This project assessed the technical viability of a process called GeoCAES. The process stores electrical energy by injecting natural gas into shale gas formations using a compressor, storing it, and producing it through an expander to generate electricity. This data submission includes the models of temperature and pressure changes in the wellbore, surface plant equipment (compressor and expander), and the code used in CMG GEM reservoir modeling software to simulate injection and production. Note - the wellbore and surface plant equipment models use the REFPROP Excel Add-in from NIST (linked in submission) to calculate natural gas properties. Note - the reservoir model code requires a license for the Computer Modeling Group (CMG) GEM reservoir modeling software (linked in submission) to run it.

Analysis of Unit Mobility Ratio Well-to-Well Tracer Flow to Determine Reservoir Heterogeneity DOE/SF/11564-1

The Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence looks to use machine learning to spot geothermal identifiers from land maps. This is done to remotely detect geothermal sites for the purpose of energy uses. Such uses include enhanced geothermal system (EGS) applications, especially regarding finding locations for viable EGS sites. This submission includes the appendices and reports formerly attached to the Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence Quarterly and Final Reports. The appendices below include methodologies, results, and some data regarding what was used to train the Geothermal Exploration AI. The methodology reports explain how specific anomaly detection modes were selected for use with the Geo Exploration AI. This also includes how the detection mode is useful for finding geothermal sites. Some methodology reports also include small amounts of code. Results from these reports explain the accuracy of methods used for the selected sites (Brady Desert Peak and Salton Sea). Data from these detection modes can be found in some of the reports, such as the Mineral Markers Maps, but most of the raw data is included the DOE Database which includes Brady, Desert Peak, and Salton Sea Geothermal Sites.

These files contain the geodatabases related to Brady's Geothermal Field. It includes all input and output files for the Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence. Input and output files are sorted into three categories: raw data, pre-processed data, and analysis (post-processed data). In each of these categories there are six additional types of raster catalogs which are titled Radar, SWIR, Thermal, Geophysics, Geology, and Wells. These inputs and outputs were used with the Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence to identify indicators of blind geothermal systems at the Brady Hot Springs Geothermal Site. The included zip file is a geodatabase to be used with ArcGIS and the tar file is an inclusive database that encompasses the inputs and outputs for the Brady Hot Springs Geothermal Site.

This submission supersedes pressure data from March 2017 which can be found as a link in the submission resources. This submission contains 3 .csv files with time series pressure data in 3 observation wells at Brady Geothermal Field as part of the PoroTomo project. These pressure files correct a time stamp issue that was in older data which did not correct for daylight savings time which occurred 13 Mar 2016 at 0900 UTC. The data here provides borehole pressures at different temperatures and times. The timeframe each resource was taken in varies between each resource and can be found in the resource descriptions.

These files contain the geodatabases related to the Desert Peak Geothermal Field. It includes all input and output files used in the project. The files include data categories of raw data, pre-processed data, and analysis (post-processed data). In each of these categories there are six additional types of raster catalogs including Radar, SWIR, Thermal, Geophysics, Geology, and Wells. The files for the Desert Peak Geothermal Site are used with the Geothermal Exploration Artificial Intelligence to identify indicators of blind geothermal systems. The included zip file is a geodatabase to be used with ArcGIS and the tar file is an inclusive database that encompasses the inputs and outputs for the Desert Peak Geothermal Field.

These data and test descriptions comprise a chilled circulation test conducted at the 164' fracture in the EGS Collab Experiment 1 testbed on the 4850 ft level of the Sanford Underground Research Facility. Descriptions of the meta data, design drawings for the flow testing system, and evaluation of the thermistor data are provided here. The test ran from April 2019 through early March of 2020, when testing was concluded at the experiment 1 site. These data are are complementary to the stimulation data provided in another submission which is linked below (i.e. stimulation at the 164' notch). More information about the test itself as well as the rationale and process of data processing is available on the EGS Collab Experiment 1 Long Term Circulation Test wiki page which is also linked below.

