skip to main content

Title: Play Fairway Analysis CA-NV-OR: Medicine Lake 2km MT

MT data for Medicine lake with 2km grid.
Authors:
Publication Date:
Report Number(s):
675
DOE Contract Number:
EE0006734
Product Type:
Dataset
Research Org(s):
DOE Geothermal Data Repository; University of California Davis
Collaborations:
University of California Davis
Sponsoring Org:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Program (EE-2C)
Subject:
15 Geothermal Energy; geothermal; magnetotelluric; medicine lake
OSTI Identifier:
1254451
  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. To determine regional and global climatic variations during the past 6000 years, pollen, lake level, and marine plankton data from 797 stations were compiled to form a global data set. Radiocarbon dating and dated tephras were used to determine the ages of the specimens. Themore » data available for the pollen data are site number, site name, latitude, longitude, elevation, and percentages of various taxa. For lake-level data, the data are site number, site name, latitude, longitude, and lake-level status. And for marine plankton, the data are site number, site name, latitude, longitude, water depth, date, dating control code, depth of sample, interpolated age of sample, estimated winter and summer sea-surface temperatures, and percentages of various taxa. The data are in 55 files: 5 files for each of 9 geographic regions and 10 supplemental files. The files for each region include (1) a FORMAT file describing the format and contents of the data for that region, (2) an INDEX file containing descriptive information about each site and its data, (3) a DATA file containing the data and available climatic estimates, (4) a PUBINDEX file indexing the bibliographic references associated with each site, and (5) a REFERENCE file containing the bibliographic references. The files range in size from 2 to 66 kB. « less
  2. 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
  3. This report covers data acquisition, instrumentation and processing of a gravity survey performed on the Glass Buttes Geothermal Exploration Project, located in Lake County, Oregon for ORMAT Technologies Inc. The survey was conducted during 21 June 2010 to 26 June 2010. The survey area ismore » located in T23S, R21-23E and lies within the Glass Buttes, Hat Butte, and Potato Lake, Oregon 1:24,000 topographic sheets. A total of 180 gravity stations were acquired along five profile lines. « less
  4. This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Men Lake Mendota, Center for Limnology Site. Site Description - The site is located on the shoreline of Lake Mendota on the rooftop of UW-Madison's Center for Limnology.
  5. This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Pnp Lake Mendota, Picnic Point Site. Site Description - The site is located on the shoreline of Lake Mendota on the rooftop of UW-Madison's Center for Limnology.