SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Lab data on permeability, grain bulk modulus, drained bulk modulus, Skempton's pore pressure coefficient, and Biot's effective stress coefficient for Utah Forge Well 58-32 and Well 78-32. Work done as part of project number 5-2615 by the University of Oklahoma.
Between 2017 and 2019, a series of injection tests were performed at pilot vertical well 58-32 at the Utah FORGE site. These injection activities were conducted in three distinct zones, isolated with packers and bridge plugs during the tests. Zone 1 consists of an open-hole section at the toe of the well, whereas Zones 2 and 3 are three-meter long cased and perforated sections. Several injection cycles were conducted in each zone. A detailed description of the geology of the FORGE site, of well 58-32 and of all injection cycles can be found in (Xing et al., 2020). The injection cycles included Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFITs). DFITs comprise two primary stages: an injection (pump-in) phase, where controlled fluid injection is employed to create a small hydraulic fracture in the surrounding rock, followed by a shut-in phase, where injection ceases, allowing observation of the formation’s pressure response. Utilizing methodologies such as the G-function analysis, DFITs provide valuable insights, including fracture closure pressure and the Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure (ISIP) and can be employed to estimate the minimum horizontal stress.
To satisfy the G/NG point 1 we have employed GEOS hydraulic fracturing module to simulate one of the Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests conducted at well 58-32. The hydraulic fracturing solver relies on a finite element discretization of the mechanics fully coupled to a finite volume discretization of the fluid flow. Fractures are explicitly modeled as lower dimensional manifolds and discretized by 2D elements sitting at the boundary of cell elements. We have calibrated our model to reproduce the DFIT corresponding to Zone 2 Cycle 4 of the injection tests that took place at well 58-32.
This is a link to downhole geophone data collected by Schlumberger. These data were collected in the Utah FORGE deep seismic monitoring wells 58-32 and 56-32. The format is a standard SEGY and the units are bits. To convert to acceleration (m/s2) multiply by 2.333 x 10-7. Use one of the scripts linked below to use wget commands to pull the data.
This data includes a document that describes the effort to collect and analyze water and gas samples from deep Utah FORGE wells 16A(78)-32, 58-32, 56-32 and 78B-32 along with additional pdf files showing ThermoChem's analyses attached as an appendix.
This dataset contains geochemical analyses of produced fluids from the Utah FORGE site, specifically from wells 16A(78)-32, 16B(78)-32, and 58-32, collected during various stimulation, flowback, and circulation tests conducted between 2022 and 2024. The data contains element concentrations, pH, and dissolved gas compositions. Geochemical analyses for 2022 and 2023 were performed at the Brigham Young University geochemistry laboratory, while the 2024 results were obtained from Thermochem. Dry gas samples were collected using a mini-separator attached to the single-phase production line between the wellhead and separator, where fluid was flashed to atmospheric pressure. Gas concentrations were recalculated to a single phase reservoir liquid based on heat and mass balance expressions. Additional contextual information, including interpretations of geochemical trends and reservoir behavior, is available in the included report from Simmons et al. (2025), which was presented at the Stanford Geothermal Workshop in February 2025.
This Excel spreadsheet contains temperature survey results for Utah FORGE wells 58-32, 78-32, 56-32, 16A(78)-32 and 78B-32. It also contains charts and comparisons, along with a "Data Summary" which provides links to previous GDR submissions with temperature data for each well.
As part of Task 1, we have started by testing our modeling capabilities by reproducing isothermal DFIT simulations presented in the literature. Once satisfied with the results we have started by targeting the modeling of the DFITs at conducted at well 58-32. We have a identified a specific test (cycle 4 in zone 2) as the most interesting to be model with GEOS hydraulic fracturing module. Thus, we have first produced results with an isothermal model and adjusted model parameters to get a satisfying match with field pressure data. The, we have added thermal effects and compared the modeling results with and without thermal effects to estimate how thermal effects may influence test interpretation. Models seem to suggest that, for small volumes of fluid, thermal effects are moderate. In Task 2, we have adapted GEOS phase-field formulation to be able to simulate near-wellbore hydraulic fracture nucleation and propagation. We have devised a novel formulation that, compared to other existing ones, incorporates rock strengths. We have submitted a journal publication about our work. We are currently employing this phase-field formulation to model the experiments taking place at U Pitt and help us understand the effect of various parameters. In Task 3, we have built a model of the region surround well 16A and have started modeling stage 3 stimulation because of its simpler planar geometry. After calibrating simulation parameters using known analytical solutions, we have simulated the stage 3 stimulation using our isothermal hydraulic fracturing module, varying the permeability field, the stress conditions including different physics to get a better understanding of the numerical challenges and of the effects of varying these parameters on the simulation results. In Task 4 laboratory experimentation, a set of specialized drilling and injection tools has been customized and constructed to accommodate an inclined well with an orientation of up to 30 degrees relative to material anisotropy or principal stress axes. These inclined samples have also undergone thermal stress and hydraulic fracturing at a temperature of 190 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, both vertical and deviated sampling testing setups enable an extended analysis of post-peak pressure behaviors, facilitating post-test pressure analyses such as the G-function, step rate, and fracture reopening measurements. Thus, the key components of in-situ stress estimation can be extracted and validated through our experiment, providing a solid foundation for validating existing in-situ stress estimation theories or proposing new ones. Simultaneously, we are integrating computer vision techniques with traditional experimental fracture observation methods such as multi-overcore/slicing and water-penetration fracture observation. This combination will prove beneficial in populating the hydraulic fracture patterns database, generated under challenging EGS conditions. This approach aims to deepen our understanding of the complexities in EGS reservoirs and pave the way for future data-driven investigations. Additionally, PITT has also equipped the ELE International compression machine, which is now prepared for conducting indirect tensile and fracture toughness tests. These tests will aid in characterizing how rock fabrics influence the resulting fracture patterns. Additionally, we have completed the required personnel training and gained access to Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) for conducting more detailed characterization and analysis of rock fabrics, as well as the examination of thermal and hydraulically induced fracture patterns. Thus, the PITT team has effectively demonstrated the capabilities of our experimental apparatuses in exploring the thermal effects, well deviation angles, material anisotropy, and operational choices (such as circulation rate, injection fluid viscosity, and injection rate) and their impact on pressure responses and fracture trajectories under the Utah FORGE conditions.
