Results for “78-32” — Page 2

DOE OSTI2023

Utah FORGE: Neubrex Well 16B(78)-32 Circulation Test Fiber Optics Monitoring Data and Reports - July, 2023

This dataset features Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) and fiber optics monitoring data acquired by Neubrex Energy Services during the Utah FORGE Well 16B(78)-32 circulation test in July 2023. DAS and fiber optic monitoring data include absolute strain, strain change, strain change rate, distributed temperature sensing (DTS), and frequency band extraction (FBE). Data processing was completed between September and October 2023. The dataset includes the fiber optic sensing data collected during these operations, along with a data collection report, descriptions of the data, and instructions for reading the data files.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Updated FMI Fracture Log from Well 16A(78)-32

This dataset consists of an Excel spreadsheet detailing the fracture picks from a reinterpretation of the formation micro-imaging (FMI) log from Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32. The provided information details fracture location, geometry, and type. Also included here is a link to the original raw and processed FMI logs, as well as other data from the 2021 well logging.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Well 16B(78)-32 Pressure-Temperature Logs March - April 2024

This dataset consists of Baker Hughes Pressure-Temperature gauge readings on fiber optics in Utah FORGE Well 16B(78)-32. This gauge is at a measured depth of 7,056.67 feet. The true vertical depth can be determined from the well survey data, which is linked below. The data consists of time series pressure-temperature data and plots from March 26th - April 20th 2024.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Daily Reports for the 2024 Stimulation of Wells 16A/16B(78)-32

The zip file below contains daily reports produced during the spring 2024 stimulation of wells 16A/16B(78)-32 at Utah FORGE . These reports cover a period from March 29th to April 28th, 2024. They discuss the activity on the rig each day, with each report containing information on general operations, management, safety, and weather.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Neubrex Well 16B(78)-32 Fiber Optics Reports - Stimulation and Circulation, 2024

This zip file contains reports discussing the use of fiber optics during well 16B(78)-32 stimulation and circulation tests in the summer of 2024. The reports cover the collection of strain rate and temperature change data during these well events. Theory, methods, and initial data visualizations are included in the reports, highlighting the value of these data types.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Well 16A(78)-32 Perforation Images and Raw Data

This archive contains raw data of visual and acoustic mapping of perforations in Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32 acquired during the August 2024 circulation program. The dataset includes downhole images captured by EV, a downhole visual analytics company, providing visual records of each perforation. Images are organized in two folders: one set with perforation visualization overlays and one without. An included Excel spreadsheet provides the organized raw data.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Well 16B(78)-32 DTS, RFS DSS Strain, and Absolute Strain Circulation Test Fiber Optic Data - August 2024

This dataset contains processed fiber optic measurements collected during the extended cross-well circulation test at the Utah FORGE site in August 2024. The data was acquired from the 16B(78)-32 well using distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) technology, including distributed temperature sensing (DTS) on multimode fiber and distributed strain sensing (DSS) measurements on single-mode fiber. The dataset includes Brillouin absolute strain, Rayleigh frequency shift (RFS) DSS strain change, RFS DSS strain change rate, and temperature (DTS) data, all stored in HDF5 format. Time coordinates are provided in UTC, and depth measurements are given in measured depth relative to the rotary kelly bushing (MD RKB) in feet. The spatial sampling on the RFS DSS strain data and the Brillouin Absolute Total Strain data is 20 cm and the spatial sampling on the DTS data is 1m. The dataset is accompanied by a report from Neubrex, which provides further documentation.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Injection and Production Test results and Reports from August 2024

This dataset includes results and reports from the injection/production test for wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 in August, 2024 at Utah FORGE. Materials include injection, post stimulation production, flow rate, gamma, temperature and pressure survey results. For the respective wells, injection and production profile results and interpretations are provided in .xlsx and .las file formats. Additionally, for both wells, preliminary and final reports are included and provide logging procedures and visualizations of the results.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Fiber Optic Cumulative Strain Change and Strain Change Rate Data From Well 16A Stimulation at Well 16B

This dataset includes Rayleigh Frequency Shift (RFS) Distributed Strain Sensing (DSS) cumulative strain change and change rate data. The data was acquired during the stimulation of Utah FORGE Well 16A(78)-32 in April 2024 via fiber installed in Well 16B(78)-32. The fiber optic data was acquired using Neubrex SR7000 RFS DSS Distributed Strain sensing instruments and is saved here in the format of HDF5 files (.h5 extension). The spatial sampling on the full wellbore profiles is 0.20 centimeters. The data is the far field strain change response from a baseline profile made down the 16B well on April 3, 2024, so each strain value represents the strain change or strain change rate at each depth relative to the baseline reference profile. The data arrays for each type share the same dimensions (number of channels and time stamps).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Utah FORGE: EGS Reservoir Produced Fluids Geochemistry 2022-2024

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.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Analysis of Rig Parameter Data Using Drilling Process Modeling Constraints, Volume 4: Utah FORGE Well 78B-32

