Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “aeromagnetic”

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.

Results from an Aeromagnetic Survey to Detect Steel-Cased Wells at a Marcellus Shale Well Site in Washington County, Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has a 150-year history of oil and gas production—the longest of any state—and this enduring activity has resulted in the drilling of more than 300,000 recorded wells. However, unknown wells likely exist because innumerable wells were drilled during Pennsylvania’s intense early oil and gas history when incomplete records were kept of well locations. There is concern that early wells are likely to be ineffectively sealed because there were no laws that required plugging when the wells were abandoned. Today, many undocumented and unplugged wells are thought to be in areas of emerging shale gas and shale oil development where open wellbores can provide a pathway for undesired upward migration of fluids and gas from hydraulically fractured reservoirs. Due to this concern, Pennsylvania regulators have asked operators to locate orphaned and abandoned wells within a 1,000-ft buffer of proposed new wells. The objective of this report is to demonstrate that high-resolution aeromagnetic surveys, historic air photos, and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery can be rapid and effective methods to reconnoiter large, forested areas of moderate terrain for the presence of abandoned wells. These well-finding methods were evaluated at a proposed Marcellus Shale gas drilling site in Washington County, Pennsylvania, where the methods collectively located 18 confirmed wells: 15 wells were identified from aeromagnetic surveys, two wells were identified from inspection of historical air photos, and one well was identified by evaluation of state-wide LiDAR imagery. Only six wells were previously known, and their locations, as recorded in Pennsylvania’s statewide oil and gas wells database (PA/IRIS/WIS), were often too inaccurate for the wells to be found in the dense underbrush. Twelve wells identified in this study were abandoned, unmarked, and undocumented. Aeromagnetic surveys locate wells by detecting the unique magnetic signature of vertical, steel well casing, which is depicted on magnetic maps as a “bull’s eye” type anomaly that is centered directly over the well. However, when wells were drilled and found to be sub-economic, their casing was sometimes pulled and salvaged for reuse. Such wellbores provide no magnetic response and go undetected if all casing was removed. Oftentimes attempts to retrieve well casing were not 100% successful. For example, historical records for one well in the study area indicate that the well was completed in 1902 as a dry hole and that, to the extent possible, the casing was pulled for reuse. However, a section of 10-in. diameter steel casing was not recovered and remains at an unknown depth in the wellbore. This well was easily detected by the aeromagnetic survey although only deep casing remained in the well. To mitigate for the likelihood that wellbores exist where most or all casing has been removed, this study augmented aeromagnetic data with historic air photos and digital terrain models generated from LiDAR datasets—both databases are publicly available at no cost for areas within Pennsylvania. These complementary methods located three wells where the aeromagnetic anomaly, although present, was subtle and overlooked. Together, these methods determined accurate locations for six known wells within the study area and located 12 previously unknown wells. Although it is not certain that these methods successfully located all wells in the study area, the application of these methods does represent a significant improvement over relying on existing databases for well locations. For the Appendix to the report, see: https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=b46c417a-7c9e-4d25-b810-e6248b0217f4</p>

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗

Geothermal Data Gap Analysis Over the Western US

NREL, as part of the Play Fairway Analysis Retrospective, compiled and mapped publicly available geologic and geophysical data in relation to the 2008 USGS geothermal potential analysis. Included in this submission are maps displaying the publicly available data for LIDAR coverage, aeromagnetic coverage, gravity station locations, and geologic map coverage over the Western United States.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DEEPEN Leapfrog Geodata Model Cleaned and Reformatted Exploration Datasets from Newberry Volcano

DEEPEN stands for DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments. As part of the DEEPEN 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) conducted at Newberry Volcano for multiple play types (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical), existing geoscientific exploration datasets needed to be acquired, cleaned, reformatted, and assembled in Leapfrog Geothermal. This GDR submission includes all of the cleaned and reformatted (X (m), Y (m), elevation (m), processed data values) datasets used to build the Leapfrog Geodata model. Existing datasets were acquired from the GDR, from AltaRock, and from other sources. This yielded the following datasets: - Digital elevation model produced from LiDAR data by Ramsey and Bard, 2016 - MT surveys from 2006, 2011, 2014, and 2017 (including single inversions) - Gravity surveys from 2006, 2007, and 2011 (including single) - Earthquake catalogs from PNSN, LLNL, and the Newberry EGS Demonstration project - Seismic velocity model from Templeton et al., 2014 - The Frone, 2015 temperature model and a new one produced through extrapolating downhole temperature measurements and the SMU temperature at depth maps. Two versions of the new model are provided: 250 m spacing and 500 m spacing - EarthVision geologic model with alteration from Moser et al., 2016 - Well data from EGS well 55-29, deep geothermal wells, coreholes (GEO N-2 through 5) and several thermal gradient holes - "Newberry Well Data:" Location, simple lithology, directional survey data, and temperature data for the 34 wells and coreholes used in the Newberry PFA Although there are additional 2D datasets available in the area, such as aeromagnetic surveys, these were not included in the analysis. While it may be possible to project these datasets into three dimensions by assuming the surface measurements do not vary with depth, this method is associated with high uncertainty. Preexisting inversions of these data were unavailable, and inverting additional geophysical datasets is outside the scope of this project.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Basin and Range Investigation for Developing Geothermal Energy: Exploration Data

