Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “drilling decisions”

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.

34 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

3D Play Fairway Analysis for Examining of Superhot Drilling Production Scenarios: Preprint

The DEEPEN (DE-risking Exploration for geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments) project was a multi-laboratory, international effort to reduce uncertainty and improve resource characterization in superhot geothermal systems. Building on this foundation, this work advances open-source tools designed to lower the exploration risk and cost of superhot geothermal projects while promoting transparency, reproducibility, and efficiency in exploration workflows. These tools are being tested at two key sites: (1) the Nesjavellir Geothermal Area in Iceland, where the Icelandic Deep Drilling Project (IDDP) will drill its third well, and (2) Newberry Volcano in Oregon, USA, where Mazama Energy will pilot the first superhot enhanced geothermal system (EGS). A major outcome is the creation of a modular, open-source Python framework for play fairway analysis (PFA) in 2D and 3D, called geoPFA. The PFA workflow has been expanded to produce pseudo conceptual models, and will soon be refined to assess reservoir components through integration with the thermo-hydraulic-mechanical-chemical (THMC) simulator TReactMech, to enable iterative coupling between PFA and THMC models, improving characterization of superhot systems. All three of the Icelandic Deep Drilling Project's production scenarios were analyzed via this framework: (1) a superhot deep injection well paired with conventional production wells at Nesjavellir, (2) a superhot deep production well at Nesjavellir, and (3) superhot enhanced geothermal system at Newberry Volcano. This analysis provides useful insights around conceptual modeling of these production scenarios, helping to inform decisions around which scenario is best suited for which types of environments.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Success Path Method: Introduction to the Success Path Method Software Tool©

As part of its commitment to advancing safety and reliability assessment methodologies, Argonne National Laboratory pioneered the use of an evaluation method called the Success Path Method (SPM) to improve risk management for offshore oil and gas operations. The development of the SPM at Argonne has been driven by the need to improve existing risk assessment methodologies by focusing on the steps necessary for success rather than failure modes alone. This is particularly important for industrial environments like offshore facilities that perform multiple functions under a continuously evolving set of operational conditions – such as water depth and temperature, currents, and weather conditions. In these dynamic environments, the traditional Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) approach is far too complex as it focuses on what can go wrong – which comprises an infinite failure space that must be fully explored and understood. By shifting the focus to a finite space of success paths, the SPM enables operators and decision makers to prioritize a manageable number of steps that must go right to ensure success. Building on its five decades of experience in safety assessments for the nuclear industry, Argonne made major adaptations to existing risk assessment methods utilizing features similar to fault trees that are traditionally used in PRA to map all pathways in which the system can malfunction. In contrast, SPM identifies the components and processes that must function correctly to achieve specific outcomes – such as preventing the uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons during drilling operations. The SPM framework integrates equipment, procedures, software, processes, and human actions to ensure that physical barriers meet critical safety functions in dynamic operational conditions. This approach helps identify failure modes and improve operational risk management by narrowing the focus to key success elements, which in turn reduces uncertainty and helps users understand, manage, and respond to failures.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Regulators’ Energy Transition Primer: Economic Impacts of the Energy Transition on Energy Communities, Environmental Justice Considerations, and Implications on Clean Energy Jobs

Applications of new technology, such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, enabled the United States to significantly increase its production of oil and natural gas during the last decade—the “Shale Gas Revolution.” As natural gas began to dominate the market with abundant supply and low prices, coal production and consumption have declined. Concurrently, the competitiveness of renewable energy and energy storage has climbed sharply, and analysts expect to see continued reductions in fossil fuel use in the coming decades. Many of these changes have been driven by market forces (i.e., low-cost natural gas and renewables), but current and future policy decisions aimed at tackling climate change concerns and reducing greenhouse gas emissions will also shape the future of the energy sector. This transition to low-carbon fuels has created both opportunities for clean energy technologies and challenges for communities traditionally dependent on fossil fuel-related industries. The power sector’s ongoing shift away from coal has left many coal miners and coal-fired power plant employees unemployed and often unprepared for jobs in other industries, including growing clean energy fields. This primer focuses on the declining coal industry, impacts on communities and workers, opportunities to transition workers who have lost their jobs to clean energy and other related sectors (including hydrogen-oriented jobs), recruitment and training strategies, and available programs and actions to make the shift to a low-carbon economy in a fair, just, and equitable manner by engaging the resources of federal and state governments, as well as the private sector.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2026

