Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “geophysical monitoring”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

The EGS Collab Project: Learnings from Experiment 1

The primary objective of the EGS Collab Project sponsored by DOE is to increase the understanding needed to efficiently implement enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). One goal of the EGS Collab project is to create a collaborative research environment in which to study stimulation of crystalline rock at the 10 meter scale. Key to this effort is the collection of high quality data to allow comparison to numerical coupled process models in an effort to build confidence in the codes and modeling techniques used. In response to this, the EGS Collab team has created an underground test bed at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead SD at a depth of approximately 1.5 km to examine hydraulic fracturing (Experiment 1). We are currently designing a second test bed aimed at investigating shear stimulation (Experiment 2). At the Experiment 1 location, we have characterized our host rock using laboratory testing and numerous field-based geophysical and geological techniques, and created a well-instrumented test bed to allow us to carefully monitor stimulation events and flow tests. In addition to the installed geophysical sensors, we have used tracer tests, differences in the ambient microbial communities at flow collection locations, and cold water injection to inform us about dynamic flow pathways. In Experiment 1, we have hydraulically stimulated the host rock in a number times at several locations in one well, creating new fractures that connect to existing fractures between the injection and production boreholes. We have performed long-term ambient and chilled water injection tests as an analog to EGS, and have monitored system changes resulting from these water injections through geophysical monitoring, flow and pressure measurements, tracer tests, and microbiology. Here, we summarize the tests performed, issues identified including poroelastic and thermoelastic effects, Joule-Thomson effects, restarting effects, indications of flow channeling, and the primary learnings from Experiment 1.

Enhanced Geothermal Systems, EGS Collab, stimulati↗
DOE OSTI2020

Improving Long-term Monitoring of Contaminated Groundwater at Sites where Attenuation-based Remedies are Deployed

This study presents an effective approach to tackle the challenge of long-term monitoring of contaminated groundwater sites where remediation leaves residual contamination in the subsurface. Traditional long-term monitoring of contaminated groundwater sites focuses on measuring contaminant concentrations and is applicable to sites where contaminant mass is removed or degraded to a level below the regulatory standard. The traditional approach is less effective at sites where risk from metals or radionuclides continues to exist in the subsurface after remedial goals are achieved. We propose a long-term monitoring strategy for this type of waste site that focuses on measuring the hydrological and geochemical parameters that control attenuation or remobilization of contaminants while de-emphasizing contaminant-concentration measurements. Furthermore, we demonstrate how this approach would be more effective than traditional long-term monitoring, using a site in South Carolina, USA, where groundwater is contaminated by several radionuclides. A comprehensive enhanced attenuation remedy has been implemented at the site to minimize discharge of contamination to surface water. The immobilization of contaminants occurs in three locations by manipulation of hydrological and geochemical parameters, as well as by natural attenuation processes. Deployment of our proposed long-term monitoring strategy will combine subsurface and surface measurements using spectroscopic tools, geophysical tools, and sensors to monitor the parameters controlling contaminant attenuation. The advantage of this approach is that it will detect the potential for contaminant remobilization from engineered and natural attenuation zones, allowing potential adverse changes to be mitigated before contaminant attenuation is reversed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
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 OSTI2022

Utah FORGE Downhole Geophone Seismic Data (August 2022)

This is a link to downhole geophone data collected by Schlumberger. These data were collected in the Utah FORGE deep seismic monitoring wells 58-32 and 56-32. The format is a standard SEGY and the units are bits. To convert to acceleration (m/s2) multiply by 2.333 x 10-7. Use one of the scripts linked below to use wget commands to pull the data.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

The feasibility of MT tipper data to monitor CO2 storage sites

Monitoring carbon storage sites using geophysical techniques is a critical component to the success and safety of storage programs. Currently, the primary methods of monitoring such sites are seismic and, to a much lesser extent, electromagnetics using active sources. The cost of such methods, especially seismic, can be prohibitively expensive. Natural source lectromagnetics, or magnetotellurics (MT), represents a low-cost, and underutilized method with the potential to aid CO2 monitoring efforts. Specifically, the tipper of MT data gives insight to the dimensionality of the subsurface and is able to detect the expansion front of a CO2 plume in a saline reservoir. We analyze the feasibility of using the tipper to monitor two shallow CO2 plumes and conclude that the tipper may be a suitable method for long-term monitoring.<br>

Kohnke, Colton↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE Telluric Monitoring Experiment Transfer Functions

The Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) attempted a stimulation at well 16A(78)-32 during April and May 2022. We recorded telluric and magnetotelluric (MT) data before, during, and after the well stimulation experiment using the FORGE Telluric Monitoring (FTM) array to constrain transients in the Earth's electrical structure caused by the stimulation.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Event Location using Arrival Times from Seismic and Acoustic Phenomena

Accurately locating seismoacoustic sources with geophysical observations helps to monitor natural and anthropogenic phenomena. Sparsely deployed infrasound arrays can readily locate large sources thousands of kms away, but small events typically produce signals observable at only local to regional distances. At such distances, accurate location efforts rely on observations across smaller regional or temporary deployments which often consist of single-channel infrasound sensors that cannot record direction of arrival. Event locations can also be aided by inclusion of ground coupled airwaves (GCA). This study demonstrates how we can robustly locate a catalog of seismoacoustic events using infrasound, GCA, and seismic arrival times at local to near-regional distances. We employ a probabilistic location framework using simplified forward models. Our results indicate that both single-channel infrasound and GCA arrival times can provide accurate estimates of event location in the absence of array-based observations even when using simple models. However, one must carefully choose model uncertainty bounds to avoid underestimation of confidence intervals.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1978

High-precision laser distance measurement in support of lunar laser ranging at Haleakala, Maui, 1976-1977

The Hawaii Institute of Geophysics has implemented a comprehensive geodetic-geophysical support program to monitor local and regional crustal deformation on the island of Maui. Presented are the actual laser-measured line lengths and new coordinate computations of the line terminals, and the internal consistency of the measured line lengths is discussed. Several spacial chord lengths have been reduced to a Mercator plane, and conditioned adjustments on that plane have been made.

Berg, E.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Effects of turbulence on the geodynamic laser ranging system

The Geodynamic Laser Ranging System (GLRS) is one of several instruments being developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for implementation as part of the Earth Observing System in the mid-1990s (Cohen et al., 1987; Bruno et al., 1988). It consists of a laser transmitter and receiver in space and an array of retroreflectors on the ground. The transmitter produces short (100 ps) pulses of light at two harmonics (0.532 and 0.355 microns) of the Nd:YAG laser. These propagate to a retroreflector on the ground and return. The receiver collects the reflected light and measures the round-trip transit time. Ranging from several angles accurately determines the position of the retroreflector, and changes in position caused by geophysical processes can be monitored.

Churnside, James H.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Initial Operation and Checkout of Stratospheric Aerosol Gas Experiment and Meteor-3M Satellite

Under a joint agreement between the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) and the Russian Aviation and Space Agency (RASA), the Stratospheric Aerosol Gas Experiment III (SAGE III) instrument was launched in low earth orbit on December 10,2001 aboard the Russian Meteor-3M satellite from the Baikonur Cosmodrome. SAGE III is a spectrometer that measures attenuated radiation in the 282 nm to 1550 nm wavelength range to obtain the vertical profiles of ozone, aerosols, and other chemical species that are critical in studying the trends for the global climate change phenomena. This instrument version is more advanced than any of the previous versions and has more spectral bands, elaborate data gathering and storage, and intelligent terrestrial software. There are a number of Russian scientific instruments aboard the Meteor satellite in addition to the SAGE III instrument. These instruments deal with land imaging and biomass changes, hydro-meteorological monitoring, and helio-geophysical research. This mission was under development for over a period of six years and offered a number of unique technical and program management challenges for both Agencies. SAGE III has a long space heritage, and four earlier versions of this instrument have flown in space for nearly two decades now. In fact, SAGE II, the fourth instrument, is still flying in space on NASA s Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), and has been providing important atmospheric data over the last 18 years. It has provided vital ozone and aerosol data in the mid latitudes and has contributed vastly in ozone depletion research. Ball Aerospace built the instrument under Langley Research Center s (LaRC) management. This paper presents innovative approaches deployed by the SAGE III and the Meteor teams in performing the initial on-orbit checkout. It further documents a number of early science results obtained by deploying low risk, carefully coordinated procedures in resolving the serious operational issues of this satellite.

