Geothermal Resource Conceptual Model

Workshop
21-22 October 2016
Geothermal Resource Conceptual Models
For Resource Capacity and Well Targeting

William Cumming
Cumming Geoscience, Santa Rosa CA
wcumming@wcumming.com
Office: +1-707-546-1245
Mobile: +1-707-483-7959
Skype: wcumming.com
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Resource Conceptual

Model Workshop
• Joe Moore asked me to arrange the workshop
• Adaptation of Geothermal Resource Decision
Workshops for Companies and Institutions
• 5+ day workshops with homogeneous participants
• Single presenter and coach
• GRC Conceptual Model Workshop
• 2 days with unknown participants
• Many expert presenters and coaches

3
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Course Expectations
• Components of a geothermal conceptual model
• Basic steps to construct a geothermal conceptual model
• Types of data and types of expertise needed
• Using models in well targeting and capacity assessment
• Targeting conceptual models versus targeting data
• Decision making issues when using conceptual models
• Strengths and weaknesses of a conceptual model
approach

4
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Schedule
Friday- 8-5pm
• Continental breakfast 7:30am
• AM break: 10:00-10:15
• 12:00-1:00 pm-Lunch at the Hyatt Regency
• PM break: 3:00-3:15

Saturday- 8-5pm
• A continental breakfast will be in the room as of 7:30am
• AM break: 10:00-10:15
• 12:00-1:00 pm-Lunch at the Hyatt Regency
• PM break: 3:00-3:15
5
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Logistics

• Exercises in teams of 4 or 5 with 1 coach each

• 1st and 3rd table turn around
• At coffee, distribute experience in teams
• Paper handouts to coaches

• References on USB
• Presenters put yours together and I will assemble
• Distribute USBs to presenters

6
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Workshop Agenda Day 1

Introduction to workshop (Bill Cumming)
Part 1: Volcano-hosted geothermal resource conceptual model
• Conceptual models and decision making (Bill Cumming) 20 min
• Volcanic geology, structure (Glenn Melosh) 20 min
• Geochemistry (Elisabeth Easley) 20 min
• Thermodynamics of conceptual models (John Murphy) 20 min
• Exercise 1: Volcano-hosted hand-outs on geology, geochemistry and BPD.
• Resource capacity PDF from power density (Max Wilmarth) 20 min
• Vapor core systems and exploration options (Rich Gunderson) 20 min
• High temperature conceptual model construction (Steve Sewell) 20 min
• Exercise 2: Build conceptual models for P10. P50 and P90 capacity and targets.
• Well temperature log interpretation (John Murphy) 20 min
• Exercise 3: Hand out results of first 4 wells. Rebuild conceptual models. 7
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Workshop Agenda Day 2

• Indicative parameters for arc volcano reconnaissance (Peter Stelling) 20 min
• Polemic on multiple models (Glenn Melosh) 10 min
• Exercise 4: Hand out final 2 wells. Reassess capacity.
• Presentation of real field case history and NPV prize (Ken Mackenzie) 20 min
Part 2: Fault-hosted geothermal resource conceptual model
• Introduction to fault-hosted geothermal exploration (Bill Cumming) 15 min
• Structural targeting of fault-hosted geothermal systems (Nick Hinz) 30 min
• Exercise 5: Fault-hosted geology, structure, geochemistry. Recommend program.
• Exercise 6: Hand-out TGH data. Build P10. P50 and P90 models and target wells
• Structure, lithology and open space fracture permeability (Nick Hinz) 20 min
• Exercise 7: Hand out well temperatures, production and borehole lithology and structure.
Revise models, capacity and targets.
• Reservoir engineering <180C fault-hosted systems with outflows (John Murphy) 20 min
• Exercise 8: Hand out final wells. Reassess capacity.
• Presentation of actual field case history (Dick Benoit) 20 min
• Conclusions and acknowledgements: (Bill Cumming) 10 min 8
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Exploration Questions

Integrate geophysics with geochemistry and
geology in a consistent geothermal conceptual
model to answer:
1. Does a conventional geothermal reservoir exist?
2. If it exists, how big is it?
3. What is the lowest cost well targeting strategy to
discover, then prove, and then develop the
resource?

© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Exploration Data to Assess Geothermal Resources

Is it there?
• POSexpl = Ptemperature * Pchemistry * Ppermeability
– Temperature: Water and gas geochemistry on all features
– Chemistry: Same as temperature but using process plots
– Permeability: Resistivity imaging to base of impermeable clay cap.
Structural model. Map of thermal features and altered ground.
• Case histories and analogies
If yes, how big is it? P10, P50, P90 area
• Area: Conceptual model outlines from resistivity, geochemistry, alteration,
structure, geology etc.
• Power Density: Analogous fields, plausible MW/km2
• Field analogies provide check on probabilistic approaches
Lowest cost exploration strategy
• Lowest cost well target order to failure or success
• Access and hazards: Review access and hazards
• Environmental etc: Assess risk for permit denial etc.
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Geoscience
Conceptual Context
Basic physics of permeable geothermal reservoirs (non-EGS)
• Geothermal reservoirs lose energy to surface through any rock by heat
conduction and through leaky rocks by buoyant advection of hot fluid
• In proportion to stored energy, a geothermal reservoir emits energy at
a rate orders of magnitude higher than O&G reservoirs
• The geothermal emphasis on “seeps” does not indicate primitive
technology relative to O&G but a difference in resource physics
Implications for geothermal exploration strategy
• Geothermal reservoirs with vertical permeability “leak” heat upward,
so “hidden” systems without near-surface manifestations are “special”
• Most cost-effective reduction of risk for geothermal resource with thick
vertical permeability is to demonstrate permeability and temperature
using water chemistry, if not from springs then from shallow wells
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Resource Setting

Moeck (2015, Geothermics)
Geologic setting
• Divergent (rift)
• Convergent (arc)
• Transform (pull-apart)
• Major volcanism
• Intracontinental rifts
Moeck play type
• Magmatic volcanic
• Magmatic plutonic
• Extensional
• Non-convecting plays
Others argue
• >230°C flash
• <180°C pumped
• 150 to 230°C gassy
flash
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Generic Geothermal
Conceptual Model Elements
Distributed Permeability Upflow Single Fault Zone Upflow
Small Outflow Large Shallow Outflow

Cumming (2013) 13
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Anomaly Hunting
• Rationale
• Works by analogy
• Pitfalls
• Conceptual relevance to new targets not
considered, just outcomes
• Other data not conceptually integrated
• Not directly tested by wells
• Drill a 5 ohm-m anomaly and it remains 5 ohm-m

• Remedy
• Use for early and low cost decisions
• For high cost decisions, use conceptual models
to support team risk assessment
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Ohaaki Geothermal Field

Map View “Boundary” Interpretation

from: Ussher 2007

© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Ohaaki Geothermal Field

Alteration Cross-section
NW SE
38 15 8 19 13 25 7 16

-1000 m --

Smectite-illite clay
Illite clay
-2000 m --
after: Simmons and Browne 1998

© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Ohaaki Geothermal Field

MT Resistivity Cross-section
S N
29 27 10 14 1

150°C

-1000 m -- 250°C

275°C
< 10 ohm-m MT 1D resistivity

-2000 m --
after: Ingham 1990

© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Conceptually Defined Resource Outline

• Closer to the productive reservoir outline
than the original “Resistivity Boundary”

© Cumming (2013) from: Ussher 2007

 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Resource Risk Assessment at Ohaaki

• Competing outlines based on conceptual model and anomaly hunting
approaches could have been reconciled as P50 and P20 outlines.

