Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “geologic”

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.

At least 577 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

MRCI Subtask 2.1: Defining Sub-Regional Carbon Storage Systems Final Technical Summary Report

In order to assess the regional and subregional geologic framework of the MRCI area and expand carbon dioxide (CO2) storage characterization efforts in this larger region, the current state of geologic knowledge relative to carbon storage (CS) has been summarized by compiling available geologic data and interpretive results into a centralized resource under Subtask 2.1. The MRCI region is a large area, which includes (1) part of the Forest City Basin and Western Arches, (2) Illinois Basin, (3) Upper Mississippi Embayment, (4) Michigan Basin, (5) Central Arches, (6) Appalachian Basin, and (7) Atlantic Coastal Plain and West Atlantic basins. Basins and arches are subdivided into areas of similar geology based on geologic structures and state-specific stratigraphic nomenclature. A concerted effort was made to present the current understanding of rock-unit stratigraphy in the subsurface of each basin and arch region (and subdivisions therein). Rock units are characterized based on their relative CS potential (saline reservoirs, confining intervals, etc.) within CS systems. CS systems are defined by regional confining units (usually thick, widespread shales), and contain all reservoirs and strata between the regional confining units. Report Authors – Steve Greb and Tom Sparks (Kentucky Geological Survey), Mark Kelley, Sanjay Mawalkar, John Hershberger, Priya Ravi Ganesh, Derrick James, and Stuart Skopec (Battelle), Charles Bopp, Yaghoob Lasemi and Hannes Leetaru (deceased) (Illinois State Geological Survey), Kristin Carter (Pennsylvania Geological Survey), William Harrison (Michigan Geological Repository for Research and Education – Michigan Geological Survey), Susan Pool (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey), James McDonald (Ohio Geological Survey), John Schmelz (Rutgers University), Ryan Clark (Iowa Geological Survey). Other Technical Contributors – Seth Carpenter and John Hickman (Kentucky Geological Survey), Jessica Moore, Eric Lewis, Philip Dinterman, Timothy Vance, and Gary Daft (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey), Michele Cooney, Robin Anthony, Cheyenne Woodward, and Katherine Schmid (Pennsylvania Geological Survey), Autumn Haagsma and Amber Conner (Michigan Geological Repository for Research and Education – Michigan Geological Survey), Kenneth Miller (Rutgers University), Ashley Douds and Valerie Beckham-Feller (Indiana Geological & Water Survey), Michael Solis (Ohio Geological Survey).

Appalachian,Arches,Forest City,Illinois,MRCI,Michi↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluating Probability of Containment Effectiveness at a GCS Sites using integrated assessment modeling approach with Bayesian decision Networks

Improved scientific and engineering understanding of the behavior of geologic CO2 storage together with established regulatory framework and incentive structures raise the prospects for accelerated, large-scale deployment of this greenhouse gas emissions reduction approach. Incentive structures call for the establishment of appropriate verification and accounting approaches to support claims of the integrity of a geologic storage complex and to justify taking credit for long-term storage. In this study, we present a framework for assessing the probability of containment effectiveness over the lifetime of a geologic carbon storage site (e.g., after 70 years of injection and post-injection site performance) using forward stochastic model realizations based on site characterization data and using a monitoring-informed Bayesian network based on hypothetical detectability from surface seismic surveys over the site injection and post-injection phases. The National Risk Assessment Partnership’s open-source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) was utilized to develop an ensemble of 10,000 a priori stochastic forecasts of CO2 containment. Those simulations were used to train the Bayesian network model to estimate the prior probabilities of the CO2 leakage mass into overlying, monitorable aquifers considering the uncertainties in the reservoir properties, permeability of potentially leaky wells and the overlying aquifers. The conditional probabilities in the Bayesian network were either learned from the NRAP-Open-IAM simulations or derived from the predefined detection thresholds for the monitoring method. Observations obtained from monitoring, over time during the site operation phases were then used to generate updated posterior probabilities of containment (and any loss from containment) in the Bayesian network by propagating the prior probabilities through the conditional probabilities. We demonstrate how to construct and use the Bayesian network for verifying the long-term storage complex effectiveness informed by monitoring based on the NRAP-Open-IAM simulations previously developed for the FutureGen 2.0 site. This approach may have relevance for stake holders to demonstrate secure geologic storage, provide a defensible, probabilistic approach to claim credit for geologic storage, and to estimate the likelihood that any fraction of the claimed credit may need to be refunded to the creditor based on available monitoring information.

