skip to main content

Title: PoroTomo Project: Brady's Geothermal Field, Subtask 3.5: GPS Data Analysis

Links to GPS RINEX data not previously reported, plus links to station web pages, which include most up-to-date time-series
Authors:
Publication Date:
Report Number(s):
680
DOE Contract Number:
EE0006760
Product Type:
Dataset
Research Org(s):
DOE Geothermal Data Repository; University of Wisconsin
Collaborations:
University of Wisconsin
Sponsoring Org:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Program (EE-2C)
Subject:
15 Geothermal Energy; geothermal; gps; geodesy
OSTI Identifier:
1254452
  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. The site characterization data used to develop the conceptual geologic model for the Snake River Plain site in Idaho, as part of phase 1 of the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) initiative. This collection includes data on seismic events, groundwater, geomechanical models,more » gravity surveys, magnetics, resistivity, magnetotellurics (MT), rock physics, stress, the geologic setting, and supporting documentation, including several papers. Also included are 3D models (Petrel and Jewelsuite) of the proposed site. Data for wells INEL-1, WO-2, and USGS-142 have been included as links to separate data collections. These data have been assembled by the Snake River Geothermal Consortium (SRGC), a team of collaborators that includes members from national laboratories, universities, industry, and federal agencies, lead by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Other contributors include the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the Center for Advanced Energy Studies (CEAS), the University of Idaho, Idaho State University, Boise State University, University of Wyoming, University of Oklahoma, Energy and Geoscience Institute-University of Utah, US Geothermal, Baker Hughes Campbell Scientific Inc., Chena Power, US Geological Survey (USGS), Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Geological Survey, and Mink GeoHydro. « less
  2. The US Geological Survey (USGS) resource assessment (Williams et al., 2009) outlined a mean 30GWe of undiscovered hydrothermal resource in the western US. One goal of the Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) is to accelerate the development of this undiscovered resource. The Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP)more » Blue Ribbon Panel (GTO, 2011) recommended that DOE focus efforts on helping industry identify hidden geothermal resources to increase geothermal capacity in the near term. Increased exploration activity will produce more prospects, more discoveries, and more readily developable resources. Detailed exploration case studies akin to those found in oil and gas (e.g. Beaumont, et al, 1990) will give operators a single point of information to gather clean, unbiased information on which to build geothermal drilling prospects. To support this effort, the National Renewable Energy laboratory (NREL) has been working with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a template for geothermal case studies on the Geothermal Gateway on OpenEI. In fiscal year 2013, the template was developed and tested with two case studies: Raft River Geothermal Area (http://en.openei.org/wiki/Raft_River_Geothermal_Area) and Coso Geothermal Area (http://en.openei.org/wiki/Coso_Geothermal_Area). In fiscal year 2014, ten additional case studies were completed, and additional features were added to the template to allow for more data and the direct citations of data. The template allows for: Data - a variety of data can be collected for each area, including power production information, well field information, geologic information, reservoir information, and geochemistry information. Narratives ? general (e.g. area overview, history and infrastructure), technical (e.g. exploration history, well field description, R&D activities) and geologic narratives (e.g. area geology, hydrothermal system, heat source, geochemistry.) Exploration Activity Catalog - catalog of exploration activities conducted in the area (with dates and references.) NEPA Analysis ? a query of NEPA analyses conducted in the area (that have been catalogued in the OpenEI NEPA database.) In fiscal year 2015, NREL is working with universities to populate additional case studies on OpenEI. The goal is to provide a large enough dataset to start conducting analyses of exploration programs to identify correlations between successful exploration plans for areas with similar geologic occurrence models. « less
  3. To help guide its future data collection efforts, The DOE GTO funded a data gap analysis in FY2012 to identify high potential hydrothermal areas where critical data are needed. This analysis was updated in FY2013 and the resulting datasets are represented by this metadata. Themore » original process was published in FY 2012 and is available here: https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/GeoConf/papers/SGW/2013/Esposito.pdf Though there are many types of data that can be used for hydrothermal exploration, five types of exploration data were targeted for this analysis. These data types were selected for their regional reconnaissance potential, and include many of the primary exploration techniques currently used by the geothermal industry. The data types include: 1. well data 2. geologic maps 3. fault maps 4. geochemistry data 5. geophysical data To determine data coverage, metadata for exploration data (including data type, data status, and coverage information) were collected and catalogued from nodes on the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS). It is the intention of this analysis that the data be updated from this source in a semi-automated fashion as new datasets are added to the NGDS nodes. In addition to this upload, an online tool was developed to allow all geothermal data providers to access this assessment and to directly add metadata themselves and view the results of the analysis via maps of data coverage in Geothermal Prospector (http://maps.nrel.gov/gt_prospector). A grid of the contiguous U.S. was created with 88,000 10-km by 10-km grid cells, and each cell was populated with the status of data availability corresponding to the five data types. Using these five data coverage maps and the USGS Resource Potential Map, sites were identified for future data collection efforts. These sites signify both that the USGS has indicated high favorability of occurrence of geothermal resources and that data gaps exist. The uploaded data are contained in two data files for each data category. The first file contains the grid and is in the SHP file format (shape file.) Each populated grid cell represents a 10k area within which data is known to exist. The second file is a CSV (comma separated value) file that contains all of the individual layers that intersected with the grid. This CSV can be joined with the map to retrieve a list of datasets that are available at any given site. The attributes in the CSV include: 1. grid_id : The id of the grid cell that the data intersects with 2. title: This represents the name of the WFS service that intersected with this grid cell 3. abstract: This represents the description of the WFS service that intersected with this grid cell 4. gap_type: This represents the category of data availability that these data fall within. As the current processing is pulling data from NGDS, this category universally represents data that are available in the NGDS and are ready for acquisition for analytic purposes. 5. proprietary_type: Whether the data are considered proprietary 6. service_type: The type of service 7. base_url: The service URL « less
  4. 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
  5. The McGinness Hills geothermal system lies in a ~8.5 km wide, north-northeast trending accommodation zone defined by east-dipping normal faults bounding the Toiyabe Range to the west and west-dipping normal faults bounding the Simpson Park Mountains to the east. Within this broad accommodation zone liesmore » a fault step-over defined by north-northeast striking, west-dipping normal faults which step to the left at roughly the latitude of the McGinness Hills geothermal system. The McGinness Hills 3D model consists of 9 geologic units and 41 faults. The basal geologic units are metasediments of the Ordovician Valmy and Vininni Formations (undifferentiated in the model) which are intruded by Jurassic granitic rocks. Unconformably overlying is a ~100s m-thick section of Tertiary andesitic lava flows and four Oligocene-to-Miocene ash-flow tuffs: The Rattlesnake Canyon Tuff, tuff of Sutcliffe, the Cambell Creek Tuff and the Nine Hill tuff. Overlying are sequences of pre-to-syn-extensional Quaternary alluvium and post-extensional Quaternary alluvium. 10-15ยบ eastward dip of the Tertiary stratigraphy is controlled by the predominant west-dipping fault set. Geothermal production comes from two west dipping normal faults in the northern limb of the step over. Injection is into west dipping faults in the southern limb of the step over. Production and injection sites are in hydrologic communication, but at a deep level, as the northwest striking fault that links the southern and northern limbs of the step-over has no permeability. « less