P20

P90

© Cumming (2013) from: Ussher 2007

 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Conceptual Models
• Rationale
• Decisions based on analogous experience
• Conceptual differences considered
• Directly tested by wells
• Pitfalls
• Who can integrate geophysics, geochemistry,
geology, reservoir engineering …
• Multiple models require risk assessment
• Proposed Remedy
• Training on building conceptual models and
assessing risk using case histories
Cumming Geoscience
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Generic Geothermal
Conceptual Model Elements
Distributed Permeability Upflow Single Fault Zone Upflow
Small Outflow Large Shallow Outflow

Cumming (2013) 21
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Conceptual Model Elements

• Hydrology, especially deep water table but also perched aquifers
• Isotherm pattern consistent with pressure and permeability
• Heat Source
• Deep benign hot buoyant upflow in fractures
• Formations and alteration favorable to open space fracture permeability
(and often primary permeability at shallower depths)
• Smectite Clay Cap (commonly combined cap, rarely, non-smectite cap, very rarely for
commercial systems, uncapped)
• Faults creating permeable zones, flow barriers and field boundaries
• Reservoir temperature outflow with buoyant flow updip below clay cap
(in liquid systems)
• Sub-commercial outflow with buoyant flow updip below clay cap (in liquid
systems)
• Cold meteoric water flow down-dip into reservoir

© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Conceptual Model

Isotherm Properties
• Isotherms define the permeable reservoir
• Isotherms are constrained by hydrothermodynamics:
• Water table defines pressure and maximum temperature distribution
• Temperature < hydrostatic boiling point
• Hot upflow and outflow by buoyancy in permeable zones
• Cold influx by hydrostatic gravity flow in permeable zones with colder or
higher elevation source and aquifer connection
• Conduction where permeability low
• Very high temperature gradients require permeable high and low
temperature zones on each side of an impermeable zone
• No isolated hot or cold zones (cross-sections use arrow heads/tails)
Cumming (2009, Stanford; 2016, GRC)

© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Generic Geothermal
Conceptual Model Elements
Distributed Permeability Upflow Single Fault Zone Upflow
Small Outflow Large Shallow Outflow

Cumming (2013) 24
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Deep Heat Source

• Hydrothermal reservoir that Melosh (2013, USAID/GEA)
will supply the produced fluid
and its connection to what is
known from the surface are
crucial parts of the model
• Most heat sources poorly
connected and uncertain so
treated as boundary condition
• However, basalt magma
imaged using MT or MEQ at 2
to 4 km depth can constrain
350°C and reservoir base
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Conceptual Model Elements

• Hydrology, especially deep water table but also perched aquifers
• Isotherm pattern consistent with pressure and permeability
• Heat Source
• Deep benign hot buoyant upflow in fractures
• Formations and alteration favorable to open space fracture permeability
(and often primary permeability at shallower depths)
• Smectite Clay Cap (commonly combined cap, rarely, non-smectite cap, very rarely for
commercial systems, uncapped)
• Faults creating permeable zones, flow barriers and field boundaries
Reflection seismic presentation
• Reservoir temperature outflow with buoyant flow updip below clay cap
(in liquid systems)
• Sub-commercial outflow with buoyant flow updip below clay cap (in liquid
systems)
• Cold meteoric water flow down-dip into reservoir
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

“Standard” Geoscience Plan >200°C

Geothermal Exploration
• Gas and fluid
geochemistry for
existence and
conceptual target
• MT to map base of clay
“cap”
• Maybe TEM for MT
statics
• Geology, alteration and
structure for context
• Shallow hydrology for
context
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Resource Capacity

Assessment for Exploration
Is it there?
POSexpl = Ptemperature * Pchemistry * Ppermeability
• Based on O&G probabilities for essential resource existence
– Trap, Source, Maturation range, Migration path, etc
• Reductionist
Alternative approaches
• e.g. Case history analogs

© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Resource Capacity Risk Tree

Probabilities for 5 cases at economically significant decision
• Exploration success and failure
• Appraisal success and failure
• 3 development cases

Cumming
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Decision Pitfalls and Solutions

