SKM Geothermal Report

In Collaboration with:
The Geothermal Resources of

Victoria
THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AUTHORITY OF

VICTORIA
Final
25 February 2005
In Collaboration with:
The Geothermal Resources of Victoria
THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AUTHORITY OF VICTORIA

Final
25 February 2005
Sinclair Knight Merz

ABN 37 001 024 095
590 Orrong Road, Armadale 3143
PO Box 2500
Malvern VIC 3144 Australia
Tel: +61 3 9248 3100
Fax: +61 3 9248 3364
Web: www.skmconsulting.com
COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair
Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written
permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Geothermal Resources of Victoria
Contents
1. Executive Summary 1
2. Introduction 3
3. Objectives 5
4. Measured Temperatures 6
4.1 Temperature Gradients 6
5. Calculation of Geothermal Temperatures 12

5.1 Heatflow data in Victoria 12
5.2 Heatflow estimates and data quality 13
5.3 Geothermal models 14
5.4 State-wide estimates of geothermal temperatures 15
6. Potential Volumetric Yield of Geothermal Wells 17
7. Mapping Geothermal Temperatures 19

7.1 Temperatures at Greater Depths – Hot Dry Rock Potential 42
8. Data Gaps 46
8.1 Recommendation for Further Work 47
8.2 Indicative Drilling Costs 47
9. Electricity Generation Technologies 48

9.1 Steam Rankine Cycle 48
9.2 Organic Rankine Cycle 48
9.2.1 Introduction 48
9.2.2 Process Description 49
9.2.3 Plant Costs 51
9.2.4 Energy Conversion Efficiency 51
9.3 Kalina Cycle® 52
9.3.1 Introduction 52
9.3.2 Process Description 53
9.3.3 Plant Costs 55
9.3.4 Energy Conversion Efficiency 55
10. Geothermal Direct-Use 57

10.1 General Review of Direct Geothermal Uses 57
10.2 Geothermal Heat Pumps 58
10.3 Space Heating and District Heating 59
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
C:\Documents and Settings\PMunivrana\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKF\SKM Geothermal Report - final.doc PAGE i
10.4 Bathing and Swimming 59

10.5 Greenhouse Heating 60
10.6 Aquaculture Pond Heating 60
10.7 Industrial Uses 60
10.8 Cooling and Air Conditioning 61
10.9 Agricultural Drying 61
10.10 Direct Use Economics 61
11. Existing Geothermal Applications 64

11.1 Electricity Generation 64
11.2 District heating in Portland 66
11.3 Geothermal heat pumps the New AGSO Building 76
12. Environmental Effects of Geothermal Use 83

12.1 Resource Depletion 83
12.2 Venting of Gases. 84
12.3 Noise 84
12.4 Disposal of Wastewater 85
12.5 Land Subsidence 85
12.6 Environmental benefits 87
13. Conclusions 89
14. References 91
Appendix A Compilation of all Measured Temperature Data 94
C:\Documents and Settings\PMunivrana\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKF\SKM Geothermal Report - final.doc PAGE ii
Figures
Figure 1 Geothermal Gradients – All Bores 7
Figure 2 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in Victoria 9
Figure 3 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in the Otway Basin 10
Figure 4 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in the Gippsland Basin 11
Figure 5 Deep Sedimentary Basins and Locations of Measured Geothermal Temperatures 20
Figure 6 Temperatures at 500m Depth 21
Figure 7 Temperatures at 500 m depth for the Otway Basin 24
Figure 8 Geothermal Temperatures at 500m depth for the Gippsland Basin 26
Figure 9 Geothermal Temperatures (Degrees C) at 1000m Depth 29
Figure 10 Geothermal Temperatures at 1000m depth in the Otway Basin 33
Figure 11 Geothermal Temperatures at 1000m Depth in the Gippsland Basin 35
Figure 12 Geothermal Temperatures (Degrees C) at 1500m Depth 37
Figure 13 Geothermal Temperatures at 1500m depth in the Otway Basin 39
Figure 14 Geothermal Temperatures at 1500m Depth in the Gippsland Basin 41
Figure 15 Hot Dry Rock Development (supplied by Geodynamics Limited) 44
Figure 16 Simplified Schematic of ORC Power Plant 50
Figure 17 Indicative Thermal to Electric Conversion Efficiency for ORC Plants 52
Figure 18 Simplified Schematic of a Representative Kalina Cycle® 54
Figure 19 Claimed Efficiency Advantage of Kalina Cycle® over ORC 56
Figure 20 Geothermal Energy Cost as a Function of Plant Capacity 63
Figure 21 Location of geothermal plants in Australia (from Burns et al 2000) 64
Figure 22 Layout of the Portland Geothermal District Heating System (courtesy of Glenelg Shire
Council) 68
Figure 23 Construction Details of the Henty Park Geothermal Production Bore 73
Figure 24 Henty Park Production Bore Wellhead 74
C:\Documents and Settings\PMunivrana\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKF\SKM Geothermal Report - final.doc PAGE iii
Figure 25 Henty Park Cooling Towers 75
Figure 26 Water Level Observations in the Portland Geothermal Aquifer 76
Figure 27 Schematic Layout of the AGSO Building and its Surrounds 77
Figure 28 The Borefield Has been Restored to Lawn and Garden (Photo Courtesy John Coffey,
Davis Langdon) 78
Figure 29 Water Circulation Pumps (Photo courtesy Stephen Read, Geoscience Australia) 79
Figure 30 Banks of Small Diameter Pipes Transfer Water and Heat Between the Bore Field and the
Heat Pump Units (Photo courtesy Stephen Read, Geoscience Australia) 80
Figure 31 Geothermal Heat Pump Installation (Photo courtesy Stephen Read, Geoscience
Australia) 81
Figure 32 Geothermal Heat Pumps Housed in Cabinets Inside the Buildings (Photo Courtesy John
Coffey, Davis Langdon) 82
Figure 33 Carbon Emissions from Energy Production by Fuel (DiPippo, 1988) 87
C:\Documents and Settings\PMunivrana\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKF\SKM Geothermal Report - final.doc PAGE iv
Tables
Table 1 Heatflow data for Western Victoria 14
Table 2 Calculated Temperatures. 16
Table 3 Measured Temperatures Shown in Figure 6 in Areas Other Than the Gippsland and Otway
Basins. 22
Table 4 Calculated Temperatures Shown in Figure 6 22
Table 5 Specific Capacity Data Shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 23
Table 6 Measured Temperatures in the Otway Basin Shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 25
Table 7 Measured Temperatures in the Gippsland Basin Shown in Figure 6 and Figure 8 27
Table 8 Measured Temperatures Shown in Figure 9 in Areas Other Than the Gippsland and Otway
Basins. 30
Table 10 Specific Capacity Data Shown in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 31
Table 11 Measured Temperatures Shown in the Otway Basin Shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10.34
Table 12 Measured Temperatures in the Gippsland Basin Shown in Figure 9 and Figure 11. 36
Table 14 Measured Temperatures in the Otway Basin Shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13. 40
Table 15 Measured Temperatures in the Gippsland Basin Shown in Figure 12 and Figure 14. 42
Table 16 Temperatures Calculated at 3000 and 5000m Depth 45
Table 17 Indicative Drilling Costs in Victoria (Data Provided by Sides Engineering) 47
Table 18 Categories of Direct Use of Geothermal Energy, World-Wide 57
Table 19 Details of Heating Facilities Included in the Portland Geothermal District Heating Scheme
(information courtesy Glenelg Shire Council) 69
Table 20 Geothermal Exploration and Construction Noise Levels 85
C:\Documents and Settings\PMunivrana\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKF\SKM Geothermal Report - final.doc PAGE v
Document history and status

Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type
Draft 29 June 2004 B Barnett
Rev A 12-Jul-04 T Dobbie S de Kretser Sections 9 & 10 updated for
reissue.
Rev A 12 July 2004 I Swane B Barnett 13 July 2004 Final
Rev B 25 Feb. 2005 B Barnett B Barnett 25 Feb 2005 Final
Distribution of copies
Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to
Draft 1 1 M Wheatley, SEAV in PDF Form
Rev A 1 1 M Wheatley, & G Henry SEAV in PDF Form
Rev B 1 1 G Henry SEAV in PDF Form
Printed: 31 March 2006
Last saved: 30 March 2006 01:22 PM
File name: I:\WCMS\Projects\WC02886\Deliverables\Report_version_5.doc
Author: Brian Barnett
Project manager: Brian Barnett
Name of organisation: Sustainable Energy Authority of Victoria
Name of project: Mapping the Geothermal Resources of Victoria
Name of document: Geothermal Resources of Victoria
Document version: Revision B (Final)
Project number: WC02886
C:\Documents and Settings\PMunivrana\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKF\SKM Geothermal Report - final.doc PAGE vi
1. Executive Summary
This report presents information on the geothermal resources of Victoria as obtained from a search
of state groundwater and petroleum bores databases. In general, temperature data are collected and
recorded incidentally in bores that have been drilled for purposes other than exploring or defining
geothermal resources. Accordingly, the quality of much of the available temperature data is
questionable and care has been taken to reject any inconsistent or obviously erroneous data. Of
particular concern is the systematic understatement of temperatures in the databases. This arises
from the fact that most measurements in deep bores are made while the well’s temperature is
recovering in the period immediately following the circulation of cool drilling fluids. During the
course of this study attempts have been made, wherever possible, to correct recorded temperatures
to allow for this discrepancy. However a lack of sufficiently detailed temperature information has
prevented an accurate extrapolation of temperatures in many cases. Accordingly, the results
presented in this report are generally considered to be conservative estimates of the prevailing
geothermal temperatures within the state (i.e. temperatures presented are equal to or lower than real
formation temperature).
Average geothermal gradients in the sedimentary basins (i.e. the Gippsland, Otway and Murray
Basins) were found to be between 3 and 4ºC per 100 m depth which is marginally above the
worldwide average background level of 3ºC/100 m. An obvious “hot spot” in the geothermal
gradients appears to be present in the Latrobe Valley in the Gippsland Basin where geothermal
gradients are as high as 7.3ºC/100 m. The high gradients are associated with relatively high
measured temperatures (up to 70ºC) in bores that are less than 800 m in depth. The reason for this
anomaly is not well understood but is believed to be associated with the thick coal measures
present at this location. The elevated geothermal gradients are only observed in bores that are less
than 800 m deep. At greater depths the temperatures appear to revert to the average geothermal
gradient of the Gippsland Basin.
Where measured data are not available, the geothermal temperatures have been augmented by
temperatures that have been calculated on the basis of heat flow and rock property estimates and
assumptions. The resultant combined data sets are presented as maps of geothermal temperature at
500, 1000 and 1500 m depth.
The maps of geothermal temperature presented in this report indicate that temperatures between 30
and 60ºC, are present over much of the state at depths of 500 to 1500 m. The feasibility of
extracting geothermal waters at these temperatures is strongly influenced by the geology and
hydrogeology of the deep sedimentary basins. Experience at drilling deep groundwater bores has
demonstrated that substantial volumes of water can be obtained from the aquifers within the thick
unconsolidated Tertiary age sediments found in the Gippsland, Otway and Murray basins. Bores
that penetrate into the underlying basement rocks rely on encountering fractures and faults in the
C:\Documents and Settings\PMunivrana\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKF\SKM Geothermal Report - final.doc PAGE 1
rock mass to obtain production. Accordingly, the chances of a bore delivering useable quantities of
geothermal water from depth depends on whether the unconsolidated sediments extend to sufficient
depth for the required temperature. The assessment of geothermal resources in this environment
should therefore be accompanied by maps of the surface of the deep bedrock to help define deep
drilling targets for production bores. Geothermal temperature maps of the Gippsland Basin
presented in this report (refer to Figure 8, Figure 11 and Figure 14 for temperatures at 500, 1000
and 1500 m respectively) include basement elevation data to help define the region at each depth
where the unconsolidated sediments can be expected. Similar basement mapping for the Otway
and Murray basin should be carried out in future to help define production bore target depths and
locations in these basins.
Geothermal water easily accessible in Victoria can be used for a number of direct uses. The
temperature of water easily accessible within 1000 m of the surface over much of the state is ideal
for numerous applications, such as space heating, including the heating of greenhouses, bathing
(both in spas and heated swimming pools), aquaculture pond heating and agricultural drying.
The geothermal waters of the Otway Basin are currently being used to great advantage in a district
heating scheme in Portland. The system, jointly operated by Glenelg Shire Council and Portland
Coast water provides water and space heating to municipal and administrative buildings, swimming
pools, hotel and hospital. The scheme has been operational since the early 1980’s and has provided
substantial savings in fuel costs while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a
clear demonstration of an appropriate use of the resources that are present throughout the entire
basin.
The temperature of geothermal water within 2000 m of the surface in Victoria is not sufficiently
high for generating electricity in a conventional steam turbine. Organic Rankine Cycle and Kalina
Cycle® electricity generation technologies could possibly be applied in Victoria. However the
expected plant efficiencies at temperatures less than 100ºC are so low that such developments are
unlikely to be economic. Similarly, geothermal temperatures in that depth region easily accessible
by drilling are generally too low to be able to support a successful Hot Dry Rock development
under current economic conditions and with currently proven technologies. Local, thermal
anomalies identified in the Gippsland and Otway Basins could however represent exploration
targets for potential Hot Dry Rock developments.
2. Introduction
Sinclair Knight Merz in collaboration with Professor James Cull of Monash University (trading as
Monash Geoscope) was commissioned by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Victoria to develop
an updated assessment of the geothermal resources of Victoria. The commission is aimed at
updating work carried out in the 1980’s by the Department of Industry Technology and Resources
and the Victorian Solar Energy Council. This study culminated in the publication in 1987 of a
report entitled “Geothermal Resources of Victoria” by R. L. King, A. J. Ford, D. R. Stanley, P. R.
Kenley and M. K. Cecil (King et al, 1987).
Principal sources of data used in the study include various data bases of petroleum, groundwater
and mining bores that are maintained and operated by Sinclair Knight Merz and by the Department
of Primary Industries, Minerals and Petroleum.
Few bores have been drilled in Victoria for the express purpose of exploring or developing
geothermal resources. Most of the deep bores that have been drilled were aimed at minerals and
petroleum exploration and production and at defining, monitoring and producing groundwater.
Accordingly, the available geothermal temperature data are sparse and have been recorded for
purposes other than for defining geothermal reserves. The resultant body of data is considered to
be of relatively poor quality as little attention has been paid to recording stable temperatures that
accurately reflect the true formation temperature at the measurement depth. In the current study
every attempt has been made to obtain the most reliable and accurate temperatures from the
available body of information. Where necessary, conservative estimates of formation temperature
and geothermal gradient have been adopted.
The majority of geothermal temperature data have been obtained from wells drilled in the Otway
and Gippsland sedimentary basins. The relatively high concentration of bores and temperature
measurements in these areas reflects the location of oil, gas and minerals exploration and the
existence of thick, permeable sediments from which substantial quantities of groundwater can be
obtained. Deep bores and geothermal temperature measurements are scarce in the Murray Basin
reflecting the lack of petroleum and deep mineral exploration carried out in the region. Similarly,
no deep geothermal temperatures have been found in the Central Highland area where thick
sedimentary sequences and the potential for deep groundwater production are absent. The absence
of deep measured temperatures in the central and northern parts of the state does not necessarily
reflect poor geothermal potential.
In order to in-fill geothermal temperatures and gradients in those areas that have few recorded deep
temperatures, geothermal temperatures have been calculated based on measured and assumed
values of thermal conductivity and heat flow. Estimates have been made at the centre of each of
the 1:250 000 series map sheets that cover the state. The calculated data have then been used to
augment the measured data to prepare maps of geothermal temperature and geothermal gradients
that cover the entire state. Calculations of geothermal temperatures presented in Section 5 (and in
Table 16) of this report were provided and reported by Professor Jim Cull of Monash University,
School of Geosciences who was engaged under a separate commission by the Sustainable Energy
Authority of Victoria.
3. Objectives
The principal objectives of the study are:
To collect all geothermal temperature data that has become available since the publication
of King et al (1987).
To incorporate all new geothermal data in maps that illustrate the geothermal resources of
Victoria.
To assess the geology and hydraulic characteristics of the geothermally prospective areas
to help define targets for and potential yields of geothermal bores.
To assess geothermal heat flow throughout the state to help map the potential geothermal
resources across the entire state, including those areas where temperatures have not been
defined by measurements in deep bores.
To review currently proven technologies for the generation of electricity from low grade
geothermal resources that may be applicable for Victoria’s geothermal reserves.
To review and highlight possible uses for low grade geothermal resources in Victoria.
4. Measured Temperatures
Bottom-hole temperatures are routinely measured during oil and gas exploration. Many of these
results are contained in Well Completion Reports submitted to The Department of Primary Industry
Minerals and Petroleum under the terms of the Petroleum (Submerged Land) Act 1967 (Nicholas et
al, 1980). Data quality varies according to the logging procedures adopted by each company and
the instruments available but some data are suitable for estimates of heat flow (Cull & Denham
1979; Middleton 1979) or for defining true formation temperature. A common problem with the
available data is that the majority of temperature measurements are collected on petroleum wells
soon after circulation of cool drilling fluids ceases. The resultant temperatures rarely reflect the
real formation temperature and are invariably lower than stable formation temperature.
Occasionally the Well Completion Reports include sufficient transient temperature data to enable
an extrapolative estimate of true formation temperature.
In addition to deep petroleum wells, a number of deep groundwater bores have been drilled in
Victoria for water supply and deep basin monitoring purposes. Temperature data from such bores
are occasionally measured and recorded in bore databases maintained by the Department of
Sustainability and Environment and by the Department of Primary Industries.
Interrogation of the various databases of deep bores drilled in the state has resulted in the collection
of a substantial body of geothermal temperature data. A complete inventory of geothermal
temperature measurements obtained during the course of the current study is presented in
Appendix A. A total of 269 measured data was extracted from the DPI databases and from SKM
records. Most bores with measured temperature data are located within the Otway and Gippsland
sedimentary basins.
4.1 Temperature Gradients

The measured temperature data have been plotted against measurement depth in Figure 1. Here it
can be seen that the bores located in the Gippsland Basin display elevated temperatures and a
slightly elevated gradient compared to those located in the Otway Basin. Average gradients are not
dissimilar to the global average background gradients of 3 to 3.5ºC per 100 m of depth (ie. average
geothermal gradients in volcanically inactive regions).
Anomalous gradients can be seen in those bores in the Gippsland Basin that are located in the
Latrobe Valley. This subset of the Gippsland Basin bores displays a much higher geothermal
gradient, in the order of 7.3ºC per 100 m of depth. It is interesting to note that the anomaly is only
apparent in shallow bores in the Latrobe Valley (i.e. bores that are less than about 800 m depth).
Measured temperatures in deeper bores in the area fall on the average Gippsland Basin geothermal
gradient. Anomalous temperatures in this region have been identified previously and various
theories have been put forward to explain these observations. In general it is agreed that the
anomalous gradients in the region are associated with the extensive coal deposits found in the
Latrobe Valley. Whether the shallow geothermal anomaly is related to the low thermal
conductivity of the coal beds, thermo-chemical reactions occurring naturally in the coal beds or
artificial elevation of shallow gradients through the upward migration of deep high temperature
waters in response to coal mine dewatering operations is yet to be confirmed.
Figure 1 Geothermal Gradients – All Bores
-500
Temperature (Degrees C)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
Otways Basin
500 Gippsland Basin
y = 13.715x - 202.18
7.3C/100m La Trobe Valley (Subset of Gippsland)
Murray Basin
1000 Otways Average Gradient
Gippsland Average Gradient
La Trobe Valley
1500
Depth (m)
2000
2500 y = 26.183x - 494.99

3.8C/100m
3000
3500
y = 29.477x - 336.66
3.4 C/100m
4000
Data from four deep bores drilled in the Murray Basin are included in Figure 1. Unfortunately this
does not represent a sufficient body of data from which an average geothermal gradient can be
determined for the basin. However it is clear from Figure 1 that the few temperatures measured in
Murray Basin bores are not substantially different from the average gradients observed in the
Otway and Gippsland basins. An interesting conclusion drawn from the temperature data plotted in
Figure 1 is that, apart from local anomalies within each basin, the average geothermal gradients are
relatively uniform within the three basins. This observation is supported by the geothermal
temperature gradient map for Victoria as presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in Victoria
Figure 3 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in the Otway Basin
Figure 4 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in the Gippsland Basin
5. Calculation of Geothermal Temperatures

