Multidimensional, experimental and modeling evaluation of permeability evolution, the Caney Shale Field Lab, OK, USA
Multidimensional, experimental and modeling evaluation of permeability evolution, the Caney Shale Field Lab, OK, USA
Katende, A.↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Subsurface geologic modeling”
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.
Numerical Simulations of Geologic Storage Reservoir Management to Support Risk Mitigation Evaluation
This report provides a detailed description of a set of numerical simulations that represent reservoir behavior over time in response to different operational decision scenarios for detection of potential leakage and reduction or avoidance of leakage impact at a hypothetical geological carbon storage (GCS) site. These simulations serve as the basis for a series of GCS leakage risk forecasts that are to be developed using the National Risk Assessment Partnership’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM), and a demonstration of a simple decision support workflow for evaluation of mitigation strategies based on results of those system model forecasts. This risk assessment and decision support study is forthcoming. Four injection scenarios were considered: a constant rate carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) injection case (base case), a case with CO 2 injection rate adjustment, a case with early termination of injection operations, and a case with brine extraction. CO 2 injection operations were controlled to ensure that the pressure transient remains below the defined manageable reservoir fracture pressure, with consideration shown to hypothetical locations within the modeled spatial domain where the overburden was weaker and lower transient pressure increases were allowable. Additionally, a brine extraction alternative was considered as a reservoir management and risk mitigation option to reduce reservoir pressure, steer the plume away from any hypothetical geohazard such as fault as needed, and enhance storage capacity. Such operational actions contribute to risk management overtime. This study explores the potential utility of reservoir management for risk reduction at GCS sites. This study shows that the injection design may modify the time to CO 2 breakthrough at a legacy well; in particular, these results show that brine extraction can add value for mitigating risk both by delaying leakage and reducing pressure build-up. For the scenario considered, both pressure plots and pressure distributions demonstrate that pressure build-up was decreased by 3% with brine extraction. Additionally, extraction of brine afforded enhancement of CO 2 storage capacity by 5% compared to the base case. These findings suggest that brine extraction has substantial potential to steer the risk-related reservoir effects away from known geohazards (e.g., faults and legacy wells) by conducting pressure transient effects and CO 2 plume movement toward the production well. Injection rate adjustment scenarios considered in this study show potential value for managing both reservoir pressure transients and CO 2 plume behavior. Operational actions for reducing injection and/or early termination of injection (as compared to the base case), however, require careful design; tailoring both the extent and timing of injection rate adjustment over the injection and post-injection operational period must be thoroughly planned to balance maximizing storage and minimizing subsurface environmental risk. The study also gives preliminary consideration to the effectiveness that monitoring strategy may play in providing useful information to inform reservoir management decisions for risk reduction. Two types of monitoring were considered: 1) pressure build-up or pressure transient; and 2) potential leakage detection from a CO 2 mass or plume. Four hypothetical legacy wells, two plugged and two abandoned, were placed in the model domain. Monitoring along these wells was measured over time in individual stacked reservoir formations and shale formations to support risk mitigation decisions, especially operational decisions that assisted in risk reduction. These simulations will serve as the basis for a series of GCS leakage risk forecasts that are to be developed using NRAP’s Open-IAM, and demonstration of a simple decision support workflow for comparative assessment of mitigation alternatives based on results of those system model forecasts. This risk assessment and decision support study is forthcoming.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Integrated Mid-Continent Stacked Carbon Storage Hub Project Phase II (Final Summary Report)
The Phase II Integrated Midcontinent Stacked Carbon Storage Hub (IMSCS-HUB) is part of the Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) established by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). CarbonSAFE is phased to support the development of commercial-scale (50 million metric tonnes [Mt] over a 30-year period) carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in the United States. The IMSCS-HUB study area comprises carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska (the source corridor), and CO 2 sinks in Kansas and Nebraska (the storage corridor), representing the first large-scale project for the Midcontinent region. The stacked storage corridor is characterized by alternating sequences of deep saline formations, oil-bearing reservoirs, shale, and evaporite units that are conducive to vertically stacked CO 2 injection for geologic storage and enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Three sites within the IMSCS-HUB stacked storage corridor were evaluated in Phase II for commercial CCUS feasibility: one in southwest-central Nebraska, Sleepy Hollow Field (SHF), a second in southwestern Nebraska near Madrid (Madrid), and a third in southwestern Kansas, the Patterson Site (composed of the Patterson, Heinitz, Hartland, and Oslo fields). In Phase II, the team assessed the feasibility of storage complexes at the potential storage sites in Nebraska and Kansas to support a commercial-scale storage hub that integrates proven CO 2 capture technology and transport from nearby ethanol sources. Building on lessons learned from the DOE-NETL Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs), the Project Team has identified a clear strategy to meet DOE’s 2025 objective of commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) implementation by developing a CO 2 market and infrastructure that relies on multiple ethanol-based CO 2 sources in the short term and the incorporation of multiple coal-fired power plant CO 2 sources when commercial capture is economically viable. The team also leveraged the updated 45Q tax credit to develop capture and transport infrastructure. Commercial-scale CCUS is feasible at two candidate storage sites studied, the Madrid, Nebraska Site and the Patterson Site in Kearny County, Kansas. The Sleepy Hollow Field in Nebraska was found to be an attractive candidate for stacked storage with CO 2 -EOR (Battelle 2020e). Outreach efforts facilitated engagement from industry, government, and research sectors (Battelle and GPI, 2020) and an outreach plan for future phases of the project was developed to address issues that are of concern in the IMSCS-HUB project area (Battelle, 2020f). All components of a CCUS project were determined to be feasible in the IMSCS-HUB region and Risk Mitigation Plan was developed and includes strategies to mitigate risks associated with each project component (Battelle, 2020j). A roadmap was developed to obtain the required UIC permits for an integrated CCUS project (Battelle, 2020k). The regional storage resource characterization demonstrated significant opportunity for commercial-scale projects in the IMSCS-HUB storage corridor with 577.4 Mt of stacked CO 2 storage capacity and the potential to produce 181.9 MMbbls of oil via EOR across 17 individual storage areas (Battelle and ARI, 2020). The pipeline assessment study found viable pipeline routes that connected 45Q-eligible ethanol plants, coal fired power plants, and other sources in the IMSCS-HUB corridor. The comprehensive results of subsurface characterization, modeling efforts, outreach assessment, and regulatory analysis from were integrated to develop a Detailed Commercial Development Plan for the IMSCS-HUB (Battelle, 2020n). Commercialization efforts will involve obtaining Class VI UIC permits, establishing and finalizing the pipeline route, and evaluating capture projects at participating CO 2 sources. Phases I and II of the IMSCS-HUB CarbonSAFE provide a strong foundation for safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively characterizing and permitting commercial-scale project sites in the region. The plan for implementation of commercial-scale CCUS projects in the IMSCS-HUB is aligned with the objectives of CarbonSAFE Phase III: Site Characterization and CO 2 Capture Assessment.
20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
Idaho National Laboratory Integrated Multisite SSHAC Level 3: Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Assessment
The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) resides on the eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP), part of the Snake River Plain (SRP) with a complex origin and geologic history of volcanism. Much of the Quaternary (last 2.58 million years) volcanism within 400 km of INL is genetically associated with a major thermal anomaly referred to as the Yellowstone hotspot, which is currently located more than 180 km northeast of INL. Near INL, local volcanic sources include silicic domes near its southern border, and numerous dike-fed basaltic vents of the ESRP, some of which are near or within the INL boundaries. Quantitative probabilistic assessments of screened-in volcanic hazardous phenomena for nine different facility complexes at the INL are presented for a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 (SL3) study. The comprehensive, integrated multisite SSHAC study consists of a single regional Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Assessment (PVHA) that pertains to all nine INL facility complexes, with site-specific information developed at each respective area of interest (AOI), referred to as the "INL facility AOI" (Figure ES-1). Hazard products are generated for specified INL facility AOIs for use by multiple stakeholders from different agencies in risk-informed decision-making regarding site selection, operations, and design of nuclear facilities at INL, consistent with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory guidance. The study also serves as the basis for future periodic safety assessments required for existing DOE facilities, such as 10-year evaluations of natural-phenomena hazards. Elements of the INL PVHA including initial characterization, screening, quantitative assessments of eruption and hazard potential, and consideration of facility needs are conducted using the three phases of the SSHAC process: evaluation, integration, and documentation. As per regulatory guidance, the SSHAC framework provided the necessary processes and procedures for the PVHA Technical Integration (TI) team, at three workshops, five formal working meetings and many TI team remote meetings, to conduct initial characterization, screen the volcanic hazards, create PVHA model inputs, exercise those models in the PVHA, consider facility-specific volcanic hazard needs, and perform final hazard calculations. The Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) provided independent oversight and performed process and technical reviews of the PVHA throughout its duration. The study included an extensive New Data Collection and Analyses (NDCA) program developed by the PVHA TI team to reduce uncertainties in hazard-significant elements in the PVHA model. NDCA activities generated 20 reports providing important contributory datasets and results to the project database for characterizing the ESRP. For example, a report compiling the dimensions of ESRP shield volcanoes and lava fields was used to construct volcanic footprints (areas of impact), was compared with data from INL subsurface cores, and was used to validate the results of lava-flow inundation modeling on the contemporary terrain. Another example is the acquisition of aeromagnetic data over INL and its surrounding area, with maps of buried magmatic features (e.g., subsurface volcanoes and swarms of feeder dikes) that informed the PVHA conceptual model of volcanism. The SSHAC evaluation process was used to conduct all elements of the PVHA including initial characterization and screening. Existing data and NDCA activities provided the foundation to develop the tectonomagmatic conceptual model of volcanism for the region of geographical interest in the SRP and Yellowstone hotspot volcanic system, and for considering volcanoes in the western US. Considering Quaternary volcanic sources active during this period, the screening approach identified and evaluated magma compositions, types of eruptive and intrusive phenomena, types of hazardous phenomena, and proximity of sources to INL. The PVHA TI team evaluated 18 types of magmatic sources in terms of 20 potentially hazardous phenomena, resulting in 360 screening decisions. The screening process resulted in 140 screened-in hazardous volcanic phenomena for Quaternary volcanic sources 1) proximal to INL facility complexes in the ESRP (64 basaltic and 54 silicic), 2) regional sources associated with the Yellowstone caldera system and Blackfoot Reservoir volcanic field (7), and 3) more distal sources from thirteen Cascade volcanoes and two volcanoes at Long Valley caldera (CA).
