skip to main content

Title: Argonne Geothermal Geochemical Database v2.0

A database of geochemical data from potential geothermal sources aggregated from multiple sources as of March 2010. The database contains fields for the location, depth, temperature, pH, total dissolved solids concentration, chemical composition, and date of sampling. A separate tab contains data on non-condensible gas compositions. The database contains records for over 50,000 wells, although many entries are incomplete. Current versions of source documentation are listed in the dataset.
Authors:
Publication Date:
Report Number(s):
202
DOE Contract Number:
FY12 AOP 2.3
Product Type:
Dataset
Research Org(s):
DOE Geothermal Data Repository; Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)
Collaborations:
Argonne National Laboratory
Sponsoring Org:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Office (EE-4G)
Subject:
15 Geothermal Energy; geothermal; geochemistry; geochemical; noncondensible gas; ncg; tds; composition; lithium; pH; wells
OSTI Identifier:
1149726
  1. The Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) is the submission point for all data collected from researchers funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Geothermal Technologies Office (DOE GTO). The DOE GTO is providing access to its geothermal project information through the GDR. The GDR is powered by OpenEI, an energy information portal sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
No associated Collections found.
  1. A database of geochemical data from potential geothermal sources aggregated from multiple sources as of March 2010. The database contains fields for the location, depth, temperature, pH, total dissolved solids concentration, chemical composition, and date of sampling. A separate tab contains data on non-condensible gasmore » compositions. The database contains records for over 50,000 wells, although many entries are incomplete. Current versions of source documentation are listed in the dataset. « less
  2. This layer contains favorable geochemistry for high-temperature geothermal systems, as interpreted by Richard "Rick" Zehner. The data is compiled from the data obtained from the USGS. The original data set combines 15,622 samples collected in the State of Colorado from several sources including 1) themore » original Geotherm geochemical database, 2) USGS NWIS (National Water Information System), 3) Colorado Geological Survey geothermal sample data, and 4) original samples collected by R. Zehner at various sites during the 2011 field season. These samples are also available in a separate shapefile FlintWaterSamples.shp. Data from all samples were reportedly collected using standard water sampling protocols (filtering through 0.45 micron filter, etc.) Sample information was standardized to ppm (micrograms/liter) in spreadsheet columns. Commonly-used cation and silica geothermometer temperature estimates are included. « less
  3. The Engineered Geothermal System (EGS) Exploration Methodology Project is developing an exploration approach for EGS through the integration of geoscientific data. The Project chose the Dixie Valley Geothermal System in Nevada as a field laboratory site for methodology calibration purposes because, in the public domain,more » it is a highly characterized geothermal system in the Basin and Range with a considerable amount of geoscience and most importantly, well data. The overall project area is 2500km2 with the Calibration Area (Dixie Valley Geothermal Wellfield) being about 170km2. The project was subdivided into five tasks (1) collect and assess the existing public domain geoscience data; (2) design and populate a GIS database; (3) develop a baseline (existing data) geothermal conceptual model, evaluate geostatistical relationships, and generate baseline, coupled EGS favorability/trust maps from +1km above sea level (asl) to -4km asl for the Calibration Area at 0.5km intervals to identify EGS drilling targets at a scale of 5km x 5km; (4) collect new geophysical and geochemical data, and (5) repeat Task 3 for the enhanced (baseline + new ) data. Favorability maps were based on the integrated assessment of the three critical EGS exploration parameters of interest: rock type, temperature and stress. A complimentary trust map was generated to compliment the favorability maps to graphically illustrate the cumulative confidence in the data used in the favorability mapping. The Final Scientific Report (FSR) is submitted in two parts with Part I describing the results of project Tasks 1 through 3 and Part II covering the results of project Tasks 4 through 5 plus answering nine questions posed in the proposal for the overall project. FSR Part I presents (1) an assessment of the readily available public domain data and some proprietary data provided by Terra-Gen Power, LLC, (2) a re-interpretation of these data as required, (3) an exploratory geostatistical data analysis, (4) the baseline geothermal conceptual model, and (5) the EGS favorability/trust mapping. The conceptual model presented applies to both the hydrothermal system and EGS in the Dixie Valley region. FSR Part II presents (1) 278 new gravity stations; (2) enhanced gravity-magnetic modeling; (3) 42 new ambient seismic noise survey stations; (4) an integration of the new seismic noise data with a regional seismic network; (5) a new methodology and approach to interpret this data; (5) a novel method to predict rock type and temperature based on the newly interpreted data; (6) 70 new magnetotelluric (MT) stations; (7) an integrated interpretation of the enhanced MT data set; (8) the results of a 308 station soil CO2 gas survey; (9) new conductive thermal modeling in the project area; (10) new convective modeling in the Calibration Area; (11) pseudo-convective modeling in the Calibration Area; (12) enhanced data implications and qualitative geoscience correlations at three scales (a) Regional, (b) Project, and (c) Calibration Area; (13) quantitative geostatistical exploratory data analysis; and (14) responses to nine questions posed in the proposal for this investigation. Enhanced favorability/trust maps were not generated because there was not a sufficient amount of new, fully-vetted (see below) rock type, temperature, and stress data. The enhanced seismic data did generate a new method to infer rock type and temperature. However, in the opinion of the Principal Investigator for this project, this new methodology needs to be tested and evaluated at other sites in the Basin and Range before it is used to generate the referenced maps. As in the baseline conceptual model, the enhanced findings can be applied to both the hydrothermal system and EGS in the Dixie Valley region. « less
