Geology ReportsSearch

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Energy Sources”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 559 records · Page 31Linked to original sources

U.S. Geological Survey programs in Texas

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the Federal Government's primary source of data on the quantity and quality of the Nation's water resources, its principal civilian map making agency, and its primary provider of information on natural hazards and mineral, energy, and biological resources. The USGS makes unbiased scientific information available equally to all interested parties. Most USGS work in Texas involves the appraisal of the State's water resources in cooperation with more than 80 local, State, and Federal agencies. The foundation of a wide range of hydrologic data-collection and interpretive programs is the stream-gaging program. The Texas network of streamflow-gaging stations, which provides water data for water-resources planning and design, hydrologic research, and operation of water-resources projects, is part of a nationwide aggregation of networks that is unique because of nationally consistent, prescribed standards by which the data are collected and processed. The USGS continues to expand collection of data for paper and digital maps. The best-known products of the USGS in Texas are its 1:24,000-scale topographic maps. These maps depict basic natural and cultural features of the landscape. Maps at this scale (1 inch on the map represents 2,000 feet on the ground) are useful for civil engineering, land-use planning, and natural-resource monitoring, and have long been favorites with the general public for a wide variety of outdoor uses. The USGS also continues to monitor geologic conditions in Texas associated with rare but potentially dangerous earthquakes. Recently, the Nation Biological Service (now the Biological Resources Division) joined the USGS to continue their appraisal of the nation's biological resources.

Fact Sheet

Preliminary thermal-maturity map of the Cameo and Fairfield or equivalent coal zone in the Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado

This map was prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy's Western Gas Sands Project and was constructed to show the thermal maturity of the Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Formation (or Group) in the Piceance Creek Basin. The ability of a source rock to generate oil and gas is directly related to its kerogen content and thermal maturity; hence, thermal maturity is commonly used as an exploration tool. This publication consists of two parts: a coal rank map for the basinwide Cameo and Fairfield or equivalent coal zone and three cross sections showing the variation in a coal rank for the entire Mesaverde. Structure contours on the map show the top of the Rollins Sandstone Member of the Mesaverde Formation and its equivalent the Trout Creek Sandstone Member of the Iles Formation of the Mesaverde Group, which immediately underlie the Cameo and Fairfield zone. The structure contours show the fairly strong correlation between structure and coal rank in the basin, suggesting that maximum overburden was the key factor in determining the coal ranks. Even in the southern part of the basin where extensive plutonism occurred during the Oligocene, coal ranks still generally follow structure; indicating that the plutons had little affect on the coals. On the cross sections both the top of the Rollins and Trout Creek, and the top of the Mesaverde Formation/Group are shown. A complete analysis of the entire Mesaverde in the basin would require more information than is presently available.

Colorado

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Greene and Tioga Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004-2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in the area of Pennsylvania. Coalbed methane, which is sometimes extracted using the same technique, is commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and is frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Greene County and Tioga County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics are also used to quantify these changes and are included in this publication.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Allegheny and Susquehanna Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004--2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Coalbed methane, which is sometimes extracted using the same technique, is commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and is frequently developed in clusters of wells across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Allegheny County and Susquehanna County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Fayette and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells, which sometimes use the same technique, are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Fayette County and Lycoming County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Somerset and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania,2004--2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells, which sometimes use the same technique, are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Somerset County and Westmoreland County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Beaver and Butler Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004-2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells, which sometimes use the same technique, are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Beaver County and Butler County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Lackawanna and Wayne Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004-2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells, which sometimes use the same technique, are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Lackawanna County and Wayne County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Sullivan and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells, which sometimes use the same technique, are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Sullivan County and Wyoming County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Armstrong County and Indiana County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Centre, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Huntingdon, and Luzerne counties, Pennsylvania, 2004-2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells, which sometimes use the same technique, are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Centre, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Huntingdon, and Luzerne Counties in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication. In this region, natural gas development disturbed approximately 943 hectares of land in which forest sustained three times the amount of disturbance as agricultural land. One-quarter of that total disturbance was from Marcellus natural gas development.

Pennsylvania

Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Cameron, Clarion, Elk, Forest, Jefferson, McKean, Potter, and Warren Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004-2010

Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract unconventional natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells, which sometimes use the same technique for extraction, are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Cameron, Clarion, Elk, Forest, Jefferson, McKean, Potter, and Warren Counties in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication. In this region, natural gas and oil development disturbed approximately 5,255 hectares (ha) (conventional, 2,400 ha; Marcellus, 357 ha; and oil, 1,883 ha) of land of which 3,507 ha were forested land and 610 ha were agricultural land. Eighty percent of that total disturbance was from conventional natural gas and oil development.