5.1 Heatflow data in Victoria
Heatflow (Q; mW/m2) can be calculated most simply from the expression
Q = λβ
where λ(W/mK) is the thermal conductivity at any depth and β (C/km) is the corresponding
geothermal gradient over the same interval.
Normally β is determined from discrete measurements over 5-10 m intervals but values of λ are
available only for small isolated core samples 2-3 cm in length. Consequently there is a sampling
error in any isolated calculation and the results may contain a significant bias. Estimates of high
precision are normally restricted to uniform sections characterised by constant linear gradients.
More elaborate reductions are possible, but the necessary samples for each significant unit are not
available in this instance.
South-east Australia is generally considered to be a region of high surface heatflow relative to the
global average (close to 62 mW/m2). In Victoria values in the range 80-120 mW/m2 are consistent
with observations in Tasmania and South Australia confirming systematic trends from the passive
Precambrian to the more active Phanerozoic subcrops. However great care is required in
constructing more elaborate models of crustal evolution based on these thermal constraints. In
particular there are serious limitations on the quality of the data and the number of observations
available.
The complications associated with determinations of heat flow have been reviewed by Cull (1982).
Early data obtained in Tasmania and Victoria have been obtained both in tunnels and boreholes
under a variety of conditions. Many of the basic conditions now assumed for reliable estimates of
heat flow have not been previously available and significant approximations and corrections have
been required to generate the available database. It is possible for some locations that the total error
will exceed 25%. In these circumstances interpretations of crustal evolution should be based only
on general trends.
In more recent years some excellent results have been obtained at Lancefield in central Victoria
(Cull 1983). Values of 77.2 mW/m2 for this site are significantly lower than those obtained at
Stawell and Castlemaine (~120 mW/m2) using more primitive equipment. The lower values are
more consistent with global trends and may be considered more realistic in view of the subdued
geothermal activity in the region. Elsewhere some reasonable estimates have been obtained for Mt
Gambier in spite of complications associated with groundwater movements (Cull 1979). Values of
92 mW/m2 for this location suggest a trend consistent with the progressive migration of recent
volcanism from central to southern Victoria.
Values of heat flow in central and southern Victoria are at least 25-50% above the global average.
They indicate an area of active crustal evolution possibly involving mechanisms of crustal
extension and melt emplacement (Gray and Cull 1992). Spatial wavelengths in the geothermal data
may require anomalous heat production at mid-crustal levels. Detachment models or melt
emplacement are sufficient for this purpose and are consistent with the available heat flow data.
5.2 Heatflow estimates and data quality

The most recent estimates of surface heatflow for Western Victoria have been obtained at Horsham
(89.6 mW/m2) and Warracknabeel (97.6 mW/m2). The results are significantly less than previous
values obtained at Stawell and Castlemaine and support data obtained at Lancefield. Consequently,
crustal models based on hot-spot migration and rapid cooling of high level melt emplacements may
require revision (Purss & Cull, 2001). However, more general models based on mid-crustal
detachments or underplating mechanisms do not require the preservation of a specific spatial
anomaly and consequently remain unaffected. Previous inconsistencies between surface heatflow
and surface heat production are eliminated if reasonable estimates of thermal conductivity are
adopted for processing the previous Stawell and Castlemaine data.
Core samples have been obtained from the interpreted Palaeozoic basement in western Victoria and
consist of veined mudstones and shales along with some altered basalt. These correspond to
constant linear segments of geothermal gradient in each hole and heatflow values have been
calculated directly according to equation (1) using the average of three core samples for each
location. The results from each hole are in broad agreement. The geothermal gradient for the
basement in each location is close to 23ºC/km and the average thermal conductivity for each
location is close to 4.0 W/m/K. The results are internally consistent and suggest a uniformity in
thermal history over distances of 50 km. The results for Horsham (VIMP3) and Warracknabeel
(VIMP14) are given along with other locations in Table 1.
Data for Portland and Otway are based on bottom-hole temperatures obtained in oil wells along
with best estimates for thermal conductivity using lithological logs. Consequently they are
provided only as a guide to the regional trends and may require corrections exceeding 20%.
Extensive site descriptions are available for Lancefield and Mt Gambier (Cull 1983, and Cull 1979)
while more basic descriptions for Stawell and Castlemaine are provided by Sass (1964). In general,
geothermal gradients are normally well determined but estimates of thermal conductivity are much
more erratic. Few core samples are available, sample preparation is complex and local anomalies
are common. Consequently extreme values for Castlemaine and Stawell may be related to sampling
errors ranging up to 20%. Conductivity data adjusted on this basis provide much greater internal
consistency with only minor discrepancies compared to observations in a uniform felsic granite
near Lancefield.
Previous distinctions between heatflow in the I- and S-type granites (Sawka & Chappell 1986) are
eliminated and there are no indications of extreme (negative) values of reduced heat flow (the
mantle component) in western Victoria. Greater linearity is obtained in correlations relating
heatflow and heat production with a mantle component close to 30 mW/m2 along with a
characteristic depth of approximately 20 km.
Table 1 Heatflow data for Western Victoria
Location Latitude Longitude d(m) λ β Q
Horsham 36.862 142 195 3.93 22.8 89.6

Warracknabeel 36.483 142.347 131 4.1 23.8 97.6
Lancefield 37.136 144.774 160 2.53 30.5 77.2
Stawell 37.05 142.78 300 4.33 27.1 117 (93.8)*
Castlemaine 37.05 144.22 165 4.88 24.2 121 (94.4)
Mt Gambier 37.75 140.89 243 3.21 28.6 91.8
Portland 38.33 141.67 1300 3.25 30.7 (99.9)
Otway 38.2 141.2 1000 3 34.9 (103)
Port Campbell 38.6 143 4000 2.5 31 (77.5)
Murrayville 35.33 141.183 400 3 31 (93)
* ( ) estimate using approximate conductivities +/- 20%
5.3 Geothermal models

New heatflow data obtained at Horsham and Warracknabeel require major revisions to the thermal
models proposed for western Victoria by Sass and Lachenbruch (1979). In particular the new data
provide no support for the spatial wavelengths associated with previous data obtained at Stawell
and Castlemaine (Table 1). The revised data suggest a more regional trend for thermal evolution
with heatflow values generally exceeding 90 mW/m2. There are no inconsistencies with the longer
time constants associated with mid-crustal underplating or detachment models, but there is also no
evidence for a systematic progression of high level melt emplacements followed by rapid cooling.
Plate migration over a mantle hot-spot has been suggested to explain the apparent southwards
younging of central volcanoes in western Victoria. However the nature of the mantle mechanism
remains subject to debate (Johnson 1989). Surface manifestations suggest several separate point
source plumes operating simultaneously along the eastern coast of Australia. These may be part of
a single convection cell within the mantle producing a linear heat source with penetration of the
brittle crust assisted by stress field migration (tearing). Johnson (1989) indicates some difficulties
with the stress model proposed by Pilger (1982) in relation to current indications of compression.
However some extension or deformation at the base of the crust may be essential to accommodate
progressive variations in the radius of curvature caused by plate migration.
The revised heatflow data remain high by global standards and clearly distinguish the active
orogenic belts in the east (>90 mW/m2) from the stable Precambrian cratons in the west
(<40 mW/m2). Part of this excess may be attributed to elevated radiogenic distributions (U, K, Th)
persisting to mid-crustal depths of 15-20 km (Sawka & Chappell 1986). However the required
concentrations (>3 µW/m3 ) are normally associated only with granitic bodies highly differentiated
towards the surface and consequently some advective contribution would normally be anticipated.
Mid-crustal melt emplacements, underplating (Ewart 1989), or diapir mechanisms (Lister &
Etheridge 1989) are sufficient to provide continual heating at the required rate while avoiding rapid
lateral gradations in surface heatflow.
Models based on underplating and advection were first suggested by Sass and Lachenbruch (1979)
to explain the spatial wavelengths observed in the available heatflow data. In essence it is assumed
that there should be some correlation between heatflow and the apparent migration of central
volcanoes. Mid-crustal melt emplacements were required to accommodate high values for heatflow
observed only at Stawell and Castlemaine (119, 121 mW/m2) but with cooling rates sufficient to
avoid regional heating. However more recent observations at Lancefield, Horsham, and
Warracknabeel provide contrary evidence and fail to indicate any diagnostic spatial trends in that
area consistent with lateral equilibration.
Other models of structural evolution based on stress relaxation for eastern Australia have been
suggested by Zhang et al (1996). The results are consistent with regional compression and
deformation by gravity loading with spreading normal to an apparent linear trend in regional
seismicity (Spassov et al 1997). However the critical rheological parameters are highly sensitive to
variations in temperature and additional heatflow data are required to constrain the range of
possible solutions prior to second-order interpretations. Any new heatflow data may also be
expected to affect simple relaxation models proposed by Cull et al (1991) to explain the nature of
xenolith geotherms and underplating volumes in southeast Australia.
5.4 State-wide estimates of geothermal temperatures

Apart from variations in heat production, sub-surface temperatures are controlled by variations in
thermal conductivity (equation 1). Consequently the nature of the surface layer must be considered
in any calculation of the geothermal gradient. Crustal rocks vary in thermal conductivity over a
relatively small range depending primarily on porosity and density. Values near 3.0 W/m/K are
typical for most granites and near-surface basement rocks however a typical basin sequence
requires more elaborate analysis. In particular, thermal conductivities may be less than 0.5 W/m/K
in major coal beds extending throughout the Gippsland, Otway, and Murray Basin sequences (e.g.
Gloe et al 1988).
Table 2 represent temperatures calculated at depths of 500, 1000, 3000, and 5000m using
representative geological sections for each 1:250,000 map area. The results reflect the
approximations in any extrapolation of data in Table 1 and the indicative estimates of thermal
conductivity as a function of depth to basement in each region. These results provide a general
indication of temperature at target depths. However some additional possibilities cannot be
excluded. In particular there is some potential for vertical water flow in major crustal faults giving
rise to anomalous temperatures within localised areas. These may provide a short-circuit for water
at greater depths allowing heat to be extracted with less expensive drilling. However there is no
evidence for the large flow rates required for industrial applications and even in favourable regions
some decrease in productivity could be anticipated during dewatering, loss of pressure, and closure
of vertical fissures.
Table 2 Calculated Temperatures.

Map Sheet Temperatures (C) Calculated at Depths of VIC Grid Coordinates
500m 1000m 3000m 5000m Easting Northing
MILDURA 35 51 104 158 2201457 2772502
OUYEN 32 47 99 150 2205246 2661574
HORSHAM 35 52 112 172 2209033 2550678
HAMILTON 36 53 115 176 2212820 2439779
PORTLAND 39 59 122 185 2216609 2328846
BALRANALD 33 49 105 161 2339278 2776122
SWAN HILL 35 51 109 167 2341318 2665148
ST ARNAUD 31 45 100 155 2343357 2554206
BALLARAT 29 42 90 138 2345397 2443262
COLAC 37 55 113 172 2347437 2332282
DENILIQUIN 32 47 99 150 2477429 2666578
BENDIGO 29 43 93 143 2477721 2555617
MELBOURNE 28 41 88 135 2478012 2444655
QUEENSCLIFFE 32 47 99 150 2478304 2333657
JERILDERIE 33 49 104 159 2613547 2665863
WANGARATTA 29 43 93 143 2612090 2554912
WARBURTON 29 43 93 143 2610633 2443958
WARRAGUL 36 53 110 167 2609175 2332969
WAGGA 29 43 93 143 2749635 2663003
TALLANGATTA 31 45 100 155 2746431 2552089
BAIRNSDALE 33 49 106 162 2743226 2441172
SALE 37 55 114 173 2740020 2330220
MALLACOOTA 31 45 100 155 2875758 2436298
6. Potential Volumetric Yield of Geothermal

Wells
In considering the geothermal potential of Victoria it is not only necessary to map subsurface
temperatures, it is also important to consider the ability of deep geothermal wells to deliver hot
water in quantities required for any potential application or use of the geothermal energy. The
volume of water that can be extracted from a well is in turn dependent on aquifer hydraulic
characteristics, well design, and the sustainable yield of the aquifer (e.g. whether the available
volume of groundwater is limited by environmental factors). The aim of this part of the study is to
identify the most likely volumes of warm water that can be expected from a well on the basis of
measured data from existing wells. The scope of this assessment does not extend to an evaluation
of the total groundwater resource and, as a result, this assessment does not include an evaluation of
sustainable yield of any region or aquifer. In several parts of the State the Rural Water Authorities
(who are responsible for the licensing and management of groundwater) have established Water
Supply Protection Areas (WSPA) where the sustainable yield has been evaluated and restrictions to
groundwater pumping have been imposed. The location of these WSPA’s and the restrictions that
apply can be obtained from the relevant Rural Water Authority.
To undertake this assessment specific capacity data (defined as the rate of water yielded per unit
drawdown in m3/day/m) were assembled, together with other data that could be used to calculate a
specific capacity (e.g. transmissivity) that had been measured and recorded for existing wells. Note
that the yield estimates made by drillers when completing a bore were not considered for this
assessment because of the uncertainty associated with flow measurements and the fact that few
records include both drawdown and pumping rate records.
The search for data included the GMS database used by the Rural Water Authorities to record data
from licensed bores, the GDB (which pre-dates the GMS), and the ELIXIR database which records
reports produced by Government Departments including the Geological Survey of Victoria. The
search resulted in 103 wells being identified with specific capacity or related data. However, only
22 wells were identified with data from depths greater than 500 m (i.e. at target depths for a
geothermal well). During our search for data it became clear that more information on other deep
bores (>500 m) drilled by the State Government is likely to exist. However, this information is
stored in a form that is not easily accessed through databases. These sources include the
Geological Survey Unpublished Reports and the “Daily Boring Records” dating back to the late
19th Century. Examination of these records has the potential to provide specific capacity data on 50
to 100 deep wells. The ELIXIR database search also identified a number of miscellaneous reports
that may also contain additional data.
The available yield data from deep bores have been broadly categorised according to depth and are
presented in Figure 6 and Table 5 and in Figure 9 and Table 10 for 500 m and 1000 m depths,
respectively.
The bore yield information obtained as part of this study has been almost exclusively obtained from
bores completed in the deep unconsolidated sediments found within the Otway and Gippsland
basins. This result simply reflects the fact that almost all deep groundwater pumping bores drilled
in the state have been targeted to obtain production from the unconsolidated Tertiary age sediments
that overly the much older consolidated basement rocks in the sedimentary basins.
The distinction between the thick unconsolidated sediments and the underlying basement rocks is
significant in terms of hydrogeology and well productivity. The unconsolidated sediments found in
these basins contain large volumes of water stored in the pores between the sediment particles. The
pores that provide the storage volume for water also enable water to move through the formation.
The aquifers associated with these sedimentary sequences are therefore considered to exhibit
“porous media” type water storage and transmission characteristics and bores completed in such
aquifers typically yield significant quantities of water under pumping. On the other hand the
underlying consolidated rocks are “fractured rock” type aquifers that have limited water storage
and transmission characteristics associated with interstitial porosity and with relatively sparse
fracture networks within the rock mass. While good production can be expected when a bore
intersects conductive fractures in the basement, bores that do not encounter such fractures are
poorly yielding. Because of the relatively sparse nature of the fracturing and jointing in the
basement rocks, the chances of obtaining significant volumes of water from the basement are much
less than when the bore is completed in the unconsolidated sediments. Experience with drilling
bores and tunnelling (e.g. in underground mines) into the basement rocks in Victoria suggests that
relatively poor yields can generally be expected and that the drilling of productive bores requires
careful targeting of the bore to intersect mapped faults or fractures in the rock mass.
Additional information on the productivity of deep bores may be obtained from an extensive search
and review of unpublished Geological Survey reports. Alternatively the testing of existing deep
bores could be used to provide additional information at a number of sites throughout the state.
Given that a substantial number of specific capacity estimates have been found for bores in the
Otway Basin, it would be advisable to concentrate any future effort on the Gippsland and Murray
Basins. Similarly there are no existing estimates of productivity of deep bores extracting water
from fractures in basement rocks. The acquisition of such data would provide a useful guide for
prospective developers of geothermal energy.
7. Mapping Geothermal Temperatures

Figure 5 shows the broad distinction between regions of outcropping sediments and basement
rocks. The location and extents of the three principal sedimentary basins are obvious. Also shown
on Figure 5 are the locations at which bore temperature measurements are available.
Measured temperatures between the depths of about 300 m and 700 m were assembled and
combined with the estimated temperatures at 500 m depth as described in Section 5 above. The
resulting data set was contoured using the Surfer 8 software package (Golden Software). Data
from depths outside the prescribed depth range have been incorporated in the analysis where they
add important information to the data set (i.e. in areas where data are sparse or where temperatures
from shallower or deeper levels help define a minimum temperature at 500 m depth). Isothermal
contour maps at a nominal depth of 500 m are presented in Figure 6 to Figure 8. Figure 6 shows
the geothermal isotherms for the entire state while Figure 7 and Figure 8 show isotherms for the
Otway and Gippsland sedimentary basins respectively. A similar analysis was carried out for
reference levels of 1000 m and 1500 m depth and results are presented in Figure 9 to Figure 14.
In viewing the temperature contour maps presented herein it is important to understand the
reliability and accuracy of the data from which the maps have been developed. In particular it is
important to appreciate that deep measured temperatures often underestimate the true formation
temperature. Systematic underestimation of temperature arises from the fact that measurements are
often made during a period of heating following well drilling. Anomalous temperatures may also
arise from measurements of temperature that are affected by internal circulation of water within the
well at the time of measurement. Such phenomena are often observed in deep geothermal bores
drilled into regions where there are substantial natural vertical pressure gradients in the geothermal
reservoir exposed to the well. In particular cool water may enter a bore and descend to lower,
hotter aquifers where an over-pressured, shallow aquifer is intersected by the bore. Internal flows
and associated temperature distortions can also arise from an up-flow of hotter waters into a
shallow, under-pressured aquifer. Identifying and understanding anomalous geothermal
temperature measurements is a complex and involved process and requires careful analysis of
continuous temperature-depth logs. In the absence of such detailed temperature measurements it is
not possible to fully understand and rationalise all available temperature data. Even though
attempts have been made to remove obvious anomalies from the maps, localised highs and lows in
the geothermal temperature maps should be viewed with caution.
Temperature contour maps of the Gippsland Basin presented in Figure 8, Figure 11 and Figure 14
are shown with an overlay defining the lateral extent of the unconsolidated sediments at the
relevant reference level (ie. 500, 100 and 1500 m respectively). The intention is to provide an
indication of the region in which economic production rates can be anticipated. Wells screened in
the sediments can be expected to deliver large quantities of water while bores screened in the
basement rocks will be productive only if substantial secondary permeability (faults, fractures
formation contacts etc) can be located.
Maps of geothermal temperatures across the entire state (Figure 6 to Figure 14) have been derived
from a compilation of measured and calculated data. It should be noted that the reliability of these
maps is low in areas where there are few measured data. In particular the extrapolation of elevated
temperatures into areas in which there are few or no measured data is speculative.
Figure 5 Deep Sedimentary Basins and Locations of Measured Geothermal

Temperatures
Temperature Measurement
Outcropping Sediment
Outcropping Basement Rocks
Murray
Basin
Otways Basin Gippsland

Basin
Latrobe Valley
Figure 6 Temperatures at 500m Depth
Mildura Calculated Temperature

C OPYRIGH T: T he con ce pts and info rma tio n contained in this d ocument are the copyr igh t
Measured Temperature o f the Su sta in able Ener gy Autho rity Victoria. Use or copying o f the d ocu ment in whole or in
p art without t he w ritten p erm issio n of th e Sustainable En ergy Au thority Victoria con stitute s
a n infringe ment o f copyright. Maps included in th is do cu ment w er e prepared for the
Major Road Su st ain able Energy Autho rity Victoria by Sincla ir Knight M erz Pty. Lt d. Sincla ir Knight M erz
Pt y. Ltd. do es not w arrant th at this docum ent is definitive n or f ree of er ror and does not
a ccep t liabilit y f or a ny loss caused o r arising from reliance up on information p rovided here in.
Note: Much of the information on this map is interpolated from

sparsely distributed data. Information presented in those regions
where there are few measurements should be used with caution.
Swan Hill
85
80
75
Echuca Wodonga 70
Wangaratta 65
60
55
Horsham
50
45
40
35
30
Ballarat 25
20
Hamilton Melbourne 15
Sale
Traralgon
Portland
Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria

Source: i:w cm s/pro jects/WC 02886 /Te ch nical/Plots/
all_state _500m _T. srf Temperatures at 500m Depth
0 20 40 60 80 km

Table 3 Measured Temperatures Shown in Figure 6 in Areas Other Than the Gippsland
and Otway Basins.
Temperature Depth VIC Grid VIC Grid
Bore
(C) (m) Easting Northing
GUNAMALARY 2 45 718 2153894 2678301
MILDURA WEST 1 44 429 2170154 2766721
MILDURA WEST 2 50 598 2158898 2766345
Table 4 Calculated Temperatures Shown in Figure 6

Map Sheet
MILDURA 35 500 2201457 2772502
OUYEN 32 500 2205245 2661574
HORSHAM 35 500 2209033 2550677
HAMILTON 36 500 2212820 2439779
PORTLAND 39 500 2216609 2328845
BALRANALD 33 500 2339277 2776121
SWAN HILL 35 500 2341317 2665148
ST ARNAUD 31 500 2343357 2554205
BALLARAT 29 500 2345397 2443261
COLAC 37 500 2347437 2332282
DENILIQUIN 32 500 2477429 2666577
BENDIGO 29 500 2477720 2555617
MELBOURNE 28 500 2478012 2444654
QUEENSCLIFFE 32 500 2478303 2333656
JERILDERIE 33 500 2613546 2665862
WANGARATTA 29 500 2612089 2554911
WARBURTON 29 500 2610632 2443958
WARRAGUL 36 500 2609175 2332969
WAGGA 29 500 2749635 2663003
TALLANGATTA 31 500 2746430 2552088
BAIRNSDALE 33 500 2743225 2441172
SALE 37 500 2740019 2330220
MALLACOOTA 31 500 2875758 2436297
Table 5 Specific Capacity Data Shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8

Specific Capacity
Bore 3 Depth VIC Grid Easting VIC Grid Northing
(m /daym)
Ardno 2 385 301 2145263 2406119
Drik Drik 1 38 309 2174180 2383788
Malanganee 4 245 330 2147140 2397187
Mumbannar 6 125 358 2159943 2393913
Coonimur 1 98 393 2338214 2725401
Heywood 14 200 471 2203095 2368330
Cobboboonee 2 23 471 2183233 2365766
Heywood 11 58 473 2203501 2368922
115867 (GMS No.) 434 496 2425641 2345062
Glenaulin 2 56 537 2188289 2382572
Homerton 4 57 594 2212162 2367144
Belfast 13 997 600 2256315 2342958
Yangery 1 32 640 2270090 2352249
62106 (BCL No.) 420 649 2256314 2342908
Mumbannar 1 48 716 2166139 2402637
Figure 7 Temperatures at 500 m depth for the Otway Basin
C OPYRIGH T: T he con ce pts and info rma tio n contained in this d ocument are the copyrigh t
o f the Su sta in able Energy Autho rity Victoria. Use o r copying o f the d ocument in whole or in
a n infringe ment o f copyright. Maps included in th is do cu ment w ere prepared for the
Su st ain able Energy Autho rity Victo ria by Sincla ir Knight M erz Pty. Lt d. Sincla ir Knight M erz
Pt y. Ltd. do es not w arrant th at this docum ent is definitive nor f ree of error and does not
a ccep t liabilit y f or a ny loss caused o r arising from reliance up on information p rovided h ere in.
Calculated Temperature
Ballarat
Measured Temperature
Specific Capacity (Values in m^3/day/m)
385 Melbourne
48 Major Road
245
125
38 56
58 57 Geelong
23
200
32 Colac
Portland 1000 Warrnambool 434 Sorrento
Port Fairy420
85
80
75
70
65 sparsely distributed data. Information presented in those regions
60 where there are few measurements should be used with caution.
55
50
45
40
35 Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria
30
25
Otway Basin
20
15 Temperatures at 500m Depth
Source :i: wcms/proje cts/WC 0288 6/T echnica l/Plots/
Otways_500 m_T .srf
0 20 40 60 80 km

Table 6 Measured Temperatures in the Otway Basin Shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7
Temperature VIC Grid VIC Grid
Bore Depth (m)
(C) Easting Northing
COLAC 00010 37 384 2377161 2350263
SOUTH CARAMUT 1 36 430 2278463 2385808
PALPARA 00004 28 445 2146077 2384336
COLONGULAC 00012 38 450 2331798 2360750
TANDAROOK 00002 34 454 2337687 2349397
TULLICH 1 34 464 2160008 2435033
WAARRE 15003 32 501 2337534 2315602
PAARATTE 00002 31 548 2325744 2318505
HOMERTON 00004 33 575.6 2212163 2367149
PAARATTE 08011 25 576 2323284 2327138
MURROON 00024 39 590 2392815 2341708
GLENAULIN 00002 33 592.5 2188288 2382574
MURROON 00023 39 598 2393123 2341912
NARRAWONG 00016 31 613 2209830 2364258
CODRINGTON 00001 35 629 2232312 2355325
PENINSULAR 45 637 2481050 2347379
HOTSPRINGS
Figure 8 Geothermal Temperatures at 500m depth for the Gippsland Basin
COPYRIGH T: The co ncepts and inf orm ation containe d in this documen t are the cop yr ig ht
of the S ustain able Ener gy Autho rity Victo ria. U se or cop ying of the documen t in who le or in
part without the w ritten perm ission of t he Sustainab le Energ y Author it y Victor ia co nstitu tes
an infring ement of copyrigh t. Map s included in this d ocument wer e prepar ed fo r th e
Sustain able Ener gy Auth ority Victo ria by Sinclair Knight M erz Pty. L td. Sinclair Knight M erz Orbost
Pty. Ltd. d oes not w arrant that th is docum ent is definitive nor free of er ro r an d does no t
accep t liab ility for a ny lo ss caused or a rising fro m re liance u pon infor mat ion pro vided her ein .
Bairnsdale
Source :i: wcms/proje ct s/W C028 86/T echnica l/Plots/

Gip pslan d_500 m_T .srf
Sale
Traralgon where there are few measurements should be used with caution.
85
80
Calculated Temperature 75
70
Measured Temperature 65
60
Area of Bedrock at 500m Depth 55
Yarram 50
Major Road
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Gippsland Basin
Temperatures at 500m Depth
0 20 40 60 80 km
Table 7 Measured Temperatures in the Gippsland Basin Shown in Figure 6 and Figure 8
Bore Depth (m)
ALBERTON EAST 00003 38 370.9 2646475 2319603
WORANGA 00015 35 470 2646431 2327644
MARYVALE 00942 65 500 2626659 2367896
TONG BONG 00182 34 515.1 2642902 2357230
STRATFORD 00017 36 525 2684077 2391619
YARRAM YARRAM 31 234.8 2644384 2325048
08002
WILLUNG 00179 30 249 2658349 2349334
BOODYARN 00006 21 305 2654657 2334358
WILLUNG 00182 23 305 2648430 2352959
WORANGA 00016 29 310 2649379 2327369
BOODYARN 00004 18 333 2659077 2338350
WULLA WULLOCK 00004 23 365.8 2680695 2356042
ROSEDALE 00307 51 702 2651491 2369192
WINNINDOO 45 33.8 250 2653124 2384366
HOLEY PLAINS 174 22 277 2667299 2368324
MARYVALE 2291 48 285 2620184 2362010
ALBERTON EAST 10003 35 287 2646433 2317788
YINNAR 122 40.5 300 2617727 2351084
DENISON 54 36 329 2653375 2384418
STRADBROKE 51 21.9 335 2663451 2353016
LOY YANG 1185 45.4 339 2636478 2362053
TRARALGON 377 36 350 2632827 2358167
WILLUNG 196 29.5 369 2654622 2358696
TRARALGON 256 45.9 383 2631781 2357668
HAZELWOOD 1320 51 434 2621603 2355954
TONG BONG 182 26 461 2642904 2357223
TONG BONG 176 41.5 517 2645686 2359864
MARYVALE 8001 70 524 2626226 2368530
BOOLA BOOLA 1 63.8 558 2627244 2372303
TRARALGON 286 62.5 582 2635010 2366947
BAIRNSDALE 6 58.9 584 2736530 2396046
ROSEDALE 307 52 585 2651491 2369190
HAZELWOOD 1333 56 594 2625515 2358500
WINNINDOO 46 65 679 2651687 2375861
LOY YANG 2390 62 715 2644285 2368210
Figure 9 Geothermal Temperatures (Degrees C) at 1000m Depth
Mildura
o f the Su sta in able Energy Autho rity Victor ia. Use or copying o f the d ocument in whole o r in
Measured Temperature p art without t he w ritten p erm issio n of th e Sustainable En ergy Au thor ity Victoria con stitute s
a n infringe ment o f copyright. Maps included in t his do cu ment w ere prepar ed for the
Su st ain able Energy Autho rity Victoria by Sincla ir Knight M erz Pty. Lt d. Sincla ir Knight M erz
Major Road Pt y. Ltd. do es not w arrant t hat this docum ent is definitive nor f ree of er ror and does not
a ccep t liabilit y f or a ny loss caused o r arising from reliance up on information p rovided here in.

Swan Hill
85
80
75
Echuca Wodonga 70
Wangaratta 65
60
55
Horsham
50
45
40
35
30
Ballarat 25
20
Hamilton Melbourne
Sale 15
Traralgon
Portland

all_state _1000 m_T .srf Temperatures at 1000m Depth
0 20 40 60 80 km
Table 8 Measured Temperatures Shown in Figure 9 in Areas Other Than the Gippsland
and Otway Basins.
Bore
GUNAMALARY 2 60 718 2153894 2678301

Map Sheet
MILDURA 51 1000 2201457 2772502
OUYEN 47 1000 2205246 2661574
HORSHAM 52 1000 2209033 2550678
HAMILTON 53 1000 2212820 2439779
PORTLAND 59 1000 2216609 2328846
BALRANALD 49 1000 2339278 2776122
SWAN HILL 51 1000 2341318 2665148
ST ARNAUD 45 1000 2343357 2554206
BALLARAT 42 1000 2345397 2443262
COLAC 55 1000 2347437 2332282
DENILIQUIN 47 1000 2477429 2666578
BENDIGO 43 1000 2477721 2555617
MELBOURNE 41 1000 2478012 2444655
QUEENSCLIFFE 47 1000 2478304 2333657
JERILDERIE 49 1000 2613547 2665863
WANGARATTA 43 1000 2612090 2554912
WARBURTON 43 1000 2610633 2443958
WARRAGUL 53 1000 2609175 2332969
WAGGA 43 1000 2749635 2663003
TALLANGATTA 45 1000 2746431 2552089
BAIRNSDALE 49 1000 2743226 2441172
SALE 55 1000 2740020 2330220
MALLACOOTA 45 1000 2875758 2436298
Table 10 Specific Capacity Data Shown in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11

Specific Capacity
Bore 3 Depth VIC Grid Easting VIC Grid Northing
(m /day m)
Heywood 10 53 737 2203621 2368790
Tarragal 3 134 931 2190178 2343442
Mouzi 1 50 946 2189425 2357232
Portland 2 50 951 2203436 2346739
Trewalla 5 78 971 2191989 2346661
Portland 13 1134 1133 2203243 2340632
Portland 8 206 1175 2203377 2341089
Portland 11 375 1184 2203627 2341039
Portland 3 161 1200 2201989 2345426
Figure 10 Geothermal Temperatures at 1000m depth in the Otway Basin
o f the Su sta in able Energy Autho rity Victor ia. Use o r copying o f the d ocument in whole or in
Su st ain able Energy Autho rity Victo ria by Sincla ir Knight M erz Pty. Lt d. Sincla ir Knight M erz
Pt y. Ltd. do es not w arr ant th at this docum ent is definitive nor f ree of error and does not
a ccep t liabilit y f or a ny loss caused o r arising from reliance up on infor mation p rovided h ere in.
Ballarat
Specific Capacity (Values in m^3/day/m)

Melbourne
Major Road
53 Geelong
50
Colac
78 50
Portland Warrnambool Sorrento
134 Port Fairy
1150
85 206
80 375
75
161
70
65
55
50
45
40
30
25
Otway Basin
20
15 0 20 40 60 80 km Temperatures at 1000m Depth
Otways_100 0m_T .srf
Table 11 Measured Temperatures Shown in the Otway Basin Shown in Figure 9 and
Figure 10.
Bore Depth (m)
PAARATTE 08004 50 895 2324905 2320620
NARRAWATURK 00006 50 907 2313395 2327533
BESSIEBELLE 08003 41 921 2227745 2366529
TIMBOON 00005 36 921.4 2323933 2333294
WANGOOM 00002 44 922.93 2281958 2344558
TARRAGAL 00003 35 934 2190177 2343444
SHAW 1 39 960 2241792 2358435
MOUZIE 00001 43 960.5 2189425 2357235
CURDIE VALE 1 58 964 2306933 2325219
LINDON 2 40 970 2194367 2375935
NIRRANDA 00008 62 982 2302983 2329846
TREWALLA 00005 39 983.3 2191988 2346666
NARRAWATURK 08029 45 998 2318963 2325379
HOTSPUR 1 58 1000 2198930 2393095
ARDONACHIE 00002 39 1021.7 2224473 2384502
ARDONACHIE 00002 39 1022 2224473 2384502
PORTLAND 00002 50 1030 2203434 2346749
WARRONG 00005 48 1034 2264110 2358320
PAARATTE 08001 53 1067 2323547 2327144
DARTMOOR 00025 38 1100.88 2171586 2392032
PENINSULAR 50 1000 2481050 2347379
HOTSPRINGS
Figure 11 Geothermal Temperatures at 1000m Depth in the Gippsland Basin
COPYRIG H T: The co ncepts and inf orm ation containe d in this documen t are the cop yrig ht
of the S ustain able Energy Autho rity Victo ria. U se or cop ying of the documen t in who le or in
part without the w ritten perm ission of t he Sustainab le Energ y Authorit y Victoria co nstitu tes
an infring ement of copyrigh t. Map s included in this d ocument were prepared fo r th e
Sustain able Energy Auth ority Victo ria by Sinclair Knight M erz Pty. L td. Sinclair Knight M erz Orbost
Pty. Ltd. d oes not w arr ant that th is docum ent is definitive nor free of erro r an d does no t
accep t liab ility for a ny lo ss caused or a rising fro m re liance u pon informat ion pro vided herein .
Bairnsdale

Gip pslan d_100 0m_T .srf
Sale Note: Much of the information on this map is interpolated from

85
80
75
70
60
Yarram 50
Major Road 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Gippsland Basin
0 20 40 60 80 km
Table 12 Measured Temperatures in the Gippsland Basin Shown in Figure 9 and Figure
11.
Bore Depth (m)
DENISON 00057 55 872 2662748 2379794
WULLA WULLOCK 00004 40 895 2680695 2356042
WURRUK WURRUK 47 900 2677007 2374319
00013
HAZELWOOD 01395 58 1000 2620154 2356845
SALE 00013 64 1049.76 2694520 2374007
BENGWORDEN SOUTH 50 1057.5 2713050 2379806
00006
LOY YANG 01675 65 790 2643005 2367954
TRARALGON 00286 65 840 2635010 2366954
DENISON 00053 53 854 2666400 2375536
ROSEDALE 301 50.5 817 2661060 2370219
HOLEY PLAINS 185 38.2 904 2671406 2368735
Figure 12 Geothermal Temperatures (Degrees C) at 1500m Depth
Mildura Calculated Temperature
Measured Temperature C O PYRIG H T: T he con ce pts and info rma tio n contained in this d ocument are the copyrigh t
o f the Su sta in able Energy Autho rity Victoria. Use or copying o f the d ocument in whole o r in
Major Road a n infringe ment o f copyright. Maps included in t his do cu ment w ere prepared for the
Su st ain able Ener gy Autho rity Victor ia by Sincla ir Knight M erz Pty. Lt d. Sincla ir Knight M erz
Pt y. Ltd. do es not w arrant t hat this docum ent is definitive nor f ree of error and does not
a ccep t liabilit y f or a ny loss caused o r ar ising from reliance up on infor mation p rovided here in.

Swan Hill
85
80
Echuca Wodonga
Wangaratta 75
70
65
Horsham
60
55
50
45
40
Ballarat 35
30
Hamilton Melbourne 25
Sale
20
15
Traralgon
Portland

all_state _1500 m_T .srf Temperatures at 1500m Depth
0 20 40 60 80 km

Map Sheet
MILDURA 64 1500 2201457 2772502
OUYEN 60 1500 2205246 2661574
HORSHAM 67 1500 2209033 2550678
HAMILTON 69 1500 2212820 2439779
PORTLAND 75 1500 2216609 2328846
BALRANALD 63 1500 2339278 2776122
SWAN HILL 66 1500 2341318 2665148
ST ARNAUD 59 1500 2343357 2554206
BALLARAT 54 1500 2345397 2443262
COLAC 70 1500 2347437 2332282
DENILIQUIN 60 1500 2477429 2666578
BENDIGO 56 1500 2477721 2555617
MELBOURNE 53 1500 2478012 2444655
QUEENSCLIFFE 60 1500 2478304 2333657
JERILDERIE 63 1500 2613547 2665863
WANGARATTA 56 1500 2612090 2554912
WARBURTON 56 1500 2610633 2443958
WARRAGUL 67 1500 2609175 2332969
WAGGA 56 1500 2749635 2663003
TALLANGATTA 59 1500 2746431 2552089
BAIRNSDALE 63 1500 2743226 2441172
SALE 70 1500 2740020 2330220
MALLACOOTA 59 1500 2875758 2436298
Figure 13 Geothermal Temperatures at 1500m depth in the Otway Basin
o f the Su sta in able Energy Autho rity Victoria. Use o r copying o f the d ocument in whole or in
p art without t he w ritten p erm issio n of th e Sustainable En ergy Au thor ity Victoria con stitute s
Su st ain able Ener gy Autho rity Victo ria by Sincla ir Knight M erz Pty. Lt d. Sincla ir Knight M erz
Pt y. Ltd. do es not w arr ant th at this docum ent is definitive nor f ree of error and does not
a ccep t liabilit y f or a ny loss caused o r arising from reliance up on information p rovided h ere in.
Ballarat
Major Road
Melbourne
Geelong
Colac
Portland Warrnambool Sorrento
Port Fairy
85
80
75
70
65 sparsely distributed data. Information presented in those regions
55
50
45
40
30
25
Otway Basin
20
15 0 20 40 60 80 km Temperatures at 1500m Depth
Otways_150 0m_T .srf
Table 14 Measured Temperatures in the Otway Basin Shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Bore Depth (m)
PORTLAND 00003 59 1421 2202066 2345500
HENKE 1 62 1430 2165676 2381834
BESSIEBELLE 08002 48 1459 2231589 2361345
KRAMBRUK 00013 60 1475 2382814 2301830
IONA 1 57 1490 2328680 2323587
SQUATTER 1 55 1500 2160167 2396275
ARDNO 00002 52 1500 2145262 2406120
PAARATTE 08008 55 1509 2327208 2325877
CASTERTON 2 65.6 1524 2166834 2421312
DRAJURK 08005 65 1526 2166832 2421312
WARRACBARUNAH 2 75 1527 2395925 2369337
PAARATTE 08007 62 1531 2321755 2325918
GARVOC 1 67 1533 2314372 2351375
YAMBUK 00002 55 1535 2242873 2347162
KENTBRUCK 00003 57 1575 2174432 2368894
NORTH PAARATTE 2 60 1580 2323310 2326029
NARRAWONG 00016 63 1625 2209830 2364258
Figure 14 Geothermal Temperatures at 1500m Depth in the Gippsland Basin
COPYRIGH T: The co ncepts and inf orm ation containe d in this documen t ar e the cop yrig ht
of the S ustain able Ener gy Autho rity Victo ria. U se or cop ying of the documen t in who le or in
part without the w ritten perm ission of t he Sustainab le Energ y Authorit y Victoria co nstitu tes
an infring ement of copyrigh t. Map s included in this d ocument were pr epar ed fo r th e
Sustain able Energy Auth ority Victo ria by Sinclair Knight M erz Pty. L td. Sinclair Knight M erz Orbost
Pty. Ltd. d oes not w arrant that th is docum ent is definitive nor free of er ro r an d does no t
accep t liab ility for a ny lo ss caused or a rising fro m re liance u pon infor mat ion pro vided herein .
Bairnsdale