As part of Task 1, we have started by testing our modeling capabilities by reproducing isothermal DFIT simulations presented in the literature. To start, we have been working towards adjusting numerical parameters to reproduce DFIT tests with different fracture geometries. Then, we have focused modeling the DFIT conducted at well 58-32 (cycle 4 in zone 2). Specifically, we have carefully analyzed the influence of the aperture-contact stress relationship and investigated how two different laws affect model results. We have also introduced thermal effects in the model and rerun the simulations to estimate the effect of cooling on the DFIT response. Due to the small amount of fluid injected during a DFIT, thermal effects seem to be moderate.
A coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) numerical workflow that is capable of modeling seismic slip is critical for the successful development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). By integrating key physical processes, this workflow enables accurate simulation of temperature and pressure diffusions, stress changes, and induced seismicity. As a result, it serves as a vital tool for predicting induced seismicity and optimizing reservoir stimulation strategies. The Utah FORGE (Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy) project, located near Milford, Utah, is a U.S. Department of Energy initiative aimed at advancing EGS technology. In April 2024, eight new stimulation stages (Stages 3R-10) were conducted in well 16A (injection well) subsequent to the first series of stimulation (Stages 1-3) performed in April, 2022. To monitor the induced seismicity, geophones were deployed in wells 58-32, 56-32, and 78B-32, while fiber optic cables were also installed in wells 16B, 78-32, and 78B-32 to collect microseismic data and detect frac hits Preliminary analyses of microseismic catalogs and fiber optic data suggest that the stimulated fractures in Stages 3R–6 closely align with that generated during Stage 3, indicating that the new stimulations were likely reactivating the previously stimulated fracture. To better understand the underlying process, a comprehensive modeling approach that can accurately capture thermal, hydrological, mechanical, and seismic responses is essential. In this work, we propose and utilize a coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical and earthquake (THM+E) simulation workflow to numerically investigate the stimulation activities on well 16A. The specific objective is to confirm whether the new stimulation stages (Stages 3R–6) reactivated fractures previously stimulated during Stage 3. For this purpose, we perform THM+E simulations individually for Stages 3, 3R, 4, and 5, incorporating the discrete fracture networks (DFNs) created by the plane-fitting technique based on the microseismic catalogs. The simulation workflow consists of two separate models: a THM model and an earthquake model, coupled in a one-way manner. Detailed descriptions of the workflow are provided in Section 3. Simulation results are presented in terms of injection pressure, permeability evolution, and predicted seismic catalogs, which are then compared with field data for further analyses. This report is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present detailed analyses of the field data and propose the hypothesis that the new stimulation stages (Stages 3R–6) were probably reactivating the previously stimulated fractures in Stage 3. In Section 3, we introduce the coupled THM+E workflow and the problem setup to validate our hypothesis, followed by the simulation results for each stage in Section 4. Meanwhile, discussions are included to analyze the model predictions and their comparison with field data. Lastly, we conclude the report and outline future plans in Section 5.
As part of Task 1, we have started by testing our modeling capabilities by reproducing isothermal DFIT simulations presented in the literature. To start, we have been working towards adjusting numerical parameters to reproduce DFIT tests with different fracture geometries. Then, we have focused modeling the DFIT conducted at well 58-32 (cycle 4 in zone 2). Specifically, we have carefully analyzed the influence of the aperture-contact stress relationship and investigated how two different laws affect model results.
This is the Phase 3 native state model update. The Phase 3 numerical model represents a significant subsurface volume below the FORGE site footprint. The model domain of 4.0 km x 4.0 km x 4.2 km is located approximately between depths of 4000 to 4200 meters below land surface. This data archive consists of 10 files, 4 of which are simulation input files and the remaining 6 are simulation output files. There is an included readme.txt file that contains details on each of the data files. The input files include meshes, FALCON code inputs, tabulated data of water properties, temperature values, and model boundaries. The output files include simulation outfiles and point data of modeled material properties.
This dataset includes reports and a slide presentation on discrete fracture network (DFN) generation and hydraulic fracture modeling at the Utah FORGE site. It details the characterization of natural fractures using well log and core data, as well as stochastic modeling techniques. The reports describe simulations of hydraulic fracture propagation, fluid-mechanical interactions, and induced microseismicity. The dataset also includes history-matching of net pressure and analyses of fracture growth in naturally fractured geothermal reservoirs. The slides summarize key findings and future research directions.