Increasing Power Generation at the Patua Nevada Geothermal Field through Targeted and Adaptive EGS

In 2020, Patua Acquisition Company LLC, submitted the proposal “Increasing Power Generation at the Patua Nevada Geothermal Field through Targeted and Adaptive EGS”, in response to the DOE’s Geothermal Wells of Opportunity Funding Opportunity Announcement. The primary goal of the project was to convert an idle well, Patua 16-29, to an active producer and generate at least an additional 5 MWe at the Patua plant. The project was intended to provide an example of a reproducible methodology for well stimulation in Enhanced Geothermal Systems The project was proposed to be performed in three phases over a period of performance of four years. A first project go/no-go decision was made at the end of Phase 1 based on feasibility of the wellbore, site, and ability to realize a 5 MWe benefit from the project. Several factors were recognized that led to a no-go decision at this phase: • Electrical needs for placing the stimulated well on production were not considered in the initial scoping. Costs of pipeline costs were also underestimated in the original cost share. Easements and rights-of-way to establish a geothermal pipeline underneath or across an interstate highway were also found to be intractable on the time scale of the project. • The plant is injection limited, and no design or cost estimate was in place to handle the additional production needed to realize a 5 Mwe benefit. A new injection well would need to be drilled in addition to the other facility improvements to bring in the stimulated well. Patau Acquisition Company attempted to locate additional wells of opportunity that could realize the SOPOs goals, but was unsuccessful. As a result, this project is being terminated at the end of Phase 1.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

FY21 Progress Report for Advanced Re fabrication/Re-instrumentation Capability Development

In support of performing follow on irradiation experiments with previously irradiated materials, the Halden Reactor Project developed unique and state of the art capabilities to refabricate and re-instrument previously irradiated materials. Such materials were used in in-pile tests at the Halden reactor, and out-of-pile tests for example using furnaces as a heat source. The decision to close the Halden Reactor Project results in the loss of this refabrication and reinstrumentation capability. As a result, the United States Department of Energy has determined to develop refabrication and re-instrumentation capability at the unique shielded facilities at Idaho National Laboratory. The development of refabrication capability has been completed and demonstrated. This report focuses on the complementary aspects of re-instrumentation and the progress to date. Halden spent nearly 30 years developing both refabrication and reinstrumentation. Collaboration with Halden is allowing INL to develop this capability much more rapidly. The results include development of the capability to drill annular center holes in ceramic UO2 fuel pellets, development of fuel rod end caps with feedthroughs for centerline instrumentation inside the rodlet, The procurement of both fuel drilling and welding demonstration equipment from Halden, evaluation of surface thermocouple attachments to support better understanding of temperature measurement uncertainties, and finally, the conceptual design of a new shielded enclosure where advanced refabrication and re-instrumentation equipment can be housed. The authors would like to thank the numerous colleagues at INL and Halden who provided support in accomplishing this work. Their support both material and intellectual is invaluable in advancing the state of the art and establishing the capabilities for refabrication and re-instrumentation at INL.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

FY2022 Progress Report for Advanced Re-fabrication/Re-instrumentation Capability Development