Bayesian network, Risk assessment, Monitoring, car↗
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 OSTI2025

Geoanalytical Evaluation of Saline Storage (GEESS) Geodatabase v2.0

The Geoanalytical Economic Evaluation of Saline Storage (GEESS) geodatabase was developed to support the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in their geologic carbon storage efforts by characterizing saline geologic formations present in the FECM/NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model (CO2_S_COM) [1]. Using publicly available literature and data, the GEESS geodatabase characterizes 57 geologic formations across the lower-48 U.S. states in what are called Fully Integrated Geodatabases (FIGs). The FIG is a vector polygon feature containing thousands or tens of thousands of individual polygons, which each contain discrete geologic parameter values. A list of the critical geologic parameters that are characterized in the GEESS geodatabase are described in the “Processing Steps and Workflow” part of the ReadMe file, as well as the Data Catalog accompanying the GEESS geodatabase. The FIG is the basis of the GEESS geodatabase and is the direct representation of the collected geologic data. In addition to the FIG, the GEESS system contains grid files. Due to the complexity of the FIGs, grids are used to sample the geologic data so they can be exercised within CO2_S_COM. The grid files contain the geologic data sampled from the FIG, as well as estimates of “Plume Uncertainty Diameter” and “First-year Break-even Price of CO2” derived from CO2_S_COM based on the GEESS grid data.

