1

Oil & Natural Gas Technology

DOE Award No.: DE-FE0009897

Quarterly Research Performance Progress Report (Period ending 6/30/2015)

Hydrate-Bearing Clayey Sediments: Morphology, Physical Properties, Production

and Engineering/Geological Implications

Project Period (10/1/2012 to 9/30/2016)

Submitted by: J. Carlos Santamarina

Georgia Institute of Technology

DUNS #: 097394084 505 10th street

Atlanta , GA 30332 e-mail: jcs@gatech.edu

Phone number: (404) 894-7605

Prepared for: United States Department of Energy

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Submission date: 8/12/2015

Office of Fossil Energy

2

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, rec-ommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not nec-essarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

3

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Context – Goals. Fine grained sediments host more than 90% of the global gas hydrate

accumulations. Yet, hydrate formation in clayey sediments is least understood and characterized.

This research focuses on hydrate bearing clayey sediments. The goals of this research are (1) to

gain a fundamental understanding of hydrate formation and ensuing morphology, (2) to develop

laboratory techniques to emulate “natural” formations, (3) to assess and develop analytical

tools to predict physical properties, (4) to evaluate engineering and geological implications, and

(5) to advance gas production alternatives to recover methane from these sediments.

Accomplished

The main accomplishments for this period include:

Formation of CO2 hydrate in fine-grained sediment

o Transformation from ice/water to hydrate in hydrophobic silica

Quantified mass, and advanced thermal analysis of hydrate formation in fine-grained

sediment

Crystal formation experiments in porous media

Plan - Next reporting period

Physical understanding of hydrate formation in fine grained sediments and small pores. Evaluate

the difference between gas pressure, liquid pressure and crystal pressure, and the relevance to

hydrate stability. Advance Numerical model studies of physical properties of hydrate bearing

sediments. Well production simulation with numerical methods.

Research in Progress

The following pages capture the slides presented at the meeting for the end of year 3, which

include specific information about this quarter.

8/14/2015

1

DOE - National Energy Technology Laboratory Agreement: DE-FE0009897

Hydrate-Bearing Clayey Sediments Morphology, Physical Properties, Production

and Engineering/Geological Implications

Transition to Phase 4 / Budget Period 4

J. Carlos Santamarina

Georgia Institute of Technology(on leave at KAUST)

L Goals – Objectives - Background

Natural HBF – Fine Grained (Analogues)

Underlying Physics

Devices

Hydrate Formation in the Lab

“Reservoir” Simulation

Physical Properties

Gas Production

Next – Team – Schedule

8/14/2015

2

Goals and Objectives

Background

(additional examples: see 2014 End of Year Report)

Goals and Objectives

Observation: Fine grained sediments • host more than 90% of the global gas hydrate accumulations

State-of Knowledge: Hydrate formation in clayey sediments • least understood • poorly characterized

Objectives :• in-depth understanding of hydrate bearing fine-grained sediments• new gas production paradigm

8/14/2015

3

Goals and Objectives

The proposed research

• focus: hydrate bearing clayey sediments

• fundamental understanding of hydrate formation

• hydrate lens topology

• laboratory techniques to emulate “natural” formations

• analytical tools to predict physical properties

• engineering and geological implications

• gas production alternatives

Project Tasks

Focus: hydrate bearing clayey sediments

Tasks:

• fundamental understanding of hydrate formation in fine-grained sed.

• laboratory emulation with real methane hydrate

• assessment and prediction of physical properties

• evaluation of engineering and geological implications

• possible paradigm shift in gas production from fine-grained sed.

8/14/2015

4

Task 2 - Formation, distribution, topology

Guiding Questions:

• nucleation and grow in fine-grained sediments?

• continue feeding lens growth?

• underlying hydro-chemo-mechanical effects?

• sediment characteristics that control evolving hydrate topology?

• emulation in the laboratory?

Laboratory challengesCH4 in hydrates = 1:6 >> CH4 in water =1:700Hydrate formation: transport-limited in water saturated sedimentsLow advective transport in clayey sediments (diffusive transport?)

