The stratigraphy and sedimentology of the Sentinel Butte Formation (Paleocene) in south-central Williams County, North Dakota

Approximately 163 meters (535 feet) of the Paleocene Sentinel Butte Formation crop out in southcentral Williams county, North Dakota. To determine their mode of deposition and stratigraphic position within the formation, twelve stratigraphic sections were measured. These strata were deposited in alternating fluvial and lacustrine environments as determined by sedimentary structures, lithology, lithologic sequences, and fossil occurrences. A fining upward trend in grain size of the tabular sandstones, and the identification of epsilon cross-stratification in the tabular sandstones support a fluvial origin for some of the strata. The strongest evidence for the interpretation of lacustrine deposition is the presence of limestone bodies within these strata. Examination of thin sections taken from some of the limestones revealed a primary mode of origin for the CaC03 • Additional evidence for lacustrine deposition is the presence of thin lignitic layers directly overlying strata lacking root traces. The identification of the upper sand of the Sentinel Butte Formation within the uppermost exposures of this area, and the presence of the Sentinel Butte tuff marker unit in the region just south of the study area suggests that the upper 3/4 of the Sentinel Butte Formation is exposed in this area. Projection of the Bullion Creek-Sentinel Butte formational contact from a region to the east suggests that the maximun thickness of the Sentinel Butte Formation may be nearly 26 meters thicker than previously estimated. Paleocurrent data from this area indicate a SSW flow direction. This information, combined with data from earlier studies, suggests that the source area for these sediments was not the Powder River Basin. Examination of the thicknesses of various lignite beds in the Nessen Anticline area does not reveal if the anticline served as a diversionary barier during the deposition of these strata. It is possible that the development of the anticline was more influential during late Sentinel Butte time

Model development of the Aquistore CO2 storage project

AbstractThe Plains CO2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership, through the Energy & Environmental Research Center, is collaborating with Petroleum Technology Research Centre in site characterization; risk assessment; public outreach; and monitoring, verification, and accounting activities at the Aquistore project. The PCOR Partnership constructed a static geological model to assess the potential volumetric storage capacity of the Aquistore site and provide the foundation for dynamic simulation for the dynamic CO2 storage capacity. Results of the predictive simulations will be used in the risk assessment process to define an overall monitoring plan and assure stakeholders that the injected CO2 will remain safely stored

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure of Identical Garmin Instinct Watches During Low Intensity Resistance Training

ABSTRACT Wearable technology and resistance training are two of the top five worldwide fitness trends for 2022 as determined by ACSM. Many devices, such as Garmin’s Instinct, have functions to track various physiological aspects during resistance training. However, to our knowledge, independent verification of the validity and reliability of these devices for estimating average heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) during resistance training are nonexistent. PURPOSE: To determine the concurrent validity and reliability of identical Garmin Instinct watches during resistance training. METHODS: Twenty subjects (n=10 female and male; age: 23.2±7.7 years; height: 169.7±11.1; weight: 76.3±15.7 kg) completed this study. Two Garmin Instinct watches were evaluated, along with the Polar H10 chest strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit as the criterion devices for average HR and EE, respectively. Subjects completed 4 circuits of 4 exercises (front squat, reverse lunge, push-ups, and shoulder press) using dumbbells at a light intensity with 1 set of 10 repetitions per exercise, 30 seconds rest between exercises, and 1-1.5 min. rest between circuits. Data were analyzed for validity (Mean Absolute Percent Error [MAPE] and Lin’s Concordance Coefficient [CCC]) and reliability (Coefficient of Variation [CV]), with predetermined thresholds of MAPE0.70, and CVRESULTS: Garmin Instinct 1 and Instinct 2 were significantly (

Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure Validity of Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Wrist Watches During Light Circuit Resistance Training

Our laboratory recently found wrist-worn wearable technology devices to be valid for measuring average heart rate (HR), but not valid for estimated energy expenditure (EE) compared to criterion devices, during steady state aerobic training (walking, running, biking). However, the validity of wrist-worn devices for HR and EE measures during resistance training is largely unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if two wrist-worn devices, Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Garmin Fenix 6 Pro, record valid measures of average HR and EE while performing circuit resistance training. METHODS: Twenty participants (n=10 female, n=10 male; age: 23.2 ± 7.7 years) completed this study. The Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Garmin Fenix 6 Pro were tested along with the Polar H10 chest strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit as the criterions for average HR and EE, respectively. Participants completed 4 circuits of 4 exercises (front squat, reverse lunge, push-ups, and shoulder press) using dumbbells at a light intensity with 1 set of 10 repetitions per exercise and 30 seconds rest between exercises and 1-1.5 min. rest between circuits. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE, ≤10%) and Lin’s Concordance (ρ≥0.7) were used to validate the device’s average HR (in bpm) and estimated EE (in kcals) compared to criterion reference devices. Dependent T-tests determined differences (p≤0.05). RESULTS: Average HR for Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Pro were significantly different (p\u3c0.01) than the Polar H10 (115.0±23.9 and 124.5±15.4 vs 128.9±19.0 bpm, respectively), and were not considered valid (MAPE: 44.8% and 25.1%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.50 and 0.63, respectively). Estimated EE for Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Pro were significantly different (p\u3c0.0001) than the Cosmed K5 (31.7±12.3 and 39.7±13.1 vs 20.3±5.5 kcals, respectively), and were not considered valid (MAPE: 309.7% and 322.1%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.04 and 0.15, respectively). CONCLUSION: Anyone involved in any resistance training aspect should be aware of the limitations of these wrist-worn devices in measuring average HR or EE

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Life Cycle Analysis Model (Rev. 2)

In “How green is my oil?” by Azzolina et al., the authors presented an integrated life-cycle model for CO2-EOR where the CO2 is sourced from a coal-fired power plant. The model was developed entirely in Microsoft Excel® to improve transparency and provide a useful tool for other practitioners. This model is an updated version of the model from the article. The cells have been unlocked so they can be modified. Azzolina, N.A., Peck, W.D., Hamling, J.A., Gorecki, C.D., Ayash, S.C., Doll, T.E., Nakles, D.V., and Melzer, L.S., 2016, How green is my oil? a detailed look at greenhouse gas accounting for CO2-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) sites: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, v. 51, p. 369–379. DOI: /10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.008. Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory under Award Number DE-FC26-05NT42592.https://commons.und.edu/eerc-publications/1000/thumbnail.jp

Plains CO2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership (Phase I) Final Report

During the period of October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2005, the Plains CO2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership, identified geologic and terrestrial candidates for near-term practical and environmentally sound carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration demonstrations in the heartland of North America. The PCOR Partnership region covered nine states and three Canadian provinces. The validation test candidates were further vetted to ensure that they represented projects with (1) commercial potential and (2) a mix that would support future projects both dependent and independent of CO2 monetization. This report uses the findings contained in the PCOR Partnership's two dozen topical reports and half-dozen fact sheets as well as the capabilities of its geographic information system-based Decision Support System to provide a concise picture of the sequestration potential for both terrestrial and geologic sequestration in the PCOR Partnership region based on assessments of sources, sinks, regulations, deployment issues, transportation, and capture and separation. The report also includes concise action plans for deployment and public education and outreach as well as a brief overview of the structure, development, and capabilities of the PCOR Partnership. The PCOR Partnership is one of seven regional partnerships under Phase I of the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory's Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership program. The PCOR Partnership, comprising 49 public and private sector members, is led by the Energy & Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota. The international PCOR Partnership region includes the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba and the states of Montana (part), Wyoming (part), North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin