NOTICE CONCERNING COPYRIGHT

RESTRICTIONS

This document may contain copyrighted materials. These materials have

been made available for use in research, teaching, and private study, but
may not be used for any commercial purpose. Users may not otherwise
copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or
otherwise transfer any material.

The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code)
governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted
material.

Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are
authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these
specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used
for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a
user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for
purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright
infringement.

This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in
its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright
law.
 Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 25, August 26-29,2001
Correlation of Surface Heat loss and Total Energy Production
for Geothermal Systems
Kenneth W. Wisian, David D. Blackwell and Maria Richards
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
Keywords
Heat flow, heat loss, energy production, geothermal re-
source, resource estimate, geothermal exploration
ABSTRACT
Geothermal systems lose their heat by a site-specific com-
bination of conduction (heat flow) and advection (surface
discharge). The conductive loss at or near the surface (shallow
heat flow) is a primary signature and indication of the strength
of a geothermal system. Using a database of temperature gra-
dient and heat flow points, surface heat flow maps of selected
geothermalareas in the Western United States were constructed.
Many of these areas have no published gradient or heat flow
maps. Existing data from geothermal systems around the world
were also compiled.
There is an empirical correlation between total natural state
surface heat loss, and maximum energy production from, a geo-
thermal system. The relation strongly suggests that there is a
practical limit to the amount of energy that can be reliably pro-
duced from a geothermal system expected to last 20-30 years
(the standard life span for economic calculations). That limit is
about ten times the natural heat loss for a system. While many
systems produce energy well below the lox limit, very few pro-
duce more, and those that have, have often been unsustainable
(i.e. The Geysers). This correlation should be a powerful tool
in assessing the potential of conventional or Enhanced Geo-
thermal System (EGS) development projects and reinforces the
importance of mapping primary geophysical data (temperature,
gradient or heat flow) when the exploration target is heat.
Introduction
In selecting and developinggeothermal resources, determin-
ing how much energy can be commercially extracted from a
resource or anomaly is always a major question. The uncer-
tainty has significant impact on the economic side of
development. What is needed is an indicator of production that
33 1
is available at an early stage - after a system has been defined,
but before development. The variables involved are numerous
and have large uncertainty; producible temperatures,finding pro-
ducible permeability or fractures, drilling difficulties,long term
temperature and pressure drawdowns, etc.
The need for an early resource assessment has been obvious
since the industry began. The groundwork was laid in the 1970’s,
during the initial surge in exploration. The work has been along
several lines; volume calculations, planar fracture flows, heat
budgets, and surface heat fluxes.
Volume calculations have been the most widely employed.
They involve estimating the temperature, volume and recovery
factor for a geothermal system. The idea is straight forward,
but volume and recovery factors are subject to large uncertainty.
A fundamental problem with this method is that it treats a geo-
thermal system as a static entity and most geothermal systems
are obviously dynamic systems. Some vapor-dominated sys-
tems (such as The Geysers, or Larderello) may be relatively
closed, and thus amenable to treatment as static, but they are
the exception rather than the rule. Most geothermal systems
are open, with fluid, in addition to heat, passing through the
system. In these systems, there is no reservoir in the conven-
tional meaning of the term (implying a defined body with
negligible flux). Volume calculations are the source of most of
the published assessments such as the USGS assessments for
the United States (Muffler, 1978; White & Williams, 1975).
The planar fracture method (Bodvarsson, 1974) has very
specific applicability and is not useful as a general tool (Muf-
fler and Cataldi, 1978). The Magmatic heat budget method
(Smith and Shaw, 1975, 1978), is more of a qualitative assess-
ment of relative potential than a site-specific estimate of
production capacity.
The surface heat flux method has obvious attractions - heat
flux is a major system parameter and relates directly to the
strength of the geothermal system. Previously, the surface flux
has been used as a starting point in calculating the total heat
stored underground to which a recovery factor is then applied
(as in the volume method) to determine the producible energy
(Muffler and Cataldi, 1978). While this method is theoretically
sound it has large uncertainties, similar to the other methods.
Wisian, et. a/.