Task 3 - Physical properties

SubTask 3a: Analytical estimations (two-component systems)• upper and lower bounds • physical models

SubTask 3b: Numerical Extension (interacting lenses)

SubTask 3c: Experimental measurements• Form hydrate-bearing clays and measure salient physical properties• Small strain stiffness (Vp and Vs), strength• Thermal, hydraulic and electrical conductivity

Guiding Questions.

Hydro-thermo-electro-mechanical properties of fine-grained sediments

with segregated hydrate?

(relevance to simulators)

8/14/2015

5

Task 4 - Gas Production

Description

• Target: new gas production paradigm

• From key differences with oil production

• interconnected hydrate network

• hydrate-to-fluid expansion

• gas-driven openings

• gas migration in layered stratigraphy

• available heat

Guiding Questions

• What are viable production strategies?

• Gas migration: from lenses towards to the production well?

• What is the role of elastic deformation of layer boundaries?

• Production strategy to keep fractures open during recovery?

• Can discontinuities become “highways” for gas flow?

• Production strategies to minimize volume contraction?

Task 5 - Implications

SubTask 5a – Seafloor infrastructure settlement

SubTask 5b – Stability (borehole and slopes)

SubTask 5c – Unique implications to carbon cycle

Guiding Question:

How does segregated hydrate in fine grained sediments affect

engineering tasks (besides production) and geological processes

8/14/2015

6

nm µm mm m km

ky

By

My

1 yr

9 hr

s

ms

µs

ns

27 o

rder

s of

mag

nitu

de

16 orders of magnitude

1000 km

CH4 Reservoirs

ps

Å

MD

nano-pores GEO-PLUMBING wells fractures

Laboratory

Borehole logging

Micro organ.

Pore-scale simulators

Mol

ecul

ar ti

me

geol

ogic

tim

e 100m

1m

0.1m

Natural HBS - Fine Grained

Analogues

(additional examples: see 2014 End of Year Report)

8/14/2015

7

Gulf of Mexico, US

Photos: GEOMARsmectite-dominant clay

Hydrate Ridge, US

Photos: GEOMARclay sediments (smectite, illite, chlorite, and kaolinite)

8/14/2015

8

Crystallization in Fine Grained SedimentsIce-lens

http://bigthink.com/ http://www.page21.eu/gallery

https://woodgears.ca/cottage/foundation.html https://woodgears.ca/cottage/foundation.html

Crystallization in Fine Grained SedimentsEmerald

Pyrite sun

tntings.blogspot.com http://gemsofheaven.com/beryllium-uses.htm

www.flickr.com/http://www.pinterest.com

8/14/2015

9

Crystallization in Fine Grained Sediments

Gypsum lenses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

Underlying Physics

(additional information: see 2014 End of Year Report)

8/14/2015

10

 Tfreezing T

T< 0oC

watersoilwatericesoilice (γ: Interfacial energy)

Crystal Growth in Sediments: Mechanics

1 mm

8/14/2015

11

0.8 mm

Invasion-Driven Fracture

8/14/2015

12

Tip Conditions e

SρP ss

Sediment in compression EVERYwhere

Experimental Numerical

Dis

pla

cem

ent δ

x

// cr

ack

alig

nm

ent

Dis

pla

cem

ent δ

y

no

rmal

to

cra

ck p

lan

e

Crack/Lense Propagation

(MCC)

8/14/2015

13

u/u0

1.00.0

T=10-4 T=5×10-4 T=0.12

Pressure Diffusion

1.0 100.1

LOCALIZATIONLensesFracturesHyd.: lenses

INVASIONFluid invasion

Crystal growth in poresHyd.: patchy saturation d'

2

N

F LVc

fine grained soilslow effective stress

coarse grained soilshigh effective stress

Invasion vs. Localization

8/14/2015

14

Hydrate Topology

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

Pore-filling

Lenses/Veins

Mt. Elbert

NGHP

Blake Ridge

Effective stress σ [MPa]

Ch

arac

teri

stic

par

ticl

e si

ze d

10[

m]

1d

10'

10

hw

Nodules/Chunks

3'

10

hw 10d

10

Devices

(additional information: see 2014 End of Year Report)