In support of performing follow-on irradiation experiments with previously irradiated materials, the Halden Reactor Project developed unique and state of the art capabilities to refabricate and re-instrument previously irradiated materials. Such materials were used in in-pile tests at the Halden reactor, and out-of-pile tests for example using furnaces as a heat source. The decision to close the Halden Reactor Project results in the loss of this refabrication and re-instrumentation capability. As a result, the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) has determined to develop refabrication and re-instrumentation capability at the unique shielded facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The development of refabrication capability has been completed and demonstrated. This report focuses on the complementary aspects of reinstrumentation and the progress to-date. Halden spent nearly 30 years developing both refabrication and re-instrumentation. Collaboration with Halden is allowing Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to develop this capability much more rapidly. In FY-21 the results include development of the capability to drill annular center holes in ceramic UO2 fuel pellets, development of fuel rod end caps with feedthroughs for centerline instrumentation inside the rodlet, The procurement of both fuel drilling and welding demonstration equipment from Halden, evaluation of surface thermocouple attachments to support better understanding of temperature measurement uncertainties, and finally, the conceptual design of a new shielded enclosure where advanced refabrication and re-instrumentation equipment can be housed. In FY-22, the results include; Completing set up of the drilling and welding modules procured from Halden, and early experimental trials using that equipment.; Completing set up of an out-of-cell circumferential weld system to allow for further weld development to take place and support fabrication of fuel for fresh fuel experiments.; Evaluation of the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF) infrastructure to support future installation of advanced re-fabrication/re-instrumentation equipment, specifically related to necessary infrastructure for cryo-drilling.; Developments in dry-drilling alternative. Including experimental studies showing cordierite is the most suitable surrogate for UO 2 for performing drilling studies. That drilling performance is enhanced when a fuel-clad bonding condition is simulated.; Conceptual design completed for attaching surface thermocouples to irradiated fuel in support of TWIST capsule experiments. The authors would like to thank the numerous colleagues at INL and Halden who provided support in accomplishing this work. Their support both material and intellectual is invaluable in advancing the state of the art and establishing the capabilities for refabrication and re-instrumentation at INL.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Value-of-Information Analysis of a Fracture Prediction Method

A core-based fracture prediction method is used to illustrate a Value of Information (VOI) decision-analysis protocol to inform completion decisions in tight-gas sandstones. The ratio of late host-rock cement to available pore volume or degradation index uses petrographic observations of cement distributions in core (including sidewall cores) to predict whether nearby but unsampled fractures (widths > 0.5 to 1 mm) are sealed (non-conductive) or open (conductive). Measurements from four sandstone plays suggest that the index correctly predicts open vs. sealed fractures with an accuracy in excess of 80%. The value added is calculated using Bayesian inference in which accuracy of the index serves as the likelihood of the prior distribution of open fractures to assess the posterior probability that data represent a useful predictor of producibility. VOI of the prediction method is more than three times the cost to acquire the data. VOI is most sensitive to play-specific geologic and cost parameters including cost to drill, expected revenue from a successful well, cost of completion, cost of acquiring data for the index, and fracture probability distributions. The approach provides a way to value acquiring fracture data and points to a need for zone-specific production data in tight-gas sandstones.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2022

The value of in-reservoir energy storage for flexible dispatch of geothermal power

Geothermal systems making use of advanced drilling and well stimulation techniques have the potential to provide tens to hundreds of gigawatts of clean electricity generation in the United States by 2050. With near-zero variable costs, geothermal plants have traditionally been envisioned as providing “baseload” power, generating at their maximum rated output at all times. However, as variable renewable energy sources (VREs) see greater deployment in energy markets, baseload power is becoming increasingly less competitive relative to flexible, dispatchable generation and energy storage. Herein we conduct an analysis of the potential for future geothermal plants to provide both of these services, taking advantage of the natural properties of confined, engineered geothermal reservoirs to store energy in the form of accumulated, pressurized geofluid and provide flexible load-following generation. We develop a linear optimization model based on multi-physics reservoir simulations that captures the transient pressure and flow behaviors within a confined, engineered geothermal reservoir. We then optimize the investment decisions and hourly operations of a power plant exploiting such a reservoir against a set of historical and modeled future electricity price series. Further, we find that operational flexibility and in-reservoir energy storage can significantly enhance the value of geothermal plants in markets with high VRE penetration, with energy value improvements of up to 60% relative to conventional baseload plants operating under identical conditions. Across a range of realistic subsurface and operational conditions, our modeling demonstrates that confined, engineered geothermal reservoirs can provide large and effectively free energy storage capacity, with round-trip storage efficiencies comparable to those of leading grid-scale energy storage technologies. Optimized operational strategies indicate that flexible geothermal plants can provide both short- and long-duration energy storage, prioritizing output during periods of high electricity prices. Sensitivity analysis assesses the variation in outcomes across a range of subsurface conditions and cost scenarios.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗
DOE OSTI2024

GeoThermalCloud: Cloud Fusion of Big Data and Multi-Physics Models using Machine Learning for Discovery, Exploration, and Development of Hidden Geothermal Resources

