of these sites makes them an interesting candidate for DAS and identifying measurable signal sources informs future DAS application on opportunistic fiber networks. These observations validate the utility of both the NEON and similarly small fiber networks (<1km) for geoscience, environmental, and security DAS applications and indicate possibilities for further inquiry in methods for DAS data collection and analysis.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Play Fairway Analysis: Structurally Controlled Geothermal Systems in the Eastern Great Basin Extensional Regime, Utah

A research team with membership from the University of Utah/Energy & Geoscience Institute, the University of Utah/Dept. of Geology & Geophysics, and the Utah Geological Survey, undertook a play fairway analysis (PFA) for geothermal resources in the Eastern Great Basin (EGB) extensional tectonic regime of western Utah. This is a high-priority region for geothermal exploration because active Basin and Range (B&R) extension with volcanism having a N-S strike is superimposed upon pre-existing E-W belts of plutonic rocks and large-scale structural lineaments. Cumulative heat flow along the N-S strike of the state totals approximately 5 GWt above background stable interior. Three electricity producing power plants currently exist with substantial potential for increase. Succinctly, our PFA approach aims to resolve potential sources of heat and permeability in the region, which are the two principal criteria for establishing a geothermal resource. An initial Phase 1 was carried out using only existing geoscientific data in the area. Criteria selected for focusing heat potential include direct heat flow measurements in boreholes, magnetotelluric (MT) low resistivity anomalies, fluid/gas geochemistry, and proximity to recent volcanic eruptions. Permeability is established through geological structures (fault density, critically stressed areas, seismicity, gravity), and MT low resistivity anomalies. In Phase II of this PFA project, additional geological, geophysical and geochemical data were acquired and analysis carried out primarily over promising composite common risk (CCR) areas initially identified in Phase I in order to focus prospectivity and prepare for drilling recommendations. These prospects are near the Twin Peaks rhyolite field, high heat flow areas north of the producing Cove Fort system, and geophysical structure beneath the Crater Knoll area off the northeast flank of the Mineral Mountains. Additional data included MT site fill-in, structural mapping and analysis using high-resolution imagery, gravity and on-ground mapping, Nodal 3C passive seismic collection, and passive 3He surveying. Heat source and permeability potential are again expressed in terms of their individual common risk segment (CRS) maps, with a color scheme using green for most favorable (low risk) and red for least favorable (high risk). Diverse data types are united through the technique of probability kriging, which establishes prospectivity thresholds for each data type and then computes probability of exceeding that threshold over the PFA area. Modified CRS and CCRS maps are compared to those of Phase I to highlight tighter prospectivity focus. In doing so, the prospectivity threshold for heat was increased significantly to narrow the targeting. In the final Phase III of this project where a recommended deep thermal gradient hole was sited, additional geophysical, geochemical and geological field collection and analysis was carried out to refine drill hole targeting. This includes prospect-scale MT, gravity, structure, passive seismic deployment (Cove Fort area), and detailed 3He isotope profiling. It was the recommendation of the DOE Technical Monitoring Team (TMT) that one or more holes be sited in the north-ern Cove Fort area where legacy TG gradient holes showed high cumulative heat flow. These were to be of moderate depth, 2000-3000 feet, to reach the geothermal fluid table expected to start in excess of 1000 feet depth. The drilling organization stipulated by the DOE/GTO was that of the USGS Research Drilling Program (RDP) centered in Las Vegas, NV. A detailed well plan, appended to this report, was developed principally by Dr. Ben Barker consulting to University of Utah, Dr. Steve Pye on the DOE TMT, Mr. Steven Crawford of the USGS-RDP, and the project PI Phil Wannamaker. However, temperature and possible H 2 S at the systems lead to cancellation of the drilling last-minute as this appeared outside the experience base of the USGS-RDP. We hope to have the opportunity to revisit the test drilling and expand the Play Fairway Analysis of this region at some point in the future.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