• Classic studies on decision making and risk
– Kahneman (1972 etc) Cognitive biases
• Cognitive pitfalls are common when uncertainty is unfamiliar
• It takes decision practice to avoid pitfalls

– Klein (2000s) Experience vs Analysis

• Some decisions need experience, so how do you get experience?
• What decisions benefit from more data and analysis ?
• What types of analyses mislead ? More complex implies more risk

– Gigerenzer (1980s) Fast and frugal

• e.g. Rules of thumb tested for scope and effectiveness

– Tetlock (2000s) Superforecasters

• e.g. reframing for constraints, baseline probabilities
Cumming Geoscience
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Conceptual Model Uncertainty

• Deeper reservoir
isotherm pattern
inferred from shallow
geometry, long memory
geothermometers and
analogous reservoirs
• Uncertainty in inference
of isotherm pattern
increases if clay cap
differs from analysts’
case history experience

Cumming 2007
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Conceptual Model 2

• Base of clay cap from
< 10 ohm-m resistivity
follows topography
• Top of apparent
propylitic alteration 700
m above water table

Cumming 2007
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Conceptual Model

• Base of clay cap from
< 10 ohm-m resistivity
follows topography
• Top of apparent propylitic
alteration 700 m above
water table
• Zone between water table
and base of the clay cap
commonly interpreted as
steam cap

Cumming 2007
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Conceptual Model

• Base of clay cap from
< 10 ohm-m resistivity
follows topography
• Top of apparent
propylitic alteration 700
m above water table
• Zone between water
table and base of the
clay cap commonly
interpreted as steam
• Pressure at top of steam
zone exceeds frac
pressure but no leakage
Cumming 2007
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Conceptual Model

• Commonly observed
model consistent with
lack of leakage
• Top of apparent
propylitic alteration 700
m above water table but
relict (cold) and low
permeability
• Reservoir smaller
• Look for surface
exposure of chlorite in
deep drainages to
confirm
Cumming 2007
© Cumming (2013)
Global occurrence of geothermal systems in
different geologic settings: their
identification and utilization
Mar-2016

William Cumming
Cumming Geoscience, Santa Rosa CA
wcumming@wcumming.com
Office: +1-707-546-1245
Mobile: +1-707-483-7959
Skype: wcumming.com
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Geoscience
Conceptual Context
Basic physics of permeable geothermal reservoirs (non-EGS)
• Geothermal reservoirs lose energy to surface through any rock by heat
conduction and through leaky rocks by buoyant advection of hot fluid
• In proportion to stored energy, a geothermal reservoir emits energy at
a rate orders of magnitude higher than O&G reservoirs
• The geothermal emphasis on “seeps” does not indicate primitive
technology relative to O&G but a difference in resource physics
Implications for geothermal exploration strategy
• Geothermal reservoirs with vertical permeability “leak” heat upward,
so “hidden” systems without near-surface manifestations are “special”
• Most cost-effective reduction of risk for geothermal resource with thick
vertical permeability is to demonstrate permeability and temperature
using water chemistry, if not from springs then from shallow wells
© Cumming (2013)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Resource Setting

Moeck (2015, Geothermics)
Geologic setting
• Divergent (rift)
• Convergent (arc)
• Transform (pull-apart)
• Major volcanism
• Intracontinental rifts
Moeck play type
• Magmatic volcanic
• Magmatic plutonic
• Extensional
• Non-convecting plays
Others argue
• >230°C flash
• <180°C pumped
• 150 to 230°C gassy
flash
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Geothermal Resource Power Density

 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

East EARS Development Analogy

5 - 7 km

2 - 3 km
350°C Melosh (2013, GEA)
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

Awibengkok Geothermal Field

Awibengkok 377 MW

Melosh (2013, GEA)

 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models

West EARS Development Analogy

BRADYS CROSS-SECTION
2 km

1 km
Geothermex (2008)

42
 Geothermal Resource
Conceptual Models
East versus West EARS
Development Analogies
Awibengkok 377 MW Bradys 15 – 20 MW

Melosh (2013, GEA)