Gip pslan d_150 0m_T .srf
Sale Note: Much of the information on this map is interpolated from

85
80
Calculated Temperature 75
70
60
Yarram 50
Major Road
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Gippsland Basin
0 20 40 60 80 km
Table 15 Measured Temperatures in the Gippsland Basin Shown in Figure 12 and Figure
14.
Bore
SPOON BAY 1 63 1400 2716452 2377287
ST MARGARET ISLAND 1 67 1422 2659914 2316823
NORTH SEASPRAY 2 68 1624 2693081 2353432
SALT LAKE 1 72 1642 2682319 2337462
CARR'S CREEK 1 50 1670 2698268 2354420
COLLIERS HILL 1 61 1710 2700878 2364685
LOY YANG 1A 80 1736 2636580 2359879
WOODSIDE SOUTH 1 58 1772 2666413 2323803
It is believed that most of the available existing measurements of geothermal temperatures in

Victoria have been obtained from searches of the various databases carried out during this project.
Additional information from areas in which there are few measurements would require the drilling
of deep exploration bores specifically aimed at providing this information. The indicative costs of
drilling such bores are shown in Table 17. The relative paucity of data in the Murray Basin and in
areas of bedrock outcrop in the central highlands suggests that these areas should form the principal
targets for any further data acquisition.
7.1 Temperatures at Greater Depths – Hot Dry Rock Potential

Hot Dry Rock technology is currently being evaluated and developed in the Cooper Basin in South
Australia. In this project the anomalously high geothermal temperatures in deep granites are being
targeted for energy extraction and electricity generation. The project involves the drilling of deep
bores to more than 4 000 m where temperatures are expected to be in excess of 250ºC. Australia’s
deepest well (Habanero #1 is 4 420 m deep) has recently been completed by Geodynamics Ltd as
part of this project1. The energy extraction technology involves the artificial fracturing of deep,
relatively impermeable rocks to establish a flow path in the formation between injection and
production bores (refer to Figure 15 for a schematic showing Hot Dry Rock technology). Cool
water pumped down an injection well, flows through the fractured reservoir where the water
extracts heat from the rocks and is then pumped out of the production well. The hot water thus
produced may be used to generate electricity using standard Organic Rankine Cycle or Kalina
Cycle® technology (refer to Section 9.2). The basic resource requirements for an economically
successful Hot Dry Rock development are:
1
www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/company
Elevated temperatures. Resource temperatures (i.e. temperatures measured in the ground

at the depth of the productive reservoir) in excess of 200°C are generally considered to be
required for economic development. The Hot Dry Rock process results in the production
of water at temperatures somewhat lower than the prevailing resource temperature.
Accordingly the minimum resource temperature required to sustain an economical
development is correspondingly higher than for standard geothermal developments in
which water is produced at temperatures close to the prevailing resource temperature.
A geological stress regime amenable to the development of a set of fractures (preferably
horizontally oriented) linking the injection and production bores.
The development of a successful Hot Dry Rock project in Victoria would involve the location and
subsequent exploitation of geothermal resources at temperatures that greatly exceed those
measured in existing bores. However the existence of high geothermal temperatures in Victoria at
great depth cannot be discounted.
Estimates of deep formation temperatures based on thermal properties of deep rocks and on heat
flow estimates are presented in Table 16. Predicted deep temperatures presented in Table 16
suggest that bores greater than 5000m depth will be required to encounter temperatures of 200°C.
Drilling bores to such depths is at or beyond the limits of readily available drilling rigs in Victoria.
Furthermore, the expense of constructing bores to these depths would guarantee an uneconomic
outcome for any Hot Dry Rock development.
It should however be noted that the estimates of deep geothermal temperatures included in Table
16 are based on regional estimates of heat flow and thermal conductivity and the chance of there
existing limited areas of locally elevated geothermal gradients should not be entirely discounted.
In fact anomalously high geothermal gradients measured in bores in the Latrobe Valley (refer to
Figure 4) suggest that temperatures exceeding 260°C may be encountered at 2000m depth at this
location.
It may be concluded that local thermal anomalies identified in the Gippsland and Otway Basins
may represent prospective sites for Hot Dry Rock developments. Otherwise, estimated deep
temperatures throughout much of the state are generally insufficient to support economical
development of Hot Dry Rock electricity generation with currently proven technologies and under
current economic conditions.
Figure 15 Hot Dry Rock Development (supplied by Geodynamics Limited)
Table 16 Temperatures Calculated at 3000 and 5000m Depth

Map Temperature at 3000m Depth (C) Temperature at 5000m Depth (C)
MILDURA 104 158
OUYEN 99 150
HORSHAM 112 172
HAMILTON 115 176
PORTLAND 122 185
BALRANALD 105 161
SWAN HILL 109 167
ST ARNAUD 100 155
BALLARAT 90 138
COLAC 113 172
DENILIQUIN 99 150
BENDIGO 93 143
MELBOURNE 88 135
QUEENSCLIFFE 99 150
JERILDERIE 104 159
WANGARATTA 93 143
WARBURTON 93 143
WARRAGUL 110 167
WAGGA 93 143
TALLANGATTA 100 155
BAIRNSDALE 106 162
SALE 114 173
MALLACOOTA 100 155
Note: Temperatures presented in this table have been calculated from measured and assumed rock
properties and heat flows. Measured temperatures at shallower levels suggest that localised temperature
anomalies may be present in which substantially higher temperatures may be expected (eg. in the Latrobe
Valley, Gippsland Basin).
8. Data Gaps
The distribution of bores for which measured temperatures are available is presented in Figure 5.
Here it can be seen that temperature measurements are effectively restricted to the Otway and
Gippsland Basins. Few measured temperatures are available within the Murray Basin and no
measured temperatures have been found in bores drilled in the Central Highlands. The reason for
the uneven distribution of measured temperatures is related to the following factors:
Onshore petroleum exploration has been essentially restricted to the Gippsland and Otway
basins.
Deep drilling for mineral exploration and deep mine dewatering operations are generally
restricted to the Latrobe Valley of the Gippsland Basin.
Deep drilling for water supply bores has been limited to the deep sedimentary basins
where large quantities of good quality water can be expected.
As a consequence, the confidence of the geothermal temperature maps presented in the above
Section 7 is low in those regions where few or no temperature measurements are available. In
general, the geothermal temperatures of the Murray Basin and Central Highlands regions are poorly
defined.
Deep drilling in Victoria has demonstrated that reasonable water production can be expected from
wells that are screened within the unconsolidated sediments. However, there is insufficient
information to reliably map the lateral and vertical variability of water production (ie. yield) within
the state except for the Otway Basin where a number of specific capacity estimates are available.
Production from the fractured bedrock is believed to be generally poor. In order to include the
location of the sedimentary basins (ie. areas of potentially high yield) and bedrock (ie. areas where
low yields are expected) in the geothermal maps it is necessary to map the base of the
unconsolidated sediments in each of the major basins. This has been done in Gippsland and the
maps of geothermal temperatures presented in this report include this information. Similar
information should also be compiled for the Murray and Otway basins. Mapping bedrock
structural contours should be possible by reviewing existing deep drilling and geophysical data.
The calculated temperature results (as opposed to the measured temperatures) in this report can be
considerably improved by increasing the number of heatflow estimates in Victoria. Normally these
require deep drilling followed by casing to ensure a return to thermal equilibration prior to
observations of the geothermal gradient. Additional estimates may be obtained on an opportunity
basis using holes drilled for stratigraphic logging or exploration programs. It is critical however to
obtain core samples for measurements of thermal conductivity within the same holes used for
observations of temperature.
8.1 Recommendation for Further Work

A viable program to enhance the understanding of the geothermal resources of Victoria would
include:
Review of existing groundwater observation bores to obtain existing core samples that
could be used for laboratory estimation of thermal conductivity.
Review of stratigraphic drilling operations to secure future opportunities for heatflow data
acquisition.
Search unpublished Geological Survey reports for additional “existing” data on specific
capacity of deep bores.
Comprehensive mapping of bedrock surface in the Otway and Murray basins from
existing information.
Systematic program of drilling to obtain geothermal temperature measurements and core
at depths 200-300m in key locations in the Central Highlands and Murray Basin.
8.2 Indicative Drilling Costs

The cost of deep drilling within the sedimentary basins of Victoria will depend on a number of site
specific and project specific factors. The range of indicative costs for the drilling and construction
of deep production bores is presented in Table 17
Table 17 Indicative Drilling Costs in Victoria (Data Provided by Sides Engineering)

Depth Indicative Cost $AU
500m $210 000 - $375 000
1000m $390 000 - $700 000
1500m $525 000 - $975 000
Costs in Table 17 have been estimated on the basis of drilling and constructing a production bore to
a final screen/slotted casing diameter of 200mm. The higher estimate is based on using FRP casing
and a stainless steel screen to increase bore longevity. The lower estimate assumes the bore is
completed in mild steel casing with slotted mild steel production interval. The costs include
mobilisation and demobilisation but do not include any contingency for drilling in consolidated
rock, loss of circulation, stuck drill-string etc. The cost of drilling through bedrock, either beneath
the sedimentary pile in the sedimentary basins or drilling in the central highlands region is expected
to be higher than that indicated in Table 17.
9. Electricity Generation Technologies

9.1 Steam Rankine Cycle
Generation of electricity using geothermal resources has been practised for more than a century,
since the first use at Larderello in Italy, in 1904. The advantage of using the geothermal resource in
this manner is that the energy associated with the earth’s heat can be economically transported as
electricity from the geothermal field to the market.
The steam Rankine cycle has been the conventional technology used for most worldwide
geothermal power generation to date. The basic technology is analogous to the steam Rankine
cycle used in thermal power plants except that the steam comes from the geothermal reservoir,
rather than a boiler. Various technical enhancements to the condensing steam turbines have been
implemented over the years to address the differences between geothermal and boiler-quality
steam.
The most attractive geothermal fields for developers have been those with higher resource
temperatures and production fluid enthalpies. In general as the resource temperature increases the
proportion of steam available from the geothermal fluids at the surface also increases and so too its
pressure. These conditions provide for more efficient operation of condensing steam turbines, and
hence lower electricity production costs. For low enthalpy resources (i.e. lower resource
temperatures), a low plant operating pressure is needed to maximise the amount of available steam,
equipment is larger and hence more expensive, and a significant proportion of the available energy
in the production fluid is rejected unused in the separated brine. Condensing steam plants are
typically used for resource temperatures in excess of 175°C. If boiling water at 175°C is flashed
down to a pressure of 2 bar (abs), the steam fraction is only 10.7 % by weight.
Australian hydrothermal resources generally do not provide the high fluid temperatures required for
economical use of steam Rankine cycle generation.
There are several experienced and competent providers around the world for steam-turbine-based
geothermal power plants and component equipment. Unit sizes are typically in the 20-80 MWe
range, but are offered from less than 5 MWe up to 110 MWe.
9.2 Organic Rankine Cycle
9.2.1 Introduction
An organic Rankine cycle (ORC) power plant, which is also known as a “binary cycle” plant,
makes use of a “working” or “motive” fluid with a lower boiling point than steam. The particular
fluid is selected based on comparison of heat source temperature and motive fluid properties. Most
existing geothermal ORC plants use low boiling point hydrocarbons – normal pentane, iso-pentane
or iso-butane. It is also possible to use refrigerants, other organic compounds or a mixture of
hydrocarbons as the working fluid, although this is less common in practice.
ORC technology, which can achieve more effective use of the heat from a lower temperature
geothermal fluid, has allowed economic exploitation of lower enthalpy resources, albeit typically at
a higher cost per kilowatt (kW) than for a condensing steam plant on a higher enthalpy resource.
In most geothermal ORC plants using hot water as the heat source fluid, the supply temperature is
in the 140-200°C range, although there are several installed plants using cooler fluids down to
100°C. A heat source temperature of around 90°C is generally considered to be the economic
minimum for power generation using ORC technology.
The first geothermal ORC plant was built in Russia in the 1960’s, however extensive commercial
application of the technology did not begin until the 1980’s. There are now dozens of geothermal
ORC power plants in operation around the world, ranging in output from 200 kW to 125 MW.
ORC technology is also used for power generation from waste heat, and for small-scale, gas-fired
remote power generation. Individual unit sizes are typically in the range from 250 kW to 10 MW,
although a single 65 MW turbine operated at the US DOE’s Heber binary demonstration plant for a
period in the mid 1980’s. Ormat International dominates the ORC power plant market. Other
current or previous technology providers include Turboden, Bibb & Associates (formerly The Ben
Holt Company) and Barber Nichols Engineering.
9.2.2 Process Description
The working fluid operates in a contained, closed-loop cycle and is completely segregated from the
heat source fluid. There are a number of possible variants of the cycle, in terms of heat exchange
configuration, turbine configuration, etc, which may be selected as appropriate to the temperature
and physical state(s) of heat source fluid. A simplified schematic diagram of a typical ORC power
plant is presented in Figure 16.
Figure 16 Simplified Schematic of ORC Power Plant
Heat source
fluid
Vapouriser Turbine
Preheater
Condenser
Cooled heat
source fluid
Feed Pump
The working fluid absorbs heat from a heat source, in this case the hot geothermal fluid, via one or
more shell-and-tube heat exchangers. This heat causes the working fluid to evaporate, producing
the high-pressure vapour that is then expanded through a turbine-generator. The high-pressure
motive fluid vapour passes through a liquid separator located on top or downstream of the
vaporiser, prior to flowing into the turbine. The separator is required to remove entrained liquid
droplets and to prevent impingement on the turbine blades.
The low pressure turbine exhaust vapour is then condensed, using either air-cooled heat exchangers
(“fin-fan exchangers”), or a water-cooled, shell-and-tube condenser. Air cooling is appropriate in
locations with limited water supplies, although the motive fluid outlet temperature is then limited
by the prevailing ambient dry-bulb, rather than wet-bulb, temperature. This increase in “sink
temperature” reduces the overall thermodynamic efficiency of the power cycle.
From the condenser, the liquid working fluid is pumped to high pressure and returned to the
preheater to close the cycle. It is also possible to incorporate an additional heat exchanger into the
cycle, normally known as a recuperator. In this exchanger, residual sensible heat in the low-
pressure turbine exhaust stream is used for initial preheating of the cold liquid from the motive
fluid pump, thus increasing the cycle efficiency. The decision to incorporate a recuperator into the
cycle depends on the quantity of available heat in the turbine exhaust.
The heat source fluid can be liquid, vapour or two-phase. By virtue of the complete segregation of
the working fluid from the heat source fluid, the ORC cycle also finds application at geothermal
fields where the geothermal fluids would be difficult to handle in a conventional steam turbine (eg.
corrosive fluid or high non-condensible gas content).
9.2.3 Plant Costs
Based on historical prices, the capital cost of an air-cooled ORC power plant fed by hot water
would be between US$ 1250 and 1800 per kW (nett), for heat source temperatures in the 100-
200°C range and for a 3 – 30 MWe multi-unit development.2 This cost would cover an EPC power
plant, excluding the geothermal fluid supply and return reticulation systems. The historical prices
vary quite widely in terms of $/kW (US$ 950 to over 2,000 /kW) and the plants in question have a
wide range of operating conditions, making it difficult to draw firm correlations for the effects of
project scale and resource temperature. However, the specific capital cost ($/kW) will certainly
tend to increase as resource temperature decreases. The available temperature range between heat
source and sink temperatures decreases and, as a result, the required surface area for heat
exchangers and condenser must increase. The lower grade of heat supply also affects the operating
conditions in the binary cycle, pushing equipment costs up. DiPippo (1999) provides estimated
power plant costs for a 1 MWe binary plant that show an increase from US$ 1,550 /kW at 140°C
resource temperature up to US$1,950 /kW at 100°C.
Data from several sources indicates that the operations and maintenance cost for an ORC plant can
be expected to be in the range 0.007 – 0.011 A$/kWh depending, among other things, on the size of
the plant.
9.2.4 Energy Conversion Efficiency
In order to assess the typical performance of an ORC binary plant, SKM turned to the various
performance data held in our files from other existing and proposed projects. We have analysed the
conversion efficiencies to electrical energy of the thermal energy absorbed from the geothermal
fluid. In doing so, we have adjusted to allow for the effect of different geothermal fluid (heat
source) temperatures and ambient (heat sink) temperatures on the efficiency. We have included
typical allowances for the temperature approaches that would be achieved between fluids on each
side of heat exchangers, though this would be optimised during design of any actual plant. Analysis
is based on use of air-cooled condensers.
The results of our analysis are presented in Figure 17. Although these figures can only be
considered as “representative”, they do illustrate the relative trends and are consistent with the data
on which the analysis was based.
2
The capital cost data are presented in US$ as this is the normal international currency referenced, and this
basis removes the influence of the recent significant variations in US$ to A$ exchange rate.
Figure 17 Indicative Thermal to Electric Conversion Efficiency for ORC Plants
20.0
Thermal to Gross Electric Conversion Efficiency (%)
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Heat Source Temperature (°C)
20°C ambient 25°C ambient 30°C ambient
It can be seen from Figure 17 that the conversion efficiency declines with heat source temperature.
A cooler heat source temperature provides not only a lower quantity of available energy (difference
between fluid energy at inlet and outlet conditions), but also reduced conversion efficiency because
the quality of this energy is lower (a “lower grade” of energy).
Air-cooled ORC power plants have a relatively high parasitic power load, at around 10-12% of the
gross power generation.
9.3 Kalina Cycle®
9.3.1 Introduction
The Kalina Cycle® is a variant of the closed Rankine binary cycle, but uses an ammonia-water
mixture as the motive fluid. The basic process was developed by Dr. Alex Kalina and patented
during the 1980’s. A 3.2 MWe demonstration plant operated for around 7,000 hours at the US DOE
research facility at Canoga Park in the 1990’s. Two other Kalina plants have been constructed and
are currently in operation:-
a 2 MWe plant operating on geothermal brine at Husavik, Iceland, which entered service
in 2000.
a 4 MWe unit at Sumitomo Metals in Japan using low grade process waste heat, operating
since 1999.
The current primary technology licensor is Recurrent Resources LLC, which has exclusive USA
rights for the technology and non-exclusive rights elsewhere in the world. As of late 2003, the
exclusive license for Kalina technology in Australia / New Zealand is held by Geodynamics Power
Systems Pty Ltd.
Recurrent Resources is currently working on the development of “standard” designs for Kalina
Cycle® plants of 5, 15 and 30 MWe nominal capacity. There are several prospective Kalina Cycle®
projects under consideration at the present time, but none is under construction.
9.3.2 Process Description
The Kalina Cycle® offers improved energy recovery efficiency over organic Rankine cycles
through optimisation of the motive fluid vaporising and condensing characteristics to best match
the available resource conditions. The inherent variable boiling point characteristic of a mixture
allows the temperature profile through the motive fluid side of the evaporator to achieve a closer
overall approach to that of the heat source fluid. This results in more effective heat transfer as the
heat duty is not restricted by a single “pinch” point, as it is for a single component ORC fluid,
boiling at a constant temperature. In addition, by varying the working fluid composition at several
points in the cycle (by separating and later recombining streams), selected unit operations can take
place under more advantageous thermodynamic conditions, further increasing cycle efficiency.
There are many variations on the basic Kalina Cycle®, for example to suit geothermal, direct fired
or gas turbine combined cycle applications of various heat source temperature ranges. Some of
these schemes are quite complex, but the general principle for geothermal (and other) applications
is as shown in Figure 18 and described below.
Figure 18 Simplified Schematic of a Representative Kalina Cycle®
High concentration
ammonia-water
Heat Source
Turbine
Evaporator
Separator
Middle concentration Low concentration

ammonia-water ammonia-water
Recuperator
Condenser
Source:- Modified from Geodynamics Power Systems Pty Ltd

