Geothermics 39 (2010) 321–328

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Performance history of The Geysers steam field, California, USA

K.P. Goyal ∗ , T.T. Conant
Calpine Corporation, 10350 Socrates Mine Road, Middletown, CA 95461, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The performance of Calpine’s Geysers steam field from startup in 1960 to 2008 is described in this paper.
Received 21 May 2009 Since October 2003, Calpine has received approximately 482 L/s of tertiary-treated reclaimed water from
Accepted 14 September 2010 the City of Santa Rosa. To accommodate and derive benefit from this water, Calpine has converted 20
wells (ten producers, six shut-in, two observation, and two suspended wells) to high-rate injection ser-
vice. Additional nine wells were also converted to low-rate injectors that receive 12.6 L/s or less. Annual
Keywords:
recovery factors (i.e., fieldwide increase in annual steam production divided by annual injection) for the
Geothermal
first 5 years of Santa Rosa Geysers Recharge Project (SRGRP) operation have been estimated at 17.6%,
Geysers
Geothermal power
26.1%, 37.1%, 39% and 44.6%, respectively; reasonably close to or slightly higher than the values, pre-
Jack shaft dicted prior to SRGRP startup. Using a revised definition that includes the amount of un-boiled water in
Injection recovery factor the reservoir, the annual recovery factors turn out to be 17.6%, 16.1%, 14.6%, 12.4% and 12.2% from year
Performance one through year five. Improvements in the wellfield, water injection, and power plant modifications
Injection from January 1995 through December 2008 are also discussed in this paper.
Puff © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Production
Decline rate
SRGRP
SEGEP
Wellfield

1. Introduction sition of Geysers Geothermal Company from Freeport McMoRan in

The Geysers geothermal field is located in northern California
(Fig. 1). It began commercial steam production in September 1960
with the start-up of Unit 1, an 11-MWnet power plant. The installed
capacity increased to a maximum of approximately 2000 MWnet
by mid-1989 (Goyal and Box, 1991). Since then, several units have
been retired due to age and/or insufficient steam supply. These
include Unit 15 (57 MWnet ) in 1989, Bottle Rock (52 MWnet ) in 1990,
Unit 1 (11 MWnet ) in 1990, Units 2–4 (67 MWnet ) in 1992, and CCPA
(Central California Power Agency) Units 1 and 2 (124 MWnet ) in
1996. Unit 10 (53 MWnet ) and Unit 9 (53 MWnet ) have been kept
in a suspended status since 2000 and 2001, respectively. During
the height of The Geysers development in mid 1980s, several com-
panies were involved with the development of the steam field.
These included Unocal, Magma, Thermal Power Company, GEO
Operator, MCR Geothermal, Geysers Geothermal Company, NCPA
(Northern California Power Agency), Occidental Geothermal, DWR
(Department of Water Resources), CCPA and Mission Energy. Util-
ities included PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric), SMUD (Sacramento
Municipal Utility District), DWR, CCPA, and NCPA. After an acqui-
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 707 431 6148.
E-mail address: keshav@calpine.com (K.P. Goyal).
1990, Calpine expanded its operations in The Geysers, and by 1999
became the largest operator of the steam field and power plants.
Currently, Calpine and NCPA operate The Geysers field with a total
installed capacity of 1541 MWnet . Calpine owns and operates 15
power plants with an installed capacity of 1302 MWnet . The remain-
ing 239 MWnet capacity comes from two power plants owned and
operated by NCPA. The power generated by the 15 Calpine plants is
mostly sold under bilateral contracts to the California Independent
System Operator (ISO) system. Through June 2008, Calpine sold
electricity to PG&E under standard offer (SO) contracts from four
plants with name plate rating of 80 MW or less. These plants were
designated as “SO” units, and the remaining 11 plants were desig-
nated as “market” units. This plant designation was removed in July
2008, when all plants started selling power under market contracts.