carbon↗
DOE OSTI2022

NRAP-Open-IAM: NRAP Open Source Integrated Assessment Model

Note: This is the last version (a2.6.1) of NRAP-Open-IAM released during NRAP Phase II in 2022. The latest version of NRAP-Open-IAM is available here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-iii-nrap-open-iam NRAP-Open-IAM is an open-source software product that enables quantification of containment effectiveness and leakage risk at storage sites in the context of system uncertainties and variability. NRAP-Open-IAM represents the next-generation in a line of systems-based computational models developed for quantitative geological carbon storage (GCS) risk assessment. The model comprises a set of reduced-order and analytical models of various components of the GCS system, potential leakage pathways, receptors of concern including impact to groundwater resources and the atmosphere, a framework to support stochastic simulation, time stepping, uncertainty quantification, other analytical functionality for scenario and risk-performance evaluation, and a basic graphical user interface to support scenario development, data input simulation definition, and basic post-processing and results display. As the NRAP Open-IAM functionality continues to evolve, we continue to add to its capability to develop quantitative, probabilistic, and time-dependent profiles of the evolution of risk at a GCS site and evaluate the influence of uncertain parameters on uncertainty in predicted risk. It can be used to quantify the dynamics of reservoir saturation plume and pressure-affected area, for evaluation of the area of potential groundwater impact (i.e., Area of Review) and monitoring requirements to support cost and regulatory analysis, and for consideration of different post-injection site care and closure scenarios. This submission contains the current version of NRAP-Open-IAM available for evaluation and testing. To use the NRAP-Open-IAM, download the source code (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/4c24a3da-3b40-4ffe-9892-c807ae9f8760) then open the NRAP-Open-IAM user's guide (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669) to read more about the tool. Installation instructions for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be found in the "installers" folder of the extracted NRAP-Open-IAM folder and describe setup of environment (e.g., Python libraries) needed for proper work of the tool. Test of installation can be done by running "python openiam_setup_tests.py" in the "setup" folder. The installation test also runs a test suite to see if the NRAP-Open-IAM has been installed correctly. To run the test suite separately, run "python iam_test.py" in the "test" folder. User's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669 Developer's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/3bc6ee7d-609d-4eb6-80ba-fa6130ee0313 Reservoir simulation data used in some examples distributed with NRAP-Open-IAM: - Kimberlina: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/eb62cece-61b2-4037-9b6d-32407dde2ab8 - Kimberlina (compartmentalized): https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/366f9530-3b32-4b84-affe-ab2df1d9a8b5 - FutureGen 2.0: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/futuregen-2-0-1008-simulation-reservoir-lookup-table NRAP-Open-IAM GitLab repository: https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM Related publications: - Bacon, D., Yonkofski, C., Brown, C., Demirkanli, D. and Whiting, J., 2019. Risk-based post injection site care and monitoring for commercial-scale carbon storage: Reevaluation of the FutureGen 2.0 site using NRAP-Open-IAM and DREAM. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90: 102784. - Bacon, D. Demirkanli, D., and White, S., 2020. Probabilistic risk-based Area of Review (AoR) determination for a deep-saline carbon storage site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102: 103153. - Harp, D., Oldenburg, C., and Pawar, R., 2019. A metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85: 100-108. - Lackey, G., Vasylkivska, V., Huerta, N., King, S., and Dilmore, R., 2019. Managing well leakage risks at a geologic carbon storage site with many wells, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 88 :182-194. - Vasylkivska, V., Dilmore, R., Lackey, G., Zhang, Y., King, S., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., and Harp, D., 2021. NRAP-Open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated assessment model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management, Environmental Modelling & Software, 143: 105114. Presentations: - Chen, B., Harp, D., and Pawar, R., A data assimilation approach (ES-MDA) coupling with NRAP-Open-IAM for quantifying uncertainty reduction in geological CO2 sequestration. AGUFM 2019: T44A-02. - Chen, B., and Harp, D., Improving risk analysis precision for geologic CO2 sequestration by quantifying the uncertainty reduction before and after acquiring monitoring data. 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, pp. 21-26. - Harp, D., National Risk Assessment Partnership Task 2: Containment Assurance. No. LA-UR-19-28654, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., King, S., Bacon, D., Harp, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., Onishi, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Keating, E., NRAP-Open-IAM: An open-source integrated assessment model, poster, Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration: Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 13-16, 2018. - Vasylkivska, V., Lackey, G., King, S., Wentworth, A., Huerta, N., Creason, C., DiGiulio, J., Yang, Y., and Dilmore, R., Long-term risk analysis of a geologic CO2 storage project during the post-injection period, SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Spokane, WA, February 25-March 1, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Overview of the NRAP-Open-IAM tool for carbon storage (beta release), 2019 Annual NRAP Tool Users Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 27, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Dilmore, R., Harp, D., King, S., Lackey, G., Lindner, E., Liu, G., Mansoor, K. and Zhang, Y., NRAP-Open-IAM: A new, open-source code for integrated assessment of geologic carbon storage containment effectiveness and leakage risk, poster, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2020 (virtual meeting), December 2020. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP open-source integrated assessment model and relevant application, oral presentation, NRAP workshop "NRAP Tools for Geologic Carbon Storage Risk-Based Decision Making" held in conjunction with Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) 2021 Annual Forum (virtual meeting), Salt Lake City, UT, September 2021. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP-Open-IAM: open-source integrated assessment model, digital poster/demonstration, software demonstration session, 2022 Carbon Management Project Review Meeting, August 16, 2022

AoR↗
DOE OSTI2020

Modeling Stress-Induced Pore Water Pressures in The Vadose Zone Beneath a Composite-Lined Landfill - 20029