Core logs from the EGS Collab project Experiment 1 for the stimulation (Injection) well (E1-I), the Production well (E1-P), and monitoring wells (E1-OT, E1-OB, E1-PST, E1-PSB, E1-PDT, and E1-PDB) on the 4850 Level of SURF (the Sanford Underground Research Facility), single PDF file, 5-ft run intervals. In the monitoring well IDs, "O" indicates that the well is orthogonal to the anticipated fracture plane, "P" indicates that the well is parallel to the anticipated fracture plane, "S" indicates a shallow well, "D" indicates a deep well, "T" refers to top, and "B" refers to bottom. Logs include: experiment number; borehole ID; depth interval; run number; final packed core box number; scribe line (yes/no; red-on-right convention); logging dates; logger initials; as well as sketches of core foliation, folding, and fracturing with additional details and notes on other features of interest.

This package includes data and models that support hydraulic fracture stimulation and fluid circulation experiments in the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF). A paper by Schwering et al. (2020) describes the deterministic basis for developing a "common" discrete fracture network (CDFN) model of significant natural fractures in EGS Collab Testbed 1 on the 4850-Level of SURF. The ReadMe for this model shows drift, wells, scanlines, fracture data, interpreted fractures, and geophysical visualizations. There is also a summary of the data that was used in this experiment and includes results from reviewing core, televiewer (TV) logs, core-TV depth/feature registration, and from mapping weeps in the 4850-Level drift. The CDFN is intended to be a baseline model of the pre-stimulated testbed (though some observations from stimulation helped inform the model).

NICHOLAS COMBS NO. 7239 WELL, HAZARD, KENTUCKY

This submission includes lithology logs for all Fallon FORGE area wells; determined from core, cuttings, and thin section. Wells included are 84-31, 21-31, 82-36, FOH-3D, 62-36, 18-5, 88-24, 86-25, FOH-2, 14-36, 17-16, 34-33, 35A-11, 51A-20, 62-15, 72-7, 86-15, Carson_Strat_1_36-32, and several others. Lithology logs last updated 3/13/2018 with confirmation well 21-31 data, and revisited existing wells. Also included is well logging data for Fallon FORGE 21-31. Well logging data includes daily reports, well logs (drill rate, lithology, fractures, mud losses, minerals, temperature, gases, and descriptions), mud reports, drilling parameter plots, daily mud loss summaries, survey reports, progress reports, plan view maps (easting, northing), and wireline logs (caliper [with GR], triple combo [GR, caliper, SP, resistivity, array induction, density, photoelectric factor, and neutron porosity], array induction with linear correlation [GR, SP, Array Induction, caliper, conductivity], and monopole compression dipole shear [GR, SP, Caliper, sonic porosity, delta-T compressional, and delta-T shear])

Online web mapping tool for visualization and simple analysis of Earth-energy data files from public and DOE related sources. Geocube allows users to upload and visualize their own datasets but also comes preloaded with individual spatial datasets as well as spatial data collections that align to topical themes.

AL State Oil and Gas Board- Geospatial data for Wells, Well Unit Boundaries, Field Boundaries, Field-wide Unit Boundaries, and Infrastructure.

This package includes the final technical report for the Play-Fairway project in Washington State. It includes all activities and reporting from phases 1, 2, and 3. The primary goal of this study is to develop a suite of tools and methods that help identify a ?fairway? where the three main aspects of a functioning geothermal system are most likely to be found and particularly focuses on developing these tools for use in an actively deforming magmatic arc where heat is associated with volcanic centers and permeability is provided by a network of suitably stressed active faults.

The Hawaii Play Fairway Project deepened an already existing water well in Palawai Basin, Lanai island. Lanai Well #10 was deepened from 427 m to ~1057 m, with nearly continuous rock core collected. Spanning the dates from May 13 to July 5, 2019, the daily drilling reports of Lanai Well #10 includes a log of events during drilling and well information (e.g. location, elevation, and casing). A project by the University of Hawaii at Manoa, the Hawaii Play Fairway project was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office (award DE-EE0006729). For more information, including preliminary core photos and a log of drilling activity, go to the Hawaii Groundwater and Geothermal Resources website linked in the resources.