This data package includes exploration material from the Basin & Range Investigation for Developing Geothermal Energy [in Hidden Systems] project (BRIDGE), which is part of a broader initiative to advance the exploration of hidden geothermal resources in the Basin & Range Province of the western U.S. Data modalities include a helicopter-borne time-domain electromagnetic survey, magnetotellurics, 2-meter temperature measurements, ground-based gravity and legacy aeromagnetic surveys, geochemistry, geologic mapping, LiDAR analysis, 3D models, associated geospatial data, and a bibliography of existing data and references utilized in prospect characterization and conceptual modeling. Key files are in CSV, Geosoft, and Geotools formats. Please refer to READMEs for dataset-specific information. Where applicable, acquisition data and inversion models for a particular prospect or area of interest are organized separately. This BRIDGE data package is the product of a collaboration led by Sandia National Laboratories with partners from Geologica Geothermal Group, Inc., the U.S. Navy Geothermal Program Office, and consultants Steven Sewell (Australis Geoscience Ltd) and William Cumming (Cumming Geoscience). The project's areas of interest (AOIs) are based off priority areas of interest in the southwestern portion of the Nevada Play Fairway map, distribution across tectonic provinces, accessibility, and the project team's extensive experience in the region. AOIs cover about a dozen basins that include unexplored prospects, partially explored prospects, and some developed analogue resources that provide validation cases. Many unexplored and partially explored prospects are on U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) land, though adjacent lands are included as well.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

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

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

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Idaho National Laboratory Integrated Multisite SSHAC Level 3: Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Assessment

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) resides on the eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP), part of the Snake River Plain (SRP) with a complex origin and geologic history of volcanism. Much of the Quaternary (last 2.58 million years) volcanism within 400 km of INL is genetically associated with a major thermal anomaly referred to as the Yellowstone hotspot, which is currently located more than 180 km northeast of INL. Near INL, local volcanic sources include silicic domes near its southern border, and numerous dike-fed basaltic vents of the ESRP, some of which are near or within the INL boundaries. Quantitative probabilistic assessments of screened-in volcanic hazardous phenomena for nine different facility complexes at the INL are presented for a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 (SL3) study. The comprehensive, integrated multisite SSHAC study consists of a single regional Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Assessment (PVHA) that pertains to all nine INL facility complexes, with site-specific information developed at each respective area of interest (AOI), referred to as the "INL facility AOI" (Figure ES-1). Hazard products are generated for specified INL facility AOIs for use by multiple stakeholders from different agencies in risk-informed decision-making regarding site selection, operations, and design of nuclear facilities at INL, consistent with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory guidance. The study also serves as the basis for future periodic safety assessments required for existing DOE facilities, such as 10-year evaluations of natural-phenomena hazards. Elements of the INL PVHA including initial characterization, screening, quantitative assessments of eruption and hazard potential, and consideration of facility needs are conducted using the three phases of the SSHAC process: evaluation, integration, and documentation. As per regulatory guidance, the SSHAC framework provided the necessary processes and procedures for the PVHA Technical Integration (TI) team, at three workshops, five formal working meetings and many TI team remote meetings, to conduct initial characterization, screen the volcanic hazards, create PVHA model inputs, exercise those models in the PVHA, consider facility-specific volcanic hazard needs, and perform final hazard calculations. The Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) provided independent oversight and performed process and technical reviews of the PVHA throughout its duration. The study included an extensive New Data Collection and Analyses (NDCA) program developed by the PVHA TI team to reduce uncertainties in hazard-significant elements in the PVHA model. NDCA activities generated 20 reports providing important contributory datasets and results to the project database for characterizing the ESRP. For example, a report compiling the dimensions of ESRP shield volcanoes and lava fields was used to construct volcanic footprints (areas of impact), was compared with data from INL subsurface cores, and was used to validate the results of lava-flow inundation modeling on the contemporary terrain. Another example is the acquisition of aeromagnetic data over INL and its surrounding area, with maps of buried magmatic features (e.g., subsurface volcanoes and swarms of feeder dikes) that informed the PVHA conceptual model of volcanism. The SSHAC evaluation process was used to conduct all elements of the PVHA including initial characterization and screening. Existing data and NDCA activities provided the foundation to develop the tectonomagmatic conceptual model of volcanism for the region of geographical interest in the SRP and Yellowstone hotspot volcanic system, and for considering volcanoes in the western US. Considering Quaternary volcanic sources active during this period, the screening approach identified and evaluated magma compositions, types of eruptive and intrusive phenomena, types of hazardous phenomena, and proximity of sources to INL. The PVHA TI team evaluated 18 types of magmatic sources in terms of 20 potentially hazardous phenomena, resulting in 360 screening decisions. The screening process resulted in 140 screened-in hazardous volcanic phenomena for Quaternary volcanic sources 1) proximal to INL facility complexes in the ESRP (64 basaltic and 54 silicic), 2) regional sources associated with the Yellowstone caldera system and Blackfoot Reservoir volcanic field (7), and 3) more distal sources from thirteen Cascade volcanoes and two volcanoes at Long Valley caldera (CA).

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Analysis of Selected Publicly Available Geothermal Exploration Data Gaps

As part of a United States Department of Energy (DOE) supported retrospective analysis of DOE's Play Fairway Analysis (PFA) projects, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) compiled and analyzed publicly available geothermal exploration datasets to identify and highlight data gaps in areas prospective for hosting geothermal resources. The analysis was intended to understand the existing geographic coverage of selected datasets commonly utilized both by the PFA projects and geothermal developers during resource assessments including geologic mapping, temperature gradient drilling, and aeromagnetic, gravimetric, and lidar surveys. Results indicate that broad areas of the western United States estimated to have geothermal potential lack sufficient geologic and geophysical coverage necessary for even regional resource exploration. The study directly informed the recent Geoscience Data Acquisition for Western Nevada, or GeoDAWN - which united DOE's Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior to assist U.S. needs for energy and critical minerals. The study also has the potential to inform public investment in further data acquisition for characterization of the Earth both for geothermal and other natural resource assessments.

data↗