Habib, Shahid↗
NASA NTRS2021

Acoustic Sensor Network for Planetary Exploration

This paper investigates the concept of an acoustic sensor network that can monitor a variety of geophysical processes occurring on other planetary bodies. In many cases sound is naturally omnidirectional and travels at known speeds which depend on the composition and density of the atmosphere. The differences in the time of flight of signals received by a distributed microphone network can be used to locate the source of the sound. We suggest this property is ideal for mobile planetary robots and can be used to expand the exploration envelope considerably by directing camera pointing or rover path planning thus extending beyond line-of-sight exploration. Acoustic signatures have been used in a variety of fields (e.g., sonar, heavy machinery) to identify and catalog sounds associated with a specific vessels and malfunctioning machinery. Our ears have cataloged hundreds of sounds and we continuously use these sounds both consciously and subconsciously to extract information about our surroundings. This paper investigates the use acoustic measurements on other planetary bodies that could be used to characterize specific environmental parameters such as rain droplet size, wind speed, thunder, or dust devil vortex diameter. The paper identified other important sound sources that are thought to occur on other bodies in our solar system include; booming or singing dunes, waves, rivers, streams, fluidfalls, geysers, hurricanes, tornados, ice flow, volcanoes, planetary quakes, avalanche, rock slides and ice cracking. In addition, this paper focused on issues associated with the development of appropriate sensors for the network including the specification of the sensitivity, frequency response, and directional response of each of the microphones in the network in order to aid in localization of sound sources. We also presented our initial development of the transducers for potential mission targets including Mars and Titan and investigated the use of signal processing techniques including windowing, time frequency plots and correlation techniques to resolve phase differences between sensors in the network to aid in localization. We also identified additional benefits of these sensor networks in that they could used as engineering sensors to diagnose mechanical malfunctions on a rover or lander actuators or mechanisms. We also noted that they could also enhance public outreach by adding sound to videos.

Malaska, Mike↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Kimberlina synthetic multiphysics dataset for CO 2 monitoring investigations

Abstract We present a synthetic multi‐scale, multi‐physics dataset constructed from the Kimberlina 1.2 CO 2 reservoir model based on a potential CO 2 storage site in the Southern San Joaquin Basin of California. Among 300 models, one selected reservoir‐simulation scenario produces hydrologic‐state models at the onset and after 20 years of CO 2 injection. Subsequently, these models were transformed into geophysical properties, including P‐ and S‐wave seismic velocities, saturated density where the saturating fluid can be a combination of brine and supercritical CO 2 , and electrical resistivity using established empirical petrophysical relationships. From these 3D distributions of geophysical properties, we have generated synthetic time‐lapse seismic, gravity and electromagnetic responses with acquisition geometries that mimic realistic monitoring surveys and are achievable in actual field situations. We have also created a series of synthetic well logs of CO 2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells. These were constructed by combining the low‐frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high‐frequency variations of actual well logs collected at the potential storage site. In addition, to better calibrate our datasets, measurements of permeability and pore connectivity have been made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit. These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic dataset to be as close to a real‐world situation as possible. This dataset consisting of the reservoir models, geophysical models, simulated time‐lapse geophysical responses and well logs forms a multi‐scale, multi‐physics testbed for designing and testing geophysical CO 2 monitoring systems as well as for imaging and characterization algorithms. The suite of numerical models and data have been made publicly available for downloading on the National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) Energy Data Exchange (EDX) website.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Long-Term Evaluation of Remedial Technology Performance in the Laboratory: Multi-year Experimental Test Plan

An understanding of the long-term effectiveness of remediation technologies is central to sustainable environmental cleanup. Long-term experiments are valuable for reducing uncertainty and predicting remediation outcomes at scales required for regulatory compliance. However, these types of tests can be costly and challenging to interpret. Therefore, contaminated sites often rely on short-term laboratory experiments that may not account for the potentially significant effects of gradual, time- dependent processes governing contaminant retention, release, and species transformation. For example, short-term lab experiments (from months to a year) conducted with sediments from the unsaturated and saturated zones at the Hanford Site play an important role in initial evaluations of remediation technologies but cannot capture the full extent of time-dependent reactions, leaving uncertainties in field-scale deployment. Here, long-term testing will be conducted on select technologies based on their performance in short-term testing. The overall objective is to directly address the challenges described above by generating and analyzing data on long-term (2–10 years) efficacy of selected remediation technologies, integrating this understanding into models, and providing critical input for remediation planning, monitoring, and 5-year review cycles for field-implemented remedies. Specific objectives include: 1. Evaluating long-term efficiency of promising remedies under site-specific conditions. 2. Generating robust parameters for modeling, reducing uncertainty in predictive simulations. 3. Advancing integrated monitoring by combining geochemical and geophysical observations. 4. Informing field-scale implementation by incrementally advancing technologies, identifying failure mechanisms early, and prioritizing robust, cost-effective remedies. Through systematic evaluation of technologies in laboratory-scale column experiments, integrated monitoring, and modeling support, this project is designed to bolster confidence in the long-term robustness of selected technologies. The ultimate outcome is the identification and deployment of more reliable, cost-effective remedies that safeguard human health and the environment while reducing the uncertainties that have historically hindered cleanup progress at Hanford Site. An experimental approach was developed and initiated for long-term testing potentially up to 10 years. The table below summarizes the experimental approach developed for testing select technologies and presented in this multi-year experimental test plan.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Numerical Modeling of Anisotropic Elastic-Wave Sensitivity Propagation for Optimal Design of Time-Lapse Seismic Surveys