the low heat flow edge of the anomaly is not a priority. Never
the less, some systems are well defined out to the regional back-
This study, based on substantially more development expe- ground heat flow level, whether by chance (fortuitous water
riences since the 1 9 7 0 ’ ~shows
~ that the surface heat flux wells, etc) or by intent.
approach (treating heat loss as the sum of the convective and The Stillwater,Nevada geothermal system heat flow map is
conductive components) has substantial utility in estimating shown in Figure 2. The background heat flow is 85-90 mW/m2.
development potential of geothermal areas. Instead of estab- This system’s limits are better defined, but still incomplete on
lishing a direct calculation of heat in the system and then
producible energy, an empirical correlation is sought between 40.600
1
I I I I I

the two end points of heat loss and production capacity. Since
the mid- 1970’s the installed geothermal generation capacity
worldwide has increased from 1,300 to 8,000 MWe (Lund,
2000). Data summarizing the electric and thermal production
from geothermal systems around the world are readily avail-
able. A little more difficult is the task of obtaining even rough
data on the surface heat flux of the same systems. A database of
thermal wells in the U.S. (Blackwell et al., 1999) has been used
to generate heat flow maps for geothermal systems in the west-
ern US that had either poor, incomplete or no existing coverage.
Additionally, existing published data (heat flow and gradient
maps) for systems around the world were compiled.
-116.650 -116.600 -1 16.550
Data
Figure 1. Heat flow for the Beowawe geothermal system (mW/m2).
Two numbers are presented for each geothermal system listed
in this report - natural heat loss at the surface and (combined)
thermal and electrical power generation and are listed in Table the southern end of the system. The Stillwater anomaly is also
1. The production numbers are obtained from country survey substantially larger than Beowawe (Figures 1 and 2 are at ap-
reports and country updates at the World Geothermal Congress, proximately the same scale). Total integrated heat loss is 40
and the International Geothermal Association web site MW for the Stillwater system.
(www.demon.co.uk:80/eeosci/world.html~. Various numbers
are reported for electrical and thermal output for the sites. Most
often, installed generating capacity is listed and is used here for
uniformity. Actual average generation is probably a better fig-
ure to use in this study, but it is not often reported in the literature. 39.600-
An extensive database of open source temperature gradient
and thermal conductivity values has been built for the United
States (Blackwell et al., 1999). From this data heat flow maps
were constructed for a number of systems in the western US. 39.575.
Where available, terrain corrected heat flow values were used.
In most cases uncorrected heat flow was used. For some of
these systems no gradient or heat flow maps have been pub-
lished, for others, existing maps were refined. Examples of 39.550.
heat flow maps for areas with no previous coverage include
Beowawe and Stillwater, Nevada.
Figure 1 shows the heat flow for the Beowawe geothermal
system. The total integrated heat flow for this system is 14
39.525.
MW. The heat flow map for this system is reasonably well
constrained. The contours are closed down to the 3OOmW/m2
level, and the data are of good quality. Background heat flow is
approximately90 mW/mZand thus the system is not completely
defined (insufficient data to close the contours greater than 90 39.500
mW/m2). The total heat flow figure will be slightly low for any
system without well-defined limits since the heat flow was only
integrated over the area with data. Only rarely are data avail-
able to completely delimit a heat flow anomaly. Economic -1 18.600 . -118.550 . -1 18.500
considerationsusually require that commercial explorations drill
just enough wells to define the peaks - carefully mapping out Figure 2. Heat flow for the Stillwater geothermal system (mW/m2).

332

In addition to heat loss values derived from the US data-
base, values for selected systems worldwide were derived from
published sources. Total heat loss values have been published
for some individual systems, but comprehensive regional sur-
veys are limited. Bibby et al. (1995) compiled heat loss values
for the geothermal systems in the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New
Zealand. Ndolo (2000) summarized the heat losses in the North-
em Kenya Rift systems, but only one system, Olkaria, produces
power, and thus provides a data point for this study.
Many of the heat loss values in Table 1 are derived from
published heat flow or temperature gradient maps. Existing
heat flow maps were digitized, gridded and then integrated to
determine a total heat flow. Where only temperature gradient
maps were available, conversion to heat flow was based on a
representative thermal conductivity for the dominant lithology
(between 1.5 W/m/K for alluvium and 2.5 W/m/K for an igne-
ous rock setting). In all cases the limit of the anomaly was
subjectively determined (generallyan appropriate “background”
heat flow level). Additional data points could be developed
with a more complete literature search and access to corporate
data.
In integrating the heat flow to obtain total heat loss, the total
heat flow was used, as opposed to the heat flow above a back-
ground value. Either approach is valid and should produce
similar results. The total heat flow was used here in order to
eliminate the need to determine an appropriate (and subjective)
regional background level for each system.
The resulting total heat loss values vary widely in quality.
In order to appreciate the relative weight of the data, the quality
of the heat loss value was given a rating between 1 and 5 (with
1 being the best). The criteria are as follows:
1. Well-defined anomaly and good quality heat flow values
or other source.
2. Generally defined anomaly and good temperature gradi-
ent values
3. Poorly defined anomaly or poor gradient or heat flow val-
ues
4. Poor anomaly definition and gradient or heat flow values.
5. No defined anomaly (generally one or two points).
Conductive loss at the surface is only one component of
the total heat loss. Heat is also lost by radiation (usually neg-
ligible) and by fluid/steam discharge. Discharge, particularly
in visibly active systems, can be a significant percentage of
the total heat loss, but appears to be less than 20% in most
cases. Extensive tabulations of heat loss through spring dis-
charge are available (Waring etal., 1965, Garside and Shilling,
1979, Renner et al., 1975) and where possible, these values
are included in the total heat loss calculations in Table 1
(overleaf).
The energy production and total heat loss values for geo-
thermal systems worldwide are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Total
heat loss values are generally minimum values, as most sys-
tems are not completely delimited, nor are all fluid outflows
usually accounted for. In most cases the values are probably
333
Wisian, et. a/.
within a half order of magnitude of actual. Though the poten-
tial errors may seem large, they do not affect conclusions. Errors
in generating capacity are negligible, although there is varia-
tion in reporting standards.
If only the high quality (1 or 2 rating) data are plotted as
shown in figure 3, no systems are found to produce more than
10 times the natural output. The data points cover three orders
of magnitude in generating capacity and almost two in total heat
1.OE+010
d
.OE+009
.OE+008
.OE+007
I lrllll I I I 111111 I I I 1 1 1 1
1 .OE+006
1.OE+006 1.OE+007 1.OE+008 1.OE+009
Surface Heat Loss, Watts
Figure 3. Energy production versus total surface heat loss for
geothermal systems with data quality ratings of 1 or 2.
loss. Several systems produce at almost ten times their natural
heat loss (Los Azufres, Coso, and The Geysers). The majority
of systems and all extensional (non-magma driven) systems
produce power at less than the natural heat loss rate.
The total current data set of generation and heat loss values
is shown in Figure 4, overleaf. All but one system lie below the
line defining generation at a rate 10 times the natural heat loss.
The outlier is Cerro Prieto, in Mexico. The data for this system
however, is not of high quality. Recent drilling shows that there
is a significantly larger system than is revealed by shallow gra-
dients. Approximately half the systems generate power at
between 1 and 10 times the natural output.
Discussion and Conclusions
Based on limited data, early studies suggestedthat heat could
be withdrawn at from 4 to 100 times the natural rate (White,
1965; Suyama et al., 1975). With this expanded data set, there
appears to be a well-defined, practical limit to power produc-
tion from a geothermal system. This limit is approximately 10
times the natural heat loss of the system. This conclusion by-
passes a myriad of variables that would be involved in an analytic
relation between the two end points and simply makes an em-
Wisian, et. a/.

Table 1. Power production and heat loss for selected geothermal systems.

