Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “geothermal site detection”

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.

23 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Thermal Stimulation and Injectivity Testing at Raft River, ID EGS Site

The Raft River geothermal field is the site of an innovative Department of Energy Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) project to determine the viability of using combined thermal and hydraulic stimulation techniques to improve energy production. Well RRG-9 is currently undergoing a stimulation program using injectate from the US Geothermal Raft River Power Plant and cold water from a cooling tower make-up water well. The stimulation began on 13 June 2013 with injection from the power plant at a temperature of about 39 °C and a pressure of 275 psig. Next, two positive displacement plunger type pumps were used to increase the injection pressure and flow rate for about one month. The highest rate achieved was 258 gpm at a pressure of 741 psig. During this time, fluid from the cooler water well was injected for about 2 weeks at various pressures. Then, the pumps were removed and plant injection resumed on 25 September. Plant injection will continue until the spring of 2014, when a high pressure hydraulic stimulation will be conducted. A series of seismic monitoring stations deployed around the well are providing data on seismic events occurring at the site. Over the past year, 51 microseismic events have been recorded, all less than Magnitude 1. During injection, several diagnostic tests were conducted to gain a better understanding of the well and reservoir. A step-rate test was performed on 22 August to measure the in-situ stress and aid in modeling in-situ fractures. A tracer was injected into the well on 9 September. No tracer was detected in adjacent production wells after several months. A second borehole televiewer survey was conducted for comparison to pre-stimulation images. Here, a third borehole televiewer survey is planned after the high pressure stimulation. Injection test data is evaluated in real time. A modified Hall plot analysis indicates the effective permeability is increasing. The injectivity index supports the results of the modified Hall plot analysis. As the thermal stimulation has continued, the injectivity index has consistently followed an upward trend from 0.1 gpm/psi to 0.53 gpm/psi.

enhanced geothermal systems↗
DOE OSTI2021

Geothermal Play-Fairway Analysis of Washington State Prospects: Final Report

The Washington State Geothermal Play-Fairway Analysis overcomes the exploration challenges posed by dense vegetation, glacial deposits, and extreme precipitation. The geothermal play-fairways we target are locations where heat, permeability, and saturated porosity are present in sufficient volume to provide adequate heat exchange at depths accessible by modern drilling technology. The three study areas lie along the Cascade Range magmatic arc and are near Mount Baker, Mount St. Helens, and the Wind River Valley. The seven-year project is divided into three phases. In Phase 1 we build on a previous statewide assessment of geothermal resources and develop an initial modeling approach. The results are a series of favorability, uncertainty, and risk maps for three targeted study areas. Based on these initial results, we collect new geologic and geophysical data to further refine our modeling and reduce exploration uncertainty in Phase 2. We improve the modeling method to handle the new data and update the favorability, uncertainty, and risk maps. We also update the conceptual geothermal resource models. In Phase 3 we validate our modeling approach by drilling two temperature-gradient holes and collecting and analyzing core, image logs, and new geochemistry. Our modeling approach improves on an earlier statewide method through a more-rigorous and detailed assessment of heat and permeability. Permeability potential is assessed through geomechanical modeling of the deformation that can generate and maintain reservoir porosity and permeability. Metrics to inform heat potential include temperature-gradient wells, which are sparse in Washington; proximity of Quaternary volcanic vents and young intrusive rock; spring temperature; and reservoir temperature inferred from geothermometry. We weight the individual components using an expert-guided approach known as the Analytical Hierarchy Process. During Phase 2 we also develop a fluid-filled fracture model, and an infrastructure model that helps to delineate areas which are more favorable for geothermal development based on proximity to transmission lines, elevation, land ownership and use restrictions, and availability of process water. New geologic and geophysical data is collected during Phase 2 in each of our three main study areas. At Mount Baker and north of Mount St. Helens we conduct 1:24,000-scale geologic mapping and lidar analysis to better constrain the location and character of surface faults; detailed mapping in the Wind River Valley was completed just prior to the start of this project. Ages of intrusive rocks are determined with 40 Ar/ 39 Ar geochronology, though all of our samples are Miocene or older. We collect ground based gravity observations (a total of 1,580 new stations) in all of our study areas and ground-based magnetic lines (a total of 93 km) at Mount Baker. These data are combined with existing gravity and aeromagnetic data and used to constrain fault locations and geometry. Two to three cross sections are constructed at each study area using the mapped surface geology and forward-modeling of the gravity and magnetic data; these cross sections form the basis for our updated conceptual models. We collect magnetotelluric surveys at Mount Baker and Mount St. Helens and these data are inverted to form a resistivity model from the surface to about 10 km depth; each model shows conductive zones that can be interpreted as upwelling geothermal fluids. At Mount St. Helens we deploy a passive seismic array and use the newly detected events to refine the location of the Saint Helens seismic zone. We also employ ambient-noise tomography to develop a detailed seismic-velocity model for the study area and use this model to help constrain our cross sections and conceptual model. Based on the new data collected during Phase 2—and our updated models—we develop a campaign of temperature-gradient holes and core analysis to validate our modeling in Phase 3. Drill hole MB76-31 is located near Little Park Creek, 11 km west-southwest of the summit of Mount Baker, and is 1,471 ft deep. About 410 ft of core from the lower portion of the hole—and image logs from ~175 ft below ground surface to the bottom—are collected and analyzed. Water samples are collected and processed for geothermometry. Drill hole MSH17-24 is located along upper Schultz Creek, 16 km north-northeast of Mount St. Helens and has core from 470 ft to the bottom at 1,053 ft. We did not collect image logs due to borehole stability concerns, but water samples are collected and analyzed for geothermometry. Repeat temperature-gradient measurements are made at both sites and thermal conductivity is measured from core samples. At MB76-31, the equilibrated temperature gradient of 64°C/km and calculated heat flow of 141–159 mW/m 2 is more than twice the regional average. Detailed mapping and analysis of the core, coupled with correlation to the image logs, indicates a history of permeability generation consistent with our predictions of high permeability. Because the site has high favorability in the Phase 2 model, we consider the results a positive validation of the modeling. At site MSH17-24, the equilibrated temperature gradient of ~15°C/km and calculated heat flow of 41–43 mW/m 2 are similar to regional. Geochemical analysis of the water samples indicates a meteoric source without any geothermal component. Detailed outcrop-based mapping of fault exposures near the drill site and analysis of image logs from nearby boreholes indicates a history of permeability generation consistent with our predictions. Because the site has low favorability in the Phase 2 model, we consider the results a positive validation of the modeling. Together, the two sites provide a reasonably positive validation of the Phase 2 modeling and should encourage future use of this modeling approach.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2015

