| |
2008-2009
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
|
| DATE |
SPEAKER |
AFFILIATION |
TITLE |
ABSTRACT |
| Upcoming Colloquia |
| Postponed |
Mary Lou Zoback |
RMS |
Risk Management: A Perspective from the Private Sector |
|
| Dec 2 |
Margaret Leinen |
Climos, Chief Scientist |
TBA |
|
| Jan 12 |
Robert Glennon |
University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law |
Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What to Do about it |
|
Past Colloquia
|
| Sep. 15 |
Western Region Post-docs |
USGS, Western Region |
Annual Post-doc Colloquium |
|
| Aug. 25 |
Dr. Paul Winchester, MD |
Clinical Professor, Indiana Univ. School of Medicine and Director, Neonatal Intensive Care, St. Francis Hospital. |
Environmental Contaminants in our Drinking Water, Breast Milk and Our Babies: How Worried Should We Be? |
|
| Jan. 14 |
Scott W. Tinker |
Director, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas, Austin |
Global Energy: Myths and Realities |
Abstract Text |
| 2007 |
| Dec. 3 |
Lisa Lucas |
USGS, Menlo Park |
The Wiggles Matter: Significance of high-frequency processes to surface water quality |
Although surface water quality and its underlying processes vary over time scales ranging from seconds to decades, they have historically been studied at the lower (weekly to interannual) frequencies. Shorter (e.g. hourly) time-scale periodic processes have been explored less frequently as mechanisms potentially governing long-term trends in water quality. The aim of this talk is to investigate process variability at the shorter time scales and to illuminate what we might “miss” if we monitor or model waterborne constituents too coarsely in time. Case studies will draw from estuarine modeling and monitoring work and will demonstrate how constituent fluxes and algal bloom development, for example, can be strongly influenced by high-frequency periodic physical and biological processes. If intradaily process fluctuations are ignored (and, instead, mean values are calculated or used), models or measurements may produce gross overestimates, underestimates, or even the wrong sign associated with important quantities such as constituent flux or algal production. |
| Nov. 5 |
Bob Smith |
U. of Utah |
Yellowstone |
The Yellowstone hotspot resulted by interaction of a mantle plume with the overriding North America plate. This process has modified and reworked a large part of the western U.S lithosphere producing the 16 Ma old Yellowstone-Snake River Plain (YSRP ) volcanic system and a large topographic swell centered at Yellowstone. Integrated seismic and GPS modeling and geodynamic simulations shows that the plume-plate interaction has had a profound effect on the stress and lithospheric composition of a large area of the western U.S. Earthquake tomography reveals a mid-crustal magma chamber that is responsible for Yellowstone’s very high heat flow and active volcanism. It also reveals an upper-mantle low-velocity 60° west tilted body that is interpreted as the Yellowstone plume. The geometry of this body is consistent with magma ascending buoyantly in eastward mantle return flow. Using the plume geometry at 650 km depth, the extrapolated location of the initial 16 Ma Yellowstone hotspot was located
beneath the Columbia Plateau basalt field suggesting a common magmatic source for both systems. Dynamic modeling of geodetic and earthquake data shows that the high potential energy of the hotspot causes SW “downhill” lithospheric motion that has amplified Basin-Range lithospheric extension. YSRP gravity and heat flow data, constrained by seismic images, reveals how the crust was modified by hotspot magmatism and how its strength affects seismicity. And near real-time GPS and InSAR data, in collaboration with the USGS, reveal that Yellowstone is an unprecedented episode of uplift, at extraordinarily high rates of up to 7 cm/yr, that is attributed to magmatic intrusion of Yellowstone’s crustal magma chamber. |
Oct. 15, 3:15 PM
Auditorium Building 3, 2nd floor |
Sally Benson |
Stanford University |
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Deep Geological Formations |
Abstract: Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) has recently emerged as an important component of a portfolio of options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CCS avoids atmospheric emissions of CO2 by separating CO2 from large emission sources, compressing it and then pumping it deep underground for permanent storage. The first part of this presentation provides an overview of CCS technology, including world-wide potential, storage capacity and impacts on greenhouse gas emission reduction. The second half of the presentation provides an in-depth discussions of what we do and don’t know about long term storage security and how storage performance can be monitored using a variety of available technologies. Finally, the question of long-term liability is discussed—and how greater understanding of fundamental storage mechanisms can be used to make this a tractable issue. |
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S.
Geological Survey