Feed Pump
The Kalina Cycle® typically uses an ammonia-water solution of around 80 wt% ammonia, though
individual streams in the cycle are richer or leaner to alter thermo-physical properties. At the
condenser outlet the liquid is saturated at the condenser pressure. The feed pump then increases the
stream pressure to above turbine inlet conditions. The high-pressure fluid is pre-heated to recover
heat from the lean liquid existing separator before entering the evaporator. In the evaporator the
ammonia water solution is partially vaporised by heat exchange with the geothermal fluid. The
mixed phase fluid is separated into rich vapour (high ammonia concentration) and lean liquid (low
ammonia concentration) components in the separator.
The working fluid vapour from the separator is expanded through the turbine to produce electricity.
Conventional steam turbines, which are highly developed and readily available, are appropriate for
this service. The liquid from the separator is cooled in the preheater, as noted earlier. The turbine
exhaust vapour and lean liquid are cooled and condensed in the condenser, which can be water- or
air-cooled. The recombined, cool liquid then passes to the feed pump to complete the cycle.
Increased cycle efficiency can be obtained using a low temperature recuperator (not shown in
diagram) upstream of the condenser to transfer heat from the turbine exhaust vapour and lean
separator liquid exchange heat to the cold working fluid from the feed pump. This additional heat
recovery step was incorporated into the Kalina plant built in Iceland.
9.3.3 Plant Costs
For the Kalina Cycle®, Geodynamics has claimed that the capital cost per kW could be lower than
that of a comparable ORC plant. This is largely on the basis of higher efficiency, which increases
the power generated from a given amount of input heat. The only public domain data identified was
a reference to Exergy’s bid price for the Husavik plant being equivalent to US$ 905 /kW (OCEES,
2003). At face value this is a very attractive price, but it must be recognised that this plant has a
seawater cooling system with very low water temperature. An air-cooled system in Australia would
be significantly more expensive due to the condenser cost, and the higher condensation temperature
would reduce the “bottom line” – the power generated from an equivalent sized plant to Husavik.
Furthermore, it is possible that the price offering for the Husavik plant may have been particularly
keen in order to get the first geothermal Kalina plant constructed. There are a number of different
versions of the general Kalina Cycle®, which have different process schemes and hence capital
costs.
Since the nature of the constituent equipment items of the two cycles are quite similar, it is to be
expected that operating and maintenance costs and issues would be broadly comparable.
9.3.4 Energy Conversion Efficiency
Geodynamics provided the chart shown in Figure 19, which shows the claimed efficiency
advantage (or increased % generation) from using the Kalina Cycle® rather than ORC. This
information is obviously very generic but is generally consistent with claims made elsewhere in
published literature. Furthermore, the theoretical efficiency advantages of the Kalina Cycle®, as
outlined in Section 9.3, are well documented (eg. Mlcak, 1996).
Figure 19 Claimed Efficiency Advantage of Kalina Cycle® over ORC
Source: Siemens Australia via Geodynamics Power Systems
10. Geothermal Direct-Use

10.1 General Review of Direct Geothermal Uses
There has been considerable interest in direct use of geothermal energy for many years. Many
direct use applications are able to use lower temperature geothermal fluids (e.g. 50-100°C range)
that are unsuitable for electricity generation and which are much more prevalent world-wide than
moderate- or high-temperature systems.
In 1975, the Geo-Heat Center (GHC) was established at the Oregon Institute of Technology. The
primary functions of the GHC were to disseminate information to potential users of geothermal
resources, perform applied research on the use of low temperature resources, and to publish a
quarterly newsletter on the progress and development of direct use geothermal energy in the United
States and other countries. The GHC continues to provide geothermal services to the industry and
operates a geothermal library of over 5000 volumes through the Geothermal Resources Council
on-line library system. The quarterly GHC bulletins have, over the past 27 years, covered most of
the established direct geothermal uses.
Every five years a review of world-wide direct use of geothermal energy has been undertaken, with
the most recent being completed in 2000 (Lund and Freeston, 2000). This study categorises and
quantifies the direct use of geothermal energy and provides trends between successive surveys.
The results of the 2000 review are summarised in Table 18.
Table 18 Categories of Direct Use of Geothermal Energy, World-Wide

Capacity, MWt Utilisation, TJ/yr Capacity Factor (%)
Category 2000 1995 2000 1995 2000 1995
Geothermal heat pumps 6,489 1,854 23,214 14,617 11 25

Space/district heating 4,954 2,579 59,696 38,230 38 47
Bathing & swimming 1,796 1,085 35,892 15,742 63 46
Greenhouse heating 1,371 1,085 19,035 15,742 44 46
Aquaculture pond heating 525 1,097 10,757 13,493 65 39
Industrial uses 494 544 10,536 10,120 68 59
Cooling & snow melting 108 115 968 1,124 29 25
Agricultural drying 69 67 954 1,124 44 53
Others 43 238 957 2,249 --- ---
TOTAL 16,209 8,664 162,009 112,441
The data in Table 18 indicate that there are some categories that have seen increases in capacity
and utilisation, others which have remained more or less static and even some that have declined:
Increases in both capacity and utilisation - geothermal heat pumps; space heating; bathing
and swimming; and greenhouse heating.
Approximately stagnant – agricultural drying; industrial uses; cooling and snow melting
Declining capacity and utilisation – aquaculture; others
The “capacity factor” in Table 18 relates the energy “utilisation” to the nameplate “capacity”. In
the utilisation figures, allowance is made for the fact that many direct use applications have a
fluctuating (e.g. seasonal) heat load. This influences the economics as the annual average demand
may be only a fraction of the design capacity of the equipment. Power generation and industrial
uses have the advantage of being continuous processes with capacity factors often exceeding 90%.
Each of the main categories in Table 18 is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Sources of information include Lund and Freeston (2000), Lund (2000) and the Geo-Heat Centre.
10.2 Geothermal Heat Pumps
Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs), are devices used to provide heating and cooling (air conditioning)
of buildings. The technology requires the transfer of heat between the building and the ground or
groundwater. GHP’s do not rely on elevated or anomalous geothermal temperatures and hence do
not have the same geographic restrictions that apply to geothermal electricity generation and direct
use applications and, unlike hot dry rock technologies, GHPs are currently economically attractive.
The use of GHPs is growing, particularly in areas with continental climates where there are large
temperature variations between summer and winter. The popularity of GHP’s has seen a
substantial growth in recent years, particularly in the USA and Europe. There are now more than
half a million of these units installed in over 25 countries around the world, including an estimated
400 000 in the USA. In the year 2000, there were around 2,000 geothermal heat pumps operating in
Australia. Typical unit sizes range from 5 to 20 kW for domestic use, and in excess of 150 kW for
commercial or institutional installations.
GHPs rely on the relatively constant temperature of the Earth and the groundwater present within
100 m of the surface. In areas with continental climates the Earth is warmer than the overlying
atmosphere in winter and cooler in the summer. GHPs take advantage of this situation by
transferring heat stored in the Earth into a building in winter, and transferring it back into the
ground in summer. The Earth is therefore a heat source in winter and a heat sink in summer. GHPs
are technically simple, comprising an earth connection subsystem (usually a series of pipes or loops
buried in the ground), a heat pump, and a distribution subsystem which is typically a conventional
ducted system that moves heated or cooled air throughout the building. There are number of
alternative arrangements for exchanging heat with the Earth, “ground-coupled heat pumps” operate
in a “closed-loop” configuration, whereby water is recirculated through pipes buried in the ground.
The transfer of heat is improved if the loop is immersed in water and hence efforts are often made
to ensure that the closed loop is below or partially below the water table. The less common
Groundwater Heat Pumps operate in an “open loop” arrangement, pumping groundwater through
the unit.
A United States Environmental Protection Agency study has found that GHPs have the potential to
significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption and corresponding green house gas emissions. The
reductions in fossil fuel use have been estimated to be as much as 44% compared with air-source
heat pumps, and as much as 72% compared with electric resistance heating and standard air
conditioning equipment (GAO, 1994).
10.3 Space Heating and District Heating
Geothermal space heating is extensively used in Europe (particularly Iceland and France), the
USA, China, Japan and Turkey. The installations in the USA are primarily individual building
heating systems, whereas the other countries have extensive district heating systems. In Victoria,
geothermal water is used to heat municipal buildings in Portland.
For space heating, hot geothermal water is either circulated directly through the buildings or is used
as a heat source for a separate closed-loop heating system, depending on available temperature,
flow and water quality.
Space heating and district heating are likely to be more economically attractive in areas where
ambient temperatures are low for a substantial proportion of the year. In much of Victoria it is
unlikely that space heating would be required for more than a few months each year. Facilities
such as hospitals have a more substantial heat demand, however, including hot water. Low-grade
heat demand for a modern, integrated health-care facility would be in the range 3 to 4 kWth/bed. A
wide range of resource temperatures can be used, but the preferred range would be 70-80°C.
10.4 Bathing and Swimming
Geothermal hot water is used extensively for hot springs, spas and municipal swimming pools.
Depending on water quality and temperature, the geothermal fluid may be used exclusively, mixed
with town water, or used as a heating medium for town water. Supplemental heating can be
provided to boost final water temperature, where necessary.
The pool temperature for such applications ranges from around 25 to 40 °C. Geothermal fluid
temperatures of between 40 and 60°C are commonly used.
The municipal swimming pool at Portland in Victoria has used 58°C geothermal water for heating
since 1985. A spa complex to be fed by 47°C geothermal water is currently under construction on
the Mornington Peninsula near Melbourne.
A fully-enclosed swimming pool complex might use between 0.5 MWth and 1 MWth to maintain
comfortable temperatures in the water and enclosures, whereas an outdoor pool would probably
require twice as much. Capital cost would depend to some extent on the suitability of the
geothermal fluid for direct use. The requirement for a fresh or treated water supply would involve
a heat exchanger and additional pumping costs.
10.5 Greenhouse Heating
Geothermal hot water is used for greenhouse heating in many countries to extend growing seasons,
extend growing regions and reduce operating costs. Plants grown include vegetables, potted plants,
flowers and tree seedlings.
Related agribusiness applications include soil warming, soil sterilisation (if water temperature is
high enough), irrigation and animal husbandry.
Fluid temperatures typically range from around 35°C upwards, and are commonly in the 45-80°C
range. Heat demands for greenhouses vary widely with literature references ranging from less that
0.5 to around 2.5 MWth/ha. This is likely to reflect the ambient conditions as well as the crops (i.e.
the value and the sensitivity to temperature). Greenhouse construction and ventilation will also
have an influence on energy consumption.
10.6 Aquaculture Pond Heating
As with swimming pool applications, aquaculture can either use geothermal hot water directly or as
an indirect heating medium. Water quality is a key consideration in this respect and, as aquaculture
has a very high water demand, the availability of fresh water may be a significant constraint. Some
applications, such as abalone production, may be able to use seawater, with a relatively small
increase in temperature.
The largest users of geothermal heat for aquaculture are China, Iceland, Georgia, Israel and Turkey.
Species farmed in this manner include catfish, bass, eel, trout, tilapia, prawns, shrimp, pet tropical
fish and even alligators.
The optimum water temperature varies with species, potentially allowing a wide range of resources
to be used. Applications in the USA use water temperatures ranging from 16 to over 80°C. Energy
demands are dependent on the required temperatures, but may run as high as 3 MWth/ha of pond
area.
10.7 Industrial Uses
There is a wide range of potential industrial applications for geothermal heat, however world-wide
heat consumption in this category is relatively low. One reason is that many industrial applications
cannot use the low grade heat that is most widely available. The preferred temperature of the fluid
supplied to most industrial users is in excess of 100°C.
Examples of existing industrial uses of geothermal energy include concrete curing, beverage
bottling, oil recovery, milk pasteurisation, leather processing, chemical extraction, carbon dioxide
extraction, laundering, salt extraction, diatomaceous earth drying, pulp & paper processing,
production of borate & boric acid and sewage sludge digestion.
The largest direct industrial use of geothermal energy is at the Kawerau, New Zealand, pulp and
paper mills owned by Norske Skog and Carter Holt Harvey. This plant uses 280 t/h of steam at up
to 10 barg for direct pulp and paper drying, raising of clean steam, water heating, condensate
stripping and black-liquor evaporation, as well as for electrical generation.
10.8 Cooling and Air Conditioning
There are a number of installations around the world where geothermal fluid is used for cooling
and air conditioning via absorption refrigeration systems. This has not found widespread
application because the efficiency is low and costs are high when the fluid temperature is below
100°C and there are other, more attractive uses for hotter fluids.
10.9 Agricultural Drying
Drying and dehydration of agricultural products using geothermal energy is practised in a small
number of countries. Current and past drying applications include timber, onions, lucerne, fruit,
cereals, rice, seaweed and coconut meat. The required geothermal fluid temperatures vary between
products and will also be directly related to drying time and/or drying equipment size. Typically air
temperatures of 40-100° would be used.
10.10 Direct Use Economics
The bore yield data presented in Section 7 combined with limitations associated with typical deep
well pumps suggests that a typical geothermal bore in the Otway or Gippsland Basin may be
expected to produce water at a flow rate of about 30 L/s. This translates to an energy production
rate of around 2.5 MWth. The following analysis assumes a nominal bore depth of 1000 m and a
geothermal water supply temperature of 50°C. For applications such as drying, space and water
heating etc, a typical discharge (rejection) temperature will be around 30°C, giving a useable
thermal output of 2.5 MWth/well.
For a direct heat application relying on a single well (or a critical application relying on a small
number of wells) there may be a need for some redundant well capacity. There may also be a
requirement for additional wells for disposal of the discarded geothermal water. For the type of
application presented here, however, we have assumed that there is no requirement for redundant
well capacity and that the spent warm water may be disposed of at the surface.
Direct geothermal use costs have been developed for installed capacities ranging from 2.5 to
10 MWth and are presented in Figure 20. This range of capacity will cover some of the medium-
to-large scale applications listed above, but somewhat less energy might be used for industrial or
institutional space heating. Capital and operating costs may be scaled to estimate the economics of
smaller or larger installations.
The capital cost of a geothermal direct heat development is likely to be dominated by the cost of
the wells. The nominal 10 MWth installation would require four production bores each delivering
2.5 MWth. At the estimated mid-range drilling cost of $550 000 for a nominal 1,000 m deep well,
the drilling cost for a 10 MWth installation will be around $2.2M. The other significant cost
components include heat exchangers, pumps, valves and piping. Where the geothermal fluid may
be used directly (bathing/swimming, aquaculture) there will be no need for heat exchangers, but
many applications will require transfer of heat to another fluid. Heat exchanger capital cost is
roughly proportional to heat transfer surface area, which is in turn inversely proportional to the
temperature difference between the two fluids. With relatively modest temperature differences, the
cost of geothermal heat exchangers is quite high. A water-to-water heat exchanger of 10 MWth
capacity is likely to cost around $120 000. A water-to-air heat exchanger, because of the greater
heat transfer area, is likely to cost as much as $300 000.
Piping and pumping costs have been assembled for an installation that can use the heat relatively
close to the production wells and we have allowed for 200 m of 100 mmNB piping for well
connections and 200 m of 200 mmNB trunk piping, together with appropriate isolation and control
valves etc. For a nominal installation of 10 MWth capacity, requiring four wells and either a
water-to-water or a water-to-air heat exchanger, we anticipate a capital cost of between $2.5 and
$3.5 million.
The operating costs for direct use of low-temperature geothermal heat are governed largely by the
cost of pumping. We have estimated an electricity demand of 200 kWe at a retail cost of
$0.15/kWh. With an annual capacity factor of 75% (6570 h/year) the cost of electricity will be
nearly $200 000/year. Repairs and maintenance have been estimated to cost around 2.5% of a
nominal capital cost of $3M. Capital charges at 10% and labour and administration expenses will
bring the total annual cost to around $620 000/year.
The delivered cost of around 230 000 GJ per annum of thermal energy from a typical 10 MWth
installation of this type would be around $2.7/GJ. The cost of energy increases by around 10% for
the 2.5 MWth installation. The system economics, and hence the cost of energy, will also be
sensitive to capacity factor as the fixed charges amount to around 65% of the total annual operating
cost. Capacity factor can vary widely, depending on application.
Figure 20 Geothermal Energy Cost as a Function of Plant Capacity
3.00
2.95
2.90
2.85
Cost of Delivery ($/GJ)
2.80
2.75
2.70
2.65
2.60
2.55
2.50
2.5 5 7.5 10
Heating Capacity (MWth)
11. Existing Geothermal Applications

11.1 Electricity Generation
Readily accessible geothermal temperatures in Australia are generally too low for economic
generation of electricity. Accordingly there are few examples of geothermal electricity generation
in Australia. There are however two examples of Organic Rankine Cycle engines (ORC) that have
been developed by Enreco Pty Ltd at Birdsville and Mulka Station (refer to Figure 21 for
locations).
Figure 21 Location of geothermal plants in Australia (from Burns et al 2000)
Mulka Cattle Station is located on the Birdsville Track in northern South Australia. A 15 kW ORC
engine was constructed and installed in 1986 with funding provided by the South Australian
Government. The plant uses water from a deep bore tapping the aquifers of the Great Artesian
Basin. The bore, originally drilled in 1904, is approximately 1300 m deep and produces about
10 L/s of water at 86°C. After use as a heat source for the ORC plant the geothermal water was
further cooled and used in the ORC condenser before being used for stock watering purposes.
Commissioned in 1986, the ORC plant operated continuously for about three and a half years
before the property was sold. It is believed to be the first operational geothermal power plant in
Australia. Rated at 15 kW, the ORC plant output declined to about 10 kW during the summer
when high ambient temperatures reduced the plant efficiency. The gross electricity conversion
efficiency was 8% with a net 6% obtained when parasitic loads were accounted for (Burns et al,
2000).
Following the successful demonstration of small scale electricity generation at Mulka Station,
Enreco Pty, Ltd, installed a similar but larger plant in the town of Birdsville (population 100) in
western Queensland. The plant was funded by the National Energy Research and Demonstration
Council, an agency of the federal government. Hot water is supplied to the plant from a 150 mm
diameter bore drilled to a depth of 1220 m in the Great Artesian Basin. The bore had been flowing
under artesian pressure for 45 years prior to the installation of the ORC plant. Its production rate is
approximately 27 L/s at a temperature of 98°C and a shut in wellhead pressure of 1215 kPa. The
water is cooled to about 80°C in the ORC heat exchangers and is used in the Birdsville town water
supply after use in the plant.
The ORC plant commenced operation in 1992. Rated at 150 kW it achieved only a modest net
output of about 60 kW and an average parasitic load of almost 40 kW. Following substantial plant
modifications in 1999, including the replacement of Freon (R114) by the more environmentally
acceptable isopentane, the plant was returned to operation in June 1999 and has been operating
successfully, albeit at low efficiency, since that time (Burns et al, 2000). Gross plant output is still
well short of the rated plant output of 150 kW and overall conversion efficiency is about 6%.
The town’s peak electricity demand has been estimated as about 250 kW. The ORC plant is able to
meet the town’s power demand at night and during the winter and it works in combination with a
conventional diesel generator at other times. It is understood that the ORC plant has reduced the
town’s diesel consumption by about 160,000 Litres per year representing an annual fuel saving of
$135,000 and a reduction of about 430 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. The capital
cost of the low temperature ORC units has been estimated at about $4000/kW increasing to about
$6000 - $7000/kW after production bore refurbishment, water reticulation and civil works are
included3.
3
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p00834aa.pdf/Birdsville_geothermal_power_station.pdf
11.2 District heating in Portland4

The geothermal resources in the city of Portland have been used to heat a public swimming pool
and a number of buildings in the city since the early 1980’s. A description of the installed heating
facilities and an assessment of the total available energy are presented by King et al.1987 a
summary of which is presented in the following paragraphs.
Deep groundwater bores, currently owned and operated by Portland Coast Water for the purpose of
municipal water supply for the city of Portland, produce groundwater at temperatures between 57
and 60°C. Before reticulation in the city water supply the water is cooled in forced draught cooling
towers. Water is extracted from the aquifers of the Dilwyn Formation of the Wangerrip Group at
depths ranging between 1200 and 1400 m. King et al (1987) report that in 1985 there were seven
existing deep bores including four production and two observation bores and one that had been
abandoned.
Water produced from Portland 14 (also known as the Henty Park Bore) is used for geothermal
heating purposes. Drilled in 1982, Portland 14 free flows under artesian pressure at approximately
90 L/s from a production interval between 1254 and 1365 m below ground level. In 1985 it
delivered about 22 L/s of hot water to a number of heat exchangers to heat the city’s swimming
pool complex, arts centre, civic centre, municipal offices (now occupied by the Glenelg Shire
Council) and elderly citizen’s centre (King et al, 1987). The estimated cost savings associated with
the use of geothermal energy for heating in 1985 was approximately $120,000 per year (King et al,
1987).
Since publication of King et al, 1987, the geothermal space heating system has been expanded to
incorporate more municipal and private buildings. The geothermal heat is now used in the
following buildings:
Portland and District Hospital