Since this is a recent change, the old terminology of “market” and
“SO” units is retained in this paper. Recently, the U.S. Renewables
Group has been redeveloping the Bottle Rock steam field to sup-
ply steam to a mothballed 52 MWnet unit located in the northern
end of the field (Snedaker, 2007). This plant is currently generat-
ing 10–12 MWnet . Western Geopower Corporation also announced
plans to redevelop the abandoned Unit 15 lease area, located on the
western edge of the field, and build a new 25 MWnet power plant
(Sanyal et al., 2007). This company was acquired by Ram Power in
October 2009. At The Geysers, the operators assign lease areas to a

0375-6505/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2010.09.007
322 K.P. Goyal, T.T. Conant / Geothermics 39 (2010) 321–328
Nomenclature
IDS injection derived steam
MW megawatt
NCG non-condensable gas
RF recovery factor, “original annual RF”
Subscripts
net after subtracting parasitic load
power plant based on its size. In this paper, a lease area assigned to
a power plant is also called a “wellfield”.
The Geysers field has produced a total of 2398 billion kg of steam
from 1960 to 2008. For a steam usage factor of 2.4 kg/s per MW, this
production is equivalent to an electric generation of 278 million
MWh. Using a conversion factor of 1.5 bbl of oil per MWh, The
Geysers has eliminated the need to burn 417 million barrels of oil
for power generation by year-end 2008.
Information about The Geysers’ performance has been pub-
lished by various operators, and an industry-wide comprehensive
report was published in early 1995 through the Geysers Geother-
mal Association (GGA, 1995). This paper presents the performance
of the portion of The Geysers field operated by Calpine. After acquir-
ing steam fields from Unocal and power plants from PG&E in 1999,
Calpine invested significant capital to extend the life of this valu-
able renewable asset by improving plant efficiency, developing
untapped reserves and extracting additional heat energy through
water injection. The steam fields and power plants management
strategies and the resulting improvements in steam production
are described for the period of 1995–2008, with emphasis on the
injection performance of SRGRP which began in October 2003. Also,
definitions and methodology for estimating injection recovery fac-
tors are presented and recovery factors during the first 5 years of
SRGRP operation are discussed.
Fig. 1. Currently, operating plant locations in The Geysers geothermal field, California. Inset map shows the location of The Geysers geothermal field. PP: power plant.
2. Brief historical background
The Geysers steam production and injection history from 1965
to 2008 is presented in Fig. 2 (CDOGGR, 2008). The amount of steam
supplied to Units 1 and 2 from 1960 to 1964 was small and there-
fore, is not shown. Water injection in the field did not start until
1969. The steam production rose from 70 kg/s in 1965, to a peak of
3546 kg/s in 1987. In 1965, only two PG&E units were in operation,
generating a total of 24 MWnet . The development of the field con-
tinued until mid-1989, when the total installed capacity reached
2000 MWnet (Goyal and Box, 1991). The eastern part of the field
was mostly developed from 1980 to 1988. This pace of develop-
ment led to a pressure drop in the reservoir and high annual steam
decline rates in excess of 25% in some areas (Goyal and Box, 1991;
Sanyal, 2000). The decline in generation at The Geysers caught
the attention of the California Energy Commission (Sanyal, 2000)
and resulted in the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), a consortium of steam producers, utilities, researchers, and
consultants. Funding for the work was provided by steam produc-
ers, utilities, federal, state, and local governments (County of Lake,
1991). The main objectives of TAC were to find ways to (i) reduce
decline rates and (ii) increase the life of the field. TAC efforts led
to the development of conceptual and numerical models for the
entire Geysers field, as well as identification of tracers suitable for
vapor dominated systems. Additionally, the TAC report suggested
bringing water from outside sources for injection and finding ways
to improve plant efficiency (Sanyal, 2000). The steam production
data from 1995 to 2008 in Fig. 2 show that the steam decline rate
has been substantially reduced, and the field continues to produce a
significant amount of steam. In a nutshell, both of the CEC objectives
have been met.
Though steam production from The Geysers started in 1960,
injection did not start until 1969, when steam condensate was
returned to the reservoir through injection wells. Between 1960
and 1969, the steam condensate from the cooling tower was dis-
posed in nearby surface drainages. Initially, injection wells were
sited as far as possible from active production wells (Barker et al.,
1995) to avoid the possibility of water breakthrough. As reservoir
 K.P. Goyal, T.T. Conant / Geothermics 39 (2010) 321–328
Fig. 2. Steam production and injection at The Geysers. Data from California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources.
pressure declined and superheated conditions developed, signifi-
cant steam gains were observed in production wells located near
injection wells. Consequently, every effort was made to increase
injection into the reservoir. Mass replacement through steam con-
densate injection rose from 6% in 1969 to 24% in 1979 (Fig. 2).