A finite-element model was developed to evaluate mechanisms contributing to positive pore pressures measured with sealed pressure transducers in the geological buffer beneath the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility, a composite-lined mixed waste disposal facility operated by the US Department of Energy. The geological buffer is a 3-m-thick engineered fine-textured layer directly beneath the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility's composite liner, and above the groundwater table. The model accounts for changes in pore water pressure resulting from (i) loading imposed by waste placed on the overlying liner, (ii) moistening of the geological buffer due to equilibration with the underlying geological materials, and (iii) fluctuations in the elevation of the underlying groundwater table. Pore water pressures predicted by the model are in good agreement with pore water pressures measured in the field. The predictions confirm that positive pore water pressures recorded by the sealed pressure transducers in the geological buffer are excess pore water pressures induced by the vertical normal stress imposed by waste placed on the liner, and are not due to a rise in the groundwater table. Simulations also showed that two additional years of filling would further increase the pore water pressure without any change in elevation of the groundwater table. The geological buffer remained unsaturated during the simulation, with a B-coefficient (parameter indicative of the degree of saturation) similar to that computed from the field-measured pore water pressures and waste filling records. Larger increases in pore water pressure were observed when the geological buffer was assumed to have higher initial saturation, as was observed in the field data. Incorporating seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater table beneath the geological buffer in the model resulted in predictions of small seasonal oscillation in the pore water pressure at the measurement location, similar to seasonal oscillations observed in the field. Predictions made with the model indicate that the dissipation of the excess pore water pressures will occur over decades due to the low hydraulic conductivity of the geological buffer material. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration: Phase III (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) is one of 7 regional partnerships formed in 2003 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) initiative. The overall purpose of the initiative was to help determine and implement the technology, infrastructure, and regulations most appropriate to promote carbon storage in different regions of the country. Covering Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and parts of Texas, Wyoming, and Kansas, the SWP evaluated regional carbon storage and utilization potential and focused on technologies and sites that could complement the region’s strong position in energy production. The project progressed through three phases: • Phase I (2003–2005): Characterized regional geologic formations and CO 2 sources, assessed sequestration potential, and identified pilot test sites. • Phase II (2005–2013): Conducted small-scale field tests to validate sequestration methods, including geologic and terrestrial projects. • Phase III (2008–2022): Demonstrated large-scale CO 2 injection at a commercial oil field to test monitoring, verification, and long-term storage strategies. This report covers Phase III. The final project site, the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) in Texas, provided real-world testing of reservoir characterization, monitoring, and risk evaluation tools and processes that could be used in any commercial scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project. Extensive data collection and analysis helped refine best practices for reservoir characterization, injection monitoring, and storage verification. The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Key lessons learned include the importance of robust data management, strategic site selection, regulatory navigation, and effective industry collaboration. The project’s findings will inform ongoing and future carbon storage initiatives. Task 1 (Regional Characterization) • The SWP continued to participate in national outreach efforts and NATCARB. • The SWP evaluated multiple potential sites before selecting the FWU as the primary field test location. Task 2 (Public Outreach and Education) • The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Task 3 (Permitting and Regulatory Compliance) • The SWP ensured compliance with federal and state regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. • The SWP obtained all necessary permits for drilling, injection, and monitoring activities. Task 4 (Site Characterization and Planning) • The SWP developed work plans for four key activities: characterization, simulation, monitoring and verification, and risk evaluation. • The SWP collected and synthesized legacy data from multiple sources to build initial static geological models and dynamic reservoir models demonstrating project feasibility. • The SWP conducted an initial risk evaluation and developed mitigation plans. Task 5 (Field Operations and Data Collection) • The SWP drilled, logged, and cored three characterization wells to gather critical subsurface data. • The SWP conducted multiple geophysical surveys, including 3D seismic, crosswell seismic, and vertical seismic profiling, to improve reservoir characterization. Task 6 (Monitoring and Verification) • The SWP performed extensive geological characterization using data from characterization wells and seismic surveys. • The SWP established a surface monitoring network to track CO 2 flux in soil gas, groundwater chemistry, and near-surface atmospheric CO 2 levels. • The SWP built and refined reservoir models to study the effects of relative permeability on simulation behavior and improve calibration with experimental data. Task 7 (Risk Assessment and Model Refinement) • The SWP conducted multiple studies to evaluate reservoir integrity, predict CO 2 plume behavior and improve predictive modeling capabilities. • The SWP refined geological models and used them to enhance the accuracy of simulation models. • The SWP continued quantitative risk assessment of top-ranked risks and strengthened the link between qualitative and quantitative risk methodologies.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2020

