Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Seismic image”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Imagery Applications for Advanced Event Analytics (WBS 24.3.1.3.3-IDC FY2020 Final Project Report)

Accurate event locations and replicability of location analyses are essential for assessing the nature of an event, its context, ambient site conditions, and proximity to relevant facilities and infrastructure. Additionally, accurate event locations provide valuable information that reduce uncertainties, improve confidence in event analyses, and inform in-field verification activities. However, event location/relocation and replicability are difficult due to a number of factors, including spatially-sparse network coverage in some areas of the globe and variability in seismic data processing. This team proposed that the incorporation of high-fidelity imagery as a data backbone to the analytical assessment of a suspected underground explosion and/or an advanced seismic event bulletin produced by the International Data Centre (IDC) of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom) could reduce uncertainties and improve confidence in analyses. Specifically, temporally-separated images can reduce uncertainty by identifying areas where change has occurred (e.g., building construction or demolition, road or facilities improvements). The primary goal of this project was to develop an automated geospatial processing script for imagery change detection to better reflect needs of the technical community (including the IDC) and to make the use of such a tool accessible in a variety of settings across platforms. Technical experts at Los Alamos National Laboratory successfully built GAIA: the Geospatial Automated Imagery Analysis tool, to fill this need. GAIA combines five tool components to produce orthorectified time-separated imagery and imagery change detection maps. Our toolkit (1) reduces error by providing a standardized workflow for image analyses and (2) significantly reduces processing time from between 7 and 24+ hours to approximately 5 minutes. Technical experts at Sandia National Laboratories supported GAIA via beta-testing and by introducing a web-based system approach for increased applicability. To test the function, performance, broad application, and ease-of-use of GAIA, we applied it to four separate test cases. The results of this preliminary investigation show promise in reducing uncertainty in seismic event locations: if satellite imagery can show regions where operations that produce seismic activity likely occurred, then pursuing imagery to locate epicenters of seismic nuclear events could reduce the time needed to find the true epicenter location.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2020

Cross-Well Seismic Monitoring of CO 2 Injected Into the A-1 Carbonate and Brown Niagaran Formations at the Chester 16 Reef

The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) was founded in 2003 as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership initiative. Since its founding, MRCSP has made significant strides toward making CCUS a viable option for states in the region. The public/private consortium, funded through the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Initiative, brings together nearly 40 industry partners and 10 states. Battelle, as the project lead, oversees research, development and operations and coordinates activities among the partners. The incremental, phased approach has built a valuable knowledge base for the industry and paved the way for commercial-scale adoption of CCUS technologies. From 2008 to 2020, MRCSP Phase III focused on the development of large-scale injection projects. This report is part of a series of reports prepared under the Midwestern Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) Phase III (Development Phase). These reports summarize and detail the findings of the work conducted under the Phase III project. A cross-well seismic survey was acquired in the Chester 16 reef to attempt to locate 85,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) that were injected into the A-1 Carbonate and Brown Niagaran Formations earlier. The technique of conducting multiple cross-well seismic surveys over time, including a pre-CO 2 injection (baseline) survey, has been used elsewhere to monitor CO 2 injected into the subsurface. In this study, a baseline cross-well survey was not obtained; nevertheless, it was possible to generate an image that is a plausible representation of the CO 2 plume. This conclusion is supported by other monitoring and modeling results from the Chester 16 reef that provide an independent indication about the likely position of the injected CO 2 .

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

Volumetric and shear strain localization throughout triaxial compression experiments on rocks

Deformation localization is a widely observed, but rarely quantified process in the crust. Recent observations suggest that the localization of seismicity and fracture networks can help identify the approach to catastrophic failure. Here, we quantify the localization processes of the volumetric and deviatoric strain components in twelve triaxial compression experiments imaged with X-ray tomography. We capture three-dimensional images of the rock cores during triaxial compressing toward failure, and then calculate the local strain components using digital volume correlation. The divergence and curl of the incremental displacement vector field provide the volumetric and deviatoric components of the strain field. We quantify localization using the proportion of the rock occupied by high magnitudes of the volumetric and deviatoric strains, and the Gini coefficient of these high magnitude strains, which measures the deviation from a uniform process. We find that the vast majority, but not all, of the experiments experience strain localization toward failure. The rocks typically experience their maximum degree of strain localization not immediately preceding failure, but on average at 90% of the failure stress. The volumetric strain tends to localize more than the deviatoric strain. Finally, these observations support using the localization of the volumetric strain, along with the deviatoric strain, to identify the evolution of the precursory phase preceding earthquakes.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Simulations of the Large Surface Explosion Coupling Experiment (LSECE)