Statel output (W) Heat Loss (W) Gradient/ Temp/

Name Country Electric Thermal Total Discharge Conductive Total Quality HF map Source
The Geysers California 1.8E+09 0 1.7E+09 2.38+08 2.3E+08 I Walters & Combs, 1991
cos0 California 4.5E+08 0 4.5E+08 0 5.98+07 5.9E+07 1 Combs, 1980
Wairiei New Zealand 2.28+08 1.9E+07 2.48+08 4.28+08 I Bibbv et. al.. 1995
Kawerau New Zealand 6.OE+06 2.3E+08 2.3E+O8 1.OE+08 1 Bibbv et. al.. 1995
Ohaaki New Zealand I . I E+O8 I .3E+07 1.3E+08 -
._
7.OE+07 I Bibby et. al., 1995
Mokai New Zealand 5.5E+07 0 5.5E+07 __ _ _
4.0E+08 I Bibby et. al., 1995
Rotokawa New Zealand 2.5E+07 0 2.5E+07 3.OE+O8 I Bibby et. ai., 1995
Soda Lake Nevada I .4E+07 0 1.4E+07 0 1.6E+07 1.6E+07 1 SMU
Beowawe Nevada I .3E+07 0 1.3E+07 2.2E+06 1.4E+07 1.6E+07 I SMU
StiI1 water Nevada I .2E+07 0 I .2E+07 0 4.OE+07 4.OE+07 1 SMU
Tasman New Zealand I .OE+07 0 1 .OE+07 1 .OE+O8 1 Bibby et. al., 1995
East Brawley California I .OE+07 0 I .OE+07 0 4.7E+07 4.7E+07 I Lachenbruchet. al., 1985
Desert Peak Nevada 9.0E+06 0 9.OE+06 minor 1.4E+08 1.4E+08 I SMU
Roosevelt Utah 4.8E+06 0 4.88+06 5.8E+07 5.88+07 1 SMU
San Emideo Nevada 3.OE+06 0 3.OE+06 minor 1.9E+07 1.9E+07 1 SMU
Nesiavel I i r
~
Iceland
~~~
6.OE+07 ~
2.OE+08 2.6E+O8 I .3E+08 ~~
2 Steingrimsson,2001, pers. com.
Kamoiang lndoncsia I .4E+08 0 I .4E+08 9.OE+07 9.OE+07 2 Hochstein, 1976
Los Azufres Mexico 9.8E+07 0 9.8E+07 I .6E+07 I .6E+07 2 Gacrcia-Estradaet. al., 200 I
Dqjarat Indonesia 5.5E+07 0 5.5E+07 7.OE+07 7.OE+07 2 Allis, 2000
Blackrock Desert Nevada 3.8E+06 0 3.88+06 minor 1.2E+08 1.2E+O8 2 SMU
Larderel lo Italy 4.68+08
.
0 4.68.1.08 1. I E+08 I . 1 E+08 3 Baldi et. al., I995
Salton Sea California I .5E+08 0 I .5E+08 4.OE+07 4.OE+07 3 Lachenbruchet. nl., 1985
East Mesa California I .2E+O8 0 I .2E+08 0 1.3E+07 I .3E+07 3 Lachenbruch et. al., 1985
TravaI e I1aly 9.OE+07 0 9.OE+07 2.7E+07 2.7E+07 3 - Baldi et. al., 1996
Heber California 8.OE+07 0 8.OE+07 0 1.3E+07 1.3E+07 3 Lachenbruch et. al., 1985
Mt Amiata Italv 7.58+07 0 7.58+07 5.58+07 5.58+07 3 Baldi et. al.. 1997
Olkaria Kenva 4.5E+07 0 4.5E+07 I .8E+08 3 Ndolo. 2000
Steamboat Springs Nevada 4.3E+07 0 4.3E+07 1.3E+06 3.7E+07 3.88+07 3 SMU
Brady’s Hot Springs Nevada 2. I E+07 I .8E+07 3.9E+07 I . 1 E+06 I . I E+07 I .2E+07 3 Benoit & Butler, I983 .-

Cerro Prieto
- Mexico 7.2E+08 0 7.2E+O8 1.5E+07 I .5E+07 4 Vallette-Silver, 1985
Miravalles Costa Rica I .4E+08 0 I .4E+O8 1.5E+07 I .5E+07 4 Corrales, 1985
Dixie Valley Nevada 5.68+07 0 5.68+07 minor I.OE+07 I.OE+07 4 SMU
Long Valley California 5.2&+07 0 5.2E+07 1.3E+06 2.58+08 2.5E+08 4 Ward, 1983; Sorey, 1985
Cove Fort Utah I .OE+07 0 I .OE+07 0 7.98+07 7.98+07 4 SMU
Brawley California I .OE+07 0 I .OE+07 0 3.28+06 3.2E+06 4 Brook and Mase, 1981
Kakkonda Japan 8.OE+07 0 8.OE+07 4. I E+07 4. I E+07 5 Rybach & Muffler, 1981

pirical observation. Can all systems reach this production level?
No, again this is a limit not a norm. Implicit in this relation is a
planned minimum production life of 20-30 years as is standard
for the power industry. Planning for a longer lifetime might
result in lower capacity. On the other hand higher production
can be sustained for short periods of time. It is interesting to
note that The Geysers had a peak production of 2043 MW in
1989, which puts it just on the lox line, but this level could not
be sustained, and the capacity today of about I715 MW (Sanyal,
2000) is just below the lox limit. [The actual production num-
bers are smaller and show a much larger swing.] There is some
indication in the high-quality data that extensional system’s pro-
duction limit may be equal to the natural flow rate, but the data
is insufficient to resolve the matter.
The above discussion assumes that the geothermal system
is produced “as is”, with no stimulation beyond the usual rein-
jection. Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) techniques offer
the potential to push production above the “normal” limit. Just