  4. Over the course of the entire project, field visits were made to 117 geothermal systems in the Great Basin region. Major field excursions, incorporating visits to large groups of systems, were conducted in western Nevada, central Nevada, northwestern Nevada, northeastern Nevada, east‐central Nevada, eastern California,more » southern Oregon, and western Utah. For example, field excursions to the following areas included visits of multiple geothermal systems: - Northwestern Nevada: Baltazor Hot Spring, Blue Mountain, Bog Hot Spring, Dyke Hot Springs, Howard Hot Spring, MacFarlane Hot Spring, McGee Mountain, and Pinto Hot Springs in northwest Nevada. - North‐central to northeastern Nevada: Beowawe, Crescent Valley (Hot Springs Point), Dann Ranch (Hand‐me‐Down Hot Springs), Golconda, and Pumpernickel Valley (Tipton Hot Springs) in north‐central to northeast Nevada. - Eastern Nevada: Ash Springs, Chimney Hot Spring, Duckwater, Hiko Hot Spring, Hot Creek Butte, Iverson Spring, Moon River Hot Spring, Moorman Spring, Railroad Valley, and Williams Hot Spring in eastern Nevada. - Southwestern Nevada‐eastern California: Walley’s Hot Spring, Antelope Valley, Fales Hot Springs, Buckeye Hot Springs, Travertine Hot Springs, Teels Marsh, Rhodes Marsh, Columbus Marsh, Alum‐Silver Peak, Fish Lake Valley, Gabbs Valley, Wild Rose, Rawhide‐ Wedell Hot Springs, Alkali Hot Springs, and Baileys/Hicks/Burrell Hot Springs. - Southern Oregon: Alvord Hot Spring, Antelope Hot Spring‐Hart Mountain, Borax Lake, Crump Geyser, and Mickey Hot Spring in southern Oregon. - Western Utah: Newcastle, Veyo Hot Spring, Dixie Hot Spring, Thermo, Roosevelt, Cove Fort, Red Hill Hot Spring, Joseph Hot Spring, Hatton Hot Spring, and Abraham‐Baker Hot Springs. Structural controls of 426 geothermal systems were analyzed with literature research, air photos, google‐Earth imagery, and/or field reviews (Figures 1 and 2). Of the systems analyzed, we were able to determine the structural settings of more than 240 sites. However, we found that many “systems” consisted of little more than a warm or hot well in the central part of a basin. Such “systems” were difficult to evaluate in terms of structural setting in areas lacking in geophysical data. Developed database for structural catalogue in a master spreadsheet. Data components include structural setting, primary fault orientation, presence or absence of Quaternary faulting, reservoir lithology, geothermometry, presence or absence of recent magmatism, and distinguishing blind systems from those that have surface expressions. Reviewed site locations for all 426 geothermal systems– Confirmed and/or relocated spring and geothermal sites based on imagery, maps, and other information for master database. Many systems were mislocated in the original database. In addition, some systems that included several separate springs spread over large areas were divided into two or more distinct systems. Further, all hot wells were assigned names based on their location to facilitate subsequent analyses. We catalogued systems into the following eight major groups, based on the dominant pattern of faulting (Figure 1): - Major normal fault segments (i.e., near displacement maxima). - Fault bends. - Fault terminations or tips. - Step‐overs or relay ramps in normal faults. - Fault intersections. - Accommodation zones (i.e., belts of intermeshing oppositely dipping normal faults), - Displacement transfer zones whereby strike‐slip faults terminate in arrays of normal faults. - Transtensional pull‐aparts. These settings form a hierarchal pattern with respect to fault complexity. - Major normal faults and fault bends are the simplest. - Fault terminations are typically more complex than mid‐segments, as faults commonly break up into multiple strands or horsetail near their ends. - A fault intersection is generally more complex, as it generally contains both multiple fault strands and can include discrete di... « less
  5. This database contains monthly mean surface temperature and mean sea level pressure data from twenty-nine meteorological stations within the Antarctic region. The first version of this database was compiled at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom. The databasemore » extended through 1988 and was made available in 1989 by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) as a Numeric Data Package (NDP), NDP-032. This update of the database includes data through early 1999 for most stations (through 2000 for a few), and also includes all available mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature data. For many stations this means that over 40 years of data are now available, enough for many of the trends associated with recent warming to be more thoroughly examined. Much of the original version of this dataset was obtained from the World Weather Records (WWR) volumes (1951-1970), Monthly Climatic Data for the World (since 1961), and several other sources. Updating the station surface data involved requesting data from countries who have weather stations on Antarctica. Of particular importance within this study are the additional data obtained from Australia, Britain and New Zealand. Recording Antarctic station data is particularly prone to errors. This is mostly due to climatic extremes, the nature of Antarctic science, and the variability of meteorological staff at Antarctic stations (high turnover and sometimes untrained meteorological staff). For this compilation, as many sources as possible were contacted in order to obtain as close to official `source' data as possible. Some error checking has been undertaken and hopefully the final result is as close to a definitive database as possible. This NDP consists of this html documentation file, an ASCII text version of this file, six temperature files (three original CRU files for monthly maximum, monthly minimum, and monthly mean temperature and three equivalent files slightly reformatted at CDIAC), two monthly mean pressure data files (one original CRU file and one slightly reformatted CDIAC version of the file), four graphics files that describe the station network and the nature of temperature and pressure trends, a file summarizing annual and mean-monthly trends in surface temperatures over Antarctica, a file summarizing monthly Antarctic surface temperature anomalies with respect to the period 1961-90, a station inventory file, and 3 FORTRAN and 3 SAS routines for reading the data that may be incorporated into analysis programs that users may devise. These 23 files have a total size of approximately 2 megabytes and are available via the Internet through CDIAC's Web site or anonymous FTP (File Transfer Protocol) server, and, upon request, various magnetic media. « less