The Large Surface Explosion Coupling Experiment (LSECE) project will include two surface energetic events (chemical explosions) conducted as close as possible to ground zero (GZ) of the Source Physics Experiment (SPE) Phase II Dry Alluvium (DAG) site in Yucca Flat at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Seismic and acoustic data from these events will complement DAG buried source data and improve interpretation of speed-of-sound signals from explosions for national security programs. A satellite image of the region near GZ along with some of the recording stations that we will use for the far- eld simulation is shown in Figure 1. The working design of the HE package is shown in the Figure 2 and is roughly a cube of C-4 bricks.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Composition of Magma and Characteristics of the Hydrothermal System of Newberry Volcano, Oregon, From Magnetotellurics

Abstract We use 3‐D magnetotellurics to improve our understanding of the structure and magma composition of Newberry Volcano in Oregon, USA. Newberry is a broad shield volcano with a summit caldera and strongly bimodal magmatism. Newberry has long been the subject of geothermal exploration research, but that work has focused on the volcano's west flank, leaving the caldera largely unstudied with geophysical methods until recently. Our modeling shows a relatively resistive magma reservoir of approximately 50 Ωm. Our work builds upon recent seismic models and petrological analysis to interpret Newberry's magma reservoir as a dry rhyolite with 8–11% partial melt, which matches the seismically determined melt fraction. Finding the conditions within the magma reservoir that allow the resistivity and seismic analysis to come to the same melt fraction helps us narrow down the magma temperature and composition. From this we infer a dry rhyolitic magma at 850 °C. We also image a prominent vertical conductive anomaly along the south rim below the vent that produced the most recent eruption. The anomaly extends from magma reservoir depths of 3 km to 1 km below the surface where it disperses into the caldera fill. We interpret this as the main conduit for magmatic fluids to reach Newberry's hydrothermal system. Other features that our model shows include higher conductivity along the caldera rim and a resistive older pluton on the west flank.

Bowles‐Martinez, E.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Fluid Injection Induced Shearing Experiments on Fractured Granitoid at Elevated Temperatures

This repository contains experimental data from a series of fluid injection-induced shearing tests conducted on Utah FORGE granitoid. The experiments were performed using an aluminum triaxial pressure vessel (TEMCO) apparatus at Pennsylvania State University. The primary aim was to investigate the impact of temperature on fault seismicity and to explore how different pre-stress ratios influence shearing behavior. The data includes results from experiments conducted under varying conditions of temperature, pre-stress ratios, and pore pressure increments. The rock samples used in these experiments were 60-grit granitoid with a single inclined fracture oriented at 60 degrees with respect to the horizontal cross-section. The dataset also includes measurements of normal stiffness at different temperatures and images of the experimental apparatus. The included README file details each experiential setup and outlines which data files represent which experimental conditions.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

The EGS Collab Project – Stimulations at Two Depths

The EGS Collab project, supported by the US Department of Energy, is performing intensively monitored rock stimulation and flow tests at the 10-m scale in an underground research laboratory to address challenges in implementing enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Data and observations from the field tests are compared to simulations to understand processes and build confidence in numerical modeling of the processes. We have completed Experiment 1 (of 3), which examined hydraulic fracturing in a well-characterized underground fractured phyllite test bed at a depth of approximately 1.5 km at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead, South Dakota. Testbed characterization included fracture mapping, borehole acoustic and optical televiewers, full waveform sonic, conductivity, resistivity, temperature, campaign p- and s-wave investigations and electrical resistance tomography. Borehole geophysical techniques including passive seismic, continuous active source seismic monitoring, electrical resistance tomography, fiber-based distributed strain, distributed temperature, and distributed acoustic monitoring, were used to carefully monitor stimulation events and flow tests. More than a dozen stimulations and nearly one year of flow tests were performed. Quality data and detailed observations were collected and analyzed during stimulation and water flow tests using ambient temperature and chilled water. We achieved adaptive control of the tests using real-time monitoring and rapid dissemination of data and near-real-time simulation. More detailed numerical simulation was performed to answer key experimental design questions, forecast fracture propagation trajectories and extents, and analyze and evaluate results. Data are freely available from the Geothermal Data Repository. Experiment 2 examines the potential for hydraulic shearing in amphibolite at a depth of about 1.25 km at SURF. This site has a different set of stress and fracture conditions than Experiment 1. The Experiment 2 testbed consists of nine subhorizontal boreholes configured in two fans of two boreholes which surround the testbed and contain grouted-in electrical resistance tomography, seismic sensors, active seismic sources and distributed fiber sensors. A “five-spot” set of test wells that extends from a custom mined alcove includes an injection well and four production/monitoring wells. The testbed was characterized geophysically and hydrologically, and three stimulations have been performed using the Step-Rate Injection Method for Fracture In-Situ Properties (SIMFIP) tool to measure strains, and a new strain quantifying tool (downhole robotic strain analysis tool -DORSA) was deployed in a monitoring hole during stimulation. Real-time data were broadcast during stimulations to allow real-time response to arising issues.

EGS Collab, Enhanced Geothermal Systems, EGS, fiel↗
DOE OSTI2024

Adjoint Waveform Tomography for Crustal and Upper Mantle Structure of the Middle East and Southwest Asia for Improved Waveform Simulations Using Openly Available Broadband Data

Here we present a new model of radially anisotropic seismic wavespeeds for the crust and upper mantle of a broad region of the Middle East and Southwest Asia (MESWA) derived from adjoint waveform tomography. The new model enables fully 3D simulations of complete three-component waveforms and provides improved fits that were not possible with previous models. We inverted over 32,000 waveforms from 192 earthquakes recorded by over 1000 openly available broadband seismic stations from permanent and temporary networks in the region with highly uneven coverage. Inversion iterations proceeded from the period band 50–100 s in six stages and 54 total iterations reducing the minimum period to 30 s. Our final model, MESWA, improves waveform fits compared to the starting and other models for both the data used in the inversion and an independent validation set of 66 events. Restitution tests indicate that the model resolves features in the central part of the model to depths of about 150 km. The new model reveals tectonic features imaged by other studies and methods but in a new holistic model of anisotropic shear and compressional wavespeeds (V S and V P , respectively) covering a larger domain with smaller scale length and amplified features. Examples include low crustal V S in the Tethyan belt and low mantle VS following divergent (Gulf of Aden, Red Sea) and transform (Dead Sea fault) margins of the Arabian plate. Low V S is imaged below Cenozoic volcanic centers of the Mecca–Madina–Nafud Line, Arabian Peninsula, and the Türkiye–Iran border region. Elevated V S tracks Makran subduction under southeast Iran with near vertical dip. MESWA could be used as a starting model for further improvements, say, using waveforms from in-country seismic networks that are not currently openly available and/or smaller-scale studies targeting a shorter period. The model could be used to improve earthquake hazard studies and nuclear explosion monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Nowcasting Earthquakes: Imaging the Earthquake Cycle in California With Machine Learning