Police Station
Fawthrop Centre
Public Swimming Pool Complex
Municipal Offices
CEMA Arts Centre
Civic Hall
Library
4
Much of the current information presented in this section was kindly provided by Stuart Ferrier of Glenelg
Shire Council and Ian Bale of Portland Coast Water.
Tourist Information Centre

Richmond Henty Hotel
State Emergency Services Offices
Maritime Discovery Centre.
The system is believed to currently use 60 – 70 L/s of hot water (~58°C) extracted by the Henty
Park Production Bore. Unfortunately the production rates and temperatures are not being
monitored and hence details of the geothermal water flow and temperature are only estimates.
Water is pumped from the production bore through a 225 mm diameter supply line connecting all
of the utilisation sites. At each facility water is extracted from the main via 50 mm and 100 mm
diameter offtakes. After heat is removed from the water in the heat exchangers it is pumped into a
return line that parallels the main distribution pipe and the used geothermal water is piped back to
the Henty Park production bore site where it is cooled further in forced draught cooling towers.
The layout of the hot water reticulation system is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22 Layout of the Portland Geothermal District Heating System (courtesy of Glenelg Shire Council)
Table 19 Details of Heating Facilities Included in the Portland Geothermal District Heating Scheme (information courtesy Glenelg Shire Council)
Nominal
Heat
Location Use Capacity Primary – Geothermal Side Secondary – Building Side
Exchanger
(kW)
Temp. In (°C) Temp. Out (°C) Design Flow Temp. In (°C) Temp. Out
(L/s) (°C)
Process Heat Space Heating 625 54 40 10.7 34 49
Transfer VT40
Process Heat Space Heating 625 54 40 10.7 34 49
Portland Hospital
Transfer VT40
Process Heat Domestic Hot 105 54 40 1.8 15 45
Transfer VT4P Water
Alfa-Laval Pool Heating N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Clone P01
Alfa Laval Domestic Hot N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Clone P22 Water
Richmond Henty Alfa Laval Domestic Hot N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
300
Hotel Clone P22 Water
Alfa Laval Space Heating N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Clone P22
Alfa Laval Space Heating N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Clone P22
Police Station Alfa Laval Space Heating 56 51 41 1.4 32 47
P22-HBL
Fawthrop Centre SWEP B45 Space Heating 50 51.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Municipal Offices Alfa Laval Space Heating 200 N/A N/A 4.8 N/A N/A
P22-HBL
CEMA Arts Centre Alfa Laval Space Heating 74 51.4 42.1 1.9 28.5 49
P22VL
SES Offices Alfa Laval Space Heating 68 57.3 41.9 1.7 28.5 49
P22VL
Alfa Laval Pool Heating 333 51.7 40.8 7.3 26 43.7

P2VXL (indoor)
Alfa Laval Pool Heating 333 51.7 40.8 7.3 26 43.7
P2VXL (outdoor)
Swimming Pool SWEP G30 Pool Heating 91.4 56 46 2.2 38 44.3
Complex (Spa)
SWEP G30 Space Heating 30 59 44 0.48 40 55
(Change Room)
SWEP G65 Space Heating 442 59 44 7.1 40 55
(Main Room)
Civic Hall/Library/ Alfa Laval Space Heating 245 51.5 38.4 4.48 28.5 48
Tourist Information P22-HBL
Centre
Maritime Discovery N/A Space Heating 26 N/A N/A 0.8 N/A N/A
Centre
Total 3600 70
Details of the heat load at each of the facilities connected to the system are presented in Table 19.
Few of the facilities are metered for their use of the geothermal water and hence much of the data
included in Table 19 are based on design loads. Actual loads are expected to be significantly lower
than indicated in the table. This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the available heat
calculated from the measured temperature drop between the production bore (58°C) and the return
water (56°C) and the estimated geothermal water production rate. This calculation suggests that
the heat being extracted from the geothermal water is on average 580 kW being substantially below
the design figures included in Table 19 (Energy and Thermal Services, 2002). The value of the
existing system calculated in terms of the savings in alternative heating has been estimated to be as
much as $300,000 per year. This figure is however based on design heating loads and may
therefore be an overestimate of the actual saving.
The production bore is owned and operated by Portland Coast Water and the Glenelg Shire Council
pays an annual fee for continued use of the geothermal water. The shire council in turn charges the
non-municipal users on the basis of metered and assumed usage at a rate that is tied to the price of
gas.
Glenelg Shire Council maintains the reticulation system and has a programme in place for the
upgrade and replacement of the ageing asbestos cement delivery and return pipes. They are also
progressively adding instrumentation to the system including water meters, with the intention of
obtaining more accurate estimates of water usage.
The geothermal production bore (Portland 14) is operated and maintained by Portland Coast Water.
As part of their on-going maintenance and asset management plans Portland Coast Water had the
Henty Park Bore surveyed in the year 2000 in order to investigate the condition of its casings. The
principal results are summarised below (SKM, 2000):
Minor failures in and around the screens between 1200 and 1300 m were identified as
potential sites of imminent major failure that could compromise both water quality and
bore yield.
The majority of the casing was classified as having up to 30% metal loss.
In the absence of repair or refurbishment a major bore failure was expected within five
years of the survey date.
As a result the following four options have been identified for the refurbishment of the Henty Park
bore (SKM, 2003):
Option 1 – Partially reline the bore by installing a stainless steel screens within the
existing screens from 1050 m depth to hole bottom.
Option 2 – Totally reline the bore from the surface to bottom hole using a combination of
fibre glass casing and stainless steel screen. Grout the casing in place from the surface to
1150 m depth.
Option 3 – Partially reline the bore from 1000 m to 1300 m depth and seal the hole below
1300 m depth. Perforate the existing casing at the depth intervals adjacent to sands at
1040-1060 m and 1100-1160 m.
Option 4 – Totally reline the bore from the surface to 1300 m depth with fibre glass casing
and stainless steel screens. Seal the hole below 1300 m depth. Grout the new casing in
place from the surface to 1150 m depth.
These options are currently being evaluated by both Portland Coast Water and the Glenelg Shire
Council and negotiations are under way regarding the on-going funding and ownership of the
Henty Park production bore.
While the benefits of the geothermal heating scheme are widely accepted there are a number of
issues that have recently arisen that have caused concern as to how the system is being operated.
Originally the returned, partially cooled geothermal water was pumped into the city’s municipal
water supply following additional cooling in forced draught cooling towers located at the Henty
Park site (refer to Figure 25). Concerns were raised as to the risk of cross contamination of the
geothermal water from possible leaks in any of the individual heat exchangers connected to the
system. The potential for leaks to impact adversely on the water quality of the town water supply
is heightened by the fact that the secondary waters are often chemically dosed to avoid chemical
and biological fouling in the heating water circuits. In the face of these concerns, combined with
the fact that the quality of water produced by the Henty Park bore is currently inferior to that of
water obtained from the other town water supply bores, Portland Coast Water has decided that it is
no longer desirable to use the returned geothermal water in the city’s water supply. As a result the
returned and cooled geothermal water is now discharged to the ocean via a nearby surface channel.
The resultant wastage of the water resource has been highlighted as a negative effect associated
with the scheme.
Furthermore, the current operating regime requires that the used geothermal water be cooled before
it is discharged to surface waters and to waste. The operation and maintenance of the cooling
towers at the Henty Park site are additional and undesirable costs that are currently borne by
Portland Coast Water.
Both Portland Coast Water and the shire council are attempting to address these issues and a
number of consultants’ studies have been commissioned to identify the optimal operation of the
system that maximises the use of the geothermal water and reduces overall operating costs. It is
generally recognised that modifying the system so that the used geothermal water is suitable for
subsequent use in the town’s water supply is a key objective that would help to alleviate many of
the negative effects. Options under current consideration include:
The installation of a single centrally located heat exchanger that can be carefully
monitored and maintained. This proposal would potentially reduce the possibility of cross
contamination from leaks in the heat exchangers,
Modifying the bores production interval to help improve quality of the water produced by
the Henty Park Bore,
Optimisation of the water production rates to ensure that excess water is not unnecessarily
pumped through the geothermal heating system.
It is to be hoped that these issues can be resolved in the near future so that the scheme can operate
in a manner that minimises the adverse effects and provides benefits to all parties. Such a
resolution would help ensure that the scheme maintains its position as a flagship for alternative
energy use in Victoria and highlights the potential and largely untapped value of the geothermal
resources of the Otway Basin.
Figure 23 Construction Details of the Henty Park Geothermal Production Bore
PORTLAND COAST GDB BORE PARISH BORE RIG SEQUENCE

WATER ID NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER
PORTLAND PORTLAND
HENTY 88376 21/82/2
14
PARK
CONSTRUCTION RECORDS CONSTRUCTION-SCHLUMBERGER SURVEY
WALL WALL
THICKNESS THICKNESS
FROM (m) TO (m) OD (mm) (mm) FROM (m) TO (m) OD (mm) (mm)
1.10 20.9 508 LINER PIPE 1.10 20.9 508 LINER PIPE
0.0 N.S. 0.0 106 339.725 9.65 0.0 106 339.725 9.65
SURFACE
CASING
20.90
339.725 DIA.
(13.375") API
WELL LINER 106 1196 273.05 12.6 104.5 1161 273.05 12.6
No. 1 CASING
SWEDGE
273.05 DIA.
(10.75") API
TOP OF SEAL 1161 1255.5

WELL LINER
No. 2
203 DIA.
(8") PLAIN API (?)
1254.45 1275.05 219 8.9 1255.5 1276 219 8.9
SCREEN 20.60 m
1291.47 1299.77 1292.5 1301

SCREEN 8.30 m
1307.78 1325.23 1309 1326.5

SCREEN 17.45 m
1339.25 1365 1340.5 1366

SCREEN 25.75 m
SUMP 1366.5 1385 168.3 8.9 1366.5 1385 168.3 8.9
ASSUMED THICKNESS FROM API TABLES
SCHLUMBERGER SURVEY DID NOT ACCESS PAST 1368m

1385 REDUCING
DETAILS UNKNOWN
SUMP 168.30DIA.
(6.6") API
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
Figure 24 Henty Park Production Bore Wellhead
Figure 25 Henty Park Cooling Towers
With regard to the state of the geothermal resource in Portland, it is of interest to know whether
there are signs that the resource is stressed and whether the extraction of hot water is sustainable.
To fully answer these questions it would be necessary to establish a detailed temperature and water
level monitoring programme aimed at identifying and tracking changes in aquifer pressure and
temperature. Unfortunately, no such programme has been established for monitoring changes in
resource temperature and in particular, there are no baseline data against which recent observations
can be compared. Notwithstanding the absence of any quantitative temperature monitoring of the
resource and the produced water, there are no qualitative or anecdotal signs of thermal decline
despite many decades of groundwater extraction (deep groundwater was first used for the town’s
water supply in the late 1950’s).
Water levels in the aquifer are measured in a number of monitoring bores that are included in the
state groundwater observation bore network. Records of water level from two observation bores,
Portland 8 and Portland 10 are shown in Figure 26. Both bores are located near the Bald Hill
production bores and tend to reflect local changes in water level that are strongly influenced by the
extractions from the nearby production bores. Water levels have declined since 1970, with a
marked drawdown observed since 2001. This rapid decline is most likely caused by increased
water demand during the drought of the late 1990’s and early 2000’s (Portland is the only city in
Victoria not to have applied water restrictions during drought). While the recent drawdown in
water levels measured in Portland 8 and Portland 10 appear to be quite dramatic, the aquifer is
extremely deep and a further decline of many tens or even hundreds of meters in head can be
sustained. It may be concluded that the resource is not under serious stress at present. Given the
large area over which geothermal waters can be extracted and the relatively small level of
development to date, there is a huge potential for expanding and further utilising the geothermal
resources of Portland and of the Otway Basin in general.
Figure 26 Water Level Observations in the Portland Geothermal Aquifer
25
20
Water Level [mAHD]
15
Portland 8
Portland 10
10
0
1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008
11.3 Geothermal heat pumps the New AGSO Building5

The Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO) is one of the seven Groups comprising the
Commonwealth's Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE). In early 1995 Parliament
approved the construction in Canberra of a new purpose-built building for AGSO, with a budget of
$105 million (at December 1994 prices). Because DPIE has carriage of the Commonwealth's
energy policies, the design brief for the new building sought to demonstrate an appropriate,
pragmatic response to Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) design principles. The
complex has been acclaimed for its Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) strategies, the
outstanding feature of which, appropriately for a geological survey organisation, is the largest
geothermal-based air conditioning system yet to be installed in Australia.
Construction of the AGSO building commenced in April 1996 and was completed in December
1997, about four months ahead of schedule. The building includes both offices and laboratories
5
Information in this section was kindly provided by John Coffey, of Davis Langdon (formerly of Bassett
Consulting) and Stephen Read of Geoscience Australia.
and, together with an adjacent support building, has a total floor area of 40,000 m2.
The AGSO GHP system developed by Bassett Consulting Engineers is an electrically powered
system that capitalises on the Earth's moderate temperature (around 17°Celsius) at a depth of up to
100 metres beneath the building site. Water is circulated through a "geothermal field" comprising
heat exchange loops immersed in groundwater in 350 bore holes (each 100 metres deep) in front of
the AGSO building (refer to Figure 27 and Figure 28). The bore field consists of four distinct
sectors within which bores are arranged in a rectangular grid at spacing of approximately 4.5 m.
The entire borefield covers an area of about 6000 m2. In winter the circulating water collects heat
from the earth and carries it through the system into the building. In summer the system reverses
and extracts heat from the building and transfers it back to the geothermal field. The borefield
effectively acts as a water-to-groundwater heat exchanger.
Water is pumped to and from the borefield by circulating pumps located in the lower-ground level
of the building (refer to Figure 29) through a series of headers and then through 350 individual high
density polyethylene pipes each inserted in an individual bore hole (see Figure 30). The circulating
water is either heated or cooled, depending on the season, as it flows down and then back up the
bore hole. The water pipework between the building and the bore field is buried to an average
depth of 1200 mm. The entire geothermal loop and geothermal water pipework are freeze
protected to -6°C by the use of methanol as an anti-freeze solution.
Figure 27 Schematic Layout of the AGSO Building and its Surrounds
Figure 28 The Borefield Has been Restored to Lawn and Garden (Photo Courtesy John
Coffey, Davis Langdon)
Inside the building there are 200 water-to-air heat pumps, each serving up to four perimeter offices
or eight interior offices (shown in Figure 31). The heat pumps are housed in cabinets that form
partitions between rooms and work spaces and are effectively integrated in the interior office
design (refer to Figure 32). Each of these systems is independent of the others and can be switched
off during office hours if they are not in use. They can also be switched on individually after hours
as required. The heat pump units contain a sealed refrigerant circuit including a refrigerant
compressor, bi-directional thermal expansion valve, finned refrigerant coil, reversing valve and a
co-axial water-to-refrigerant heat exchanger. The water-to-refrigerant heat exchanger comprises
convoluted copper inner tube and cupro-nickel outer tube.
The decision to use a GHP system in the AGSO building was based on a life-cycle cost comparison
of the system with conventional Variable Air Volume (VAV) air conditioning systems, and VAV
systems with chilled water storage. The analysis found that the GHP system had the lowest net
present cost while the VAV system with chilled water storage had the highest (Williams, 1997).
In addition to net present cost savings, other advantages of the GHP system to AGSO include:
reduced annual energy consumption and therefore, reduced usage of non-renewable

energy resources (~340 MJ/m2 per annum for the GHP system versus ~400 MJ/m2 per
annum for a VAV system and ~415 MJ/m2 per annum for a VAV system with chilled
water storage),
reduced peak energy demand which reduces maximum-demand electricity charges (and
ultimately the sizes of power station requirements),
greater after hours flexibility as units can be left off in areas which are unoccupied,
less redundancy due to the configuration of the GHP system and the lower need for
"standby" capacity,
less outside equipment and consequential corrosion,
reduced risk of major breakdown of costly central plant items,
increased plant warranties,
elimination of cooling tower water treatment and corrosion, thereby removing the risk of
Legionnaires Disease (Williams, 1997).
It has been claimed that the building is performing 30% below the normal electrical energy
consumption for Commonwealth office buildings. The total building energy consumption appears
to be about 67% electricity and 33% gas split. The all-electric energy consumption of the central
services and power and lighting of the office component represents 527 MJ/m2 year. This is 16%
less than the Commonwealth Government target figure of 625 MJ/m2 year for a building of this
size and population. Translating the reported energy consumption figures into greenhouse gas
emissions (GGE) as used by SEDA’s (Sustainable Energy Development Authority) NSW Building
Greenhouse Rating Scheme, this calculates as CO2 emissions of about 138 kg/m2 year. This
represents an excellent result, (just short of a five star rating of 125 kg/m2 year) achieved without
having to compensate by using the “Green Power” option of buying electricity generated from
renewable sources (Johnston, undated).
Figure 29 Water Circulation Pumps (Photo courtesy Stephen Read, Geoscience

Australia)
Figure 30 Banks of Small Diameter Pipes Transfer Water and Heat Between the Bore
Field and the Heat Pump Units (Photo courtesy Stephen Read, Geoscience Australia)
Figure 31 Geothermal Heat Pump Installation (Photo courtesy Stephen Read,

Geoscience Australia)
Figure 32 Geothermal Heat Pumps Housed in Cabinets Inside the Buildings (Photo
Courtesy John Coffey, Davis Langdon)
12. Environmental Effects of Geothermal Use

12.1 Resource Depletion
Geothermal energy is often classified as a renewable or sustainable energy source and by most
measures this classification is appropriate. However under short term, high intensity utilisation
scenarios it is possible to deplete the geothermal resource both in terms of energy and water
reserves. The sustainability of the resource becomes evident once the fluid extraction ceases and
both the energy and fluid reserves naturally replenish and pre-exploitation conditions can be re-
established given sufficient recovery time. During the exploitation phase there are a number of
potential environmental effects associated with the extraction and disposal of the geothermal fluids.
Perhaps the most damaging effect associated with the development of high enthalpy geothermal
systems is the decline in activity and intensity of the geothermal discharge features that are often
valued as a tourist attraction. The development of the Rotorua geothermal field in New Zealand
provides a good case study of such effects.
The renewability of geothermal resources has been clearly demonstrated in Rotorua, New Zealand,
where a shallow hot water resource has been exploited since the 1920’s for district heating and
bathing purposes. Many Rotorua residents take advantage of the underlying geothermal fluids by
drilling shallow wells (20-200 metres depth) to extract hot water. These fluids are used for
domestic and commercial heating, with some of the largest commercial users being Government
Department offices, hospitals and major tourist hotels. The extractive geothermal users coexisted
for many years with a thriving tourism industry based on the spectacular geothermal springs,
fumaroles and geysers that are fed by the geothermal resource. During the period 1967 to 1986
borehole numbers increased dramatically. By 1986 over 1150 wells had been drilled in the city to
tap the shallow geothermal resource. Coincident with the increased extractions the natural
geothermal features and the tourist attraction reached a crisis point as a significant decline in
activity led to the demise of a number of geysers and a significant reduction in overall energy
discharge. In an effort to reverse this trend, the central government instigated a bore closure
programme in 1987-88 which resulted in 106 wells within a 1.5 km radius of the geysers being
cemented. A royalty charging regime for all remaining wells resulted in a further 120 wells being
shut outside the 1.5 km radius. This regulatory programme was met with much animosity and
opposition from the local community. However within 10 years of the start of the recovery
program water levels recovered, flows of hot springs increased and several extinct geysers began to
erupt again. Problems have arisen where long extinct fumaroles and springs have been re-activated
in locations that had been built on causing damage to private gardens and houses. Although some
failed geysers have shown no signs of recovery to date, the program has nevertheless delivered
significant success in the recovery of the geothermal reservoir.
In the case of high enthalpy geothermal systems used to generate electricity, the geothermal fluid
extraction system is typically designed or sized to maintain full steam supply to the power plant for
a 25 or 30 year plant life cycle. Under these conditions the reserves of heat and water are expected
to be severely depleted at the end of the plant life. Potential environmental effects that may arise
during the period of intense extraction are summarised below.
12.2 Venting of Gases.

Geothermal fluids contain dissolved gases, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide
(H2S), small amounts of ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane and radon, and minor quantities of
volatile species of boron, arsenic, and mercury. As the geothermal fluids are brought to the surface
they undergo rapid depressurisation with the associated liberation of many of the dissolved non-
condensable gases. Toxic gases are generally present in such small amounts as to represent an
insignificant risk to the local environment. The principal environmental concern related to high
enthalpy geothermal developments is the liberation of CO2 into the atmosphere and subsequent
effect on climate change. This effect is, however, small compared to other energy sources that rely
on combustion of fossil fuels. This point is discussed in more detail in Section 12.6.
Hydrogen sulphide emissions from geothermal fluids do not contribute to acid rain or global
climate change but do create a sulphur smell that some people find objectionable and are toxic at
high concentrations. The range of H2S emissions from geothermal plants is 0.03–6.4 g/kWh. The
removal of H2S from geothermal steam is mandatory in the United States. The Stretford process,
which produces pure sulphur and is capable of reducing H2S emissions by more than 90% is the
most commonly used control method. More recently developed techniques include burning the
hydrogen sulphide to produce sulphur dioxide, which can be dissolved, converted to sulphuric acid
and sold to provide income.
With regard to the development of the low temperature geothermal resources of Victoria, there is
effectively no discharge of gas associated with the recovery and use of the warm water.
Accordingly there is no chance of air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
development of geothermal resources in Victoria. This conclusion can also be extended to include
any possible future development of deep hot dry rock resources. The hot dry rock process involves
a negligible extraction or recovery of in-situ geothermal water and hence issues associated with the
venting or release of gases included in these fluids are not relevant.
12.3 Noise
Noise occurs during exploration drilling and construction phases. Table 20 shows noise levels
from these operations can range from 45 to 120 decibels (dBa). For comparison, noise levels in
quiet suburban residences are on the order of 50 dBa, noise levels in noisy urban environments are
typically 80–90 dBa, and the threshold of pain is 120 dBa at 2,000–4,000 Hz. Site workers can be
protected by using appropriate personal safety equipment. With best practices, noise levels can be
kept to below 65 dBa, and construction noise should be practically indistinguishable from other
background noises at distances of one kilometre. Operating geothermal plants (e.g.geothermal
power plant) have relatively low noise emission levels.
Table 20 Geothermal Exploration and Construction Noise Levels

Operation Noise Level (dBa)
Air drilling 85–120

Mud drilling 80
Discharging wells after drilling (to remove
Up to 120
drilling debris)
Well testing 70–110
Diesel engines (to operate compressors and
45–55
provide electricity)
Heavy machinery (e.g., for earth moving
Up to 90
during construction)
12.4 Disposal of Wastewater

When brought to the surface, high temperature geothermal fluids exploited for electricity
generation typically comprise a mixture of water (or more specifically brine) and steam. The
electricity generation process involves the separation of steam from the brine and/or the extraction
of heat from the brine. The waste brine must then be disposed of in a manner that avoids the
contamination of surface and underground water resources. High temperature geothermal brines
typically contain high concentrations of dissolved salts and include relatively high concentrations
of heavy metals including arsenic. The heat depleted waste brines are typically returned to the
geothermal reservoir by injection into deep bores. This method of disposal has proven to be highly
effective in avoiding the harmful impacts of surface disposal of the brines and in prolonging the life
of the resource by counteracting the effects of mass depletion and associated resource decline.
The chemical characteristics of the geothermal waters of Victoria are benign and the water is used
extensively, after cooling, for municipal water supply. Accordingly it may be concluded that there
is no risk of negative effects associated with the extraction, use and disposal of the geothermal
waters available in Victoria. In terms of any possible future developments of the deep hot dry rock
resources of Victoria, the water injection and discharge cycle used in such developments essentially
forms a closed circuit with there being no waste water produced.
12.5 Land Subsidence

The large scale extraction of geothermal waters and the associated decline in subsurface pressures
in the geothermal reservoir and overlying strata can sometimes give rise to land subsidence. The
most famous and most dramatic example of geothermally induced subsidence is that observed at
the Wairakei Geothermal Field in New Zealand. Geothermal developments at Wairakei
commenced in the early 1950’s and in 1956 subsidence of 76 mm was measured in an existing
benchmark. Since then the rate at which geothermal fluids are extracted from the reservoir has
increased and the associated levels of subsidence observed over the field have also increased. A
number of small subsidence centres (termed “subsidence bowls”) have been identified. One of the
earliest observed bowls displayed a peak subsidence rate of 450 mm/year in the 1970’s.
Subsidence rates have since reduced somewhat, however the overall magnitude of the total
subsidence at this location currently exceeds 15 m (Lawless et al, 2003).
Effects of the subsidence in the Wairakei region have fortunately been restricted to small regions of
rural land between the original steamfield and the power station. Observed impacts have included:
The creation of a pond about 1 km in length and 6 m in depth in what was originally a
fast-flowing stream,
Cracking of both a nearby highway and the main waste water drain on the site,
Compressive buckling and tensile fracturing of steam pipelines, and
Fissures in surroundings fields.
As geothermal fluid extraction continues and the subsurface depressurisation of the resource
intensifies and widens, there are concerns that new subsidence bowls will form in the nearby town
of Taupo with serious consequences to existing infrastructure and buildings.
The experience of subsidence at Wairakei has not been repeated elsewhere. The principal reason
for this is the fact that the net mass withdrawal of fluids at Wairakei far exceeds that at any other
geothermal field. This is partially because Wairakei is a large power plant that has been generating
electricity for a long time, and that Wairakei is perhaps the only major geothermal development in
which waste water is not returned to the reservoir through reinjection. (Partial reinjection of spent
geothermal brines has recently been introduced). Consequently subsidence levels measured at
other geothermal fields are typically one or two orders of magnitude less than those observed at
Wairakei. It is generally accepted that appropriate field management, including reinjection of
wastewater into the reservoir, can effectively prevent the onset of potentially catastrophic land
deformation processes.
The possibility that development of the geothermal resources of Victoria will lead to damaging
subsidence is considered to be extremely small. Even under the most optimistic assumptions as to
the future demand for geothermal energy in Victoria, geothermal water extraction rates and
associated depressurisation of the aquifers are unlikely to reach the levels required for significant
subsidence to occur. This conclusion is based on expectations and understanding of the likely
future demand for geothermal water for heating and other applications. The conclusion does not
relate to mine dewatering activities currently being carried out in the Loy Yang and Morwell open
cut coal mines in the Latrobe Valley. Large volumes of geothermal water are being pumped out of
these mines in order to reduce groundwater pressures beneath the open cuts to help control the
vertical movement of the pit floor. To date, as a result of dewatering activities and mining
operations, there has been subsidence at Morwell of up to 2 metres6.
6
(www.audit.vic.gov.au/old/sr24/ags2409.htm).
12.6 Environmental benefits

Geothermal power provides significant environmental advantage over fossil fuel power sources in
terms of air emissions because geothermal energy production releases no nitrogen oxides (NOx), no
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and much less carbon dioxide (CO2) than fossil-fuelled power. The reduction
in nitrogen and sulphur emissions reduces local and regional impacts of acid rain, and reduction in
carbon dioxide emissions reduce contributions to potential global climate change. Geothermal
power plant CO2 emissions can vary from plant to plant depending on both the characteristics of
the reservoir fluid and the type of power generation plant. Binary plants have no CO2 emissions,
while dry steam and flash steam plants have CO2 emissions on the order of 0.05 kg/kWh, less than
one tenth the CO2 emissions of coal-fired generation.
The relative amounts of greenhouse gas emissions for various fuels are shown in Figure 33. Indeed,
geothermal steam plants can be designed so that no gases are emitted into the atmosphere provided
that the non-condensable gases are compressed and re-injected into the geothermal reservoir with
the waste brine. This technique is being tried for the first time at geothermal power plants in the
Coso Geothermal Project in California, USA.
Figure 33 Carbon Emissions from Energy Production by Fuel (DiPippo, 1988)
1.18
1.2 1.13
1 0.91
kg of Carbon per kWh
0.8
0.68
0.59
0.6
0.45
0.41
0.4
0.2
0.05
0 0 0
0
NATURAL GAS -
NATURAL GAS -
BINARY PLANT
BIOGAS
COAL
GEOTHERMAL
GEOTHERMAL
OIL
WOOD
GEOTHERMAL HOT
COMBINED CYCLE
GEOTHERMAL
STEAM CYCLE
DIRECT USE
SIMPLE GAS
NATURAL GAS
TURBINE
STEAM
DRY ROCK
The use of Victoria’s geothermal resources provides a clear environmental benefit in that useful
energy is gained without any greenhouse gas emissions. This benefit applies equally to direct uses,
binary plant electricity generation and hot dry rock electricity generation. By way of example, the
Portland district heating scheme described in Section 11.2 contributes no greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere and avoids the consumption of energy derived by the combustion of fossil fuels.
Geothermal power plants require relatively little land and do not require damming of rivers or
harvesting of forests, and there are no mineshafts, tunnels, open pits, waste heaps or oil spills. An
entire geothermal field uses only 0.4 to 3.2 hectares per MW versus 2 to 4 hectares for nuclear
plants and 7.6 hectares per MW for coal plants.
Geothermal plants can be sited in farmland and forests and can share land with livestock and local
wildlife. For example, the Hell’s Gate National Park in Kenya was established around an existing
45 MWe geothermal power station, Olkaria I. Land uses in the park include livestock grazing,
growing of foodstuffs and flowers, and conservation of wildlife. After extensive environmental
effects analysis, a second geothermal plant, Olkaria II, was approved for installation in the park in
1994, and an additional power station is under consideration.
13. Conclusions
Geothermal temperatures in Victoria appear to define a geothermal gradient that is, on average,
between 3 and 4ºC per 100 m of depth. This gradient is only slightly higher than the international
average geothermal gradients observed in volcanically inert areas. The feature of the geothermal
systems of Victoria of most interest is that highly productive aquifers in the unconsolidated basin
sediments at depths of up to 1000 m, provide uniformly high productivity of geothermal bores.
Such highly productive porous media type aquifers at these depths are relatively rare. Accordingly,
the targeting of geothermal bores in Victoria requires an appreciation of the location and thickness
of the sedimentary sequences within the basins as well as an understanding of prevailing
geothermal temperatures.
Available data sets have been used to define the geothermal temperatures and unconsolidated
sediment regions at various depths in the Gippsland Basin. A similar assessment of the other two
major basins (i.e. the Otway and Murray basins) will require additional data compilation and
mapping of the top of the basement rocks in these basins. Geothermal developments in the regions
of bedrock outcrop will be less attractive because of the relative difficulty in obtaining good water
production from the fissures, fractures and joints in the basement rocks.
In regions where there are little or no measured temperature data, geothermal temperatures have
been estimated on the basis of calculated and assumed thermal properties of the rocks and heat
flows. Calculated data have been used to augment measured temperature data to prepare the maps
of geothermal temperatures presented in this report.
The temperature of the geothermal waters that are easily accessible from the unconsolidated
sediment aquifers in the deep basins can be used in a number of applications. Applications such as
space heating including the heating of greenhouses, bathing (both in spas and heated swimming
pools), aquaculture pond heating and agricultural drying can be achieved with the hot water
available within 1000 m of the surface. Existing facilities in Portland and elsewhere in the Otway
Basin have demonstrated that many of these applications of geothermal heat are feasible.
The temperature of geothermal water within 2000 m of the surface in Victoria is not sufficiently
high for generating electricity in a conventional steam turbine. Organic Rankine Cycle and Kalina
Cycle® electricity generation technologies could possibly be applied in Victoria. However the
expected plant efficiencies at temperatures less than 100ºC are so low that such developments are
unlikely to be economic. Similarly, it is expected that the depth to which bores would have to be
drilled to encounter temperatures required for electricity generation from a “Hot Dry Rock”
development would make this type of development economically unattractive in much of the state.
Local thermal anomalies in the Gippsland and Otway Basins may however represent potential
targets for future Hot Dry Rock exploration.
Experience to date in using geothermal energy in Australia is reasonably limited. Small scale
binary cycle geothermal plants have been successfully demonstrated in remote areas of South
Australia and Queensland using hot water from the Great Artesian Basin. In Victoria, an extensive
district heating scheme in the city of Portland has been operating continuously since the early
1980’s and has resulted in substantial saving in heating costs for the Glenelg Shire Council and
several private and public sector users of the resource.
No significant adverse environmental effects have been identified that may hinder the future use of
the low temperature geothermal resources present in Victoria. Conversion to geothermally based
space and water heating in Victoria will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions by
removing dependence on combustion based heating or on electricity derived from burning fossil
fuels.
14. References
Burns, K. L., Weber, C., Perry, J. and Harrington, H. J., 2000. Status of the Geothermal Industry in
Australia. Proc. World Geothermal Congress, Kyushu – Tohoku, Japan, May 28 – June 10, 2000.
Cull, J.P. Heat flow and geothermal energy prospects in the Otway Basin, SE Australia. Search, 10
(No 12), 429-433, (1979).
Cull, J.P. An appraisal of Australian heat flow data. Bureau of Mineral Resources Journal of
Australian Geology and Geophysics, 7, 11-21, (1982).
Cull, J.P. Cultural changes to ground temperature and geothermal gradients. Search, 14 (No 3-4),
101-103, (1983).
Cull, J.P. 1982. An appraisal of Australian heat-flow data. BMR Journal of Australian Geology and
Geophysics, 7, 11-21.
Cull, J.P. 1979. Heat flow and geothermal energy prospects in the Otway Basin, SE Australia.
Search, 10, 429-433.
Cull, J.P. 1983. Cultural changes to ground temperature and geothermal gradients. Search, 14, 101-
103.
Cull, J.P., O’Reilly, S.Y., and Griffin, W.L. 1991. Xenolith geotherms and crustal models in
eastern Australia. Tectonophysics, 192, 359-366.
DiPippo, R. 1988. Geothermal Energy and the Greenhouse Effect. Geothermal Hot Line Vol 18
Issue 2.p 84-85.
DiPippo R., 1999. Small Geothermal Power Plants: Design, Performance and Economics, GHC
Bulletin, June 1999.
Energy and Thermal Services, 2002. An Energy Consumption Study for the Glenelg Shire
Geothermal Water Supply System. Report prepared by Energy and Thermal services Pty, Ltd. and
Earth Tech Pty Ltd. For the Glenelg Shire Council, June 2002.
Ewart, A. 1989. Fractionation, assimilation, and source melting: a petrogenic overview. In

Intraplate Volcanism in Eastern Australia and New Zealand (Johnson R.W, editor). Cambridge
University Press.
Gray, D.R., Foster, D.A., and Bierlein, F.P. Geodynamics and metallogeny of the Lachlan Orogen.
Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 49, 1041-1056, (2002).
Gray, D.R., and Cull, J.P. 1992. Thermal regimes, anatexis, and orogenesis: relations in the western
Lachlan Fold Belt, southeastern Australia. Tectonophysics, 214, 441-461.
Gill, E.D. (1972). Eruption date of the Tower Hill volcano. Vic.Naturalist, 89, 188-192.
Gloe, C.s., Barton, C.M., Holdgate, G.R., Bolger, P.F., King, R.L., and George, A.M., 1988. Brown
Coal. In Geology of Victoria, Douglas & Ferguson (eds), Geological Society of Victoria, 498-511.
Johnson, L. undated. Article written by L Johnston

http://www.fourhorizons.com.au/lindsay/ar_articles/ar_71.pdf).
Johnson, R.W. 1989 (editor). Intraplate Volcanism in Eastern Australia and New Zealand.
Cambridge University Press.
King, R.L., Ford, A.J., Stanley, D.R., Kenley, P.R., and Cecil, M.K., 1985. Geothermal resources
of Victoria a discussion paper. Dept of Industry Technology and Resources and the Victorian Solar
Energy Council. ISBN 0 7241 3908 7
Lawless, J. Wataru, O. Terzaghi, S, White, P. and Gilbert, C. 2003. Two Dimensional Subsidence
Modelling at Wairakei-Tauhara, New Zealand. International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavik,
Sept. 2003.
Lister, G.S., and Etheridge, M.A. 1989. Detachment models for uplift and volcanism in the Eastern
Highlands and their applications to he origins of passive margin mountains. In Intraplate
Volcanism in Eastern Australia and New Zealand (Johnson R.W, editor). Cambridge University
Press.
McDougall, I., Allsopp, H.L., and Chamalaun, F.H., (1966). Isoptopic dating of the New Volcanics
of Victoria, Australia, and geomagnetic polarity epochs. J.Geophys. Res., 71, 6107-6118.
Purss, M.B., and Cull, J. (2001). Heat-flow data in western Victoria. Australian Journal of Earth
Sciences, 48, 1-4.
Sass, J.H. 1964. Heat-flow values from Eastern Australia. Journal of Geophysical Research, 69,
3889-3893.
Sass, J.H., and Lachenbruch,A.H. 1979. Thermal regime of the Australian continental crust. In:
McElhinney, M.W. (Editor), The Earth – its Origin, Structure and Evolution. Academic Press,
London, 301-352.
Sawka, W.N., and Chappell, B.W. 1986. The distribution of radioactive heat production in I and S-
type granites and residual source regions: implications to high heat flow areas in Lachlan Fold Belt,
Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 33, 107-118.
SKM, 2000. Portland Coast Water Town Water Supply Bore Asset Inventory. Casing Condition
and Risk Assessment of Henty Park. Prepared by Sinclair Knight Merz, August 2000 WC01189.
SKM, 2003. Henty Park Bore. Bore Condition and Remediation Potential. Prepared by Sinclair
Knight Merz WCP4205.
Spassov, E., Kennett, B., and Weekes, J. 1997. Seismogenic zoning of southeast Australia.
Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 44, 527-534.
Williams, N., 1997. Energy For Ever: Technological Challenges for Sustainable Growth. Academy
Symposium, November 1997. Mother Earth – A Source of Sustainable Energy?
(http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=542)
Zhang, Y., Scheibner, E., Ord, A., and Hobbs, B.E. 1996. Numerical modelling of crustal stresses
in the eastern Australian passive margin. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 43, 161-175.
Appendix A Compilation of all Measured

Temperature Data
Depth VIC Grid VIC Grid
Bore Temperature © Basin
(m) Easting Northing
PANYYABYR 00005 17 13.7 2263696.057 2435001.494 Otway
PANYYABYR 00004 17 29.6 2259016.342 2430216.708 Otway
MOUTAJUP 00004 18 30 2260484.894 2428282.486 Otway
DUNKELD 00004 18 42 2260809.171 2420564.328 Otway
PANYYABYR 00002 17 51 2260357.096 2439614.246 Otway
BARONGAROOK 00066 25 59 2381505.946 2340100.26 Otway
ALBERTON WEST 00182 19 60.9 2635302.698 2317638.344 Gippsland
MULLUNGDUNG 00003 21 71.6 2660728.15 2347878.489 Gippsland
MOORBANOOL 00016 21 76.2 2368637.212 2329102.429 Otway
ARCADIA 00001 21 79.3 2537717.658 2552079.701 Gippsland
ARCADIA 00005 30 82.3 2538581.515 2549046.707 Gippsland
BARONGAROOK 00059 14 85 2376826.293 2337111.912 Otway
DUNNAWALLA 00010 19 85 2338837.245 2398737.201 Otway
EILYAR 00002 27 86.9 2313349.297 2405012.739 Otway
WILLUNG 00178 23 93 2656681.891 2349832.139 Gippsland
HAZELWOOD 1095 32 101 2618694.488 2357660.945 Gippsland
GEELENGLA 00010 20 103.6 2335180.147 2388274.855 Otway
LIGAR 00001 17 105.2 2317194.298 2389910.195 Otway
LOY YANG 1261 28 116 2637988.772 2359549.983 Gippsland
YARRAGON 00008 49 120 2609668.57 2371466.743 Gippsland
YARRAGON 11 19.1 120 2609635.093 2371458.023 Gippsland
LOY YANG 713 28.3 124 2638376.204 2361261.985 Gippsland
SALE 00019 26 125 2680175.352 2375150.593 Gippsland
COONGULMERANG 00024 24 128 2711467.183 2394980.337 Gippsland
DUNNAWALLA 00009 21 136 2339795.402 2400931.439 Otway
MOORMURNG 00016 22 141.75 2723276.225 2405499.154 Gippsland
VITE VITE 00002 22 144.8 2342034.255 2408278.412 Otway
YEERUNG 00011 21 150 2693411.2 2391708.723 Gippsland
MARYVALE 2230 56.6 152 2621584.171 2359724.121 Gippsland
MULLUNGDUNG 00009 16 155 2662985.666 2343370.771 Gippsland
BOODYARN 00012 12 166 2653983.4 2340677.358 Gippsland
HAZELWOOD 1330 48.8 169 2621109.246 2359554.066 Gippsland
ALBERTON WEST 00197 27 170.6 2643353.925 2318447.103 Gippsland
NARRACAN 3558 25.3 173 2616626.186 2360354.609 Gippsland
TONG BONG 00172 22 173.7 2645717.99 2358258.613 Gippsland
TARIPTA 00046 35 179.8 2506166.401 2588509.835 Gippsland

