Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “drilling decisions”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

60 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

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

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

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

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

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

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

North Dakota Integrated Carbon Storage Complex Feasibility Study. Final report

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

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

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

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

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

Economics↗
NASA NTRS1998

Site Selection for Mars Exopaleontology in 2001

The microbial fossil record encompasses a wide range of information, including cellular remains, stromatolites, biofabrics, trace fossils, biominerals and chemofossils. The preservation of fossils is strongly influenced by the physical, chemical and biological factors of the environment which, acting together, ultimately determine the types of information that will be captured and retained in the rock record. The critical factor in assessing the suitability of a site for a microbial fossil record is the paleoenvironment. The reconstruction of ancient sedimentary environments usually requires the integration of a wide variety of geological information, including the shape, geometry and internal structure of sedimentary deposits, their mineralogy, and geochemistry. For Mars, much of our knowledge about past environments is based on orbital imaging of geomorphic features. This evidence provides an important context and starting point for site selection. However, our knowledge of the martian surface is quite limited, and a major goal of the upcoming exploration effort is to reconstruct the history of Martian volatiles, climate, and hydrology as a context for the exploration for past or present life. Mineralogical mapping from orbit will be an important key in this effort. In exploring for evidence of past life, terrestrial experience suggests that the long-term preservation of biological information as fossils occurs under a fairly narrow range of geological conditions that are well known to paleontologists (1). In detrital sedimentary systems, microbial fossilization is favored by rapid burial in fine-grained, clay-rich sediments. In chemical sedimentary systems, preservation is enhanced by rapid entombment in fine-grained chemical precipitates. For long term preservation, host rocks must be composed of stable minerals that resist chemical weathering, and which form an impermeable matrix and closed chemical system that can protect biosignatures from alteration during subsequent diagenetic change or metamorphism. In this context, host rocks composed of highly ordered, chemically-stable mineral phases, like silica (forming cherts) or phosphate (forming phosphorites), are especially favored. Such lithologies tend to have very long crustal residence times and (along with carbonates and shales), are the most common host rocks for the Precambrian microfossil record on Earth. If we assume that a subsurface hydrosphere has been present throughout martian history, then life could have originated there at any time, perhaps emerging at the surface periodically when climate changes, induced by external forcing or endogenous processes (e.g. volcanism), allowed liquid water to exist at the surface. The recent discovery of subsurface chemolithoautotrophic organisms which are capable of synthesizing organic substrates from C02 and H2 liberated from the aqueous weathering of basalt, is especially. relevant as a model for martian life. While a subsurface habitable zone may yet exist on Mars, access to such environments will likely require drilling to depths of several kilometers. Given the technological challenge of deep drilling, this is unlikely to occur prior to human missions. So, even if there is extant life on Mars today in subsurface habitats, it may be much easier to find its fossil counterparts in ancient deposits exposed at the surface. In exploring for a fossil record in subsurface environments on Mars there are several geological situations that may provide access to the appropriate materials. These include 1) ejecta from impact craters, 2) talus slopes, debris flows or alluvial fans developed below the walls of deep canyons, and 3) the deposits of outflood channels. Examples of aqueous mineral deposits of formed in subsurface environments that could harbor a microbial fossil record include such things as cements in detrital sedimentary rocks, low temperature diagenetic minerals deposited in veins, or filling vesicles in volcanic rocks, and hydrothermal deposits formed below the upper temperature limit for life (about 160 degrees C). There are many sites within the present latitudinal constraints for the 2001 mission (15 deg S to 30 deg N) that meet these requirements. But the practical problem with these kinds of deposits is that they tend to be disseminated, making up only a small percentage of a host rock. Even with mineralogical information provided by the Thermal Emission Spectrometer (TES) presently in orbit around Mars, predicting their occurrence ahead of time may be quite difficult. The deposits of surficial aqueous sedimentary systems are likely to provide the largest targets for site selection in 2001. Of these, the deposits of hydrothermal systems (subaerial and subaqueous thermal springs) have been discussed previously. It is likely that hydrothermal systems were widespread on Mars early in its history and a number of common geo-tectonic settings on Mars are likely to have hosted hydrothermal activity. Most of these are represented within the latitudinal constraints presently identified for 2001. However, the deposits of surface spring systems are likely to be difficult to find as well. On Earth, exposure areas for hydrothermal spring mounds are typically a few square kms, less than a single TES pixel. But such deposits may be quite abundant within some volcanic terrains, It is estimated, for example, that between 15-20% of the floor of Yellowstone caldera is covered by thermal spring deposits. In such abundances, subaerial sinters could well be detected by TES. Where exposed, the shallow subsurface portions of these systems may be quite a lot larger (perhaps tens of square kms), although (as noted above) mineralization may be finely disseminated in the basement rock, making remote detection more difficult. Paleolake Basins. There are a large number of potential paleolake basins on Mars (inclusive of impact craters and volcanic calderas) that have been previously identified using Viking images. Most of these lie in the southern highlands beyond the l5 deg S constraint for 2001. However, deposits of paleolakes may offer the largest and most easily identified exopaleontological targets from orbit. Based on a variety of arguments, some workers have suggested that there was once an ancient ocean on the northern plains, and some sites of interest (potential shoreline terraces) fall within the 30 deg N constraint. From a paleontological standpoint the most interesting places of this type are terminal paleolake basins which are likely to have been both saline and alkaline. Models by Schaefer suggest such environments could be widespread on Mars. The conditions in terminal lake basin settings favor widespread chemical sedimentation, an important condition for microbial fossilization. Important lithological targets for a microbial fossil record in terminal lake basins include spring-deposited carbonates, shoreline cements, a wide variety of evaporite minerals and fine-grained detrital sediments including shales, marls, and water-lain volcanic ash deposits. In developing a strategy to explore for ancient hydrothermal deposits on Mars, we can learn from the methods that have been developed by explorationists to explore for economic mineral deposits on Earth. Due to their simple mineralogy, hydrothermal deposits can often be detected using remote sensing methods. Common thermal spring mineral assemblages include silica, carbonate, and various metallic oxides and sulfides. But there are also a number of diagnostic silicate minerals, including clays, formed by the hydrothermal alteration of country rocks. These hydrothermal minerals have characteristic spectral signatures that could be detected from Mars orbit using high resolution infrared remote sensing methods. In playa lake settings, evaporite deposits often form a predictable "bull's eye" pattern with carbonates being deposited in marginal basin areas, and sulfates and halides occurring progressively more basinward. The floors of some impact craters on Mars, such as "White Rock" and Bequeral Crater (see Oxia Palus NE, Site 148), have floor deposits that could be evaporites, inclusive of carbonates. Evaporite minerals possess characteristic spectral signatures in the infrared and could similarly be identified from Mars orbit using high resolution remote sensing methods. Clearly, utilization of TES data will be important for optimizing site selection for Exopaleontology, and every effort should be made to benefit from that data before a final decision is made.

Farmer, Jack↗