Thermal conductivity (TC) data taken for different wells at a specified drill depth. This is an abridged version of the complete SMU heat flow database, downloaded from the SMU node of the NGDS at the beginning of INGENIOUS (approximately April 2021), and filtered to the INGENIOUS study area. This National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) project aggregates geothermal data collected and curated by the SMU Geothermal Laboratory and its partner organizations. All columns in this database are the same as the SMU database, except for 2 additions associated with this project. Repeated columns are for data correlation purposes. Column descriptions and data types are the same as previous iterations of the SMU database. The new values that are the addition are two new columns developed as part of the INGENIOUS project: INGENIOUS TC Value | INGENIOUS notes INGENIOUS notes are individual notes that were written for specific data points during the analysis process. There are not always notes associated with each input value. INGENIOUS TC Value includes 4 values: 1. Assumed Measured These are values that are assumed to be measured thermal conductivity values, either within a specific well or within the same study region. Many of these have either a published reference, a reported standard deviation, or a unique thermal conductivity value. 2. Data release - assumed measured These are values in the SMU database that are from proprietary data that were added to the SMU database and are labeled as data release for their reference. These values were searched for in person at the SMU Geothermal Laboratory as well as virtual examination of data available on the NGDS. For many of these, there are reported thermal conductivity values associated with the heat flow data in the database, but no specific table or reference to measurements in the original data release files. 3. Known measured These are values that have a reported measurement, either as an original file in the SMU data files on the NGDS or a reported table in a publication. In the rare circumstances, Maria Richards or David Blackwell confirmed measurement. Confirmation of measurement would be written in the INGENIOUS notes column. 4. Unmeasured Unmeasured values are those that are known to be unmeasured, either estimated from another report or no information given. In the SMU database, there are wells that have a heat flow but no thermal conductivity. These are categorized as unmeasured. There are also heat flow values that are stated to have estimated or generalized average thermal conductivity values for the region and rock type. Because these are known to be unmeasured, they are categorized as such. 5. Blank Blank values are either A quality or X quality. These quality values are stated in the INGENIOUS notes. These values were not going to change associated with the heat flow analysis, so these were not examined.

Kentucky Groundwater Monitoring Wells

The University of Kentucky and the Kentucky Geological Survey have worked together to collect the oil and gas well locations in Kentucky into GIS-readable shapefile downloads.

LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION OF CORED WELLS #20402 AND #20403 IN THE DEVONIAN SHALE IN LINCOLN COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

Northwestern Ohio Marcellus Shale Well Locations

Number of producing gas wells in each state from 1989 to 2012, includes downloadable excel charts and graph options.

Facts and data about Ohio hydrocarbon wells. Includes: -(From the site:) "Location and formation top information for 749 wells in northwestern Ohio used in preparation of Report of Investigations No. 143: Stratigraphy, structure, and production history of the Trenton Limestone (Ordovician) and adjacent strata in northwestern Ohio" -"Well information and records from the Risk-Based Data Management System (RBDMS), created and maintained by the ODNR Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management. DDF2 contains all recorded Knox or deeper wells in the eastern half of the state plus all of the wells contained in RBDMS for the western half of the state (5,381 as of July 2009)." -Ohio oil and gas pools/fields; Stratigraphic units codes; County names and API codes; Unique township names in Ohio; and USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in Ohio. Plus downloadable data available for purchase.

Ohio Marcellus Shale Well Data

An application designed to allow users to search well permitting data

From the site: "A cells polygon feature class was created by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) to illustrate the degree of exploration, type of production, and distribution of production in the State of Illinois. Each cell represents a quarter-mile square of the land surface, and the cells are coded to represent whether the wells included within the cell are predominantly oil-producing, gas-producing, both oil and gas-producing, or the type of production of the wells located within the cell is unknown or dry. Data were retrieved from the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) oil and gas wells database. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary well data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data are current as of 2006."

Link to a website that allows for wide and/or highly specified searches for information on Pennsylvania wells. Contains information and data on over 10,000 wells in Pennsylvania.

The Assessment Unit is the fundamental unit used in the National Assessment Project for the assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources. The Assessment Unit is defined within the context of the higher-level Total Petroleum System. The Assessment Unit is shown here as a geographic boundary interpreted, defined, and mapped by the geologist responsible for the province and incorporates a set of known or postulated oil and (or) gas accumulations sharing similar geologic, geographic, and temporal properties within the Total Petroleum System, such as source rock, timing, migration pathways, trapping mechanism, and hydrocarbon type. The Assessment Unit boundary is defined geologically as the limits of the geologic elements that define the Assessment Unit, such as limits of reservoir rock, geologic structures, source rock, and seal lithologies. The only exceptions to this are Assessment Units that border the Federal-State water boundary. In these cases, the Federal-State water boundary forms part of the Assessment Unit boundary.

Information of the amounts and types of permits issued to drill wells in Pennsylvania - includes oil and gas wells.

Metadata about USGS-gathered oil and gas data and information. Includes links to relevant and referenced sites.

Soil-Gas monitoring data collected at the P-site and DAS study locations during SECARB project at Cranfield oil site in Mississippi. Data was used to study influence of gravel pad, pit, plants, and plugged and abandoned (P&A) oil well on near-surface soil-gas compositions. Associated Publications: Anderson, J. S., Romanak, K. D., Yang, C., Lu, J., Hovorka, S. D., and Young, M. H., 2017, Gas source attribution techniques for assessing leakage at geologic CO2 storage sites: Evaluating a CO2 and CH4 soil gas anomaly at the Cranfield CO2-EOR site: Chemical Geology, v. 454, p. 93-104, doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2017.02.024 Hingst, M. C., 2013. Geochemical effects of elevated methane and carbon dioxide in near-surface sediments above an EOR/CCUS site, The University of Texas at Austin, Master’s thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/21836 Lu, J., Kharaka, Y. K., Thordsen, J. J., Horita, J., Karamalidis, A., Griffith, C., Hakala, J. A., Ambats, G., Cole, D. R., Phelps, T. J., Manning, M. A., Cook, P. J., and Hovorka, S. D., 2012, CO2‒rock‒brine interactions in Lower Tuscaloosa Formation at Cranfield CO2 sequestration site, Mississippi, U.S.A.: Chemical Geology, v. 291, p. 269‒277. Yang, C., Jamison, K., Xue, L., Dai, Z., Hovorka, S. D., Fredin, L., and Treviño, R. H., 2017, Quantitative assessment of soil CO2 concentration and stable carbon isotope for leakage detection at geological carbon sequestration sites: Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, v. 7, no. 4, p. 680-691, doi:10.1002/ghg.1679. Yang, C., Romanak, K. D., Reedy, R. C., Hovorka, S. D., and Treviño, R. H., 2017, Soil gas dynamics monitoring at a CO2-EOR site for leakage detection: Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources, v. 3, p. 351-364, doi:10.1007/s40948-017-0053-7

The paper was presented at the 46th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 15-17, 2021. In this study, the effectiveness of different additives was evaluated in maintaining drilling fluid rheology at HPHT(high pressure and high temperature) conditions. The additives considered in this investigation are bentonite, xanthan gum (XC), low-viscosity and regular polyanionic cellulose (PAC-L and PAC-R), hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), other synthetic polymers and clay such as THERMA-VIS. Fluid samples were prepared in various concentrations and left to hydrate for 20-24 hrs. The rheological analysis was performed under HPHT conditions using a rheometer. Different parameters were considered in the screening, such as temperature, concentration, shear rate, and aging time.

This dataset includes earthquake catalogues for the three stages of the 2022 well 16A(78)-32 stimulation provided by Geo Energie Suisse. Events in these catalogues have been visually inspected. There are additional events of lower signal to noise that were automatically detected. Those events will require additional analysis and processing.