HAMILTON SOUTH 00003 20 182.9 2244480.397 2410989.041 Otway
MARYVALE 2263 47 187 2621823.277 2360146.342 Gippsland
YARRAM YARRAM 00015 26 189.1 2646033.083 2323320.003 Gippsland
NARRACAN 3470 33 194 2616694.649 2361978.242 Gippsland
NARRACAN 3280 26 196 2616628.102 2360350.566 Gippsland
STRATFORD 00019 29 198.1 2681695.509 2401563.273 Gippsland
HOLEY PLAINS 188 23.4 199 2667310.932 2365092.917 Gippsland
COOLUNGOOLUN 94 24.3 212 2673622.755 2361830.023 Gippsland
COOLUNGOOLUN 00096 25 220 2673609.598 2361854.947 Gippsland
ROSEDALE 00322 47 221 2659064.533 2368673.496 Gippsland
MURROON 00029 27 225 2397028.475 2339396.796 Otway
YATCHAW WEST 00002 25 228.8 2249693.218 2403173.916 Otway
COOLUNGOOLUN 00094 28 231 2673622.267 2361832.476 Gippsland
MURROON 00028 25 232 2392972.635 2345063.613 Otway
YARRAM YARRAM 08002 31 234.8 2644384.277 2325047.9 Gippsland
WINNINDOO 45 33.8 250 2653124.184 2384366.128 Gippsland
LATROBE 00045 26 263 2341679.136 2312550.833 Otway
YAUGHER 00021 35 265.2 2376475.668 2328589.933 Otway
HOLEY PLAINS 174 22 277 2667298.859 2368324.38 Gippsland
ALBERTON EAST 10003 35 287 2646433.199 2317788.089 Gippsland
LATROBE 15002 20 299 2345918.747 2316162.492 Otway
YINNAR 122 40.5 300 2617727.376 2351083.884 Gippsland
YEO 00023 25 307 2387660.712 2348735.178 Otway
WORANGA 00016 29 310 2649379.953 2327369.315 Gippsland
CRESSY 20001 27 310.5 2381670.692 2379782.264 Otway
POLIAH SOUTH 20001 27 311 2369480.019 2380788.339 Otway
INGLEBY 1 31 326 2394810.351 2353558.423 Otway
DENISON 54 36 329 2653375.431 2384417.869 Gippsland
STRADBROKE 51 21.9 335 2663451.204 2353015.517 Gippsland
IRREWILLIPE 00016 20 347.3 2363493.331 2337924.951 Otway
WIRIDJIL 00003 27 348 2344861.208 2322128.654 Otway
TRARALGON 377 36 350 2632826.953 2358167.114 Gippsland
NALANGIL 1 25 362 2363584.761 2347997.448 Otway
MUMBANNAR 00006 18 365.7 2159942.551 2393921.688 Otway
WULLA WULLOCK 00004 23 365.8 2680695.323 2356041.515 Gippsland
WILLUNG 196 29.5 369 2654622.451 2358696.474 Gippsland
MURROON 00027 33 369.1 2394610.612 2339799.483 Otway

ALBERTON EAST 00003 38 370.9 2646475.669 2319603.069 Gippsland
TRARALGON 256 45.9 383 2631780.667 2357667.891 Gippsland
COLAC 00010 37 384 2377161.941 2350263.215 Otway
MILDURA WEST 1 44 429 2170154.714 2766721.931 Murray
SOUTH CARAMUT 1 36 430 2278463.545 2385808.718 Otway
PALPARA 00004 28 445 2146077.403 2384336.762 Otway
COLONGULAC 00012 38 450 2331798.289 2360750.683 Otway
TANDAROOK 00002 34 454 2337687.333 2349397.625 Otway
TONG BONG 182 26 461 2642904.071 2357222.552 Gippsland
TULLICH 1 34 464 2160008.329 2435033.112 Otway
WORANGA 00015 35 470 2646431.825 2327643.905 Gippsland
WAARRE 15003 32 501 2337534.391 2315602.453 Otway
TONG BONG 00182 34 515.1 2642902.772 2357230.358 Gippsland
TONG BONG 176 41.5 517 2645685.767 2359863.707 Gippsland
STRATFORD 00017 36 525 2684077.348 2391619.454 Gippsland
PAARATTE 00002 31 548 2325744.988 2318505.85 Otway
BOOLA BOOLA 1 63.8 558 2627244.141 2372302.636 Gippsland
HOMERTON 00004 33 575.6 2212163.691 2367149.403 Otway
PAARATTE 08011 25 576 2323284.362 2327138.53 Otway
TRARALGON 286 62.5 582 2635010.018 2366946.959 Gippsland
BAIRNSDALE 6 58.9 584 2736529.937 2396045.761 Gippsland
MURROON 00024 39 590 2392815.827 2341708.467 Otway
GLENAULIN 00002 33 592.5 2188288.351 2382574.98 Otway
MURROON 00023 39 598 2393123.292 2341912.287 Otway
MILDURA WEST 2 50 598 2158898.31 2766345.23 Murray
NARRAWONG 00016 31 613 2209830.495 2364258.352 Otway
CODRINGTON 00001 35 629 2232312.122 2355325.775 Otway
ARDONACHIE 00002 30 630.9 2224472.893 2384502.257 Otway
PENINSULAR HOTSPRINGS 47 637 2481050.193 2347379.253 Otway
WANWIN 00001 26 657.15 2162688.001 2385834.869 Otway
PAARATTE 00004 66 658.5 2326988.587 2325717.38 Otway
YANGERY 00001 40 673 2270088.721 2352256.929 Otway
WINNINDOO 46 65 679 2651687.098 2375860.972 Gippsland
BELFAST 00013 43 685 2256315.066 2342957.519 Otway
COBBOBOONEE 00005 34 700 2185385.241 2372513.467 Otway
KOROIT 00010 36 707.4 2265040.38 2346207.47 Otway
GUNAMALARY 2 60 718 2153894.156 2678301.317 Murray
HOTSPUR 00001 25 740 2199182.94 2393081.578 Otway
NEPEAN 00038 45 759 2484660.461 2345084.334 Otway
BCL #62106 (PORT FAIRY) 43 770 2256314 2342908 Otway

BELFAST 00004 41 800.4 2256344.832 2342747.363 Otway
ECKLIN 00004 104 807 2313658.958 2344818.517 Otway
ROSEDALE 301 50.5 817 2661060.493 2370218.87 Gippsland
WANGOOM 00006 44 824.8 2278781.066 2342097.638 Otway
TRARALGON 00286 65 840 2635009.837 2366954.457 Gippsland
NIRRANDA 08001 37 855 2304258.398 2327599.827 Otway
BOOTAHPOOL 08001 42 890 2329773.153 2325497.371 Otway
WULLA WULLOCK 00004 40 895 2680695.323 2356041.515 Gippsland
PAARATTE 08004 50 895 2324904.821 2320620.499 Otway
WURRUK WURRUK 00013 47 900 2677006.63 2374319.012 Gippsland
HOLEY PLAINS 185 38.2 904 2671406.28 2368735.336 Gippsland
NARRAWATURK 00006 50 907 2313394.875 2327532.748 Otway
BESSIEBELLE 08003 41 921 2227744.633 2366528.847 Otway
TIMBOON 00005 36 921.4 2323932.677 2333293.592 Otway
WANGOOM 00002 44 922.93 2281958.162 2344558.254 Otway
TARRAGAL 00003 35 934 2190177.446 2343443.623 Otway
SHAW 1 39 960 2241791.761 2358435.166 Otway
MOUZIE 00001 43 960.5 2189425.093 2357235.359 Otway
CURDIE VALE 1 58 964 2306932.587 2325219.158 Otway
LINDON 2 40 970 2194366.984 2375935.29 Otway
NIRRANDA 00008 62 982 2302982.894 2329846.376 Otway
TREWALLA 00005 39 983.3 2191987.75 2346665.956 Otway
SALE 13 65 995 2694520.978 2373994.038 Gippsland
HOTSPUR 1 58 1000 2198929.944 2393094.686 Otway
ARDONACHIE 00002 39 1021.7 2224472.893 2384502.257 Otway
ARDONACHIE 00002 39 1022 2224472.893 2384502.257 Otway
PORTLAND 00002 50 1030 2203434.404 2346748.779 Otway
WARRONG 00005 48 1034 2264109.564 2358319.892 Otway
SALE 00013 52 1048.5 2694519.694 2374007.213 Gippsland
SALE 00013 64 1049.76 2694519.694 2374007.213 Gippsland
BENGWORDEN SOUTH 00006 50 1057.5 2713050.43 2379806.457 Gippsland
PAARATTE 08001 53 1067 2323546.778 2327144.117 Otway
DARTMOOR 00025 38 1100.88 2171585.642 2392032.127 Otway
PRINCES 1 44.5 1150 2324650.926 2332720.223 Otway
NARRAWONG 00013 53 1150 2211324.551 2355357.5 Otway
PORTLAND 00008 32 1174 2203421.135 2341138.312 Otway
PORTLAND 00013 57 1187 2203243.35 2340632.056 Otway
OTWAY BASIN 08008 44 1210 2157178.27 2336381.298 Otway
PORTLAND 00010 30 1224 2203559.303 2341432.077 Otway
BENGWORDEN SOUTH 00006 67 1225 2713050.43 2379806.457 Gippsland
GREENBANKS 1 64 1226 2217075.77 2382067.085 Otway
SEAVIEW 1 44 1235 2337411.79 2322874.311 Otway

BALANGEICH 1 59 1250 2293681.562 2360215.586 Otway
BIG DESERT 1 41.7 1250 2156650.022 2671483.032 Murray
TIRRENGOWA 1 74 1272 2354974.826 2345408.916 Otway
FAHLEY 2 49 1300 2152827.691 2384308.952 Otway
WILSON 1 54 1312 2161079.532 2388980.165 Otway
HOMERTON 00003 50 1326 2216344.316 2368703.288 Otway
NARRAWATURK 00002 56 1341.7 2314980.059 2320216.062 Otway
PORTLAND 00014 60 1365 2203499.609 2344307.168 Otway
BOOTAHPOOL 00002 55 1370 2253951.519 2351606.563 Otway
MOCAMBORO 11 71.6 1370 2191850.449 2410940.248 Otway
NAMGIB 1 50 1387 2329774.025 2325497.389 Otway
VOGEL 1 51 1394 2328955.21 2327146.364 Otway
PORTLAND 00003 59 1420.6 2202066.04 2345500.113 Otway
HENKE 1 62 1430 2165676.315 2381833.707 Otway
BESSIEBELLE 08002 48 1459 2231589.275 2361344.618 Otway
KRAMBRUK 00013 60 1475 2382814.436 2301829.922 Otway
IONA 1 57 1490 2328679.894 2323586.9 Otway
SQUATTER 1 55 1500 2160167.391 2396274.675 Otway
ARDNO 00002 52 1500 2145262.096 2406120.412 Otway
PAARATTE 08008 55 1509 2327207.623 2325877.425 Otway
CASTERTON 2 65.6 1524 2166833.536 2421312.165 Otway
DRAJURK 08005 65 1526 2166831.772 2421312.095 Otway
WARRACBARUNAH 2 75 1527 2395925.352 2369337.244 Otway
PAARATTE 08007 62 1531 2321755.455 2325917.507 Otway
GARVOC 1 67 1533 2314371.895 2351375.044 Otway
YAMBUK 00002 55 1535 2242873.49 2347162.019 Otway
KENTBRUCK 00003 57 1575 2174432.055 2368893.839 Otway
NORTH PAARATTE 2 60 1580 2323309.757 2326028.509 Otway
NARRAWONG 00016 63 1625 2209830.495 2364258.352 Otway
TULLICH 1 57 1634 2160008.329 2435033.112 Otway
GORAE 00002 53 1650 2204006.523 2359332.689 Otway
GRUMBY 1 69 1660 2321734.709 2322218.817 Otway
BOGGY CREEK 1 68.3 1672 2310342.913 2328629.647 Otway
WANWIN 00003 72 1675 2164131.084 2382227.162 Otway
GORAE 00005 55 1696.5 2195938.426 2354743.054 Otway
MALANGANEE 00004 99 1719 2147139.318 2397190.567 Otway
WALLABY CREEK 1 62 1763 2317515.868 2323792.918 Otway
WARRAIN 00007 62 1775 2158731.224 2375453.857 Otway
HAWKESDALE 1 79 1775 2263078.55 2376836.158 Otway
CALLISTA 1 63.8 1790 2311327.649 2335204.418 Otway
PAARATTE 08006 82 1797 2322685.139 2322572.38 Otway
NULLAWARRE 08001 63 1797 2307119.99 2335885.119 Otway
ROWANS 1 67 1798 2307120.862 2335885.14 Otway
PORT CAMPBELL 1 82 1811 2322686.011 2322572.399 Otway
PAARATTE 08010 68 1814 2321733.838 2322218.798 Otway

PURRUMBETE 1 77 1828 2343493.572 2347088.307 Otway
FENTON CREEK 1 67 1835 2319818.561 2330173.529 Otway
GORAE 00004 58 1843 2193210.214 2358875.334 Otway
BUS SWAMP 1 82 1850 2164322.5 2435539.717 Otway
WINDERMERE 1 81 1852 2238687.155 2359671.1 Otway
WESTGATE 1A 66 1918 2315690.968 2335302.428 Otway
WOOLSTHORPE 1 76 1971 2280604.847 2371208.048 Otway
DIGBY 1 100 2088 2192405.643 2400631.87 Otway
OLANGOLAH 1 72 2090 2404190.021 2314032.324 Otway
BARTON CORNER 1 77 2100 2304077.671 2339034.483 Otway
PINELODGE 1 77 2140 2167377.9 2385456.359 Otway
PAARATTE 08011 82 2210 2323284.362 2327138.53 Otway
BRAESIDE 1 81.1 2300 2323375.651 2327029.419 Otway
HINDHAUGH CREEK 1 118 2370 2430285.907 2357928.192 Otway
MCEACHERN 1 99 2380 2163625.793 2430847.112 Otway
KILLARRA 1 101 2418 2256678.635 2364547.357 Otway
PRETTY HILL 1 86 2477 2248388.964 2360414.095 Otway
CASTERTON 1 82 2500 2176643.251 2425694.175 Otway
NIRRANDA 08005 86 2600 2310238.768 2325517.595 Otway
CURDIE 1 86 2600 2310239.639 2325517.615 Otway
GREENSLOPES 1 101 2608 2255607.797 2371179.241 Otway
TARALEA 1 116 2800 2255667.127 2360186.55 Otway
NORTH EUMERALLA 1 110 2967 2227774.053 2366540.915 Otway
DRUMBORG 08001 118 3011 2194361.167 2376046.152 Otway
LINDON 1 118 3011 2194362.921 2376046.216 Otway
ANGLESEA 1 115 3060 2430055.606 2343715.553 Otway
JAN JUC 08241 115 3062 2430059.287 2343693.379 Otway
EUMERALLA 1 97 3140 2231624.649 2361334.651 Otway
FAHLEY 1 71 3211 2152809.499 2386863.295 Otway
NAJABA 1A 102 3412 2154063.689 2392691.913 Otway
FLAXMANS 1 109 3510 2305435.228 2325850.533 Otway
FERGUSONS HILL 1 119 3540 2339935.262 2318592.246 Otway
WINDERMERE 2 135 3592 2239411.644 2358916.347 Otway

SKM Geothermal Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SKM Geothermal Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Collaboration with:

The Geothermal Resources of

THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AUTHORITY OF

The Geothermal Resources of Victoria

THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AUTHORITY OF VICTORIA

Sinclair Knight Merz

5. Calculation of Geothermal Temperatures 12

6. Potential Volumetric Yield of Geothermal Wells 17

7. Mapping Geothermal Temperatures 19

9. Electricity Generation Technologies 48

10. Geothermal Direct-Use 57

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

10.4 Bathing and Swimming 59

11. Existing Geothermal Applications 64

12. Environmental Effects of Geothermal Use 83

Appendix A Compilation of all Measured Temperature Data 94

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 2 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in Victoria 9

Figure 3 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in the Otway Basin 10

Figure 4 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in the Gippsland Basin 11

Figure 5 Deep Sedimentary Basins and Locations of Measured Geothermal Temperatures 20

Figure 6 Temperatures at 500m Depth 21

Figure 7 Temperatures at 500 m depth for the Otway Basin 24

Figure 8 Geothermal Temperatures at 500m depth for the Gippsland Basin 26

Figure 9 Geothermal Temperatures (Degrees C) at 1000m Depth 29

Figure 10 Geothermal Temperatures at 1000m depth in the Otway Basin 33

Figure 11 Geothermal Temperatures at 1000m Depth in the Gippsland Basin 35

Figure 12 Geothermal Temperatures (Degrees C) at 1500m Depth 37

Figure 13 Geothermal Temperatures at 1500m depth in the Otway Basin 39

Figure 14 Geothermal Temperatures at 1500m Depth in the Gippsland Basin 41

Figure 15 Hot Dry Rock Development (supplied by Geodynamics Limited) 44

Figure 16 Simplified Schematic of ORC Power Plant 50

Figure 17 Indicative Thermal to Electric Conversion Efficiency for ORC Plants 52

Figure 18 Simplified Schematic of a Representative Kalina Cycle® 54

Figure 19 Claimed Efficiency Advantage of Kalina Cycle® over ORC 56

Figure 20 Geothermal Energy Cost as a Function of Plant Capacity 63

Figure 21 Location of geothermal plants in Australia (from Burns et al 2000) 64

Figure 23 Construction Details of the Henty Park Geothermal Production Bore 73

Figure 24 Henty Park Production Bore Wellhead 74

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 25 Henty Park Cooling Towers 75

Figure 26 Water Level Observations in the Portland Geothermal Aquifer 76

Figure 27 Schematic Layout of the AGSO Building and its Surrounds 77

Figure 33 Carbon Emissions from Energy Production by Fuel (DiPippo, 1988) 87

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 2 Calculated Temperatures. 16

Table 4 Calculated Temperatures Shown in Figure 6 22

Table 5 Specific Capacity Data Shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 23

Table 9 Calculated Temperatures Shown in Figure 9 30

Table 10 Specific Capacity Data Shown in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 31

Table 13 Calculated Temperatures Shown in Figure 12 38

Table 16 Temperatures Calculated at 3000 and 5000m Depth 45

Table 17 Indicative Drilling Costs in Victoria (Data Provided by Sides Engineering) 47

Table 18 Categories of Direct Use of Geothermal Energy, World-Wide 57

Table 20 Geothermal Exploration and Construction Noise Levels 85

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Document history and status

Printed: 31 March 2006

Last saved: 30 March 2006 01:22 PM

File name: I:\WCMS\Projects\WC02886\Deliverables\Report_version_5.doc

Author: Brian Barnett

Project manager: Brian Barnett

Name of organisation: Sustainable Energy Authority of Victoria

Figure 1 Geothermal Gradients – All Bores

Figure 3 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in the Otway Basin

Figure 4 Average Geothermal Temperature Gradients in the Gippsland Basin

Table 1 Heatflow data for Western Victoria

Table 2 Calculated Temperatures.

Figure 5 Deep Sedimentary Basins and Locations of Measured Geothermal

Figure 6 Temperatures at 500m Depth

Table 4 Calculated Temperatures Shown in Figure 6

Table 5 Specific Capacity Data Shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8

Figure 7 Temperatures at 500 m depth for the Otway Basin

Figure 8 Geothermal Temperatures at 500m depth for the Gippsland Basin

Figure 9 Geothermal Temperatures (Degrees C) at 1000m Depth

Table 9 Calculated Temperatures Shown in Figure 9

Table 10 Specific Capacity Data Shown in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11

Figure 10 Geothermal Temperatures at 1000m depth in the Otway Basin

Figure 11 Geothermal Temperatures at 1000m Depth in the Gippsland Basin