Since 1980, condensate injection has been supplemented with fresh
water from Big Sulphur Creek (BSC) and from small stream water
extraction facilities operated seasonally during periods of high run
off. The creek water extraction increased field wide mass replace-
ment from 24% to over 30% in 1994, as shown in Fig. 2.
Being a vapor-dominated system with rather low porosity, The
Geysers has more than 90% of its heat stored in the rocks. The
commercially productive area, as delineated by drilling, is approxi-
mately 78 km2 . There is little or no natural recharge to the reservoir
(Isherwood, 1977). This fact became quite clear during late 1980s,
when the drop in the reservoir pressure was accompanied by an
increase in enthalpy and superheat of the produced steam through-
out the field. To recover some of the heat stored in the rocks, the
operators sought external water sources to supplement injection
at The Geysers. The first project, called SEGEP (Southeast Geysers
Effluent Pipeline), started in September 1997. It brought 341 L/s of
lake water and secondary treated water from the treatment plants
of LACOSAN (Lake County Sanitation District) to Calpine and NCPA.
This additional water increased the field-wide mass replacement
from over 30% to almost 50% (Fig. 2). Another injection project,
called SRGRP (Santa Rosa Geysers Recharge Project), started in
October 2003, bringing in 482 L/s of tertiary treated water from
the treatment plant of the city of Santa Rosa. This additional water
further increased mass replacement to approximately 85% in 2006
(Fig. 2). A dry winter in 2007 and 2008 led to a reduction in mass
replacement to about 75%.
Cumulatively, The Geysers reservoir had produced 2398 billion
kg of steam and received 946 billion kg of injection water by Decem-
ber 2008 (CDOGGR, 2008). This represents a cumulative net mass
withdrawal of 1452 billion kg and a cumulative mass replacement
of 39.5% by 2008. For a 78 km2 extent and 5% porosity, steam pro-
duction of 1452 billion kg would require a reservoir thickness of
21 km to store it all in the vapor phase. This thickness is clearly
unreasonable, suggesting initial reserves were mostly in the liquid
phase, although no water table has been found in The Geysers so far,
even in wells deeper than 3.66 km. A possible explanation (Pruess
and Narasimhan, 1982) is that liquid water trapped in tight pore
323
spaces (rock matrix) boils, and steam moves into larger aperture
fractures, driven by pressure gradients within the reservoir.
3. Steam production and generation
Fig. 3 shows year-end steam production from 1994 through
2008 of the wellfields associated with market plants (19 con-
tiguous wellfields supplying steam to 11 power plants), with and
without makeup drilling and injection. Calpine has been receiv-
ing about 227 L/s of water from the SEGEP project for injection in
the southeast portion of the field since September 1997. By 2008,
the southeast portion of the reservoir became saturated because
of water injection, and as a result injection had to be reduced. The
SRGRP started supplying water to The Geysers in October 2003.
Steam gains from makeup wells (new steam producers) that were
brought on line between 2001 and 2008, and the injection from
SEGEP and SRGRP, are shown in Fig. 3. The year-end steam produc-
tion rate remained high during 2003–2008 (Fig. 3), suggesting little
decline in the field. The dashed line in Fig. 3 displays the extrapo-
lated steam production from the original wells if the SEGEP, SRGRP,
and makeup well projects had not occurred. The SEGEP injection
benefits for Calpine are estimated as two thirds of the combined
MW gain at NCPA and Calpine plants. The MW gains are converted
to flow rate using an average conversion rate (steam rate per MW)
for a given year. The power plant activities can skew generation
numbers and therefore, the gain attributed to SEGEP. However, the
error caused by this assumption is estimated to be too small (less
than 1%) to affect our conclusions. A gain of 397 kg/s in steam pro-
duction was realized by December 31, 2008, from makeup wells
and injection as shown in Fig. 3.