Marcellus and Utica/Point Pleasant shale activity spreadsheets discussing permit amounts are posted weekly at the site.

TDEC is continuously striving to create better business practices through GIS and one way that we have found to provide information and answer some question is utilizing an interactive map. An interactive map is a display of geospatial data that allows you to manipulate and query the contents to get the information needed using a set of provided tools. Interactive maps are created using GIS software, and then distributed to users, usually over a computer network. The TDEC Land and Water interactive map will allow you to do simple tasks such as pan, zoom, measure and find a lat/long, while also giving you the capability of running simple queries to locate land and waters by name, entity, and number. With the ability to turn off and on back ground images such as aerial imagery (both black and white as well as color), we hope that you can find much utility in the tools provided.

Well Information includes information on borehole activities such as drilling activity, counts on the number of boreholes completed, and number of shut-in's.Additional information includes the lease number, well name, spud date, the well class, surface area/block number, and statistics on well status summary.Additional files are available on well completions and well tests. All surveys are referenced to grid north in the native map projection of the block containing the surface location of the survey.For some old surveys the north reference was not marked and was assumed by BOEM to be grid north. In an effort to improve the quality of our downloadable data, we are now exporting bottom hole locations as calculated from the directional survey associated with the well. The coordinate values were derived using the North American Datum (NAD) 1927.

From the site: "A cells polygon feature class was created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to illustrate the degree of exploration, type of production, and distribution of production in the United States. Each cell represents a quarter-mile square of the land surface, and the cells are coded to represent whether the wells included within the cell are predominantly oil-producing, gas-producing, both oil and gas-producing, or the type of production of the wells located within the cell is unknown or dry. The well information was initially retrieved from IHS Inc.'s PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data on CD-ROM, which is a proprietary, commercial database containing information for most oil and gas wells in the U.S. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary well data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data are current through 10/1/2005."

From the site: "A cells polygon feature class was created by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) to illustrate the degree of exploration, type of production, and distribution of production in the State of Indiana. Each cell represents a quarter-mile square of the land surface, and the cells are coded to represent whether the wells included within the cell are predominantly oil-producing, gas-producing, both oil and gas-producing, or the type of production of the wells located within the cell is unknown or dry. The well information was acquired from the Indiana Geological Survey, Petroleum Database Management System (PDMS). Using the table viewer at http://igs.indiana.edu/pdms/getdata.cfm, oil and gas well events and locations tables were downloaded for the entire state of Indiana. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary well data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data are current as of 2006."

From the site: "A cells polygon feature class was created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to illustrate the degree of exploration, type of production, and distribution of production in the State of Kentucky. Each cell represents a quarter-mile square of the land surface, and the cells are coded to represent whether the wells included within the cell are predominantly oil-producing, gas-producing, both oil and gas-producing, or the type of production of the wells located within the cell is unknown or dry. Data were retrieved from the Kentucky Oil and Gas Well Records database and saved as a shapefile of oil and gas well locations for Kentucky. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary well data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data are current as of 2005."

From the site: "A cells polygon feature class was created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to illustrate the degree of exploration, type of production, and distribution of production in the State of Ohio. Each cell represents a quarter-mile square of the land surface, and the cells are coded to represent whether the wells included within the cell are predominantly oil-producing, gas-producing, both oil and gas-producing, or the type of production of the wells located within the cell is unknown or dry. The well information was acquired from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey in a Geographic Information System (GIS) data layer that contains all of the locatable oil and gas wells in Ohio. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary well data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data are current as of 2004."

This is a link to the website where DAS seismic data, collected from wells 78-32 and 78B-32 during the Utah FORGE 2022 stimulation, is now available for download. The data can be accessed at "Well 16A78-32 2022 Stimulation Seismicity Data" link in the submission under the Silixa heading. The page includes surface acquisition nodal datasets, downhole geophone data, and Silixa fiber data. Raw seismic stimulation data and the scripts to process this data is under the Silixa heading.