Model Package Report: Geoframework Model of the Hanford Site 100 Area

The purpose of the 100 Area Geoframework Model (GFM) is to provide a reasonable, consistent, and defensible three dimensional representation of the hydrostratigraphic units below the River Corridor at the Hanford Site to support contaminant fate and transport models. The GFM is a three dimensional representation of the subsurface geologic structure. From this, three dimensional geologic model-exported results, in the form of points or surfaces, are used as inputs to populate and assemble the various numerical model architectures. The objective of this report is to define the process used to produce a hydrostratigraphic model for the hydrostratigraphic units beneath the Hanford Site 100 Area. The GFM may support several other CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company project needs and objectives, including providing geologic information to support remedial investigations and actions and as a tool to present River Corridor geology and contaminant extents. The GFM was constructed based on information through 2019 available in the Integrated Data Management System, Hanford Environmental Information System, and the Hanford Site geologic contacts (GeoContacts) datasets. Revisions to the 100 Area GFM may occur to incorporate new data and information. Each version will be maintained in configuration control using date stamps for identifying supporting databases, figures, and interpretations. Supporting data include the final three dimensional geoframework surfaces, two dimensional structure and isopach maps, and all the geologic contact inputs and interpreted geologic log data. These final products provide a supporting set of geologic information that together allow the creation of the GFM. This information is managed, updated, and maintained via CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company under the Environmental Model Management Archive.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2026

Alabama Carbon Storage: Data Sharing and Engagement (Final Report)

This report is the final technical report on Alabama Carbon Storage: Data Sharing Engagement (ACS:DSE) project activities. The goals of the ACS:DSE project are to compile geologic, geophysical, infrastructure, and other relevant CCUS datasets for the study area and develop a geologic model of the study area; develop an online platform to serve data to stakeholders; engage with the public, students, and industry to educate them about CCUS and the data platform; and ensure energy and environmental justice is central to all aspects of the project. Datasets compiled and expanded include formation depths and elevations, digital geophysical well logs, reservoir properties, geologic structures, and geologic models. The geologic data were used to create a three-dimensional geologic model, structure grids, structure contour maps, and fault trace maps. In addition to downloadable datasets, links to CCUS relevant regulatory agencies (e.g., OGB, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and sources for infrastructure and educational information were included on the website Educational materials on CCUS for use by K-12 teachers were produced as part of the ACS:DSE project.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

Optimizing Alabama’s CO 2 Storage in Shelby County (Project OASIS) Milestone 6.0: Evaluation of Class VI Readiness

Introduction. Project OASIS is approximately 30 miles southeast of Birmingham, Alabama, and approximately 5 miles north-northwest of Alabama Power Company's Plant Gaston. Geologically, the Project area is in the Alabama fold and thrust belt province. This work builds on the initiatives of the Southeast Regional Carbon Utilization and Storage Acceleration Partnership (SECARB-USA, DE-FE0031830) that identified nearly 500 million metric tonnes of CO 2 emitted on an annual basis that is not collocated with prospective storage geology (the Coastal Plain of the Southeastern US in this context). This observation suggests costly investments in connective infrastructure (e.g., pipelines) or exploratory well drilling campaigns to identify CO 2 storage opportunities in under explored areas. While not traditionally thought of for saline storage, these studies suggest that storage prospects in the Valley and Ridge Province occur in relatively flat lying structural panels between thrust faults. For the Project OASIS region, available geologic studies related to hydrocarbon exploration suggest that Cambro-Ordovician carbonates and Cambrian clastic units offer multiple potential storage intervals, and that regional confining systems are present, such as the tectonically thickened Floyd-Parkwood Shale. The Project OASIS surface property is owned by a timber and land stewardship company, The Westervelt Company, Inc., who worked with the Project Team to select and prepare adequate sites for geologic assessment. The purpose of drilling the Westover Stratigraphic Test Well #2 was to collect geologic data to model the feasibility of commercial scale CO 2 injection and storage in an under explored region. This initiative benefits the regions emitters as the data generated from this study can inform their own internal decision making. The field program included geological and geophysical evaluations, reservoir engineering analyses, and risk assessments. This report evaluates existing data, as well as a variety of modeling scenarios to evaluate project readiness. Importantly, the impact of this study is not limited to Alabama as there are numerous large emitters throughout Appalachia, in similar geologic settings, contemplating their decarbonization options.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Alabama Carbon Storage: Bringing Data to the People

