skip to main content

Title: West Flank Coso, CA FORGE 3D temperature model

x,y,z data of the 3D temperature model for the West Flank Coso FORGE site. Model grid spacing is 250m. The temperature model for the Coso geothermal field used over 100 geothermal production sized wells and intermediate-depth temperature holes. At the near surface of this model, two boundary temperatures were assumed: (1) areas with surface manifestations, including fumaroles along the northeast striking normal faults and northwest striking dextral faults with the hydrothermal field, a temperature of ~104ËšC was applied to datum at +1066 meters above sea level elevation, and (2) a near-surface temperature at about 10 meters depth, of 20ËšC was applied below the diurnal and annual conductive temperature perturbations. These assumptions were based on heat flow studies conducted at the CVF and for the Mojave Desert. On the edges of the hydrothermal system, a 73ËšC/km (4ËšF/100’) temperature gradient contour was established using conductive gradient data from shallow and intermediate-depth temperature holes. This contour was continued to all elevation datums between the 20ËšC surface and -1520 meters below mean sea level. Because the West Flank is outside of the geothermal field footprint, during Phase 1, the three wells inside the FORGE site were incorporated into the preexisting temperature model. To ensuremore » a complete model was built based on all the available data sets, measured bottom-hole temperature gradients in certain wells were downward extrapolated to the next deepest elevation datum (or a maximum of about 25% of the well depth where conductive gradients are evident in the lower portions of the wells). After assuring that the margins of the geothermal field were going to be adequately modelled, the data was contoured using the Kriging method algorithm. Although the extrapolated temperatures and boundary conditions are not rigorous, the calculated temperatures are anticipated to be within ~6ËšC (20ËšF), or one contour interval, of the observed data within the Coso geothermal field. Based on a lack of temperature data west of 74-2TCH, the edges of this model still seem to have an effect on West Flank modeled temperatures. « less
Authors:
Publication Date:
Report Number(s):
787
DOE Contract Number:
EE0007156
Product Type:
Dataset
Research Org(s):
DOE Geothermal Data Repository; Sandia National Laboratories
Collaborations:
Sandia National Laboratories
Sponsoring Org:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Program (EE-2C)
Subject:
15 Geothermal Energy; geothermal; FORGE; EGS; West Flank; Coso; Temperature
OSTI Identifier:
1287561
  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 individual shapefiles in this dataset delineate estimated temperature contours (20, 40, 60, and 80) at a depth of 200 m in the Milford, Utah FORGE area. Contours were derived from 86 geothermal, gradient, and other wells drilled in the area since the mid-1970s withmore » depths greater than 50 m. Conductive temperature profiles for wells less than 200 m were extrapolated to determine the temperature at the desired depth. Because 11 wells in the eastern section of the study area (in and around the Mineral Mountains) are at higher elevations compared to those closer to the center of the basin, temperature profiles were extrapolated to a constant elevation of 200 m below the 1830 m (6000 ft) a.s.l. datum (approximate elevation of alluvial fans at the base of the Mineral Mountains) to smooth the contours across the ridges and valleys. « less
  2. Archive of ArcGIS data from the West Flank FORGE site located in Coso, California. Archive contains the following eight shapefiles: Polygon of the 3D geologic model (WestFlank3DGeologicModelExtent) Polylines of the traces 3D modeled faults (WestFlank3DModeledFaultTraces) Polylines of the fault traces from Duffield and Bacon, 1980more » (WestFlankFaultsfromDuffieldandBacon) Polygon of the West Flank FORGE site (WestFlankFORGEsite) Polylines of the traces of the geologic cross-sections (cross-sections in a separate archive in the GDR) (WestFlankGeologicCrossSections) Polylines of the traces of the seismic reflection profiles through and adjacent to the West Flank site (seismic reflection profiles in a separate archive in the GDR) (WestFlankSiesmicReflectionProfiles) Points of the well collars in and around the West Flank site (WestFlankWellCollars) Polylines of the surface expression of the West Flank well paths (WestFlankWellPaths) « less
  3. Slip and Dilation Tendency in focus areas Critically stressed fault segments have a relatively high likelihood of acting as fluid flow conduits (Sibson, 1994). As such, the tendency of a fault segment to slip (slip tendency; Ts; Morris et al., 1996) or to dilate (dilationmore » tendency; Td; Ferrill et al., 1999) provides an indication of which faults or fault segments within a geothermal system are critically stressed and therefore likely to transmit geothermal fluids. The slip tendency of a surface is defined by the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on that surface: Ts = τ / σn (Morris et al., 1996). Dilation tendency is defined by the stress acting normal to a given surface: Td = (σ1-σn) / (σ1-σ3) (Ferrill et al., 1999). Slip and dilation were calculated using 3DStress (Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by ambient stress conditions. Values range from a maximum of 1, a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions to zero, a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate. Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the focus study areas at, McGinness Hills, Neal Hot Springs, Patua, Salt Wells, San Emidio, and Tuscarora on fault traces. As dip is not well constrained or unknown for many faults mapped in within these we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip tendency or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum tendency of each fault to slip or dilate. The resulting along-fault and fault-to-fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault-to-fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005) as well as local stress information if applicable. For faults within these focus systems we applied either a normal faulting stress regime where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin) or strike-slip faulting stress regime where the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) is larger than the vertical stress (sv) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (shmax >sv>shmin) depending on the general tectonic province of the system. Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46, which are consistent with complete and partial stress field determinations from Desert Peak, Coso, the Fallon area and Dixie valley (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2011; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012). Slip and dilation tendency for the McGinness Hills geothermal field was calculated based on the faults mapped McGinness Hills area (Siler 2012, unpublished). The McGinness Hills area lies in the Basin and Range Province, as such we applied a normal faulting stress regime to the McGinness area faults, with a minimum horizontal stress direction oriented 115, based on inspection of local and regional stress determinations, as explained above. Under these stress conditions north-northeast striking, steeply dipping fault segments have the highest dilation tendency, while north-northeast striking 60° dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to slip. The McGinness Hills geothermal system is characterized by a left-step in a north-northeast striking west-dipping fault system wit... « less
  4. Critically stressed fault segments have a relatively high likelihood of acting as fluid flow conduits (Sibson, 1994). As such, the tendency of a fault segment to slip (slip tendency; Ts; Morris et al., 1996) or to dilate (dilation tendency; Td; Ferrill et al., 1999) providesmore » an indication of which faults or fault segments within a geothermal system are critically stressed and therefore likely to transmit geothermal fluids. The slip tendency of a surface is defined by the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on that surface: Ts = τ / σn (Morris et al., 1996). Dilation tendency is defined by the stress acting normal to a given surface: Td = (σ1-σn) / (σ1-σ3) (Ferrill et al., 1999). Slip and dilation were calculated using 3DStress (Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by ambient stress conditions. Values range from a maximum of 1, a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions to zero, a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate. Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the focus study areas at, McGinness Hills, Neal Hot Springs, Patua, Salt Wells, San Emidio, and Tuscarora on fault traces. As dip is not well constrained or unknown for many faults mapped in within these we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip tendency or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum tendency of each fault to slip or dilate. The resulting along-fault and fault-to-fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault-to-fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005) as well as local stress information if applicable. For faults within these focus systems we applied either a normal faulting stress regime where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin) or strike-slip faulting stress regime where the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) is larger than the vertical stress (sv) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (shmax >sv>shmin) depending on the general tectonic province of the system. Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46, which are consistent with complete and partial stress field determinations from Desert Peak, Coso, the Fallon area and Dixie valley (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2011; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012). Slip and dilation tendency for the Tuscarora geothermal field was calculated based on the faults mapped Tuscarora area (Dering, 2013). The Tuscarora area lies in the Basin and Range Province, as such we applied a normal faulting stress regime to the Tuscarora area faults, with a minimum horizontal stress direction oriented 115, based on inspection of local and regional stress determinations, as explained above. Under these stress conditions north-northeast striking, steeply dipping fault segments have the highest dilation tendency, while north-northeast striking 60° dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to slip. Tuscarora is defined by a left-step in a major north- to-north northeast striking, west-dipping range-bounding normal fault system. Faults within the broad step define an anticlinal accommodation zone... « less
  5. Slip and Dilation Tendency in focus areas Critically stressed fault segments have a relatively high likelihood of acting as fluid flow conduits (Sibson, 1994). As such, the tendency of a fault segment to slip (slip tendency; Ts; Morris et al., 1996) or to dilate (dilationmore » tendency; Td; Ferrill et al., 1999) provides an indication of which faults or fault segments within a geothermal system are critically stressed and therefore likely to transmit geothermal fluids. The slip tendency of a surface is defined by the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on that surface: Ts = τ / σn (Morris et al., 1996). Dilation tendency is defined by the stress acting normal to a given surface: Td = (σ1-σn) / (σ1-σ3) (Ferrill et al., 1999). Slip and dilation were calculated using 3DStress (Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by ambient stress conditions. Values range from a maximum of 1, a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions to zero, a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate. Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the focus study areas at, McGinness Hills, Neal Hot Springs, Patua, Salt Wells, San Emidio, and Tuscarora on fault traces. As dip is not well constrained or unknown for many faults mapped in within these we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip tendency or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum tendency of each fault to slip or dilate. The resulting along-fault and fault-to-fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault-to-fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005) as well as local stress information if applicable. For faults within these focus systems we applied either a normal faulting stress regime where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin) or strike-slip faulting stress regime where the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) is larger than the vertical stress (sv) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (shmax >sv>shmin) depending on the general tectonic province of the system. Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46, which are consistent with complete and partial stress field determinations from Desert Peak, Coso, the Fallon area and Dixie valley (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2011; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012). Based on inversion of fault kinematic data, Edwards (2013) interpreted that two discrete stress orientations are preserved at Neal Hot Springs. An older episode of east-west directed extension and a younger episode of southwest-northeast directed sinistral, oblique -normal extension. This interpretation is consistent with the evolution of Cenozoic tectonics in the region (Edwards, 2013). As such we applied a southwest-northeast (060) directed normal faulting stress regime, consistent with the younger extensional episode, to the Neal Hot Springs faults. Under these stress conditions northeast striking steeply dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to dilate and northeast striking 60° dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to slip. Under these stress condition... « less