This is a PDF file generated by Woolsey Land Surveying, P.C containing the surveyed locations, as located, in Latitude and Longitude degrees, of the Utah FORGE FSB4, FSB5, & FSB6 shallow seismic well locations.

This catalog describes the seismicity associated with the 2019 stimulation at Utah FORGE. Containing both matched-filter detections (Dzubay et al., 2022) and Schlumberger-recorded events (detected with a 12-level geophone string), the final combined catalog contains a total of 534 microseismic events spanning -2.0 Mw to -0.1 Mw. Users may differentiate between SLB and MF events using the fact that SLB event magnitudes are recorded to a higher level of precision (MF mags determined using relative amplitude ratios). Users should be wary of locations and depths (measured from sea level) for MF events, as all detections were assigned the same locations as their template events.

This is a CSV spreadsheet containing UTM and Latitude and Longitude coordinates and elevations for Wells 78-32, 78B-32, 56-32, 58-32, 68-32, and 16A(78)-32 and seismic stations BOR1, BOR2, BOR3, FOR1, FOR2, FOR5, FOR6, FOR 7, FOR8, FORK, FORU, FORW, and FORB. These are from a GPS survey conducted by the Utah Geological Survey completed in December, 2021.

Images of core samples collected from Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32. These images were created by stitching together multiple photographs resulting in a circumferential view of the cores exterior in two dimensions. Core footages (measured depths) are indicated in the file names, and are annotated on each image. The images, of which there are 30 in the .zip file, are in a .jpg format.

This data set includes the daily drilling reports and Pason data for well 78B-32 and Schlumberger logs acquired after drilling completion. This well was drilled between June 27th and July 31st of 2021. Also included is raw and processed data for a variety of well data metrics including temperature, porosity, density, and sonic data. This data was taken at the Utah FORGE site as part of the Utah FORGE project.

This Excel spreadsheet contains temperature survey results for Utah FORGE wells 58-32, 78-32, 56-32, 16A(78)-32 and 78B-32. It also contains charts and comparisons, along with a "Data Summary" which provides links to previous GDR submissions with temperature data for each well.

This is the final topical report for the Phase 2B Utah FORGE project, which is located near Roosevelt Hot Springs, Utah. This PDF format report details results associated with the conceptual geologic model, deep well 58-32, rock geomechanics, reservoir temperatures, seismic surveys, seismic monitoring, certainty, and NEPA. The report also provides an overview of all of the deliverables which were used to produce the results and full appendices.

Data, logs, and graphics associated with the drilling and testing of Utah FORGE deep test well 58-32 (MU-ESW1) near Roosevelt Hot Springs.

Well 58-32 (previously labeled MU-ESW1) was drilled near Milford Utah during Phase 2B of the FORGE Project to confirm geothermal reservoir characteristics met requirements for the final FORGE site. Well Accord-1 was drilled decades ago for geothermal exploration purposes. While the conditions encountered in the well were not suitable for developing a conventional hydrothermal system, the information obtained suggested the region may be suitable for an enhanced geothermal system. Geophysical well logs were collected in both wells to obtain useful information regarding there nature of the subsurface materials. For the recent testing of 58-32, the Utah FORGE Project contracted with the well services company Schlumberger to collect the well logs.

The objective of this field test is to validate several technologies for non-invasive well integrity assessment using existing wells with a known completion. The tests were made at the Cymric oil field, which is a steam flood operation. The wells therefore undergo similar downhole conditions as geothermal wells. The Cymric field is mainly a cyclic steam operation where wells are 1000-15-00 ft in depth and the reservoir occupies the bottom 400ft. The maximum temperatures can exceed 500 degrees F and the well spacing is very close, often less than 50m. The field plan consisted of applying the Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) method to the wells. The input voltages were set as 70 V shows the TDR responses at frequencies of 450 kHz, 2500 kHz, and 4500 kHz. There is a summary report will full information about the field tests.