The primary goals of this project are exploring hidden geothermal resources in the U.S.A. and designing profitable enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Many processes and parameters control geothermal exploration and energy production from geothermal fields. Diverse datasets (e.g., geology, geochemistry, geophysics, satellite, airborne geophysics) are available to help characterize subsurface geothermal conditions. Sparse and multi-scale characteristics of these datasets prohibit properly leveraging these datasets for geothermal exploration and profitable EGS design. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) promise to resolve these issues. The tremendous challenges and risks of geothermal exploration and production bring the demand for novel ML methods and tools that can (1) analyze large field datasets, (2) assimilate model simulations (large inputs and outputs), (3) process sparse datasets, (4) perform transfer learning (between sites with different exploratory levels), (5) extract hidden geothermal signatures in the field and simulation data, (6) label geothermal resources and processes, (7) identify high-value data acquisition targets, and (8) guide geothermal exploration and production by selecting optimal exploration, production, and drilling strategies. To address these necessities, ML-based geothermal resources exploration and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) design tools have been developed. The exploration tool is called GeoThermalCloud and EGS design tool is called GeoDT-ML. GeoThermalCloud (https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl) utilizes a LANL unsupervised ML platform called SmartTensors (https://tensors.lanl.gov/) to automate data analyses and interpretations by extracting hidden signatures to identify geothermal prospects. Also, it enables the identification of critical measurements needed to identify geothermal resource signatures. Alternatively, GeoDT-ML (https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl/tree/master/EGS) is an ML-based alternative to GeoDT (https://github.com/GeoDesignTool/GeoDT.git), a fast, simplified multi-physics solver to evaluate EGS project designs in uncertain geologic systems. GeoDT-ML leverages recent advances in deep learning and high-performance computing. It is a faster and simpler version of GeoDT. To make this project a success, we used capabilities of LANL, PNNL, Google, Stanford, and Julia Computing. We analyzed eight datasets of the U.S.A. using GeothermalCloud and demonstrated potential highly prospective geothermal resources and identified key factors defining highly prospective sites. The first data set includes 44 locations in southwest New Mexico and 18 geological, hydrogeological, geophysical, geothermal, geochemical attributes. We defined low- and medium-temperature hydrothermal systems and discovered a new highly prospective site. The second data set analyzed 18 shallow water chemistry attributes at 14,342 locations in the Great Basin. It demarcated modestly, moderately, and highly prospective sites including key attributes for each type of prospectivity. The third data set analyzed Utah FORGE data including satellite (InSAR), geophysical (gravity, seismic), geochemical, and geothermal attributes. Here, we performed prospectivity analysis to identify future drilling locations using geological, geochemical, and geophysical attributes. Maps of temperature at depth and heat flow are constructed based on the available data. Prospectivity maps were generated, and drilling locations were proposed for future geothermal field exploration. The fourth data set analyzed 21 attributes at 120 locations in Tularosa Basin, New Mexico; data comes from past play fairway analyses in this region. ML analyses identified geothermal signatures associated with modestly, moderately, and highly hydrothermal systems. We also defined dominant attributes and spatial distribution of the geothermal signatures. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth datasets include Tohatchi Springs, New Mexico, Hawaii, Brady site, Nevada, and EGS Collab, respectively. Moreover, we coupled GeothermalCloud and magnetotellurics data to pinpoint drilling locations for developing geothermal projects in the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. GeothermalCloud found potential prospective locations for geothermal resources near White Sands Missile Range and McGregor Range at Fort Bliss. Magnetotellurics data determined the potential depth (~1800m) of geothermal prospects at McGregor Range based on apparent resistivity structures/layers in the subsurface. The McGregor Range consists of three resistivity layers and two resistivity structures. Magnetotellurics data also helps identify that the western portion of the McGregor Range has thick and low-resistivity earth materials. The low resistivity to the west is most likely for a fault system. Assuming temperature is consistent with a geothermal reservoir, the west-central part of the McGregor Range has the highest geothermal potential because of the increase in porosity and associated permeability attributed to the interpreted fault system. Also, we devised a coupling strategy between a process model and GeothermalCloud to characterize hydrogeological conditions and geothermal conditions, respectively. The process model characterizes hydrogeological and geothermal conditions on highly prospective geothermal sites provided by GeothermalCloud. We developed a physics-informed neural network (PINN) version of the Burns equation that can be easily coupled with GeothermalCloud. Furthermore, we performed an optimal design decision maximizing the economic value of an EGS power plant. This study optimized the range of well spacing between injection and production wells maximizing net present value in dollars (NPV). For this task, we used the GeoDT to simulate the Utah FORGE EGS development cycle from the initial well design to the end of production. Next, we accomplished another crucial task, which is predicting permeability of geothermal reservoirs. Predicting permeability of geothermal reservoirs is a non-trivial task because of huge computational runtime of simulation and lack of measurements. To avoid these limitations, we used easy-to-measure chemical concentrations in the subsurface as measurement data and convolutional neural network based ML model of a high-fidelity model. Next, we predicted permeability using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. We found that Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation predicts permeability with a high certainty if the prediction zone in the simulation area has chemical concentration data. Finally, we analyzed the DOE funded INGENIOUS and GeoDAWN projects data. For discovering hidden geothermal systems in the Great Basin, the INGENIOUS project accumulated old data, collected new data, and released them in 2022. The dataset includes a total of 24 geological, geophysical, and geochemical attributes. Data resolution and scale significantly vary prohibiting an appropriate usage. To avoid such limitations, we brought all data in the same resolution and scale by applying the inverse distance weighting interpolation technique for predicting data in unsampled locations. Subsequently, we analyzed LiDAR data of the GeoDAWN project. We received data in tiles format. The DOE’s overarching goal is to use ML on LiDAR data for finding favorable geological structures (e.g., step up faults in Brady, Nevada). To serve the purpose, we need to label favorable geologic structures that correspond to LiDAR data. We wrote an algorithm to label the LiDAR data with the favorable geologic structures.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Simple Data-Centric Methodology for Producible Geothermal Well Determinations: Preprint