Reliable subsurface time-lapse seismic monitoring is crucial for many geophysical applications, such as enhanced geothermal system characterization, geologic carbon utilization and storage, and conventional and unconventional oil/gas reservoir characterization, etc. In this work, we develop an elastic-wave sensitivity propagation method for optimal design of cost-effective time-lapse seismic surveys considering the fact that most of subsurface geologic layers and fractured reservoirs are anisotropic instead of isotropic. For anisotropic media, we define monitoring criteria using qP- and qS-wave sensitivity energies after decomposing qP- and qS-wave components from the total elastic-wave sensitivity wavefield using a hybrid time- and frequency-domain approach. Geophones should therefore be placed at locations with significant qP- and qS-wave sensitivity energies for cost-effective time-lapse seismic monitoring in an anisotropic geology setting. Our numerical modeling results for a modified anisotropic Hess model demonstrate that, compared with the isotropic case, subsurface anisotropy changes the spatial distributions of elastic-wave sensitivity energies. Consequently, it is necessary to consider subsurface anisotropies when designing the spatial distribution of geophones for cost-effective time-lapse seismic monitoring. This finding suggests that it is essential to use our new anisotropic elastic-wave sensitivity modeling method for optimal design of time-lapse seismic surveys to reliably monitor the changes in subsurface reservoirs, fracture zones or target monitoring regions.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Intelligent Monitoring Systems and Advanced Well Integrity and Mitigation

Long-term seismic monitoring of carbon capture and storage projects is needed to verify that the injected gas is safely stored in the subsurface until permanence can be assured. Conventional surface seismic monitoring techniques are usually expensive, require highly invasive surface operations, and need significant time investments on the part of personnel for both the field effort and processing the acquired data. For these reasons, permanent reservoir monitoring technologies are preferred, as they can offer a cost-effective solution for long-term monitoring. As part of the monitoring program of the Archer Daniels Midland’s large-scale injection of CO 2 in Decatur, Illinois, USA, a continuous seismic monitoring array was installed using a combination of surface orbital vibrator (SOV) sources and fiber-optic cables for distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) acquisition with the objective to build a continuous monitoring array. The aim of the presented project was to build a monitoring array and platform that integrates real-time seismic data with conventional data streams and provides continuous data analysis using dynamic computational models to deliver a comprehensive real-time assessment of subsurface conditions. It is in this context that the Intelligent Monitoring Systems and Advanced Well Integrity and Mitigation project was proposed with the objective to develop an integrated architecture that utilizes a permanent seismic monitoring network, combines the real-time geophysical and process data with reservoir flow and geomechanical models to create a comprehensive monitoring, visualization, and control system that delivers critical information for process surveillance and optimization.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Field evaluation of semi‐automated moisture estimation from geophysics using machine learning

Geophysical methods can provide three-dimensional (3D), spatially continuous estimates of soil moisture. However, point-to-point comparisons of geophysical properties to measure soil moisture data are frequently unsatisfactory, resulting in geophysics being used for qualitative purposes only. This is because (1) geophysics requires models that relate geophysical signals to soil moisture, (2) geophysical methods have potential uncertainties resulting from smoothing and artifacts introduced from processing and inversion, and (3) results from multiple geophysical methods are not easily combined within a single soil moisture estimation framework. To investigate these potential limitations, an irrigation experiment was performed wherein soil moisture was monitored through time, and several surface geophysical datasets indirectly sensitive to soil moisture were collected before and after irrigation: ground penetrating radar, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), and frequency domain electromagnetics (FDEM). Data were exported in both raw and processed form, and then snapped to a common 3D grid to facilitate moisture prediction by standard calibration techniques, multivariate regression, and machine learning. A combination of inverted ERT data, raw FDEM, and inverted FDEM data was most informative for predicting soil moisture using a random regression forest model (one-thousand 60/40 training/test cross-validation folds produced root mean squared errors ranging from 0.025–0.046 cm 3 /cm 3 ). This cross-validated model was further supported by a separate evaluation using a test set from a physically separate portion of the study area. Machine learning was conducive to a semi-automated model-selection process that could be used for other sites and datasets to locally improve accuracy.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