SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Subsurface gas storage”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

154 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2024

Application of quantitative risk assessment to address stakeholder questions in geologic carbon storage

Ambitious international greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets demand a rapid transformation to a low-carbon economy. This transformation includes the accelerated adoption of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) technology. However, as with any large-scale engineering enterprise, the widespread commercial-scale deployment of geologic carbon storage (GCS) raises important questions about technology and cost-effectiveness, safety, environmental risk, and long-term liability. Effectively assessing and managing risks and liability associated with GCS projects is a key technical need throughout the project life cycle-from site selection and permitting to monitoring design, operational risk management, and post-operational site closure. This presentation highlights recent advancements in tools for quantitative risk assessment, being developed by the National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP). NRAP is a multi-year, multinational laboratory research collaboration sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Our focus will be on these tools' applications in addressing critical stakeholder questions related to supporting permitting to ensure secure and environmentally protective storage; designing effective and efficient monitoring plans; evaluating the effectiveness of remedial actions and risk management alternatives; and informing liability assessment and investment decisions. This paper will detail the key functionality of NRAP’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM), a computational framework for assessing leakage risk and containment assurance. This model features streamlined workflows for calculating leakage risk profiles, delineating risk-based area of review, and assessing contingency plans and post-injection site care requirements. ORION is an open-source, observation-based ensemble forecasting toolkit to help operators assess the seismic hazard at a carbon storage site. The State of Stress Analysis Tool (SOSAT), designed to assess subsurface stress conditions and evaluate geomechanical risk resulting from CO2 injection in an area of interest will also be presented. We will also introduce a prototype model to evaluate storage project costs and liability associated with risk management. The Technoeconomic and Liability Evaluation for Storage (TALES) model uses results from forecasts of leakage and induced seismicity risk to estimate the lifecycle cost of managing risk. Finally, a preliminary example of how the NRAP Risk-based Adaptive Monitoring Plan (RAMP) tool can be used to design efficient and effective site monitoring plans and estimate the detectability of fluid leakage will be provided. The relevance of these tools for addressing key stakeholder questions amidst uncertainty will be emphasized.

decision support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Effect of Temperature on the Preservation of Volatile-Rich Lunar Samples