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has traditionally lacked a standardized methodology for determining if a newly drilled geothermal well is "producible," a designation essential for deciding whether a lease should be "held by production." This is a straightforward problem to solve in oil and gas: Demonstrate that a well is economically viable, meaning it produces sufficient oil or gas to exceed direct operating costs and lease-related expenses, such as rentals or minimum royalties. In geothermal, the problem is more complex: Geothermal wells are tightly coupled with the downstream infrastructure - specifically, the power plant, which is often not designed until well after a lease is deemed as "held by production." Although this designation is critical for advancing geothermal power plant development on BLM-managed lands, current geothermal well assessments often rely on ad hoc approaches that can be complex, operator-biased, and heavy in assumptions related to economic viability. To address this, we have developed two complementary methodologies: a minimum power requirement-based approach and a productivity index (PI)-based approach. These methods leverage key flow test data - pressure, temperature, flow rate, and specific enthalpy - to provide reliable and standardized producible well determinations. The minimum power requirement-based approach evaluates wells against specific power output thresholds informed by reservoir experts and the associated temperature requirements. The PI-based approach assesses well productivity using widely accepted reservoir engineering metrics, proposing a threshold of 2.5 kg/s/bar. Both methods are data-driven and grounded in empirical production data from operational geothermal wells, avoiding uncertain economic assumptions while maintaining decision-making accuracy. Wells falling below key performance thresholds (i.e., PI, specific power) are deemed non-producible. These methodologies aim to streamline BLM's decision-making process, reduce nontechnical barriers to geothermal energy adoption, and enable regulatory expansion into states lacking geothermal expertise. Preliminary results indicate clear trends and thresholds in production data that provide actionable insights for evaluating well producibility. Validation using well completion report (WCR) data is ongoing, with promising results demonstrating the potential for these standardized methodologies to impact geothermal development significantly.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Multi-Sourced Collaboration for the Production and Refining of Rare Elements and Critical Metals (Final Technical Report)