8/14/2015

15

Chamber (X-ray transparent)

X-ray CT Scanner

8/14/2015

16

Calibration: specimen and protocol

X-ray CT Scanner

• Tilt – angle tilt of rotary stage relative to detector

• SDD – source-to-detector distance• SOD – source-to-object distance

Hydrate Formation in the Lab

(additional information: see 2014 End of Year Report)

8/14/2015

17

Laboratory protocol to form hydrate bearing clayey sediments

Dispersed nucleation followed by increased in effective stress and aging

• dispersed nucleation (partial water saturation, ice-seeding, and ground

hydrate premixing)

• aging (e.g., thermal cycling) + stress: segregation into lenses?

Saturated blocky sediment + hydrate formation along discontinuities

• gas-driven fractures

• shear bands

• sediment slicing with intersecting planes

• pre-flushing freezing air gas flow + pressurization

Task 2

Challenges in Fine-grained Sediments

Fine-grained

Small pores

Difficult nucleation Morphology

Extra driving force

Low conductivity

Long time-scale

8/14/2015

18

Henry’s law:

K15.298

1

T

1

R

HexpkPM 0

HappliedT,P

concentration M [mol/m3] enthalpy of the solution ∆H=-14130 J/molHenry’s law constant kH

o=1.3×103 M/atm at 298.15 Kuniversal gas constant R=8.314 J/(mol·K).

Without hydrate (Cbh) With hydrate (Cah)

Pure waterSalt water

(con. of NaCl)Pure water

Salt water(con. of NaCl)

Methaneconcentration

[mol/kg]

0.11(273K,3MPa)

0.0974(273K,50MPa)

0.00177 (1m)(273K,0.1MPa)

0.065(274K,3.5MPa)

0.05184(273K,10MPa)

0.12(276K,6.6MPa)

0.066(274K,5MPa)

0.13(285K,10MPa)

0.067(275K,6.5MPa)

0.09689(283K,10MPa)

0.00247(273K,0.1MPa)

Method 1: Spontaneous nucleation

Method 1: Spontaneous nucleation

n0

C0Ch

nf

Caf

L L

Hydrate lens formationWater saturated sediment

00 n

CC

CC

L

λ

ahh

ah

λcλLCnLCn hahf 00

λL

λLnn f

0

λ

initial methane concentration:  C0=0.14mol/kg (P=12MPa and T=288K)CH4 solubility – hydrate present:  Cah=0.063mol/kgCH4concentration in hydrate  Ch=8.06mol/kg

Lense λ=4mmevery L=1m

8/14/2015

19

Method 2: Avoid Diffusion THF Hydrate

Ice starts pre-melting at the surface when T= -33 °CThe structure does not fuly solidify until 0K (Li, and Somorjai, 2007)

Multiple Methods: Ice Hydrate

8/14/2015

20

Method 3: Water sat + Freeze + IH

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]

Temperature [oC]

Start

End

 

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]

Temperature [°C]

T In Sample

CO2 Hydrate PhaseBoundary

Water‐Ice PhaseBoundary

Vacuum Iteration 

Pressurization

Water Injection and 

Hydrate Formation

Temperature depression 

Depressurization 

Method 4: Gas sat + Stability PT + Water

Store gas into diatom inner poresStimulated by diatoms found in NanKai Trough

8/14/2015

21

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

-3 0 3 6 9 12

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]

Temperature [°C]

Store gas into diatom inner poresStimulated by diatoms found in NanKai Trough

StartEnd

Method 5: Gas sat + Water + Stability PT

Slide 42

Method 5: Gas sat + Water + Stability PT

8/14/2015

22

Slide 43

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]

Temperature [C]

PT near the wall

Phase Boundary

Liquid CO2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]

Temperature [C]

PT near the wall

PT in the center

Phase Boundary

Liquid CO2

1 2 3 4

5 76 8

9 10 11 12

Method 6: Water sat + Ice + IH

kaolin

8/14/2015

23

Slide 45

Method 7: Dry + Ice + Stability PTStrategy: Supply gas through dry sediment

before

after

Kaolin

Slide 46

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]

Temperature [°C]