as enhanced recovery techniques are routinely used in the pe-
troleum industry to increase recovery factors, EGS can be used
in the geothermal industry to boost production (or increase
lifespan). It is possible that the production limit, over an eco-
nomic lifetime, for a geothermal system might be increased
substantially beyond the 10 times the natural loss rate. Three
systems near the lox limit, Coso, The Geysers, and East Mesa
are considered prime candidates for EGS development
(Robertson-Tait and Lovekin, 2000), and would be very good
tests of production enhancement capability.

334

1.OE+010
1.OE+009
;
.-
Q
5 1.OE+008
c
U
e L.J.P. Muffler, Hydrothermal Convection systems with reservoir tem-
a peratures > 90°C, in Muffler, L.J.P., ed., Assessment of Geothermal
1.OE+007
1.OE+006
I I I 1111 I I , I ,1111 I I
1.OE+006 1.OE+007 1.OE+008
Surface Heat Loss, Watts
Figure 4. Energy production versus total surface heat
loss for all geothermal system with data.
This relationship has potential as a predictive tool early in
the exploration or development phase of a geothermal project.
Shallow temperature gradient surveys are relatively inexpen-
sive (but do cost more than electrical surveys), and are a direct
measure of the target (heat). They have been widely used in the
past, but appear to have fallen out of favor since the initial boom
in geothermal exploration. The ability to set at least an upper
limit on production early in development can reduce the uncer-
tainty and risk in an inherently risky business.
This study is preliminary. An in depth literature search
should add a number of data points. Also, there are more pro-
prietary (sometimes forgotten) heat flow surveys that if brought
forward, might add to the relationship. There may be some
regions or systems that have a substantially different produc-
tion limit (e.g. Cerro Prieto) - only more, high-quality data will
resolve this question.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by USDOE contract DE-FG07-
OOIDl3886 to SMU.
References
Allis, R.G., and G.M. Shook, An alternativemechanism for the formation
of the Geysers vapor-dominated reservoir, Proc. 24th Workshop on
Geothermal Res. Engineering, 53-63, 1999.
Baldi, P., S.Bellani, A. Ceccarelli, A. Fiordelisi, Geothermal Anomalies
and structural features of Southern Tuscany (Italy), Proc. World Geo-
thermal Congress 1995, 1287-1291,1995.
Bibby, H.M., T.G. Caldwell, F.J. Davey, and T.H. Webb, Geophysical evi-
dence on the structure of the Taupo Volcanic Zone and its hydrother-
mal circulation, J. Volcanol.Geotherm. Res., 68,29-58, 1995.
Wisian, et. a/.
Benoit, W.R. and R.W. Butler, A review of high-temperature geothermal
developments in the Northern Basin and Range province, Geothemurl
Resources Council Special Report 13,5740, 1983.
Blackwell, D.D., M. Richards, K.W. Wisian, and J.L. Steele, System Spe-
cific GeothermalGradienmeat flow Data Base for the Western United
States,GeothermalResources Council Transactions,23,461-466, 1999.
Bodvarsson, G.,Geothermal Resource Energetics, Geothemzics, 3,83-92,
1974.
Bowen, R., Geothermal Resources, Elsevier Applied Science,485p., 1989.
Brook, C.A., R.H. Mariner, D.R. Mabey, J.R. Swanson, M. Guffanti, and
Resources of the United States - 1978, USGS Circular 790, 18-85,
1978.
Brook, C.A., and C.W. Mase, The HydrothermalSystem at the East Brawley
,, I I
KGRA, Imperial Valley, California, Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions, 5, 1 57- 160, 1981.
1.OE+009
Combs, J. Heat Flow in the Cos0 Geothermal Area, Inyo County, Califor-
nia, J. Geophys. Res., 85,2411-2424, 1980.
Corralles, M.F., Costa Rica: Country Update Report, Trans. Geothermal
Resources Council, 9, International Volume,57-64, 1985.
Garcia-Estrada, G., A. Lopez-Hernandez, and R.M. Prol-Ledesma, Tem-
perature-depth relationships based on log data from the Los Azufres
geothermal field, Mexico, Geothemics, 30, 1 11 - 132,2001.