Introduction. The Moon’s south pole is a high-priority target for human exploration and scientific study. This interest is, in part, due to the presence of Permanently Shadowed Regions (PSRs), which could contain high concentrations of unique volatiles at cryogenic temperatures [1]. Returned samples from PSRs may include a unique combination of rocks, regolith, and volatile species, providing unprecedented insights into the history of the Solar System and the potential for resource utilization on the Moon. However, because PSR samples are cryogenic up-on collection, lunar polar sample return will eventually require cold stowage for the journey from the Moon to Earth. Without cold stowage, PSR sample return will likely result in phase changes and chemical reactions within the volatile component of the sample, which would negatively impact the resulting scientific studies of those samples. This abstract summarizes the initial results from an ongoing characterization of analog PSR samples at a range of temperatures, with the goal of defining the temperatures needed for a flight cold stowage freezer. Background. Based on remote sensing observations of the Moon [2], south polar PSRs range in temperature from ~120K for small and/or shallow PSRs to ~20K at the most extreme locations in large, deep PSRs. A range of volatiles have been hypothesized to exist at the surface or subsurface of the lunar poles [3-5 and others]. This hypothesis was verified when the LCROSS mission impacted the <50-K PSR in the crater Cabeus, detecting a range of volatiles from water to low condensation temperature species such as H2S and methane [6]. Species such as H2S and ammonia (also detected by LCROSS) are also highly reactive, and increase the likelihood of chemical reactions at elevated (non-cryogenic) temperatures. At the Johnson Space Center’s Planetary Exploration and Astromaterials Research Laboratory (JSC-PEARL), we have developed a volatile-bearing lunar simulant that incorporates several of the species detected by LCROSS [Table 1] mixed cryogenically with the USGS Lunar Highlands Type (LHT) regolith simulant. The new volatile-regolith simulant will be used to assess the degree of sample alteration at room temperature, -20°C, -80°C, and -196°C (liquid nitro-gen), over a two-week period. Room temperature samples represent those likely to be returned during initial missions without cold stowage, -20°C provides an analog to Apollo cold curated samples, -80°C is the temperature of multiple flight payload freezers (e.g., MELFI), and -196°C is analogous to lunar PSRs. Two weeks is an approximation of the time between sample collection and Earth return for initial Artemis missions. Over this period of time, sample head-space gases will be analyzed using a Universal Gas Analyzer (UGA, a type of mass spectrometer) coupled with a Baratron pressure sensor. After testing, the regolith component of the simulant will be purged of volatiles and preserved for future electron beam and/or FTIR analysis. Experimental Procedure. Volatile-regolith simulants will be produced as an initial homogenous batch; this batch will then be distributed into aliquots (gas chromatography/GC vials or cryo vials), ensuring that each sample has the same starting composition and conditions [Fig. 1]. In addition to the “full” simulant shown in Table 1, less complex simulant compositions will be used as baseline and control samples [Table 2]. Aliquots will be produced in triplicate for each simulant composition, storage temperature, and date of sampling. Headspace gases in all Day 0 samples will be analyzed by the UGA immediately. Cold storage samples for future analytical days will be placed in freezers appropriate to their target temperatures (-20°C, -80°C, -196°C). For ambient-temperature samples, regolith and regolith-water samples will be stored in a fume hood, while the full simulant will be stored in a sealed Parr vessel for safety; no other simulants (RWCM/ RWCM+) will be stored at ambient temperature for this test. Samples will be analyzed by UGA in this manner on each Analysis Day outlined in Table 2. Analytical Data. The UGA measures the partial pressures in a single sample aliquot over a set mass range of 0-105 atomic mass units (AMU) [Figure 2]; this set range was selected to slightly exceed the mass of the highest-mass expected reaction product (H2SO4). The Baratron complements the UGA by measuring the total pressure in the headspace of a sample vial. Coupled together, the quantitative abundances of gases will be monitored throughout the test. UGA analyses of the triplicate samples for each storage temperature, day, and simulant composition will be averaged, and standard deviations for each will be calculated. The compositions of starting species (shown in Table 1) will be characterized as a function of time, and the presence of any new compounds (reaction products) will be monitored as well. Total pressures will be recorded for each sample analysis, and any samples that show signs of leakage (e.g., a significant reduction in pressure or simulant volatiles) will be discarded. Anticipated Results. Testing is planned to begin in January 2022. The resulting data will allow compositional and phase changes in the volatile component of the simulants to be determined. Both the reduction in initial compounds and the addition of reaction products are expected to be observed. In addition, the relative efficacy of the different temperatures at pre-serving the initial composition of the simulants will be quantified. Finally, the regolith component of each sample will be argon-purged and stored in a controlled environment for future laboratory analysis. Compositional and morphological changes in the regolith are expected for samples above 0°C. This test will be repeated three times over the course of 2022. Understanding the effect of temperature on both the volatile and regolith components of analog lunar materials will allow requirements for a cold stowage freezer to be developed. The implementation of cold stowage for lunar polar missions will maximize the preservation of returned samples, enabling ground-breaking lunar and Solar System volatiles science for decades to come.

J L Mitchell↗

DOE OSTI2022

Simulated CO 2 storage efficiency factors for saline formations of various lithologies and depositional environments using new experimental relative permeability data