We propose a new machine learning-based method for nowcasting earthquakes to image the time-dependent earthquake cycle. The result is a timeseries that may correspond to the process of stress accumulation and release. The timeseries are constructed by using principal component analysis of regional seismicity. The patterns are found as eigenvectors of the cross-correlation matrix of a collection of seismicity timeseries in a coarse grained regional spatial grid (pattern recognition via unsupervised machine learning). The eigenvalues of this matrix represent the relative importance of the various eigenpatterns. Using the eigenvectors and eigenvalues, we compute the weighted correlation timeseries of the regional seismicity. This timeseries has the property that the weighted correlation generally decreases prior to major earthquakes in the region, and increases suddenly just after a major earthquake occurs. As in a previous paper, we find that this method produces a nowcasting timeseries that resembles the hypothesized regional stress accumulation and release process characterizing the earthquake cycle. We then address the problem of whether the timeseries contain information regarding future large earthquakes. For this, we compute a receiver operating characteristic and determine the decision thresholds for several future time periods of interest (optimization via supervised machine learning). We find that signals can be detected that can be used to characterize the information content of the timeseries. These signals may be useful in assessing present and near-future seismic hazards.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Time-Lapse Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) for CO 2 Storage in a Depleted Oil Field in Northern Michigan

The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) was founded in 2003 as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership initiative. Since its founding, MRCSP has made significant strides toward making CCUS a viable option for states in the region. The public/private consortium, funded through the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Initiative, brings together nearly 40 industry partners and 10 states. Battelle, as the project lead, oversees research, development and operations and coordinates activities among the partners. The incremental, phased approach has built a valuable knowledge base for the industry and paved the way for commercial-scale adoption of CCUS technologies. From 2008 to 2020, MRCSP Phase III focused on the development of large-scale injection projects. This report is part of a series of reports prepared under the Midwestern Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) Phase III (Development Phase). These reports summarize and detail the findings of the work conducted under the Phase III project. This report describes the Dover 33 VSP study to test the effectiveness of time-lapse Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) for detecting and delineating a plume of more than 271,000 tonnes of CO2 injected into the Brown Niagaran and A-1 Carbonate formations within the Dover 33 reef between March 2013 and September 2016. Five 2D walkaway VSP (WVSP) source lines were acquired by SIGMA3 in September 2016 to investigate the possible time-lapse response in both P-wave and PS-wave seismic data. The data was compared to the same survey geometry acquired in March 2013 by SR2020. The seismic energy was recorded into an 80-level, three-component geophone array deployed into the Dover 1-33 well and placed just above the reef. P-wave and PS-wave reflection images were produced for each of the three source lines from both the 2013 baseline and 2016 monitor surveys. The images were then compared to look for changes in the reflectivity at and around the injection location that might indicate how the CO 2 has moved over this time period. This technique revealed several localized areas with sizable impedance differences inside the reef where CO 2 would be expected; however, a large number of similar impedance “hotspots” were also detected outside the reef in areas where injected CO 2 would not be expected. Therefore, a second analysis that involved calculating P-wave and S-wave travel time differences between the 2013 and 2016 VSPs was conducted to look for a change that could be caused by the CO 2 plume.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

Sentinel-1 Input Data for PSInSAR Analysis

Files used to perform the Persistent Scatterer InSAR analysis with SARPROZ. The data is sourced from ESAs Sentinel-1 project and covers Brady Hot Springs and Desert Peak geothermal areas. The original titles are included for the Sentinel-1 data. The naming guide is included as a link in this submission. The data contains SAR (Radar) data from the Sentinel 1A satellite between July 2017 and December 2019. The data is necessary to replicate our results, and can be used for further PSInSAR, DInSAR and other modern interferometric analyses to determine line of sight, vertical and, possibly, East-West horizontal displacement. These displacement analysis show the soil deformation in time (including average displacement velocity), which can be used to indicate subsoil phenomena: temperature changes, subsidence, uplift, and inform other analyses like seismicity and porosity.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Brady Geodatabase for Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence

These files contain the geodatabases related to Brady's Geothermal Field. It includes all input and output files for the Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence. Input and output files are sorted into three categories: raw data, pre-processed data, and analysis (post-processed data). In each of these categories there are six additional types of raster catalogs which are titled Radar, SWIR, Thermal, Geophysics, Geology, and Wells. These inputs and outputs were used with the Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence to identify indicators of blind geothermal systems at the Brady Hot Springs Geothermal Site. The included zip file is a geodatabase to be used with ArcGIS and the tar file is an inclusive database that encompasses the inputs and outputs for the Brady Hot Springs Geothermal Site.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