Drill rig parameter measurements are routinely used during deep well construction to monitor and guide drilling conditions for improved performance and reduced costs. While insightful into the drilling process, these measurements are of reduced value without a standard to aid in data evaluation and decision making. In the main body of this work (Volume 1), a method is demonstrated whereby rock reduction model constraints are used to interpret drilling response parameters; the method could be applied in real-time to improve decision-making in the field and to further discern technology performance during post-drilling evaluations. Drilling parameters are evaluated using laboratory-validated rock reduction models for predicting the phenomenological response of drag bits (Detournay and Defourny, 1992) in computational algorithms. The method presented has applicability to development of advanced analytics on future geothermal wells using real-time electronic data recording for improved performance and reduced drilling costs. A drilling cost model is also used to show the tradeoff between rate of penetration and bit life and the influence on interval drilling costs. Details of the bit specifications and performance are cataloged in an independent volume, documented under separate cover, for each of the four wells, and include Volume 2: Utah FORGE 16A(78)-32; Volume 3: Utah FORGE 56-32; Volume 4: Utah FORGE 78B-32 and Volume 5: Utah FORGE 16B(78)-32.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Analysis of Rig Parameter Data Using Drilling Process Modeling Constraints, Volume 3: Utah FORGE Well 56-32

Drill rig parameter measurements are routinely used during deep well construction to monitor and guide drilling conditions for improved performance and reduced costs. While insightful into the drilling process, these measurements are of reduced value without a standard to aid in data evaluation and decision making. In the main body of this work (Volume 1), a method is demonstrated whereby rock reduction model constraints are used to interpret drilling response parameters; the method could be applied in real-time to improve decision-making in the field and to further discern technology performance during post-drilling evaluations. Drilling parameters are evaluated using laboratory-validated rock reduction models for predicting the phenomenological response of drag bits (Detournay and Defourny, 1992) in computational algorithms. The method presented has applicability to development of advanced analytics on future geothermal wells using real-time electronic data recording for improved performance and reduced drilling costs. A drilling cost model is also used to show the tradeoff between rate of penetration and bit life and the influence on interval drilling costs. Details of the bit specifications and performance are cataloged in an independent volume, documented under separate cover, for each of the four wells, and include Volume 2: Utah FORGE 16A(78)-32; Volume 3: Utah FORGE 56-32; Volume 4: Utah FORGE 78B-32 and Volume 5: Utah FORGE 16B(78)-32.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Numerically Testing Conceptual Models of the Utah FORGE Reservoir Using July 2023 Circulation Test Data

Over the past several years, many new data sets have become available regarding the characterization of the Utah FORGE reservoir. These include, but are not limited to, the stimulation of Well 16A, the drilling and completion of Well 16B, and interwell circulation confirmatory testing. As part of the characterization efforts, conceptual models of the reservoir are re-examined as new data become available. As part of the planning for FORGE activities, numerical models are often used to predict the reservoir response to the planned testing. Stochastic methods are often employed to bound uncertainty and allow for evaluation of comprehensive ranges of key reservoir parameters. For the most recent interwell circulation confirmatory testing (July 2023), a priori numerical model predictions did bound the observed behavior (Xinj et al., 2023), but key deviations from expected behavior prompted the FORGE team to reevaluate our conceptual model of the reservoir. In early October 2023, key members of the development, testing, and monitoring teams met for 2 days to review newly collected data and discuss ‘interesting’ or ‘key’ observations. From these discussions, 15 Key Observations were documented, with several significant ones being that the discrete fracture network developed from the 16A stimulation data may not be appropriate and that the early time pressure data obtained during the summer 2023 reservoir testing were best described using radial solutions. In July 2023, two campaigns of interwell confirmatory testing were conducted, the first set of tests occurred on July 4-5 and the second set on July 18-19. The second set of circulation tests conducted at the Utah FORGE site between the injection well 16A(78)-32 and production well 16B(78)-32 on July 18 and 19, 2023 are used to calibrate material properties in a thermal-hydraulic-mechanical (THM) simulation of the discrete fracture network connecting the wells. The spatially and temporally varying reservoir properties are calibrated to match the time dependent pressure and production profiles from the circulation tests. In future work, this calibrated model will be coupled to the native state THM model of the FORGE reservoir to predict surface deformation and strains resulting from pumping schedules.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Numerically Testing Conceptual Models of the Utah FORGE Reservoir Using July 2024 Circulation Test Data