Phase Boundary

Liquid CO2

Water/Ice

Scan 1

Scan 2

Method 8: Hydrophobic + Ice Lens + IHlarge lense

8/14/2015

24

Slide 47

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]

Temperature [°C]

Phase Boundary

Liquid CO2

Water/Ice

Scan 1

Scan 2 Scan 4

Scan 6

Method 8: Hydrophobic + Ice Lens + IHsmall lense

Slide 48

small lense

8/14/2015

25

Slide 49

Method 9: Water sat + Stability + CO2L inject

before injection after injection after dissociation

Diatom-sand layers

Slide 50

Kaolinite

Method 9: Water sat + Stability + CO2L inject

Gas driven fracture induced hydrate formation

after injection 24 hr later 48 hr later

8/14/2015

26

Slide 51

Gas driven fracture induced hydrate formation

Kaolinite

Slide 52

Gas driven fracture induced hydrate formation

Kaolinite

8/14/2015

27

Slide 53

After dissociation

Kaolinite

Slide 54

Method 10: Gas-injection into Clay Slurry

8/14/2015

28

“Reservoir” Simulation

Mass: Measurement vs. Simulation

ρCO2 = f(P,T)

Temperature Pressure

Volume of voids V

Mass of gas phase CO2

MCO2(t)=f(V, ρCO2 ) Initial mass of H2O

Hydrate formation/dissociation rate, leakage

8/14/2015

29

Thermal Analysis

SS TemperatureSS Pressure

ρCO2 = f(P,T)No leakage, constant

Tr Pressure

Theoretical real gas Tr Temperature

Measured Tr Temperature

Measurement vs. Simulator

Heat redistribution in sediment

Theoretical real sediment Tr Temperature

Heat diffusion to the environmentThermocouple Lag

Predicted sediment Tr Temperature measurement

dt

tTdclr

dt

dQ tttt 2 tTtTlrh

dt

dQtq ttct 2

22

11 it

itc

it

itc

ti TTTT

lrhq

ttt

ii

ti

t clr

tqTT

2

1

1

11

itc

it

itc

iti

t

TTTTT Where:

ttt cr

th

Thermal Analysis - Thermocouple Response

8/14/2015

30

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

160 162 164 166 168 170T

emp

erat

ure

[°C

]

Time [s]

Measured T

Predicted T

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

05

101520253035404550556065

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 745 750

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]Tem

per

atu

re [

°C]

Time [s]

Temp 1Gas TPredicted TPressure In

Thermocouple response during step temperature change in sediment

Thermocouple response during gas injection in air

Thermal Analysis-Thermocouple Lag

Thermal Analysis – 3D FEM

2

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

2.3

2.35

2.4

2.45

-4.2

-4

-3.8

-3.6

-3.4

-3.2

-3285 305 325 345 365 385 405 425 445 465

Pre

ssu

re [

MP

a]

Te

mp

era

ture

[°C

]

Time [s]

Temp 1

Predicted T

Pressure In

8/14/2015

31

Physical properties

(additional information: see 2014 End of Year Report)

Properties - Needs

- Borehole stability- Seafloor subsidence- Slope stability / Submarine landslides

Mechanical

- Reservoir modeling- Production enhancement

Thermal

- Hydraulic fracturing- Water production

Hydraulic

- Saturation estimations- Fracture tomography

Electrical

8/14/2015

32

nm µm mm m km

ky

By

My

1 yr

9 hr

s

ms

µs

ns

27 o

rder

s of

mag

nitu

de

16 orders of magnitude

1000 km

CH4 Reservoirs

ps

Å

MD

nano-pores GEO-PLUMBING wells fractures

Laboratory

Borehole logging

Micro organ.