Pennsylvania

Geologic effects of the March 1964 earthquake and associated seismic sea waves on Kodiak and nearby islands, Alaska

Kodiak Island and the nearby islands constitute a mountainous landmass with an aggregate area of 4,900 square miles that lies at the western border of the Gulf of Alaska and from 20 to 40 miles off the Alaskan mainland. Igneous and metamorphic rocks underlie most of the area except for a narrow belt of moderately to poorly indurated rocks bordering the Gulf of Alaska coast and local accumulations of unconsolidated alluvial and marine deposits along the streams and coast. The area is relatively undeveloped and is sparsely inhabited. About 4,800 of the 5,700 permanent residents in the area live in the city of Kodiak or at the Kodiak Naval Station. The great earthquake, which occurred on March 27, 1964, at 5:36 p.m. Alaska standard time (March 28,1964, 0336 Greenwich mean time), and had a Richter magnitude of 8.4-8.5, was the most severe earthquake felt on Kodiak Island and its nearby islands in modern times. Although the epicenter lies in Prince William Sound 250 miles northeast of Kodiak—the principal city of the area—the areal distribution of the thousands of aftershocks that followed it, the local tectonic deformation, and the estimated source area of the subsequent seismic sea wave, all suggest that the Kodiak group of islands lay immediately adjacent to, and northwest of, the focal region from which the elastic seismic energy was radiated. The duration of strong ground motion in the area was estimated at 2½ minutes. Locally, the tremors were preceded by sounds audible to the human ear and were reportedly accompanied in several places by visible ground waves. Intensity and felt duration of the shocks during the main earthquake and aftershock sequence varied markedly within the area and were strongly influenced by the local geologic environment. Estimated Mercalli intensities in most areas underlain by unconsolidated Quaternary deposits ranged from VIII to as high as IX. In contrast, intensities in areas of upper Tertiary rock ranged from VII to VIII, and in areas of relatively well indurated lower Tertiary and Mesozoic rocks, from VI to VII. Local subsidence of as much as 10 feet was widespread in noncohesive granular deposits through compaction, flow, and sliding that resulted from vibratory loading during the earthquake. This phenomenon, which was largely restricted to saturated beach and alluvial deposits or artificial fill, was locally accompanied by extensive cracking of the ground and attendant ejection of water and water-sediment mixtures. Numerous landslides, including a wide variety of rockfalls, rockslides, and flows along steep slopes, were triggered by the long-duration horizontal and vertical accelerations during the earthquake. The landslides are most numerous in a narrow belt along the southeast coast of Kodiak Island and the nearby offshore islands. Their abundance appears to be related to an area underlain predominantly by Tertiary rocks. Temporary and permanent changes of level occurred after the earthquake in some wells, lakes, and streams throughout the area; ice was cracked, and the salinity of a few wells increased. Permanent change of water level at some localities appears to be related to readjustments of fracture porosity by earthquake-induced movements of bedrock blocks. Increased salinity of wells in coastal areas resulted from encroachment of seawater into aquifiers after subsidence during the earthquake, and to flooding of watersheds by seismic sea waves. Vertical displacements, both downward and upward, occurred throughout the area as a result of crustal warping along a northeast-trending axis. Most of Kodiak and all of Afognak, Shuyak, and adjacent islands are within a regional zone of subsidence whose trough plunges gently northeastward and approximately coincides with the mountainous backbone of Kodiak Island. Subsidence in excess of 6 feet occurred throughout the northern part of the zone-a maximum subsidence of 6½ feet having occurred on Marmot and, eastern Afognak Islands. Southeast of the axis of tectonic tilting, uplift of at least 2lh feet occurred in a narrow zone that includes most of the southeasterly capes of Kodiak Island, the southeastern half of Sitkalidak Island, and Sitkinak Island. The uplift is inferred to extend offshore over much or all of the continental shelf adjacent to the Kodiak group of islands. Within the affected area, tectonic subsidence, which was locally augmented by surficial subsidence of unconsolidated. deposits, caused widespread inundation of shorelines and attendant damage to intertidal organisms, nearshore terrestrial vegetation, and salmon-spawning areas. The most devastating effect of the earthquake on Kodiak Island and nearby islands resulted from seismic sea waves that probably originated along a linear zone of differential uplift in the Gulf of Alaska. A train of at least seven seismic sea waves, having initial periods of 50–55 minutes, struck along all the southeast coast of the island group from 38 to 63 minutes after the earthquake. The southeast shores were repeatedly washed by destructive waves having runup heights along exposed coasts of perhaps as much as 40 feet above existing tide level, and of 8–20 feet along protected shores. Runup heights of the waves were much less on the northwest and southwest sides of the islands, and no wave damage was incurred there. Locally, high-velocity currents that accompanied the waves caused intense erosion and redistribution of unconsolidated natural and artificial shore deposits and of shallow sea-floor deposits. The Alaska earthquake was the greatest natural catastrophe to befall the Kodiak Island area in historic time. The combination of seismic shock and the earthquake-related tectonic deformation and seismic sea waves took 18 lives, destroyed property worth about $45 million, and resulted in estimated losses of income to the fishing industry of an additional $5 million. Most of the damage and all of the loss of life were directly attributable to the seismic sea waves that crippled the city of Kodiak, wiped out the village of Kaguyak, and destroyed most of the village of Old Harbor and parts of the villages of Afognak and Uzinki. Bridges and segments of the highways in the vicinity of the city of Kodiak were washed out, and parts of the Kodiak Naval Station were inundated and damaged. Especially serious to all the damaged communities was the loss of fishing boats, seafood processing plants, and other waterfront installations, which had been the mainstay of the economy. Additional heavy losses resulted from the combined regional tectonic and local surficial subsidence that occurred during the earthquake. Widespread shoreline flooding by high tides necessitated raising, protecting, or removing many installations otherwise undamaged by the earthquake or waves. Structural damage attributable to seismic shock during the earthquake was relatively light and was restricted to areas underlain by saturated unconsolidated deposits. The chief structural failure in the area as a result of shaking was the collapse of part of a cannery built on saturated beach deposits that were partially liquefied during the earthquake. Minor structural damage resulted from differential settlement and cracking of the ground on natural granular deposits and artificial fills. The overwhelming majority of structures are constructed on indurated bedrock; none of these sustained damage other than small losses resulting from shifting about and breakage of their contents.