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
Managing Subsurface Pressure Buildup and Interference in Commercial-Scale CO 2 Storage Project with Proximal Injection Wells
Large-scale decarbonization using carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to involve many commercial-scale CO 2 storage projects located in close proximity to each other. This close proximity raises concerns over pressure interference among the storage projects. Pressure interference between injection and storage efforts can reduce the practicable CO 2 storage resource and force wells to inject CO 2 at a lower rate to avoid the fracture pressure thresholds per United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Class VI well regulations to preserve injection and confining zone integrity and potentially mitigate against inducing seismic activity. These analyses employ numerical full-physics reservoir modeling to evaluate how pressure buildup fronts and CO 2 plumes evolve under commercial-scale injection volumes of CO 2 in which multiple storage sites located in close proximity occur in tandem. The simulation models mimic injection at pseudo basin-scale and assume homogeneous saline formation(s) as storage targets with a pair of upper and lower homogeneous seal layer/s. These analyses specifically investigate the efficacy of two basin-wide reservoir pressure management strategies in addressing the technical challenges associated with pressure buildup and CO 2 plume commingling. The strategies explored include: 1) enlarging the area of injection well spacing (WS) and 2) storing CO 2 in a stacked sequence (SSS) of saline formations compared to a single formation. The storage and confining zones properties assumed were held common across the scenarios, unless specified otherwise. Analyses results show that after injecting 4 million tons per year for 30 years using 4 separate wells (each injecting 1 million metric tons per year), the radius of CO 2 plume extends to a mere 3 km or less from injection wells. Meanwhile, the radius of pressure buildup ranges on the order of tens to a few hundreds of kilometers, depending on the magnitude of pressure buildup threshold that one would use to define the front. CO 2 plume commingling from different injection wells appears to occur 50 years post-injection, especially under scenarios with narrowly spaced (i.e., < 5 km apart) injection well locations. Findings from sensitivity cases on the well spacing suggest that storage formations modeled would require different well spacing to avoid fracture pressure thresholds. For instance, modeled storage formations with high fracture gradients (i.e., 0.8 psi/ft) would need less than 5–km well spacing, whereas those with lower fracture gradients (i.e., 0.7 psi/ft) would need approximately 20–km well spacing, based on assumed modeling parameters. Under stacked injection, the pressure challenges (described above) still exist but are more alleviated due to distributing the same injection volume across more available reservoir volume. These analyses demonstrate that stacked-sequence storage can effectively address the challenges, while still providing the same target CO 2 storage volumes and allowing a large number of storage projects to be deployed in the same basin by better utilizing the available storage resource across different reservoir depths. Among cases modeled, the resulting pressure buildup front is most suppressed when each storage project distributes injection volumes over several wells, each of which injects a portion of the total CO 2 across the stacked sequence. This strategy results in the smallest CO 2 aerial footprint amongst scenarios evaluated but also shows the largest reduction in the pressure buildup at the top of perforation at the injection wells (upwards of approximately 42 percent compared to the commercial-scale single-formation storage), the result of which is crucial to maintain caprock integrity. The findings presented by this research draw attention to the importance of greater coordination among storage operators and regulatory stakeholders to foster the upscaling and deployment of CCS. These analyses provide insights into required decision-making when considering multi-project deployment in a shared basin. Because these analyses evaluate a very specific geologic situation, they bear further investigations across other geologic situations.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Striving to translate shale physics across ten orders of magnitude: What have we learned?
Shales will play an important role in the successful transition of energy from fossil-based resources to renewables in the coming decades. Aside from being a significant source of low-carbon intensity fuels, like natural gas, they also serve as geologic seals of subsurface formations that may be used to isolate nuclear waste, sequester CO 2 , or store intermittent energy (e.g., solar hydrogen). Despite their importance, shales pose significant engineering and environmental challenges due to their nanoporous structure and extreme heterogeneity that spans at least ~10 orders of magnitude in spatial scale. Two challenges inhibit a system-level understanding: (1) the physics of fluid flow and phase behavior in shales are poorly understood due to the dominant molecular interactions between minerals and fluids under confinement, and (2) the apparent lack of scale separation that prevents a reliable (closed) description of the physics at any single scale of observation. In this review, we focus on the latter issue and discuss scale translation, which in its broadest sense is transforming data or simulations from one spatiotemporal scale to another. While effective scale translation is not exclusive to shales, but all geologic porous media, the need for it is especially