The project objective was to develop a feasible and cost-effective method for recovering rare earth elements (REEs) and critical materials (CMs) from coal and coal byproducts, resulting in high-purity individually separated REEs and CMs. The targeted REEs included Y, Pr, Nd, Gd, Dy, and Sm, with a purity of over 99.5%, while the CMs included Co, Mn, Ga, Sr, Li, Ni, Zn, and Ge, with a purity of over 90%. The project aimed to design a prototype facility capable of producing 1-3 tonnes/day of high-purity REO mixes. The work was divided into four designated circuits: 1) REE extraction and concentration, 2) REE separation and purification, 3) RE metal production, and 4) CM production. To achieve these goals, the project involved 11 tasks, including technology reviews, research, process flow diagram development, mass balance estimation, and preliminary technical-economic analysis. The project team included researchers from the University of Kentucky, University of Alabama and Virginia Tech as well as process specialists from Argonne National Laboratory. MP Materials provided technical support regarding rare earth markets and processing while Alliance Coal performed resource assessment. The project included a market analysis for Nd/Pr, Tb, Dy, Gd, Y, Co, Mn, Li, Sr, Ga, Ni, Zn, and Ge. These analyses provided insights into the supply and demand trends as well as historic and future projections of market price relative to purity requirements for these elements. Two coal resources were selected for the project: the West Kentucky No. 13 (Baker) Seam and an undisclosed lignite resource in the Illinois coal basin. The estimated quantities of REEs in these resources were calculated based on production samples and drilling data. It was estimated that there is adequate supply for an operation producing one metric ton daily of higher purity mixed rare earth oxides (MREO) for approximately 20 years at a site located in western Kentucky. In Circuit 1, project data was obtained from a pilot heap leach and REE concentration facility. It was concluded that the existing circuit, which generated a MREO concentrate, two types of CM mixed products, and Li- and Sr-containing waters, would be suitable feed for circuits 2-4. Data from the first-of-its-kind coal coarse refuse heap leach pilot pad played a crucial role in estimating reliable elemental concentrations of the pregnant leaching solution (PLS). The average total REE concentration in the PLS was found to be 28.6 ppm. In Circuit 2, several concepts were explored including a novel process referred to as solvent-assisted chromatography (SAC). This concept involved a novel columnar reactor that incorporated multiple mixer/settlers, thereby enabling the operation of counter-flowing aqueous and organic phases. Unfortunately, due to project time constraints, a complete fundamental modeling analysis could not be completed to fully evaluate the technology. Molten salt electrowinning was considered as an alternative for circuit 3 following circuit 2 purification circuit utilizing the novel SAC process. A mass and energy balance of Nd reduction to metal in a fluoride containing molten salt electrolyte was conducted. Comparisons were made with the current state of Asian molten salt electrorefining, and potential improvements in siphoning rare earth metals (REM) from the reactor were presented. A cost estimate was performed for the production of 1 tonne per day, which yielded a total of $2.29 million for the nine electrowinning (EW) cells required. The selected option for circuits 2 and 3 was a plasma distillation process, which initially separates rare earth elements (REEs) from other elements. This is followed by selective electrowinning in various ionic liquids. The selection was made on the basis of thermodynamic modeling and experimental data previously published by a project partner. The combination offers an innovative approach to integrated refining and RE metal production. For Circuit 4, an extensive literature review was conducted for the processing of the CMs. The ultimate decision was to utilize a combined plasma and ionic liquid process as well to produce individual high-purity concentrates of Zn, Ni, Co, Mn, and Mg. A separate flowsheet for Li and Sr was recommended, which would yield carbonates of these elements. Due to the lack of suitable experimental data at this time, a process recommendation could not be provided but several methods have been proposed for consideration. Lastly, a techno-economic analysis (TEA) was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the proposed process for further investigation. The TEA results revealed a capital expense (CapEx) of $737 million and an annual operational expense (OpEx) of $220 million. Due to the selected elements, the hypothetical heap leach pad can produce 1 metric tonne per day of REO equivalent, but a conscious decision was made to only treat targeted REEs, resulting in the production of 0.4 metric tonne of REM. An estimated annual revenue of $90.87 million was projected based on standard market pricing information provided by the funding agency. During the TEA, ten different modules were evaluated for costing purposes. The precipitation circuit was identified as the largest single operational expense, followed by the Mg/Mn process due to the amount of treated metal. In terms of capital expenditures, the heap leach process incurred the highest cost, followed by the Mg/Mn process. The scalability of the plasma process is a crucial consideration since the reactors cannot be scaled beyond the largest demonstrated size due to their reliance on surface area of the slag and vapor phase. The purity estimate for the REEs are generally 98%±2% to produce a metal. The purity level being lower than the project objective was due to the lack of specific experimental data needed to tighten the tolerance of the estimates. Based on literature and previous experience, the CMs are estimated as follows; Ga (95%+, metal), Sr (95%+, carbonate), Li (95%+, carbonate), Ni (98%±2%, metal), Zn (95%+, metal sponge), Ge (95%+, metal), Co (98%±2%, metal), and Mn (98%±2%, metal).