A High-Throughput Computing Infrastructure to Generate Custom, Open Community Geothermal Datasets

The most significant challenge facing geothermal research, development, and deployment is a lack of comprehensive datasets describing the geological and economical properties of North America. Automated knowledge base construction, the process of designing algorithms to analyze text and images to programmatically build new datasets, is one possible solution to this problem. The xDD library of full-text scientific articles (https://xdd.wisc.edu) is one of the largest collections of open and controlled-access scientific documents available for knowledge base construction in the world, but it has been underutilized by experts in geothermal research. The xDD development team attributed the lack of engagement by software developers and geothermal researchers to two perceived shortcomings of the system. First, the workflow for obtaining data from xDD for local development and testing of data mining applications was unnecessarily abstruse and required significant manual intervention by xDD systems administrators. Second, although xDD already held articles from a broad cross-section of scientific literature with an emphasis on the geosciences, it did not have an explicit set of geothermal research documents that could serve as the nucleus of a geothermal data mining application. To address these issues, the Automated Data Extraction PlaTform (ADEPT) was proposed to extend the data distribution capabilities of the xDD system. The ADEPT extension added the following four key features to xDD: 1) integration of National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) documents into the xDD library to provide an explicitly geothermally-themed collection; 2) improved RESTful (i.e., https-protocol driven) web services for external partners to access xDD data for machine learning application development; 3) a web platform for end-users and xDD administrators to coordinate the development of data mining applications from the initial step of browsing available documents to the final stage of deploying a production-quality machine learning application on high-throughput computing infrastructure; and 4) the development of demonstration data mining applications to illustrate the new workflow to potential collaborators. A total of 21,674 geothermal documents from NGDS were fully ingested into the xDD library and the associated metadata is publicly available through the xDD web services; furthermore, the ADEPT web platform is now publicly accessible and fully live at https://xdd.wisc.edu/adept/.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Probing D-region globally using lightning waveforms detected by ENTLN [Slides]

This report includes research and data that the author's state demonstrates "the technique from [Shao et al., Nature Geoscience, 2012] can be used with ENTLN waveforms. Furthermore, an "automated processing has been developed to produce averaged waveforms and associated measurements." Ideas for future work is also presented.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Stress Birth and Death: Disruptive Computational Mechanics and Novel Diagnostics for Fluid-to-Solid Transitions

Many materials of interest to Sandia transition from fluid to solid or have regions of both phases coexisting simultaneously. Currently there are, unfortunately, no material models that can accurately predict this material response. This is relevant to applications that "birth stress" related to geoscience, nuclear safety, manufacturing, energy production and bioscience. Accurately capturing solidification and residual stress enables fully predictive simulations of the evolving front shape or final product. Accurately resolving flow of proppants or blood could reduce environmental impact or lead to better treatments for heart attacks, thrombosis, or aneurism. We will address a science question in this proposal: When does residual stress develop during the critical transition from liquid to solid and how does it affect material deformation? Our hypothesis is that these early phases of stress development are critical to predictive simulation of material performance, net shape, and aging. In this project, we use advanced constitutive models with yield stress to represent both fluid and solid behavior simultaneously. The report provides an abbreviated description of the results from our LDRD "Stress Birth and Death: Disruptive Computational Mechanics and Novel Diagnostics for Fluid-to-Solid Transitions," since we have written four papers that document the work in detail and which we reference. We give highlights of the work and describe the gravitationally driven flow visualization experiment on a model yield stress fluid, Carbopol, at various concentrations and flow rates. We were able to collapse the data on a single master curve by showing it was self-similar. We also describe the Carbopol rheology and the constitutive equations of interest including the Bingham-Carreau-Yasuda model, the Saramito model, and the HB-Saramito model including parameter estimation for the shear and oscillatory rheology. We present several computational models including the 3D moving mesh simulations of both the Saramito models and Bingham-Carreau-Yasuda (BCY) model. We also show results from the BCY model using a 3D level set method and two different ways of handling reduced order Hele-Shaw modeling for generalized Newtonian fluids. We present some first ever two-dimensional results for the modified Jeffries Kamani-Donley-Rogers constitutive equation developed during this project. We include some recent results with a successful Saramito-level set coupling that allows us to tackle problems with complex geometries like mold filling in a thin gap with an obstacle, without the need for remeshing or remapping. We report on some experiments for curing systems where fluorescent particles are used to track material flow. These experiments were carried out in an oven on Sylgard 184 as a model polymerizing system. We conclude the report with a summary of accomplishments and some thoughts on follow-on work.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2022