Over the past several years, many new data sets have become available regarding the characterization of the Utah FORGE reservoir. These include, but are not limited to, the stimulation of Well 16A, the drilling and completion of Well 16B, and interwell circulation confirmatory testing. As part of the characterization efforts, conceptual models of the reservoir are re-examined as new data become available. As part of the planning for FORGE activities, numerical models are often used to predict the reservoir response to the planned testing. Stochastic methods are often employed to bound uncertainty and allow for evaluation of comprehensive ranges of key reservoir parameters. For the most recent interwell circulation confirmatory testing (July 2023), a priori numerical model predictions did bound the observed behavior (Xinj et al., 2023), but key deviations from expected behavior prompted the FORGE team to reevaluate our conceptual model of the reservoir. In early October 2023, key members of the development, testing, and monitoring teams met for 2 days to review newly collected data and discuss ‘interesting’ or ‘key’ observations. From these discussions, 15 Key Observations were documented, with several significant ones being that the discrete fracture network developed from the 16A stimulation data may not be appropriate and that the early time pressure data obtained during the summer 2023 reservoir testing were best described using radial solutions. In July 2023, two campaigns of interwell confirmatory testing were conducted, the first set of tests occurred on July 4-5 and the second set on July 18-19. The second set of circulation tests conducted at the Utah FORGE site between the injection well 16A(78)-32 and production well 16B(78)-32 on July 18 and 19, 2023 are used to calibrate material properties in a thermal-hydraulic-mechanical (THM) simulation of the discrete fracture network connecting the wells. The spatially and temporally varying reservoir properties are calibrated to match the time dependent pressure and production profiles from the circulation tests. In future work, this calibrated model will be coupled to the native state THM model of the FORGE reservoir to predict surface deformation and strains resulting from pumping schedules.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Utah FORGE: LBNL Reports on VEMP Electromagnetic Data Collection and Processing - 2024

This archive contains reports related to Vertical Electromagnetic Profiling (VEMP) tool data collection and processing at Utah FORGE in 2024. The first report describes LBNL's effort to collect electromagnetic geophysical data with the tool in well 78-32B and a downhole electrode in well 16A. The second report describes the final data acquisition and processing of the VEMP electromagnetic data collected at the Utah FORGE site in May of 2024. Also included are a noise analysis as well as a comparison of the data to numerical models. This was originally presented as a paper at the 2025 Stanford Geothermal Workshop.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2026

Integration of the Biot–Gassmann Fluid Substitution Method and Machine Learning-Based Velocity–Stress Relationship for Estimating In Situ Stresses

Recent advancements have shown that in situ stresses can be reliably estimated through an integrated machine/deep learning (ML/DL)-based framework, which relies on models trained and validated using true triaxial ultrasonic velocity (TUV) experimental data that involve measurements of ultrasonic velocity in saturated rocks under varying stress configurations. However, when the goal is to interpret lower frequency measurements, it may be more appropriate to run experiments on dry rocks and then obtain Biot–Gassmann-derived equivalent saturated velocities (low-frequency approximation) and employ these quantities for training ML/DL models to predict in situ stress. Whether the dispersion effect of frequency on the velocity–stress relationship substantially impacts in situ stress prediction is an important and unresolved question. This work presents an enhancement of ML/DL-based workflow by training and implementing ML/DL models using equivalent saturated acoustic velocities (low-frequency) obtained by applying Biot–Gassmann fluid substitution on the ultrasonic velocities of dry cores. The models were trained on TUV data sets derived from three subsurface cores extracted from the geothermal well 16B(78)-32 at the Utah FORGE site. Each core was subjected to 75 unique stress configurations for velocity measurement in the dry state. The ML/DL trained on the TUV data set with equivalent saturated velocities demonstrated promising performance to predict in situ stress in subsurface geological rocks using velocity–stress relationships with R 2 of 0.86, 0.971, and 0.975 and root mean squared error (RMSE) of 2.59, 1.92, and 1.80 for validation/testing phases of vertical, minimum horizontal, and maximum horizontal stress models, respectively. Additionally, interpretation and explanation by Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) analysis further improved scientific validation and model reliability for estimating in situ stresses.

colloids↗

DOE OSTI2025

Utah FORGE: Triaxial Direct Shear Results - February 2025

This dataset contains results from nine triaxial direct shear tests conducted by Los Alamos National Laboratory on samples from FORGE Well 16A(78)-32. The primary objectives of this work were to determine the shear strength in both intact and residual states, evaluate dilation against displacement, assess permeability in relation to displacement, time, and normal stress, understand the relationship between aperture and normal stress, and monitor the effluent chemistry as a function of time. The data includes time-series measurements of stress, displacement, permeability, and effluent chemistry, with and without experimental dilution corrections. Additional materials include profilometry data, photographic documentation of the experimental setups and apparatus, and test notes. The dataset is organized into folders corresponding to each test, containing hydromechanical data, effluent chemistry measurements, and images. The hydromechanical data consists of detailed time-series records capturing parameters such as shear force, confining pressure, permeability, and temperature. Effluent chemistry data tracks fluid composition changes over time. Also included are conference papers, presentation slides, and a summary document outlining the experiments.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Prediction and Analysis of Utah FORGE Injection Activities using a Coupled Thermo-hydro-mechanical and Earthquake (THM+E) Modeling Workflow

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.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