Saline formations are attractive geologic reservoirs for permanent carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage. Here, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE-NETL) has worked to develop and refine methods and tools for the calculation of CO 2 storage potential in subsurface reservoirs. DOE-NETL's CO 2 -SCREEN provides an online tool for executing these storage methods. CO 2 storage efficiency terms are input parameters in DOE-NETL's methods and equations embedded in the CO 2 -SCREEN, which assesses pore space available for CO 2 storage. In this work, a modeling workflow was initiated to refine two CO 2 storage efficiency terms - volumetric displacement (E V ) and microscopic displacement (E d ). The models are based on new experimental relative permeability data that are specific to homogenous lithology and depositional environments of key subsurface saline formations targeted for CO 2 storage. In future work, heterogenous features will be added to this initial modeling effort to update efficiency factors as described in DOE-NETL's methods and CO 2 -SCREEN tool. E V accounts for the volume utilized in the reservoir under the areal plume, while E d accounts for saturation values in the plume to assess efficiency of CO 2 storage at the pore scale. The results of this work are significant in that prior values were based on a limited geologically non-specific relative permeability data set that were collected prior to 2009. Specifically, we applied numerical simulations using TOUGH3 models to update CO 2 storage efficiency values for supercritical CO 2 injection into brine-saturated reservoirs for three lithologies (clastics, limestone, dolomite) and six depositional environments (Marginal Marine, Strand Plain, Deltaic Complex Fluvial, Aeolian, Shallow Marine, and Reef) that have a high potential for geologic CO 2 storage. Experimental relative permeability data in cores from these environments were utilized in the models with corresponding rock type/sedimentary environment. Results of this study showed that dolomite followed by limestone generated higher ranges of storage efficiency compared to clastics. The updated values provided a tighter efficiency range for clastics, lower P 10 but higher P 90 range for limestone, and higher P 10 and P 90 for dolomite. In general, tighter reservoirs with relatively low permeability and porosity were associated with higher E V and E d , showing efficient reservoir and pore utilization in these scenarios. High reservoir pressure and temperature associated with increasing depth increased the E V , and high CO 2 injection rates resulted in increases in E V and E d , while the impact of permeability anisotropy was minimal after the 30-year injection period.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2021

High-temperature high-pressure microfluidic system for rapid screening of supercritical CO 2 foaming agents

CO 2 foam helps to increase the viscosity of CO 2 flood fluid and thus improve the process efficiency of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas’s subsurface utilization and sequestration. Successful CO 2 foam formation mandates the development of high-performance chemicals at close to reservoir conditions, which in turn requires extensive laboratory tests and evaluations. This work demonstrates the utilization of a microfluidic reservoir analogue for rapid evaluation and screening of commercial surfactants (i.e., Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine, Lauramidopropyl Betaine, Tallow Amine Ethoxylate, N,N,N' Trimethyl-N'-Tallow-1,3-diaminopropane, and Sodium Alpha Olefin Sulfonate) based on their performance to produce supercritical CO 2 foam at high salinity, temperature, and pressure conditions. The microfluidic analogue was designed to represent the pore sizes of the geologic reservoir rock and to operate at 100 °C and 13.8 MPa. Values of the pressure drop across the microfluidic analogue during flow of the CO 2 foam through its pore network was used to evaluate the strength of the generated foam and utilized only milliliters of liquid. The transparent microfluidic pore network allows in-situ quantitative visualization of CO 2 foam to calculate its half-life under static conditions while observing if there is any damage to the pore network due to precipitation and blockage. The microfluidic mobility reduction results agree with those of foam loop rheometer measurements, however, the microfluidic approach provided more accurate foam stability data to differentiate the foaming agent as compared with conventional balk testing. The results obtained here supports the utility of microfluidic systems for rapid screening of chemicals for carbon sequestration or enhanced oil recovery operations.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2023

Improving Subsurface Stress Characterization for Carbon Dioxide Storage Projects by Incorporating Machine Learning Techniques

The overall objective of this project is to develop a framework for reliable characterization and prediction of the state of stress in the overburden and underburden (including the basement) in CO 2 storage reservoirs using machine learning and integrated geomechanics and geophysical methods. Specifically, we propose to develop workflow encompassing of technologies and/or methods to predict stress and pressure changes due to CO 2 injection in an active tertiary recovery site and their impacts on subtle fault activation, fractures and occurrence of microseismic events and compare responses to field observations. In this project, we anticipate using dataset from the Farnsworth field Unit (FWU) which is operated by Purdure Petroleum. A novel elastic-waveform VSP inversion technique will be used to estimate high-resolution spatial and temporal changes of elastic moduli in CO 2 storage reservoirs, which will be combined with velocity-stress relationship derived from laboratory tests to obtain subsurface pressure and stress. Clustered microseismic data will be jointly inverted for improved focal mechanisms. Least-squares reverse-time migration of microseismic waveform data will be performed to directly image fracture/fault zones. Additionally, a deep neural network machine learning technique with convolutional and recurrent layers will be used for learning the spectro-temporal structures in microseismic waveforms. The results of this geotechnical data analysis will be integrated to develop a high-resolution 3D mechanical earth model extending from the overburden sealing formations to the underburden including the basement. Mechanical properties will be derived through integration of mechanical logs, tests, available results from chemo-mechanical laboratory tests, and elastic inversion of seismic data using a combination of Bayesian and stochastic methods as well as machine learning technique. Failure features (faults/fractures) will be represented and/or modeled based on seismic and core data analysis. A transient hydrodynamic-geomechanical model will be developed through coupling with the calibrated FWU reservoir simulation model. The full physics coupled model will be used to train a reduced order proxy model using machine learning algorithm for estimating stress which will then be used with appropriate constitutive relationships and forward seismological models to simulate pressure changes and induced microseismicity. An advanced optimization framework will be developed to perform a history match to minimize error between field observations and simulated. The history matched proxy model will be verified against the full-physics equivalent. The field observations that will be used in the coupled model calibration process include pressure/stress inverted from VSP, moment magnitude from microseismic analysis, real time downhole pressure measurements, production and injection data. Parameter sensitivity and uncertainty analysis will be performed to characterize the impact of model parameter uncertainty on stress estimates. The proposed project will have significant impact on future field implementation of the proposed technology. Because the project field site is an ongoing CO 2 EOR development, the value of the new technology will be demonstrated in an operational context and evaluated as a viable risk mitigation strategy. Cost/benefit will be evaluated together with the various commercial incentives for CO 2 sequestration available to oil and gas operators. The extensive available dataset and ongoing data acquisition under the SWP Phase III work plan provides flexibility for investigation of multiple approaches and reduces technical risk.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Probing the Core–Shell Organization of Nanoconfined Methane in Cylindrical Silica Pores Using In Situ Small-Angle Neutron Scattering and Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Determining the structure of nanoconfined fluids is essential for predicting the fate of these fluids in subsurface geologic formations with nanoporous features and for engineering novel nanoporous materials for storing compressed gases. In this study, we probe the structure of nanoconfined methane at pressures in the range of 15–100 bar using in situ small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) measurements and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. The structure of methane is probed in MCM-41 and SBA-15 with cylindrical pores and diameters of 3.3 and 6.8 nm, respectively. In situ SANS measurements and MD simulations showed that the confined methane molecules are organized in a core–shell structure, with the shell arising from the adsorption of methane molecules on the silica surface. The shell thicknesses of the adsorbed deuterated methane (CD4) molecules in MCM-41 obtained by SANS measurements are 1.4 ± 0.5, 2.1 ± 0.1, 3.2 ± 0.8, 4.0 ± 0.3, and 6.0 ± 0.7 Å at equilibrated pressures of 15.6, 35.6, 55.5, 73.3, and 95.7 bar, respectively. The shell thicknesses of the adsorbed CD4 layer in SBA-15 pores are 2.7 ± 0.5, 4.3 ± 0.7, 6.6 ± 0.7, 10.2 ± 0.3, and 14.6 ± 0.8 Å at equilibrated pressures of 15.5, 32.7, 52.4, 70, and 99.5 bar, respectively. These experimental results are in close agreement with the results predicted from MD simulations. Adsorption of methane molecules on the silica surfaces is primarily driven by van der Waals interactions between the methane molecules and the hydroxyl groups on the silica surface, while electrostatic interactions play a minor role. In conclusion, the experimental and simulation approaches described in this study provide fundamental insights into the organization of confined gases using methane as a specific example in the context of compressed fluid storage in natural and engineered materials for adaptive energy use.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Phase II Field Demonstration at Lansing Smith Generating Plant, Southport, Florida (Final Report)