Alaska

Remote sensing systems – Platforms and sensors: Aerial, satellites, UAVs, optical, radar, and LiDAR

The American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing defined remote sensing as the measurement or acquisition of information of some property of an object or phenomenon, by a recording device that is not in physical or intimate contact with the object or phenomenon under study (Colwell et al., 1983). Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) in its geographic information system (GIS) dictionary defines remote sensing as “collecting and interpreting information about the environment and the surface of the earth from a distance, primarily by sensing radiation that is naturally emitted or reflected by the earth’s surface or from the atmosphere, or by sending signals transmitted from a device and reflected back to it (ESRI, 2014).” The usual source of passive remote sensing data is the measurement of reflected or transmitted electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from the sun across the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS); this can also include acoustic or sound energy, gravity, or the magnetic field from or of the objects under consideration. In this context, the simple act of reading this text is considered remote sensing. In this case, the eye acts as a sensor and senses the light reflected from the object to obtain information about the object. It is the same technology used by a handheld camera to take a photograph of a person or a distant scenic view. Active remote sensing, however, involves sending a pulse of energy and then measuring the returned energy through a sensor (e.g., Radio Detection and Ranging [RADAR], Light Detection and Ranging [LiDAR]). Thermal sensors measure emitted energy by different objects. Thus, in general, passive remote sensing involves the measurement of solar energy reflected from the Earth’s surface, while active remote sensing involves synthetic (man-made) energy pulsed at the environment and the return signals are measured and recorded.

Book chapter

SUTRA: A model for 2D or 3D saturated-unsaturated, variable-density ground-water flow with solute or energy transport