The Geothermal Entrepreneurship Organization (GEO) Accelerating Technology Transfer, Testing and Adoption of Cutting-edge Extreme Environment Drilling

The Geothermal Entrepreneurship Organization launched in 2019 with the goal of building a geothermal innovation ecosystem at the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), and in the State of Texas at large. The theses underlying the work of GEO were 1) that with targeted advocacy, recruitment, organization, and coalition building, research institutions with legacy excellence in petroleum and geosystems engineering could become engines of geothermal innovation, research and development; 2) that startups were the appropriate vehicle to speed these innovations from the lab into the field, and building a geothermal startup ecosystem in Texas would not only advance next generation geothermal concepts into the field, but also help spur oil and gas engagement in the space, and 3) that with targeted engagement, education, and recruitment across stakeholders in the oil and gas industry and the State of Texas generally, the oil and gas industry, and other legacy oil and gas entities in the State could become sources of large scale deployment of geothermal energy. The overall goal was to create a ‘snowball’ effect, where targeted impactful actions would catalyze self-sustaining, organic growth of a new geothermal ecosystem in the State of Texas. That goal was achieved through GEO’s work. To test its theses, GEO began work by interviewing and recruiting UT Austin faculty and alumni into geothermal. At the beginning of the GEO project, there was no geothermal activity ongoing within the UT Austin Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department, the Bureau of Economic Geology, or the Jackson School of Geoscience, and many faculty approached had not before considered how their skillsets might apply in the space. By the end of the project period, three major research consortia focused on geothermal were launched as a result of GEO’s work, one at the Bureau of Economic Geology, one within the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department, and another organized by GEO across six research institutions across the State of Texas, called the Texas Geothermal Institute. Geothermal curricula was launched at UT Austin, and UT Austin began attracting new geothermal enthusiasts into its faculty, including Dr. Silviu Livescu, former Chief Scientist of Baker Hughes. Startups recruited and mentored by GEO launched, raised funding, and deployed (or are currently deploying) their concepts in the field. By the end of the project period, the GEO concept expanded to faculty beyond UT Austin to other institutions, like Texas A&M, the University of Houston, and Rice University, and geothermal engagement began at those institutions as well. Multiple faculty members and alumni across these institutions launched geothermal startup companies, launched geothermal research consortia, and/or began teaching geothermal courses. In 2020, GEO launched what was to become the largest geothermal conference in the world by its second year, ‘PIVOT – From Hydrocarbons to Heat’, and the resulting momentum catalyzed the Society of Petroleum Engineers to launch a geothermal technical section, drove more startups to launch out of the ecosystem, and drove actors in the State of Texas, NGOs, and stakeholders globally to become engaged. Riding this momentum, the Texas Geothermal Energy Alliance was launched, the first ever industry association dedicated to advancing geothermal energy in the State of Texas. The Texas geothermal ecosystem after only two years of building and support is now robust, quickly growing, and self-sustaining. By 2021, the Texas geothermal ecosystem had attracted the attention of philanthropists, funding entities, media, and influencers outside of Texas, and GEO’s executive director was invited to give a TED talk about oil and gas engagement in building the future of geothermal energy, which elevated the success of the ecosystem to a global audience.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