Pore-scale simulators

Mol

ecul

ar ti

me

geol

ogic

tim

e 100m

1m

0.1m

Physical Properties

Numerical SimulationsIdealized topologiesPhysics inspiredLogging Pressure core

Effective Media Models

Bounds

(Lee et al. 2013) (Cook 2010)

Hydrate Saturation, Sh

k T[W

/mK

]

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Series & Parallel

Hashin-Shtrikman

1

i

iseries

iiparallel

k

xk

kxk

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

8/14/2015

33

Cryogenic Suction Induced Consolidation

Ice

Clay

Consolidated clay

Gas Production

(additional information: see 2014 End of Year Report)

8/14/2015

34

Gas Production

Prevailing Paradigm: • Based on oil production

Consequently: Clayey sediments are not considered good prospects • low permeability• unacceptable high settlements if production by depressurization• available technology driven by petroleum production• lack of economically viable production concepts

Gas production from hydrate-bearing – All tested in sands• depressurization• heating• inhibitors (including CO2-CH4 replacement)

Keys for a Paradigm Shift ?

Key #1: Interconnected hydrate lenses

Korean cores ‐ Park et al., 2009

8/14/2015

35

Key #2: Volume expansion

w

h

thw

g

h

wg

1816

18

cosR2

P

RTz

V

VV

0

10

20

30

40

50

270.15 275.15 280.15 285.15 290.15 295.15 300.15

Temperature [K]

Pre

ss

ure

[M

Pa

]

NT-316 (6)

W+G

H + WH + G

H + IH + GI + G

I + G

NT-131(808)

BR-172(1062)

BR-76(533)

BR-164(994,995,997)

CM-311(1325)

ES

NT-314 (2)

KG-7,18,19

CM-311(1327,1328)

HR-204(1251)

GM – WR (313)

KG-3,5,10,14

HR-204(1244,1245,1248,1249,1250)

HR-146(892)MAME

CM-311(1329)ER

JS-127 (796)

β = 6

1.4

1.5

34

1.3

21.8

3.5%Salinity

GM – GC (955)

Key #3: Gas driven fractures

8/14/2015

36

Key #4: Migration in layered sediments

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 2 4 6 8 10

Pre

ss

ure

[kP

a]

Time [hr]

X

O

O O O

XX

X

AEV: 1.3 [kPa]

Hydraulic effect: 0.3 [kPa]

Air out X: Stop air injectionO: Start air injection

90 cm

Filter Filter

PT

Pressure Panel

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Hydrate saturation S h

Ice

fra

ctio

n F

Rw

i

(a)

(b)

Mineral

Water Sw

Hydrate Sh

Pi

Mineral

Water

Gas

Pf

Mineral

Water

Gas

Pf

Ice

Case 1(no ice formation)

Case 2(Ice formation)

Initial conditionwith hydrate

After dissociation

VT

nVT

Sh+Sw=1

Ti=5°C

n=0.4

10°C15°C

20°C

Peq=3MPaTeq=2.5°C

Key #5: Heat Source

8/14/2015

37

But … #1: Limited Volume of Influence

But … #1: Limited Volume of Influence

8/14/2015

38

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 3000 6000 9000Dep

th [m

]Axial Load Along the Well [kN]

k= 15 kN/m

k=150 kn/m

k=1.5 MN/m

k=15 MN/m

k=150 MN/m

k=1.5 GN/m

k=15 GN/m

k=150 GN/m

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000Max Axial Loa

d [kN]

Tip Stiffness k [MN/m]

controlled by shaft capacity

controlled by production induced settlement

production horizon

Casing yield load

But … #2: Sediment-Well Interaction

L Goals – Objectives - Background

Natural HBF – Fine Grained (Analogues)

Underlying Physics

Devices

Hydrate Formation in the Lab

“Reservoir” Simulation

Physical Properties

Gas Production

Next – Team – Schedule

8/14/2015

39

Coming up?

ExperimentalExtend lense formation after injectionFormation in slurries: shallow accumulations

NumericalExtend to real topologies

ProductionEmphasis on shallow accumulations

Team:

Liang Lei (4th year)Seth Mallett (3rd year)NN (1st year)

Sheng Dai

Marco Terzariol (Production – GT/KAUST)Junbong Jang (Production – GT/KAUST)Hosung Shin (Well-sediment – Ulsan U.)