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

Analysis and Integration of the Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site-2 (HFTS-2) Comprehensive Dataset

Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site-2 (HFTS-2) is a field-based research experiment performed in the Permian (Delaware) Basin. The unique aspect of this program was the acquisition of a unique, comprehensive, diagnostic dataset. Additionally, shorter parent wells drilled three years before the child wells offered clear distinction between the stages influenced by parent-child effects and the stages without any effects. The goal of this study was to analyze and integrate this comprehensive diagnostic dataset to understand the areal and vertical extent of hydraulic fractures (HF). The paper also provides insights on the effects of parent wells’ depletion on child well HF geometry based on various monitoring methods and subsurface models. Areal and vertical coverage for all HFTS-2 wells during stimulation and depletion was estimated based on analysis and interpretation of diagnostics and advanced modeling results. HFTS-2 diagnostics included microseismic (MS), pre- and post-stimulation logs and cores, bottomhole gauges, and fiber optic (FO) data. The diagnostics results (MS, FO, image logs) were integrated and used to calibrate subsurface models. Additional field tests were designed and implemented for depletion monitoring. The tailored program for monitoring depletion included vertical and slant well pressures, interference testing, and a vertical strain depletion trial. Areal Coverage: Conventional MS (and FO MS) were used to compute HF dimensions, which were compared with diagnostics (FO strain, gauge, image logs) observations and calibrated subsurface models. A post-production interference test did not show offset well communication. Vertical Coverage: Vertical coverage during stimulation was monitored using a vertical monitoring well. The stronger mechanical strain signals showed good correlation with MS event intensities, geomechanical properties, and gauge inferences. Vertical depletion was estimated based on vertical/slant well gauges and strain depletion tests. Parent-Child Effects: Diagnostics and calibrated subsurface models show asymmetry in child well fracture geometries for stages that overlap parent wells. Child well image logs serve as a good indicator for parent Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/21URTC/2-21URTC/D021S031R004/2477423/urtec-2021-5241-ms.pdf/1 by Carol Worster on 28 February 2022 URTeC 5241 well HF tracking. Child well MS events had an eastward bias, in line with pre-stimulation image logs, and was confirmed by parent well frac hits. Novel/Additive Information: The dataset presents a unique, over-constrained problem space to compare independent techniques to arrive at HF metrics (i.e., stimulation height and/or half-length), unlike a single source dataset, in which calibration is done using available data to guide predictions. Here, the asymmetry in HF geometry seen in the stages influenced by parent-child effects offers unique insights into well spacing and landing, which are key capital decisions the unconventional resources industry is seeking to optimize.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