The Gulf Coastal Plain of Alabama has proven potential for geologic carbon storage and current interest in the area for large carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects is high. Extensive CCS relevant data exist in the records of the Geological Survey of Alabama and State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, however, most of this data is not publicly available or is scattered in separate databases, file cabinets, and tables in publications. The “Alabama Carbon Storage: Data Sharing and Engagement” (ACS-DSE) project seeks to accelerate the responsible development of large CCS projects in the Gulf Coastal Plain of Alabama and offshore in state waters through a publicly accessible database of geologic carbon storage models and data across the region. The ACS-DSE draws on the over 150 years of geologic research and over 20 years of experience in CCS research to place relevant geologic, geophysical, and infrastructure data on a single web platform. Datasets available will include formation depths and elevations, geologic structures, reservoir properties, digital well logs (LAS files), existing penetrations, and geologic models. In addition to downloadable datasets, links to CCS related regulatory agencies and other sources of information will be included (for example, Class VI UIC permitting regulations and pipeline regulations). By making these datasets and models available in commonly used formats on a public website, the project will increase transparency in decision making and decrease the data acquisition time for industry.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Mapping existing wellbore locations to compare technical risks between onshore and offshore CCS activities in Texas

Carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage (CCS; geologic sequestration) is a promising technology for reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from industrial point sources. Aspects of CCS have been investigated for over two decades, and many large- and small-scale geologic storage field demonstration projects are now underway globally. Interest in offshore CCS has been increasing in recent years (e.g., European Union, Australia, Japan, and the United States). Deep geologic storage in offshore settings is analogous to onshore CCS activities in many respects (i.e., geologic and geotechnical aspects), but is distinct from previously explored seabed sediment CO 2 storage) or deep marine dissolution). Given the large subsurface geologic storage volumes available in offshore settings, much discussion of offshore CCS is focused on the benefits and risks of such activity compared to onshore settings. Similar to onshore settings, existing (legacy) wells likely present the most direct migration pathway and largest risk of noncontainment in offshore settings. As part of current studies to evaluate geologic storage options in offshore settings along the Texas coast and greater Gulf of Mexico (GoM), mapping of the geographic distribution and ages of wells in a region containing coastal counties and extending 30 miles offshore Texas indicates that both well spatial density and well age decrease moving from onshore to offshore. Results suggest reduced risk of leakage owing to more rigorous and documented well completion and abandonment practices for these generally younger wells (although many are decades old). A result of decreased well density is that larger areas are available for leasing for CCS projects that avoid legacy wells altogether (> 1 mile from any existing well). The one-mile designation is used as an arbitrary convention, and while it is recognized that this is smaller than a typical area of review (AoR) for permitting, each site will have a different AoR radius for consideration. Finally, the combination of large subsurface storage volumes under control of a single landowner and reduced risks from legacy wells makes offshore CCS attractive in the GoM.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluation of “Tight Oil” Well Performance and Completion Practices in the Powder River Basin - “Time Slice” Analysis