Garside, L.J., and J.H. Shilling, Thermal Waters of Nevada, Nevada Bu-
reau of Mines and Geology Bull. 91, 163p., 1979.
Hochstein, M.P.,Geophysical exploration of the Kawah Kamojang geo-
thermal field, West Java, Proc. 2nd U.N. Symp. On the Development
and Use of Geothermal Resources, San Francisco, 1049-1058, 1976.
Lachenbruch,A.H., J.H. Sass, and S.P. Galanis Jr., Heat Flow in Southern-
most California and the Origin of the Salton Trough, J. Geophys. Res.,
90,6709-6736, 1985.
Lachenbruch, A.H., M.L. Sorey, R.E. Lewis, and J.H. Sass, The near-sur-
face hydrothermal regime of Long Valley caldera, J. Geophys. Res.,
81,763-768, 1976.
Lund, J.W., World Status of Geothermal Energy Use Overview 1995-1999,
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 24,383-388,2000.
Mas. L., G. Mas, and L. Bengochea, Heat flow of Copahue geothermal
field, its relation with tectonic scheme, Proc. World Geothermal Con-
gress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Jupan, May 28 - June 10, 2000, 14 I9-
1424,2000.
McNitt, J.R., The United Nations Approach to Geothermal Resource As-
sessment, Geothermics, 7,23 1-242, 1978.
Morgan, D.S., Hydrogeology of the Stillwater geothermal area, Churchill
County, Nevada, USGS Open File Report 82-345, 1982.
Muffler, P., Geothermal Resource Assessment, in Geothermal Systems,
Principles and Case Histories, Rybach, L., and L.J.P. Muffler, eds.,
John Wiley & Sons, 359p., 198 I .
Muffler, P., and R. Cataldi, Methods for Regional Assessment of Geother-
mal Resources, Geothermics, 7,53-89, 1978.
Nathenson, M., and L.J.P. Muffler, Geothermal Resources in Hydrother-
mal Convection Systems and Conduction-DominatedAreas, in White,
D.F., and D.L. Williams eds., Assessment of Geothermal Resources of
the United States - 1975, USGS Circular 726, 104- 12 I , 1975.
335
Wisian, et. a/.
Ndolo, J., Evaluation of Heat Loss in the Northern Kenya Rift Valley, Pro-
ceedings, World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan,
May 28 - June IO, 2000, 1497-1502,2000.
Renner, J.L., D.E. White, and D.L. Williams, Hydrothermal Convection
Systems, in White, D.F., and D.L. Williams eds., Assessment of Geo-
thermal Resources of the United States - 1975, USGS Circular 726,
5-57, 1975.
Robertson-Tait,A, and J.W. Lovekin, Potential Sites and Experiments for
Enhanced Geothermal Systems in the Western United States, Geother-
mal Resources Council Trans.,24, 169-174,2000.
Sanyal, S.K.,
Forty Years of Production History at The Geysers Geother-
mal Field, California - The Lessons Learned, Geothermal Resources
Council Trans., 24, 3 17-323,2000.
Sorey, M.L., Evolution and present state of the hydrothermal system in the
Long Valley caldera, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 1 I ,2 19-I 1,228, 1985.
Suyama, J., K.Sumi, K.Baba, I. Takashima, and K. Yuhara, Assessment of
Geothermal Resources of Japan, Proceedings, United States - Japan
336
Geological Surveys Panel Discussion on the Assessment of Geother-
mal Resources, Tokyo, Japan, ,Geol. Sum. Japan, 63- I 19, 1975.
Vallette-Silver, N.J., P.G. Silver, and R. Marquez, The effect of a tectonic
disturbance on the Cerro Prieto geothermal field (B.C., Mexico), Ceo-
thermal Resources Council Trans., 9 , 5 15-520, 1985.
Walters, M.A., and J. Combs, Heat flow in the Geysers-Clear Lake geo-
thermal area of Northern California, U.S.A., Geothermal Resources
Council Special Report 17,43-53, 1991.
Geophysical Studies of active geothermal systems in the North-
Ward, S.H.,
em Basin and Range, Geothermal Resources Council Special Report
13, 121-157, 1983.
Waring, G.A., R.R. Blankenship, and R. Bentall, Thermal Springs of the
United states and Other Countries of the World - A Summary, USGS
Professional Paper 492,383p., 1965.
White, D.E., Geothermal Energy, USGS Bulletin I450-A, 5p., 1965.
Whittome, A.J. and J.O. Salveson, Exploration and evaluation of the Darajat
geothermal field, West Java, Indonesia, Trans. Geothermal Resources
Council, 14,999-1005, 1990.