Clays and Carbonates in a Groundwater-Fed 3.8 Ga Martian Lake: Insights to Subsurface Habitability on Mars

On Earth, the deep biosphere remains a largely unexplored, but clearly important carbon reservoir. Results from some uplifted central peaks in craters on Mars indicate that substantial carbon was also present at depth and might have helped sustain a deep biosphere. In fact, many factors relevant to deep biosphere habitability are more favorable on Mars than on Earth (e.g. porosity of the crust, geothermal gradient). Future exploration of Mars should include landing sites where materials have been exhumed from depth by meteor impact or basins where subsurface fluids have emerged, carrying clues to subsurface habitability. One of the most astrobiologically interesting sites on Mars McLaughlin Crater, a 93 km-diameter impact crater that formed approximately 4 b.y. ago. On the floor of the crater is a stratigraphic section of subhorizontal, layered sedimentary rocks with strong spectroscopic evidence for Fe-rich clay minerals and Mg-rich carbonates, which we interpret as ancient lacustrine deposits. The fluids that formed these materials likely originated in the subsurface, based on the paucity of channels leading into the crater basin and the fact that this is one of the deepest basins on Mars - a good candidate to have experienced upwelling of subsurface fluids. Therefore, the deposits within McLaughlin crater provide insight into subsurface processes on Mars. In this presentation, we will discuss the habitability of the martian subsurface as well as the geology of McLaughlin Crater and the possibility to detect biomarkers at that site with a future landed mission.

Michalski, Joseph↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗
DOE OSTI2026

Seismic Elastic Double-Beam Characterization of Faults and Fractures for CO₂ Storage Site Selection

Site characterization for underground injection and storage of gigatonne-scale CO₂ requires reliable and cost-effective methods to detect and characterize faults and fractures and to assess their stress state and fault activation potential. This is critical, as wastewater injection and disposal have been shown to activate faults and induce earthquakes, and CO₂ leakage remains a key concern for long-term storage. In this project, we developed seismic methods to detect and characterize large-scale sedimentary and crystalline basement faults and associated small-scale fractures below conventional seismic imaging resolution using multicomponent (9C) surface seismic data. Machine learning was used to automatically interpret large-scale faults, providing key information for estimating the maximum magnitude of potential induced earthquakes. High-fidelity imaging was achieved by exploiting redundancy across multiple elastic wave modes, where independent images from different modes and frequencies cross-validate each other. We also used our nonlinear signal comparison (NLSC) method for ground roll removal, improving data quality in complex near-surface conditions. The methods were validated using field data acquired in central Montana. Results show that basement faults extend into the sedimentary section and that small-scale fractures are widespread above the basement. The inferred stress orientation is consistent with regional stress data, and the estimated maximum induced earthquake magnitude is small (Mw ~2.3). The developed workflow provides a practical approach for fault and fracture characterization and for assessing induced seismicity and leakage risk. It is directly applicable to CO₂ storage site selection and to other subsurface systems.

02 PETROLEUM↗