acute in shales given their high degree of heterogeneity. Classical theories like homogenization, while indispensable, fail when scales are not separated. Other methods, like numerical upscaling, scale-translate in only one direction: small to large, but not the reverse, called downscaling. However, the confluence of advances in three areas are bringing challenging problems such as shales within reach: increased computational power and scalable algorithms; high-resolution imaging and multi-modal data acquisition; and machine learning to process massive amounts of data. While these advances equip geoscientists with a wide array of experimental and computational tools, no individual tool can probe the entire gamut of heterogeneity in shales. Their effective use, therefore, requires an ability to bridge between various data types obtained at different scales. The aim of this review is to present a coherent account of computational and experimental methods that may be used to achieve just that, i.e., to perform scale translation. We provide a broader definition of scale translation, one that transcends classical homogenization and upscaling methods, but is consistent with them and accommodates notions like downscaling and data translation. After a brief introduction to homogenization, we review hybrid methods, numerical upscaling and its recent extensions, multiscale computing, high-resolution imaging, and machine learning. We place particular emphasis on multiscale computing and propose an algorithmic framework to bridge between the pore (micro) and Darcy (macro) scales. Throughout the paper, we draw comparisons between the various methods and highlight their (often hidden) similarities, differences, benefits, and pitfalls. We finally conclude with two case studies on shales that exemplify some of the methods presented.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
Location Identifiers, Metadata, and Map for Field Measurements at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory, Colorado, USA (Version 3.3)
This dataset contains identifiers, metadata, and a map of the locations where field measurements have been conducted at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. This is version 3.3 of the dataset and replaces the prior version 3.2 (see below for details on changes between the versions). Dataset description: The East River-Taylor Watershed is the primary field site of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Researchers from several institutions generate highly diverse hydrological, biogeochemical, climate, vegetation, geological, remote sensing, and model data at the East-Taylor Watershed in collaboration with the WFSFA. Thus, the purpose of this dataset is to maintain an inventory of the field locations and instrumentation to provide information on the field activities in the East-Taylor Watershed and coordinate data collected across different locations, researchers, and institutions. The dataset contains (1) a README file with information on the various files, (2) three csv files describing the metadata collected for each surface point location, plot and region registered with the WFSFA, (3) csv files with metadata and contact information for each surface point location registered with the WFSFA, (4) a csv file with with metadata and contact information for plots, (5) a csv file with metadata for geographic regions and sub-regions within the watershed, (6) a compiled xlsx file with all the data and metadata which can be opened in Microsoft Excel, (7) a kml map of the locations plotted in the watershed which can be opened in Google Earth, (8) a jpg image of the kml map which can be viewed in any photo viewer, and (9) a zipped file with the registration templates used by the SFA team to collect location metadata. The zipped template file contains two csv files with the blank templates (point and plot), two csv files with instructions for filling out the location templates, and one compiled xlsx file with the instructions and blank templates together. Additionally, the templates in the xlsx include drop down validation for any controlled metadata fields. Persistent location identifiers (Location_ID) are determined by the WFSFA data management team and are used to track data and samples across locations. Dataset uses: This location metadata is used to update the Watershed SFA’s publicly accessible Field Information Portal (an interactive field sampling metadata exploration tool; https://wfsfa-data.lbl.gov/watershed/), the kml map file included in this dataset, and other data management tools internal to the Watershed SFA team. Version Information: The latest version of this dataset publication is version 3.3. This version contains 167 new point locations, 1 new plot, and 2 new geographic regions. Overall, there are a total of 1439 point locations, 75 plots, and 54 geographic regions. Additionally, the kml map of locations and image now includes two boundaries (Upper Ohio Creek (UO) and Carbon Creek (CA)) outside of the East River watershed (USGS HUC-10) and accompanying stream network that represents areas of focus. Refer to methods for further details on the version history. This dataset will be updated on a periodic basis with new measurement location information. Researchers interested in having their East-Taylor Watershed measurement locations added to this list should reach out to the WFSFA data management team at wfsfa-data@googlegroups.com. Acknowledgments: Please cite this dataset if using any of the location metadata in other publications or derived products. If using the location metadata for the 2018 NEON hyperspectral campaign, additionally cite Chadwick et al. (2020). doi:10.15485/1618130. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.
2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