3.1. Wellfield update
Calpine brought seven additional production wells on-line dur-
ing 2001 and 2002 providing 60 kg/s of steam. Out of these, four
were flowing in 2008. One well was converted to injection to
replace an existing failed injector, one stopped flowing, and the
other well was shut-in because of corrosion. One new makeup well
was brought on-line in February 2004 at 15 kg/s. A second leg was
drilled into an existing producer in 2008 which produced a total
of 5 kg/s of steam − almost twice that of the original leg. These six
wells provided approximately 45 kg/s of steam or about 20 MWnet
324 K.P. Goyal, T.T. Conant / Geothermics 39 (2010) 321–328
Fig. 3. Steam production from Calpine market units.
in 2008. Except Aidlin, Bear Canyon, and West Ford flat, the steam
field is now fully interconnected through the addition of numer-
ous new pipelines (crossties). New crossties between the fields for
Units 9/10 and Sonoma, Sonoma and Calistoga, Sonoma and Unit
20, and Unit 13 and Unit 18, were installed after the 1999 acquisi-
tion by Calpine. Units 9 and 10 have been mothballed since April
2001, due to their poor efficiency and high operations and mainte-
nance costs. The steam from these areas is flowing to nearby plants
through crosstie pipelines.
Additional injectors were added after the startup of SRGRP
in October 2003. A total of 20 wells (ten-producers, six shut-in,
two observation, and two suspended) were converted to high-
rate (31 L/s or more) injectors between 2003 and 2008, to accept
increased injection water and to replace failed injectors. Injection
wells fail because of downhole problems such as collapsed casing,
water breakthrough to nearby producers, formation sloughing, and
corrosion of the casing and/or liner. Injection wells in The Geysers
accept water under vacuum. Additionally, nine wells (three produc-
ers, five shut-in, and one observation) were converted to low-rate
injectors during 2007 and 2008. These injection wells are com-
pleted without any liner and most are receiving less than 12.6 L/s
of water. All the injection wells were selected to distribute water
over a large area to achieve efficient boiling and maximum heat
recovery.
A portion of The Geysers field associated with the 115 kV trans-
mission line was curtailed from November 6, 2004, to April 8, 2005,
and again from January 31, 2006 to February 26, 2006, due to work
on the Cortina substation. Some curtailments, due to the availabil-
ity of inexpensive hydro-power, were also experienced during the
spring of 2006.
Calpine monitors groups of production wells surrounding injec-
tion wells on a routine basis to identify water breakthrough and
possible wellbore problems that may develop. Wells that indicate
lost production from scale deposits or bridging in the wellbore are
routinely cleaned out to recover the lost steam production, using
surging, venting, and bridge-busting techniques.
3.2. Injection update
Injection in The Geysers started in 1969, when steam conden-
sate was returned back to the reservoir through injection wells.
Since 1980, injection has been supplemented with fresh water from
Big Sulphur Creek (BSC) and small streams during periods of high
run off. Three pump stations are used to extract water from Big Sul-
phur Creek. Pump station BSC#1 started in 1980 and has a pumping
capacity of 442 L/s. BSC#2 started in 1983 and has the capability to
pump 568 L/s. BSC#3 started pumping water in 1994 and can pump
up to 95 L/s.
The SEGEP project has provided approximately 341 L/s of sec-
ondarily treated water and lake water to Calpine and NCPA since
September 1997. Calpine injects 227 L/s (two thirds) and the rest is
utilized by NCPA. The capacity of the SEGEP system was increased
to 448 L/s in early 2009. Out of this total delivery, Calpine is eli-
gible to receive 259 L/s. The SRGRP has provided tertiary treated
wastewater from the Santa Rosa regional sewage treatment plant to
The Geysers through a 66-km, 76–122 cm diameter pipeline since
October 2003. Per revised contract, the city is obligated to sup-
ply an annual average of 553 L/s. The city pumps water from a
treatment plant to the base of the Mayacamas Mountains using
two 746 kW pumps to overcome an elevation of about 91 m. Three
pump stations, each housing five pumps (three constant speed and
two variable speed) of 746 kW each, provide a total vertical lift of
approximately 914 m to a storage tank located near The Geysers.
