skip to main content

Title: McGee Mountain Geoprobe Survey, Humboldt County, Nevada

This shapefile contains location and attribute data for a Geoprobe temperature survey conducted by Geothermal Technical Partners, Inc. during 2010. The purpose of direct push technology (“DPT”) probe activity at the McGee Mtn. Project, Nevada was to 1) determine bottom hole temperatures using nominal 1.5 inch probe tooling to place resistance temperature detectors (“RTD”) and 2) take water samples, if possible, to characterize the geothermometry of the system. A total of 23 holes were probed in five days for a cumulative total of 857.5 ft. at 21 sites at McGee Mountain. The probed holes ranged in depth from a maximum of 75 ft to a minimum of 10 ft and averaged 37.3ft. The average temperature of the 23 holes was 18.9⁰C, with a range of 12.0⁰C at site MMTG#1b to 42.0⁰C at site MMTG#19. . No water was encountered in any of the probed holes, with the exception of MMTG#10, and no water was collected for sampling. Zip file containing Arcview shapefile in UTM11 NAD83 projection. 5kb file size.
Authors:
Publication Date:
Report Number(s):
122
DOE Contract Number:
EE0002830
Product Type:
Dataset
Research Org(s):
DOE Geothermal Data Repository; Geothermal Technical Partners, Inc.
Collaborations:
Geothermal Technical Partners, Inc.
Sponsoring Org:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Program (EE-2C)
Subject:
15 Geothermal Energy; geothermal; geoprobe; shallow temperature survey; mcgee mountain; humboldt county; nevada; exploration; heat flow; water sampling
OSTI Identifier:
1261911
  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. This shapefile contains location and attribute data for a shallow (2 meter) temperature survey conducted by Geothermal Technical Partners, Inc. during late 2008 and early 2009. Temperatures at 2m depth were measured at 192 separate points as outlined by Coolbaugh et al., 2007. The purposemore » of the survey was to try and detect a shallow thermal anomaly associated with the McGee Mountain geothermal area as discovered by Phillips Petroleum and Earth Power Resources in the late 1970’s. Drilling identified ~120oC temperatures at ~100m depth. This 2-meter survey delineated what was interpreted as a steam-heated fault zone centered along a range front fault in the vicinity of the drilled holes and fumaroles. Coolbaugh, M.F., Sladek, C., Faulds, J.E., Zehner, R.E., and Oppliger, G.L., 2007, Use of rapid temperature measurements at a 2-meter depth to augment deeper temperature gradient drilling: Proceedings, 32nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Jan. 22-24, 2007, p. 109-116. Zehner, R., Tullar, K., and Rutledge, E., 2012, Effectiveness of 2-Meter and geoprobe shallow temperature surveys in early stage geothermal exploration: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 36, in press. « 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 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
  4. These line shapefiles trace apparent topographic and air-photo lineaments in various counties in Colorado. It was made in order to identify possible fault and fracture systems that might be conduits for geothermal fluids, as part of a DOE reconnaissance geothermal exploration program. Geothermal fluids commonlymore » utilize fault and fractures in competent rocks as conduits for fluid flow. Geothermal exploration involves finding areas of high near-surface temperature gradients, along with a suitable "plumbing system" that can provide the necessary permeability. Geothermal power plants can sometimes be built where temperature and flow rates are high. This line shapefile is an attempt to use desktop GIS to delineate possible faults and fracture orientations and locations in highly prospective areas prior to an initial site visit. Geochemical sampling and geologic mapping could then be centered around these possible faults and fractures. To do this, georeferenced topographic maps and aerial photographs were utilized in an existing GIS, using ESRI ArcMap 10.0 software. The USA_Topo_Maps and World_Imagery map layers were chosen from the GIS Server at server.arcgisonline.com, using a UTM Zone 13 NAD27 projection. This line shapefile was then constructed over that which appeared to be through-going structural lineaments in both the aerial photographs and topographic layers, taking care to avoid manmade features such as roads, fence lines, and utility right-of-ways. Still, it is unknown what actual features these lineaments, if they exist, represent. Although the shapefiles are arranged by county, not all areas within any county have been examined for lineaments. Work was focused on either satellite thermal infrared anomalies, known hot springs or wells, or other evidence of geothermal systems. Finally, lineaments may be displaced somewhat from their actual location, due to such factors as shadow effects with low sun angles in the aerial photographs. Credits: These lineament shapefile was created by Geothermal Development Associates, as part of a geothermal geologic reconnaissance performed by Flint Geothermal, LLC, of Denver Colorado. Use Limitation: These shapefiles were constructed as an aid to geothermal exploration in preparation for a site visit for field checking. We make no claims as to the existence of the lineaments, their location, orientation, and/or nature. « less
  5. This submission to the Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) node of the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) in support of Phase 1 Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin. The files included in this zip file contain all data pertinent to the methodsmore » and results of this task’s output, which is a cohesive multi-state map of all known potential geothermal reservoirs in our region, ranked by their potential favorability. Favorability is quantified using a new metric, Reservoir Productivity Index, as explained in the Reservoirs Methodology Memo (included in zip file). Shapefile and images of the Reservoir Productivity and Reservoir Uncertainty are included as well. « less