SPiRaL: a multiresolution global tomography model of seismic wave speeds and radial anisotropy variations in the crust and mantle

SUMMARY SPiRaL is a joint global-scale model of wave speeds (P and S) and anisotropy (vertical transverse isotropy, VTI) variations in the crust and mantle. The model is comprised of >2.1 million nodes with five parameters at each node that capture velocity variations for P- and S-waves travelling at arbitrary directions in transversely isotropic media with a vertical symmetry axis (VTI). The crust (including ice, water, sediments and crystalline layers) is directly incorporated into the model. The default node spacing is approximately 2° in the lower mantle and 1° in the crust and upper mantle. The grid is refined with ∼0.25° minimum node spacing in highly sampled regions of the crust and upper mantle throughout North America and Eurasia. The data considered in the construction of SPiRaL includes millions of body wave traveltimes (crustal, regional and teleseismic phases with multiples) and surface wave (Rayleigh and Love) dispersion. A multiresolution inversion approach is employed to capture long-wavelength heterogeneities commonly depicted in global-scale tomography images as well as more localized details that are typically resolved in more focused regional-scale studies. Our previous work has demonstrated that such global-scale models with regional-scale detail can accurately predict both teleseismic and regional body wave traveltimes, which is necessary for more accurate location of small seismic events that may have limited signal at teleseismic distances. SPiRaL was constructed to predict traveltimes for event location and long-period waveform dispersion for seismic source inversion applications in regions without sufficiently tuned models. SPiRaL may also serve as a starting model for full-waveform inversion (FWI) with the goal of fitting waves with periods 10–50 s over multiple broad regions (thousands of kilometres) and potentially the globe. To gain insight to this possibility, we simulated waveforms for a small set of events using SPiRaL and independent waveform-based models for comparison. For the events tested, the performance of the traveltime-based SPiRaL model is shown to be generally on par with regional 3-D waveform-based models in three regions (western United States, Middle East, Korean Peninsula) suggesting SPiRaL may serve as a starting model for FWI over broad regions.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Utah FORGE: Seismic Velocity Models, February 2021

This dataset contains a map, showing the Utah FORGE seismic stations, and seismic velocity model data. There are 61 1-D velocity models which are in a compressed TAR file. A paper is referenced at the end of this description which discusses the use of these data in 3D modelling. The paper summary follows: We expand the application of spatial autocorrelation (SPAC) from typical 1-D Vs profiles to quasi-3-D imaging via Bayesian Monte Carlo inversion (BMCI) using a dense nodal array (49 nodes) located at the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) site. Combinations of 4 and 9 geophones in subarrays provide for 36 and 25 1-D Vs profiles, respectively. Profiles with error bars are determined by calculating coherency functions that fit observations in a frequency range of 0.2-5 Hz. Thus, a high-resolution quasi-3-D Vs model from the surface to 2.0 km depth is derived and shows that surface-parallel sedimentary strata deepen to the west, consistent with a 3-D seismic reflection survey. Moreover, the resulting Vs profile is consistent with a Vs profile derived from distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data located in a borehole at the FORGE site. The quasi-3-D velocity model shows that the base of the basin dips ~22 degrees to the west and topography on the basement interface coincident with the Mag Lee Wash suggests that the bedrock interface is an unconformity. Reference: Zhang, H. and K. L. Pankow (2021). High-resolution Bayesian spatial auto-correlation (SPAC) pseudo-3D Vs model of Utah FORGE site with a dense geophone array, Geophys. Res. Int, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggab049

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Salton Sea Geodatabase for Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence

These files contain the geodatabases related to Salton Sea Geothermal Field. It includes all input and output files used with the Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence. Input and output files are sorted into three categories: raw data, pre-processed data, and analysis (post-processed data). In each of these categories there are six additional types of raster catalogs which are titled Radar, SWIR, Thermal, Geophysics, Geology, and Wells. The files are used with the Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence for the Salton Sea Geothermal Site to identify indicators of blind geothermal systems. The included zip file is a geodatabase to be used with ArcGIS and the tar file is an inclusive database that encompasses the inputs and outputs for the Salton Sea Geothermal Site.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