8/14/2015

40

Schedule

Task / SubTask YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4

1.0 – PMP

2.0 – Formation & morphology

2a: Literature review

2a: Laboratory protocol

2c: X-ray tomography

3.0 - Physical properties

3a: Analytical estimations

3b: Numerical Extension

3c: Measurements

4 - Gas Production

4a: Experimental Study

4b: Modeling

5 – Implications

5a: Settlement

5b: Stability

5c: Implications C-cycle

4

MILESTONE LOG

Milestone Planed

completion date

Actual completion

date

Verification method

Comments

Literature review 5/2013 5/2013 Report Completed first phase. Will continue throughout the project

Preliminary laboratory proto-col

8/2013 8/2013 Report (with

preliminary val-idation data)

this and previous reports

Cells for Micro-CT 8/2013 8/2013 Report (with first images)

this and previous reports

Compilation of CT images: segregated hydrate in clayey sediments

8/2014 In progress Report (with

images)

Preliminary experimental studies on gas production

12/2014 12/2014 Report (with

images)

Observed in experiments. Gas production engineer-ing is conducted analyti-cally/numerically

Analytical/numerical study of 2-media physical properties

5/2015 6/2015 Report (with analytical and

numerical data)

Experimental studies on gas production

12/2015 Report (with

data)

Observed in experiments. Gas production engineer-ing is conducted analyti-cally/numerically

Early numerical results related to gas production

5/2016 In progress Report

Comprehensive results (in-cludes Implications)

9/2016 Comprehensive

Report

PRODUCTS

Publications: In progress

Presentations: In progress

Website: Publications and key presentations are included in http://pmrl.ce.gatech.edu/

(for academic purposes only)

Technologies or techniques: X-ray tomographer and X-ray transparent pressure vessel

Inventions, patent applications, and/or licenses: None at this point.

Other products: None at this point.

5

PARTICIPANTS & OTHER COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS

Research Team: The current team is shown next. We anticipate including external collaborators

as the project advances

PhD #1

Liang Lei

PhD #2

Seth Mallett

Admin. support:Rebecca Colter

PI:  J. Carlos Santamarina

URA ‐ Summer

A. Garcia

IMPACT

While it is still too early to assess impact, we can already highlight preliminary success of

exploring hydrate lenses morphology in real systems, and analogue studies using a high

resolution tomographer.

CHANGES/PROBLEMS:

None at this point.

SPECIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

We are progressing towards all goals for this project.

BUDGETARY INFORMATION:

As of the end of this research period, expenditures are summarized in the following table.

Note: in our academic cycle, higher expenditures typically take place during the summer quarter.

6

Baseline Co

st Plan

Federal Share

Non‐Federal Share

Total Planned

Actual In

curred

 Cost

Federal Share

Non‐Federal Share

Total Incurred Costs

Varia

nce

Federal Share

Non‐Federal Share

Total Variance

Baseline Re

porting Qua

rter

DE‐FE009897

Q1

Cumulative 

Total

Q2

Cumulative 

Total

Q3

Cumulative 

Total

Q4

Cumulative 

Total

40,059

341,026

40,059

381,086

40,059

421,145

40,059

461,204

11,587

100,272

11,587

111,860

11,587

123,447

11,587

135,034

51,647

441,299

51,647

492,945

51,647

544,592

51,647

596,238

57,809

333,090

56,843

389,933

35,283

425,216

25,961

100,696

36,582

137,278

0137,278

83,770

433,786

93,425

527,211

35,283

562,494

17,749

‐7,936

16,784

8,848

‐4,776

4,071

14,374

424

24,995

25,419

‐11,587

13,831

32,123

‐7,512

41,779

34,266

‐16,364

17,903

Budget Period 3

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1/1/15 ‐ 3/31/15

4/1/15 ‐ 6/30/15

7/1/15 ‐ 9/30/15

10/1/14 ‐ 12/31/14

7

National Energy Technology Laboratory 626 Cochrans Mill Road P.O. Box 10940 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 3610 Collins Ferry Road P.O. Box 880 Morgantown, WV 26507-0880 13131 Dairy Ashford Road, Suite 225 Sugar Land, TX 77478 1450 Queen Avenue SW Albany, OR 97321-2198 Arctic Energy Office 420 L Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99501 Visit the NETL website at: www.netl.doe.gov Customer Service Line: 1-800-553-7681