SUTRA (Saturated-Unsaturated Transport) is a computer program that simulates fluid movement and the transport of either energy or dissolved substances in a subsurface environment. This upgraded version of SUTRA adds the capability for three-dimensional simulation to the former code (Voss, 1984), which allowed only two-dimensional simulation. The code employs a two- or three-dimensional finite-element and finite-difference method to approximate the governing equations that describe the two interdependent processes that are simulated: 1) fluid density-dependent saturated or unsaturated ground-water flow; and 2) either (a) transport of a solute in the ground water, in which the solute may be subject to: equilibrium adsorption on the porous matrix, and both first-order and zero-order production or decay; or (b) transport of thermal energy in the ground water and solid matrix of the aquifer. SUTRA may also be used to simulate simpler subsets of the above processes. A flow-direction-dependent dispersion process for anisotropic media is also provided by the code and is introduced in this report. As the primary calculated result, SUTRA provides fluid pressures and either solute concentrations or temperatures, as they vary with time, everywhere in the simulated subsurface system. SUTRA flow simulation may be employed for two-dimensional (2D) areal, cross sectional and three-dimensional (3D) modeling of saturated ground-water flow systems, and for cross sectional and 3D modeling of unsaturated zone flow. Solute-transport simulation using SUTRA may be employed to model natural or man-induced chemical-species transport including processes of solute sorption, production, and decay. For example, it may be applied to analyze ground-water contaminant transport problems and aquifer restoration designs. In addition, solute-transport simulation with SUTRA may be used for modeling of variable-density leachate movement, and for cross sectional modeling of saltwater intrusion in aquifers at near-well or regional scales, with either dispersed or relatively sharp transition zones between freshwater and saltwater. SUTRA energy-transport simulation may be employed to model thermal regimes in aquifers, subsurface heat conduction, aquifer thermal-energy storage systems, geothermal reservoirs, thermal pollution of aquifers, and natural hydrogeologic convection systems. Mesh construction, which is quite flexible for arbitrary geometries, employs quadrilateral finite elements in 2D Cartesian or radial-cylindrical coordinate systems, and hexahedral finite elements in 3D systems. 3D meshes are currently restricted to be logically rectangular; in other words, they are similar to deformable finite-difference-style grids. Permeabilities may be anisotropic and may vary in both direction and magnitude throughout the system, as may most other aquifer and fluid properties. Boundary conditions, sources and sinks may be time dependent. A number of input data checks are made to verify the input data set. An option is available for storing intermediate results and restarting a simulation at the intermediate time. Output options include fluid velocities, fluid mass and solute mass or energy budgets, and time-varying observations at points in the system. Both the mathematical basis for SUTRA and the program structure are highly general, and are modularized to allow for straightforward addition of new methods or processes to the simulation. The FORTRAN-90 coding stresses clarity and modularity rather than efficiency, providing easy access for later modifications.

Water-Resources Investigations Report

Critical analysis of world uranium resources

The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) joined with the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to analyze the world uranium supply and demand balance. To evaluate short-term primary supply (0–15 years), the analysis focused on Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR), which are resources projected with a high degree of geologic assurance and considered to be economically feasible to mine. Such resources include uranium resources from mines currently in production as well as resources that are in the stages of feasibility or of being permitted. Sources of secondary supply for uranium, such as stockpiles and reprocessed fuel, were also examined. To evaluate long-term primary supply, estimates of uranium from unconventional and from undiscovered resources were analyzed. At 2010 rates of consumption, uranium resources identified in operating or developing mines would fuel the world nuclear fleet for about 30 years. However, projections currently predict an increase in uranium requirements tied to expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. Under a low-demand scenario, requirements through the period ending in 2035 are about 2.1 million tU. In the low demand case, uranium identified in existing and developing mines is adequate to supply requirements. However, whether or not these identified resources will be developed rapidly enough to provide an uninterrupted fuel supply to expanded nuclear facilities could not be determined. On the basis of a scenario of high demand through 2035, 2.6 million tU is required and identified resources in operating or developing mines is inadequate. Beyond 2035, when requirements could exceed resources in these developing properties, other sources will need to be developed from less well-assured resources, deposits not yet at the prefeasibility stage, resources that are currently subeconomic, secondary sources, undiscovered conventional resources, and unconventional uranium supplies. This report’s analysis of 141 mines that are operating or are being actively developed identifies 2.7 million tU of in-situ uranium resources worldwide, approximately 2.1 million tU recoverable after mining and milling losses were deducted. Sixty-four operating mines report a total of 1.4 million tU of in-situ RAR (about 1 million tU recoverable). Seventy-seven developing mines/production centers report 1.3 million tU in-situ Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) (about 1.1 million tU recoverable), which have a reasonable chance of producing uranium within 5 years. Most of the production is projected to come from conventional underground or open pit mines as opposed to in-situ leach mines. Production capacity in operating mines is about 76,000 tU/yr, and in developing mines is estimated at greater than 52,000 tU/yr. Production capacity in operating mines should be considered a maximum as mines seldom produce up to licensed capacity due to operational difficulties. In 2010, worldwide mines operated at 70 percent of licensed capacity, and production has never exceeded 89 percent of capacity. The capacity in developing mines is not always reported. In this study 35 percent of developing mines did not report a target licensed capacity, so estimates of future capacity may be too low. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimate an additional 1.4 million tU economically recoverable resources, beyond that identified in operating or developing mines identified in this report. As well, 0.5 million tU in subeconomic resources, and 2.3 million tU in the geologically less certain inferred category are identified worldwide. These agencies estimate 2.2 million tU in secondary sources such as government and commercial stockpiles and re-enriched uranium tails. They also estimate that unconventional uranium supplies (uraniferous phosphate and black shale deposits) may contain up to 7.6 million tU. Although unconventional resources are currently subeconomic, the improvement of extraction techniques or the production of coproducts may make extraction of uranium from these types of deposits profitable. A large undiscovered resource base is reported by these agencies, however this class of resource should be considered speculative and will require intensive exploration programs to adequately define them as mineable. These resources may all contribute to uranium supply that would fuel the world nuclear fleet well beyond that calculated in this report. Production of resources in both operating and developing uranium mines is subject to uncertainties caused by technical, legal, regulatory, and financial challenges that combined to create long timelines between deposit discovery and mine production. This analysis indicates that mine development is proceeding too slowly to fully meet requirements for an expanded nuclear power reactor fleet in the near future (to 2035), and unless adequate secondary or unconventional resources can be identified, imbalances in supply and demand may occur.