The Final Technical Report: Field Test Design and Pressure Management Strategies for Phase II Field Demonstration of Optimal Pressure Control, Plume Management, and Produced Water Strategies presents the culmination of multi-year efforts under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brine Extraction and Storage Test (BEST) program, led by EPRI in partnership with Gulf Power at the Plant Smith site near Panama City, Florida. The project was designed to evaluate and demonstrate the technical feasibility of managing subsurface pressures and fluid movement associated with large-scale CO₂ injection, using low-salinity water as a proxy fluid. Through a combination of field injection testing, reservoir modeling, and optimization studies, the research team developed and refined active and passive brine extraction strategies aimed at controlling injection-induced pressure buildup, mitigating risks of fault activation, and managing plume migration. The field demonstration incorporated a new injection well (TIW-2), a new monitoring/extraction well (TEMW-A), and an existing well (TIW-1) repurposed for passive pressure relief. Complementary geophysical monitoring was designed to track plume development and evaluate the effectiveness of pressure management strategies. The report details the integrated workflow encompassing wellfield development, regulatory permitting, model calibration, and survey design. It includes a comprehensive electromagnetic (EM) modeling and inversion study used to develop a cost-effective, time-lapse geophysical monitoring plan capable of imaging the evolving low-salinity plume within the highly saline Lower Tuscaloosa formation. Reservoir simulation results guided the design of the 17-month injection program and the timing of active extraction to maintain formation pressures below a hypothetical fault reactivation threshold. Supporting analyses evaluated potential injectivity risks related to clay fines migration and geochemical incompatibility, identifying practical mitigation measures such as salinity and pH control. The final design recommends a series of crosswell EM surveys—conducted before, during, and after injection—as the most effective and economical approach for plume imaging, supplemented by continuous downhole pressure and flow monitoring. Collectively, the study provides a field-ready framework for cost-effective pressure management and monitoring in support of future CO₂ storage projects.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2020

Geothermal Deep Direct Use for Turbine Inlet Cooling in East Texas

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Southern Methodist University Geothermal Laboratory (SMU), Eastman Chemical (Longview, TX), and TAS (Houston, TX) evaluated the feasibility of using geothermal heat to improve the performance of a natural-gas power plant in East Texas. The area of interest is the Eastman Chemical plant in Longview, Texas, which is on the northwestern margin of a geologic region known as the Sabine Uplift. The feasibility study focused on determining the potential for accessing a subsurface hot-water geothermal resource within a 10-km radius of the site to provide thermal energy for absorption chillers. Wells within a 20-km radius are included for broader geological comparison to determine the heat flow, temperature-at-depth, field porosity and permeability. The lithologies of most interest are the Lower Cretaceous Trinity Group and Upper Jurassic Cotton Valley Group. The deeper Cotton Valley formations are hotter (averaging 117 to 130°C), yet permeability and porosity are low. The shallower Trinity Group contains more variability in permeability and porosity and lower temperatures averaging about 98 to 117°C. The shallower formations are considered despite the lower temperature because of increased ability to produce larger volumes of water and extract enough heat before reinjection. The complete SMU analysis is available in the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS). Tapping such deep geothermal sources for direct heating (as opposed to power generation) is known as geothermal deep direct use (DDU). Geothermal DDU has potential across a wide swath of the United States but is underutilized due to challenging project economics associated with developing a deep geothermal resource for what are typically small-scale, variable-demand projects. This project examines the feasibility of geothermal energy integration in a natural-gas combined cycle power station in East Texas. The DDU resource is tapped to drive absorption chillers (24/7) for production of chilled water at 5-10°C (41-50°F). This chilled water is stored until needed, which allows for continuous operation with a relatively small-capacity geothermal/absorption chiller system. When conditions are favorable, the chilled water is dispatched to cool the air entering the compressor stage of a gas combustion turbine. This process, known as turbine inlet cooling (TIC), boosts power production during periods of high temperature and high-power demand. Such systems can enhance grid reliability and reduce the cost for peak-demand power. A simulation model of the power plant was developed in IPSEpro software and validated against operational data from the plant. This model allowed the team to estimate the additional power that could be produced by applying TIC under different operating and ambient conditions. Absorption chiller performance was estimated from vendor sources to determine the production rate of chilled water from the geothermal resource. Geothermal drilling and development costs were estimated using NREL's GEOPHIRES 2.0. The expected lower drilling costs in this region led to an estimated cost of geothermal heat of about $4/MMBtu (1.4 cents/kWh t ). The estimated cost for the absorption chillers and TIC hardware were obtained from literature sources and project partners. Hourly data were obtained for weather, natural gas and electricity prices, and plant operating state for 2017, which served as a representative year. NREL estimated the capital cost, operating cost, and additional electricity production and revenue for different combinations of geothermal capacity, chiller capacity, and water storage-tank size. The analysis drove toward smaller geothermal and chiller systems to reduce equipment cost. A relatively low-cost water storage tank accumulated the near-continuous chilled water output for later use when TIC was most valued.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

