scholarly journals Using geodetic data in geothermal areas

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 883-892
Author(s):  
Donald W. Vasco ◽  
Jonny Rutqvist ◽  
Pierre Jeanne ◽  
Sergey V. Samsonov ◽  
Craig Hartline
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Geothermal Field ◽  
Geodetic Data ◽  
Synthetic Aperture ◽  
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
Geothermal Resources ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Geysers

Geodetic observations, often in conjunction with other data, provide a cost-effective means for identifying and characterizing geothermal resources. A review of the various methods reveals how the technology for measuring deformation has advanced considerably in the past few decades. Currently, interferometric synthetic aperture radar is the method of choice for monitoring deformation at a geothermal field. A discussion of geodetic monitoring at The Geysers geothermal field, California, illustrates some of the progress made and the challenges that remain.

scholarly journals Monitoring deformation at the Geysers Geothermal Field, California using C-band and X-band interferometric synthetic aperture radar

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2567-2572 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. W. Vasco ◽  
Jonny Rutqvist ◽  
Alessandro Ferretti ◽  
Alessio Rucci ◽  
Fernando Bellotti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
Geothermal Field ◽  
Synthetic Aperture ◽  
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
X Band ◽  
The Geysers ◽  
Aperture Radar

scholarly journals Geodetic Measurements and Numerical Models of Deformation at Coso Geothermal Field, California, USA, 2004–2016

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena C. Reinisch ◽  
S. Tabrez Ali ◽  
Michael Cardiff ◽  
J. Ole Kaven ◽  
Kurt L. Feigl
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
Numerical Models ◽  
Fluid Pressure ◽  
Geothermal Field ◽  
Synthetic Aperture ◽  
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Best Fitting ◽  
Coso Geothermal Field ◽  
Aperture Radar

We measure transient deformation at Coso geothermal field using interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) data acquired between 2004 and 2016 and relative positions estimated from global positioning system (GPS) to quantify relationships between deformation and pumping. We parameterize the reservoir as a cuboidal sink and solve for best-fitting reservoir dimensions and locations before and after 2010 in accordance with sustainability efforts implemented in late 2009 at the site. Time-series analysis is performed on volume changes estimated from pairs of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and daily GPS data. We identify decreasing pore-fluid pressure as the dominant mechanism driving the subsidence observed at Coso geothermal field. We also find a significant positive correlation between deformation and production rate.

scholarly journals Coseismic fault-slip distribution of the 2019 Ridgecrest Mw6.4 and Mw7.1 earthquakes

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Gao ◽  
HuRong Duan ◽  
YongZhi Zhang ◽  
JiaYing Chen ◽  
HeTing Jian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Strike Slip ◽  
Fault Slip ◽  
Slip Distribution ◽  
Synthetic Aperture ◽  
Seismic Events ◽  
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
The Past ◽  
Dextral Strike Slip Fault ◽  
Fault Slip Distribution ◽  
Dextral Strike Slip

AbstractThe 2019 Ridgecrest, California seismic sequence, including an Mw6.4 foreshock and Mw7.1 mainshock, represent the largest regional seismic events within the past 20 years. To obtain accurate coseismic fault-slip distribution, we used precise positioning data of small earthquakes from January 2019 to October 2020 to determine the dip parameters of the eight fault geometry, and used the Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data processed by Xu et al. (Seismol Res Lett 91(4):1979–1985, 2020) at UCSD to constrain inversion of the fault-slip distribution of both earthquakes. The results showed that all faults were sinistral strike-slips with minor dip-slip components, exception for dextral strike-slip fault F2. Fault-slip mainly occurred at depths of 0–12 km, with a maximum slip of 3.0 m. The F1 fault contained two slip peaks located at 2 km of fault S4 and 6 km of fault S5 depth, the latter being located directly above the Mw7.1hypocenter. Two slip peaks with maximum slip of 1.5 m located 8 and 20 km from the SW endpoint of the F2 fault were also identified, and the latter corresponds to the Mw6.4 earthquake. We also analyzed the influence of different inversion parameters on the fault slip distribution, and found that the slip momentum smoothing condition was more suitable for the inversion of the earthquakes slip distribution than the stress-drop smoothing condition.

scholarly journals Removal of systematic seasonal atmospheric signal from interferometric synthetic aperture radar ground deformation time series

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (17) ◽  
pp. 6123-6130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey V. Samsonov ◽  
Alexander P. Trishchenko ◽  
Kristy Tiampo ◽  
Pablo J. González ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
Ground Deformation ◽  
Synthetic Aperture ◽  
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar ◽  
Aperture Radar
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document