The objective of this paper is to assess how well completion practices and well performance have evolved over time (“time slices”) in the tight sands and shales of the Powder River Basin (PRB). This information can provide a foundation for helping operators define more effective well completion practices and thus optimize well performance in an emerging “tight oil” basin. To start, the authors assembled a “database” containing well completion practices, production data, and geologic information for more than 800 horizontal (Hz) wells targeting three “tight oil” formations -- Turner, Frontier, and Mowry--placed on production in the past dozen years. To control for the impact of geologic and reservoir properties on well performance, the authors defined 12 geologically distinct areas (“partitions”) for the Turner, Frontier, and Mowry Shale in the Powder River Basin (4 partitions in each formation). This paper discusses the methodology for establishing “time slices” for each partition within each of the three “tight oil” formations, including (1) taking out, to the extent practical, the effects of geology by partitioning the three “tight oil” formations based on their geologic parameters; (2) using type curves and estimated ultimate recoveries (EURs) to establish a reliable measure of well performance; and (3) rigorously inspecting the production and well completion data to assure a quality dataset. Partition #2, a high thermal maturity area of the Frontier Sandstone in the western Powder River Basin, helps illustrate the results of the study. Using a dataset of 55 Hz wells, the study found that well performance has steadily improved, with oil EURs increasing from 180 MBbl in 2012-13 to 290 MBbl in 2018-19. Much of this improvement was due to the use of longer Hz laterals, increasing notably from 3,765 ft in 2012-13 to 10,260 ft in 2018-19. More intensive completion practices contributed, as well. For example, the number of frac stages more than doubled, from 17 to 35, and proppant concentrations increased from 1,060 lbs/ft to 1,320 lbs/ft. Finally, the data show diminishing returns to longer laterals and more intensive completion practices. For example, the key performance measure of oil EUR per 1,000 ft of lateral is decreasing. For 2012-13, Hz wells recovered 50 MBbl of oil per 1,000 ft of lateral while the more recent 2018-19 Hz wells only provide 30 MBbl of oil per 1,000 ft of lateral. Considerable insight can be gained by using “time slices” and geologic partitioning to better understand the relationship between changes in well drilling and completion practices and changes in well performance in emerging “tight oil” plays. The results from this study can also serve as a foundation for subsequent, more intense efforts involving data analytics for defining more optimum well completion practices targeting specified geologic settings and formations.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2020

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗
DOE OSTI2023

Identification of Faults Susceptible to Induced Seismicity (Final Report)

Central to the work documented in this report is the capability of geocellular models to represent the geologic conceptual model updated with fault identification from machine learning and joint inversion modeling of microseismic data measured and recorded as a consequence of CO 2 injection at a field demonstration site: the Illinois Basin - Decatur Project (IBDP). This work required seven unique geocellular models with 100s of simulated variations to gain a very high degree of confidence in the identification of geologic features present that contributed to induced microseismicity at IBDP. All forward modeling: pressure modeling, stress modeling, and seismic modeling used the same geologic conceptual model and representations of that model at different scales. The pressure modeling and poroelastic modeling created “snapshots” of pore pressure and stress field changes at different times during CO 2 injection, in which microseismic events were clustered (in time). These pressure and stress snapshots, within the framework and architecture of the geologic conceptual model via the geocellular model, informed the single fault and fault network models to ascertain the likelihood of fault movement (seismic or aseismic). The outcomes of the pressure, stress, and fault/fault network (seismic) modeling confirmed that the faults in the geologic conceptual model in Task 2 were likely the source of microseismic events measured at IBDP and acted as conduits for pressure to be transmitted from the injection interval into the Precambrian crystalline basement rock. This closely coordinated and integrated unique modeling approach was conducted to prove the viability of our proposed workflow 1) to better resolve crystalline basement faults, 2) detect subseismic faults that could be activated by injection, 3) increase the certainty in fault detection and their susceptibility to release seismic energy, and 4) understand transmission of pressure vertically from the well to the underlying fractured crystalline basement. The proposed methodology was effective in guiding an iterative process of calibrating forward modeling results based on similar geocellular models while honoring the geologic conceptual model (i.e., characterization data and knowledge of regional geology); this led to higher level of certainty in the identification of fault/faults zones to control seismicity and transmission of pressure to the regions of recorded and located injection induced seismicity.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geochemical Assessment for Carbon Sequestration in the Conasauga Group, Northwest Georgia, USA