Scientific Investigations Report

Quality and age of shallow groundwater in the Bakken Formation production area, Williston Basin, Montana and North Dakota

The quality and age of shallow groundwater in the Bakken Formation production area were characterized using data from 30 randomly distributed domestic wells screened in the upper Fort Union Formation. Comparison of inorganic and organic chemical concentrations to health based drinking-water standards, correlation analysis of concentrations with oil and gas well locations, and isotopic data give no indication that energy-development activities affected groundwater quality. It is important, however, to consider these results in the context of groundwater age. Most samples were recharged before the early 1950s and had 14C ages ranging from 30,000 years. Thus, domestic wells may not be as well suited for detecting contamination associated with recent surface spills as shallower wells screened near the water table. Old groundwater could be contaminated directly by recent subsurface leaks from imperfectly cemented oil and gas wells, but horizontal groundwater velocities calculated from 14C ages imply that the contaminants would still be less than 0.5 km from their source. For the wells sampled in this study, the median distance to the nearest oil and gas well was 4.6 km. Because of the slow velocities, a long-term commitment to groundwater monitoring in the upper Fort Union Formation is needed to assess the effects of energy development on groundwater quality. In conjunction with that effort, monitoring could be done closer to energy-development activities to increase the likelihood of early detection of groundwater contamination if it did occur.

Montana, North Dakota

Use of chlorine-36 to determine regional-scale aquifer dispersivity, eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, Idaho/USA

Chlorine-36 (36Cl) derived from processed nuclear waste that was disposed at the US Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) through a deep injection well in 1958, was detected 24-28 yr later in groundwater monitoring wells approximately 26 km downgradient from the source. Groundwater samples covering the period 1966-1995 were selected from the US Geological Survey's archived-sample library at the INEEL and analyzed for 36Cl by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). The smaller 36Cl peak concentrations in water from the far-field monitoring wells relative to the input suggest that aquifer dispersivity may be large. However, the sharpness of the 1958 disposal peak of 36Cl is matched by the measured 36Cl concentrations in water from these wells. This implies that a small aquifer dispersivity may be attributed to preferential groundwater flowpaths. Assuming that tracer arrival times at monitoring wells are controlled by preferential flow, a 1-D system-response model was used to estimate dispersivity by comparing the shape of predicted 36Cl-concentration curves to the shape of 36Cl-concentration curves measured in water from these observation wells. The comparisons suggest that a 1-D dispersivity of 5 m provides the best fit to the tracer data. Previous work using a 2-D equivalent porous-media model concluded that longitudinal dispersivity (equivalent to 1-D dispersivity in our model) was 90 m (Ackerman, 1991). A 90 m dispersivity value eliminates the 1958 disposal peak in our model output curves. The implications of the arrival of 36Cl at downgradient monitoring wells are important for three reasons: (1) the arrival times and associated 36Cl concentrations provide quantitative constraints on residence times, velocities, and dispersivities in the aquifer; (2) they help to refine our working hypotheses of groundwater flow in this aquifer and (3) they may suggest a means of estimating the distribution of preferential flowpaths in the aquifer. ?? 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Researc