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 OSTI2023

Robust In-Situ Strain Measurements to Monitor CO 2 Storage

The goal of this project was to develop and demonstrate robust instrumentation to monitor the in-situ strain tensor in order to improve the reliability and security of CO 2 storage in geologic formations. We met the original goals of the project and the major overarching accomplishment is the advancement of strain tensor monitoring from an intriguing concept to a commercially available technology with a solid foundation of novel instruments supported by theoretical analyses and validation experiments. The main accomplishments of the project are summarized below. We designed, built and evaluated nine new optical fiber strainmeters and tiltmeters using Michelson interferometers to measure deformation with ultra-high resolution at both shallow and deep point locations in the subsurface. These are the robust strainmeters that motivated the title of the project. We designed, built and evaluated a novel method of measuring distributed strain in optical fibers with nanostrain resolution, and cm-scale location, and sampling into the seismic band. The new method is called Coherence-length-gated Microwave Photonics Interfereometry (CMPI). CMPI technology has advantages over existing commercial DAS and DSS methods. We developed and demonstrated capabilities to deploy instruments in the field and used them to measure strain caused by ambient signals like barometric pressure and tides, as well as induced signals like surface loading and pore pressure changes from pumping tests. We deployed a working strainmeter at 1,700 ft depth, slightly above an active reservoir. This is to our knowledge the greatest depth a strainmeter has been deployed and the techniques we used can readily be extended to greater depths. Optical fiber borehole tensor strainmeter techology was advanced from a TRL 4 at the start, to a TRL of 7 at the conclusion of the project. The project included advances in simulations and theoretical analyses. We developed and demonstrated a computational workflow that uses machine learning to reduce the computational requirements and make it practical to use Bayesian inversion to solve large numerical poroelastic analyses needed to interpret strain tensor field data. We evaluated the strain tensor fields and time series that would be caused by leaks of CO 2 or other fluids from reservoirs. These simulations demonstrated that signals from leaks could be measured with instruments developed for the project, opening a potentially new method for ensuring storage security. We showed that strains in caprock can be used to estimate pressure in a reservoir. This avoids the need to drill monitoring wells into the reservoir, and it expands the capabilities of monitoring in the caprock. The project includes a derivation and application of a novel analytical solution to the strains in the vicinity of a pressurized poroelastic inclusion. This solution explains field data measured during injeciton tests at the North Avant Field, and it will simplify future interpretation of strain tensor data. The project included a broad range of experiments, and of the most significant is the characterization of the strain tensor at an array three strainmeters during six injection tests at the North Avant Field, Oklahoma. This demonstrated repeatability of the strain signal measured by the new instruments developed for the project, and it showed similarities between the strain signal at shallow depths and pressure in the underlying reservoir. We also demonstrated that useful strain data can be measured at reservoir depths. This confirms that strain tensor data can be measured throughout the caprock over a reservoir. The project demonstrated the feasibility of using the strain tensor and distributed strain measured in caprock during a variety of different well tests where the pumping rate was constant, sinusoidal and positive, or a periodic square wave with zero net rate. This further strengthens the validity of using strain data to characterize reservoirs and aquifers. We also demonstrated that strain caused be fluctuations of air pressure and water pressure in the vadose zone can be measured and interpreted, suggesting that high resolution distributed strain measurements hold promise for monitoring the vadose zone. The project partially supported nine graduate students in the Environmental Engineering, Hydrogeology, Electrical Engineering programs at Clemson University. The research was described in nine journal papers, 23 talks and conference abstracts. Additional journal papers are in preparation. A new company called Tensora was started to provide strainmeter technology for commercial applications.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