Sedimentary geological formations are known to be great candidates for geological carbon sequestration. Published studies suggest the southeast of the United States contains many formations suitable for carbon storage. The Cassville 1 Stratigraphic Borehole well could act as a potential carbon reservoir for nearby energy resource facilities in Georgia, United States. Although studies have shown that porous formations are adequate for geological carbon sequestration, it is important to understand possible geochemical reactions between CO 2 and the targeted geological formation before injecting any fluids. In this study, a sandstone sample from the Cassville 1 well is being considered for geological carbon sequestration in the Conasauga Group in Northwest Georgia. Here, the collected sandstone sample, consisting of quartz, K-feldspar, micas, kaolinite, and carbonate minerals such as calcite and dolomite, has a 6% porosity. Leveraging the formation composition and porosity, a one-dimensional continuum reactive transport model was built using CrunchFlow to assess possible geochemical reactions between injected CO 2 and the geological formation. Simulation results show that the carbonate minerals, calcite and dolomite, dissolve during the injection period of 10,000 days, increasing formation porosity from 6% to as much as 30%. The rate and extent of carbonate mineral dissolution and resulting porosity increase are highly sensitive to mineral reactive surface area values. No evidence of mineral precipitation was observed, suggesting that dissolution reactions will control porosity evolution during the CO 2 injection period.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

CarbonSAFE Phase II: Optimizing Alabama’s CO 2 Storage in Shelby County, Alabama (Project OASIS), Milestone M3 - Site Specific Drilling Report

The Phase II Storage Complex Feasibility project, entitled "Optimizing Alabama's CO 2 Storage in Shelby County, Alabama (Project OASIS)," is a part of the DOE/NETL's CarbonSAFE initiative. The Project is managed by the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), and includes participation from Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), Crescent Resource Innovation, Southern Company, Alabama A&M University, Auburn University, and Oklahoma State University. Project OASIS is working to establish the foundation for a commercial-scale geologic storage complex for CO 2 captured from Plant Gaston (home of the National Carbon Capture Center) and surrounding industrial sources of CO 2 located in Shelby County, Alabama. The Project objectives are: • Demonstrate that the subsurface saline formations at the storage complex can store commercial volumes of CO 2 safely and permanently. • Develop a comprehensive Community Benefits Plan. • Develop the infrastructure framework for a CO 2 storage hub. • Develop a rigorous risk registry and to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment. • Develop a monitoring plan. • Develop a comprehensive site characterization plan to support an Underground Injection Control Class VI Permit in a future Phase III program. • Evaluate the commercial viability of the project. Project OASIS is about 30 miles southeast of Birmingham, Alabama within a geologic province called the Valley and Ridge (Figure 1.1). The Valley and Ridge Province comprises a sequence of Paleozoic carbonate and clastic rocks that underwent structural deformation during the Alleghanian Orogeny. Storage prospects occur in relatively flat lying structural panels located between thrust faults. Available geologic studies related to hydrocarbon exploration suggest that Cambro-Ordovician carbonates and Cambrian clastic units offer multiple potential storage intervals, and that regional confining systems are present, such as the tectonically thickened Floyd-Parkwood Shale. The surface property is owned by a timber and land stewardship company, The Westervelt Company, Inc., who worked with the Project Team to select and prepare adequate sites for geologic assessment. The purpose of drilling the Westover Stratigraphic Test Well #2 was to collect geologic data to model the feasibility of commercial scale CO 2 injection and storage. This includes geological and geophysical evaluations, reservoir engineering analyses, and risk assessments.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