North Dakota Integrated Carbon Storage Complex Feasibility Study. Final report

In spring 2017, the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) initiated an effort to determine the feasibility of developing a commercial-scale CO 2 geologic storage complex able to store 50+ million tonnes (Mt) of CO 2 in central North Dakota safely, permanently, and economically. The objective was to fulfill the goals of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative and address technical and nontechnical challenges specific to commercial-scale deployment of a CO2 storage project. The findings clearly show that the concept of capturing CO 2 from a lignite-fired electrical generation facility in central North Dakota and safely and permanently storing the CO 2 in the deep subsurface is indeed technically, economically, and socially feasible. This project evaluated two study areas and their respective geologic storage complexes located adjacent to separate coal-fired facilities in North Dakota: the Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC)-owned Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) and the Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota)-owned Milton R. Young Station (MRYS). These locations, one with CO 2 capture in place and an existing CO 2 pipeline, are bolstered by progressive North Dakota pore space ownership and long-term liability laws. These elements and a motivated team created an ideal synergistic scenario for ensuring success of the CarbonSAFE Initiative and promoting North Dakota’s statewide vision for carbon management. The project included drilling two new geologic characterization wells, integrating an existing 3-D seismic survey, creating a geologic model subsequently used for injection simulation, a risk assessment, public outreach, and generating a site development plan based on results. In addition, the performance of select National Risk Assessment Partnership tools was evaluated. The geologic characterization wells were drilled ~5600 feet deep to the Broom Creek Formation; ~350 feet of core was retrieved from each well. The core included the Broom Creek (targeted injection zone) and a portion of the overlying Opeche Shale (seal). The Flemmer-1 well, west of Beulah, North Dakota, yielded 169 feet of sandstone. The BNI-1 well located south of Center, North Dakota, yielded 124 feet of sandstone. In each case, laboratory analysis of the sandstone showed permeability in the 300–1000-mD range, with porosity of 20%–30%. The Flemmer-1 well was sited within the boundaries of an existing 3-D seismic survey. Colocating the well with the seismic survey maximized the relationship between new and legacy data and developed a first-of-its-kind interpretation of the geologic fabric of the Broom Creek. Geologic characterization data were integrated into a 5544-mi 2 geocellular model that encompassed both new wells and stratigraphy from the surface to the Amsden Formation (underlying the Broom Creek). The model was later expanded vertically to include the deeper Black Island–Deadwood interval to examine its potential viability as a storage target. The geocellular model provided the foundation for dynamic simulation of CO 2 into the Broom Creek. Results of the simulation suggest that the Broom Creek could accept the DOE target rate of 2 Mt/yr of CO 2 into as few as two wells. To bracket the expected capture from MRYS, simulations were also investigated for a 4-Mt/yr rate near MRYS. Although more wells are needed (two additional), the Broom Creek still has the storage resource to accept the CO 2 at the increased rate. A risk assessment exercise was conducted to identify and assess technical and nontechnical risks that could prevent potential candidate storage complexes within the study area from serving as commercial storage sites. The assessment identified and evaluated six technical risk categories: 1) CO 2 injectivity, 2) storage capacity, 3) lateral migration of CO 2 , 4) lateral pressure propagation, 5) vertical migration of CO 2 or formation brine, and 6) induced seismicity. Following two rounds of analysis and scoring, no risks were determined to preclude continued efforts to develop carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in central North Dakota. The risk assessment results will be used to guide future site characterization, modeling and simulation, and monitoring activities. A specific nontechnical strategic risk based on challenges that may be realized in amalgamation of pore space resulted in vertically expanding the geologic model to incorporate the potential for stacked storage in multiple saline reservoirs. By including the Black Island–Deadwood interval (the basal sedimentary reservoir in this region), the amalgamated areal extent could be reduced by as much as 45%. Working with a smaller geographic area reduces risks and costs associated with monitoring and pore space leasing. An economic evaluation incorporating capture; transport (<5 mi); Class VI wells; permitting; and monitoring, verification, and accounting suggests implementing commercial-scale CCUS is economically attractive if the federal tax benefits of 45Q are included. This is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of CO 2 capture and geologic storage at MRYS through its Project Tundra initiative, indicating that there is a business case for CCUS in central North Dakota. Currently, North Dakota is the only state with underground injection control (UIC) Class VI primacy. Built into the North Dakota Century Code is a series of regulatory requirements that guide the process to obtain a Class VI CO 2 storage facility permit. As part of this project, a site development plan was compiled to assure compliance with North Dakota’s requirements to permit a commercial-scale CO 2 storage operation and includes a prospective time line encompassing a general breakdown of activities. In total, an estimated 30 months would be needed to execute the necessary steps to attain a North Dakota CO 2 storage facility permit. Outreach was an integral part of the project and encompassed any project-related activity that had contact or exposure beyond the project team. The goals of outreach were to foster an environment from which stakeholders could make informed decisions about the project and gauge community receptiveness to a CCUS project. A consistent set of messages and outreach products were developed in conjunction with an outreach advisory board that integrated project partners and team members. To gauge public acceptability of geologically storing CO 2 , 5611 households in the project area were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey results indicate that the public attitude regarding CCUS is neutral to positive, with strong sentiment that CO 2 capture and storage may be an approach to maintain the economic vitality of the region. To achieve project objectives, critical support in the form of financial backing, engineering evaluations, site access, outreach collaboration, operations data, risk assessment/evaluation, and software access was provided by BEPC, the North Dakota Industrial Commission Lignite Research Council, ALLETE Clean Energy, BNI Energy, North American Coal Corporation, Minnkota, Prairie Public Broadcasting, Computer Modelling Group Ltd., and Schlumberger.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

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

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