Each pump is capable of pumping 175–185 L/s. Calpine then pumps
this water to its storage tank that is 168 m higher through a pump
station which houses five 447 kW pumps. Calpine distributes this
water to 8–12 injection wells through 29-km of 20- to 76-cm diam-
eter pipeline network. The SRGRP pipeline is designed to handle
approximately 876 L/s of the tertiary treated wastewater to allow
for additional water delivered to The Geysers. During the winter
months, four out of five pumps, installed at each station, are needed
to pump approximately 740 L/s of treated effluent to The Geysers.
Only two to three pumps are needed to pump water to The Geysers
for the remainder of the year. The benefits from SRGRP include (i)
reduced wastewater discharge into the Russian River by approxi-
mately 7.6 billion liters per year, (ii) production of renewable green
energy of approximately 85 MW at The Geysers, and (iii) water
reuse for irrigation purposes would conserve Russian River water
(City of Santa Rosa, 2003).
Since the startup of the SRGRP in October 2003, Calpine’s annual
average total injection from all sources has ranged from 1135 to
1451 L/s depending upon the weather and the reservoir manage-
ment considerations. In 2008, Calpine injected approximately 37.9
billion liters of water into the reservoir. This volume of water
represented a mass replacement of 73.5%. This injected water con-
tained 34% steam condensate, 18% SEGEP, 43% SRGRP, and 5% creek
 K.P. Goyal, T.T. Conant / Geothermics 39 (2010) 321–328
Fig. 4. Effect of SRGRP injection on steam production of all Calpine wells in The Geysers.
water. The benefits from the SEGEP and SRGRP have been estimated
at approximately 36 MWnet (88 kg/s) and 105 MWnet (252 kg/s)
of additional steam by year-end 2008 in the Calpine area. These
estimates are based on actual production or generation and the
extrapolation of pre-project decline trends. A detailed summary of
The Geysers injection experience is available in Goyal (1999).
3.3. Power plant update
Because of decline in the reservoir pressure and steam deliv-
erability at The Geysers, the power plants are not running at full
capacity, and thereby are less efficient than when operated at
the design capacity. Several power plants have been modified to
improve their efficiency at a reduced steam flow. For example, sin-
gle rotor (jack shafted) Units 12 and 17 were each replaced by two
tighter rotors (with a smaller steam flow area compared to the
original design) during 2000 and 2001. This was done to accom-
modate steam from the closure of Units 9 and 10. Unit 20 also
received two rotors in 1999 similar to those in Units 12 and 17.
Units 11 and 14 each received new tighter and more efficient rotors
in 2002, designed for prevailing reservoir pressure and steam flow
conditions.
The gas ejector capacity of several power plants was also opti-
mized to handle larger amounts of non-condensable gases (NCGs),
as well as to remove NCGs efficiently by increasing the number
of stages. The efficient removal of NCGs reduces backpressure in
the condenser that, in turn, increases power generation. All these
changes reduced the steam usage from 2.48 kg/s per MW in 1998
to 2.39 kg/s per MW in 2008. For a steam supply of 1663 kg/s, a net
gain of approximately 26 MW was obtained from improvements in
efficiency.
The Aidlin power plant underwent a condenser peroxide wash
in 2007, and cooling tower fill replacement in 2008. Chemical opti-
mization at the Ridgeline plant reduced caustic consumption by
50% in 2007. A turbine acid wash at Big Geysers in 2007 improved
plant efficiency, as well as reduced turbine inlet pressure, resulting
in a net increase in generation of approximately 10 MW. Regular
maintenance and overhauls at a rate of two to three per year keep
the average steam usage factor essentially unchanged, i.e., from
2.37 kg/s per MW in 2002, to 2.39 kg/s per MW in 2008.
325
Calpine continues to carry out optimization studies aimed at
conserving the resource while maximizing plant output. Calpine
uses an integrated reservoir, pipeline, and power plant numerical
model to investigate the long-term benefit of major plant improve-
ments, injection projects, additional pipelines, and production of
steam from untapped areas.
4. SRGRP injection recovery factors
Stark et al. (2005) presented forecasts and early results of SRGRP,
concluding that the project was providing increased steam flow
and generation approximately in line with the expectations. Fig. 4
shows total steam flow of all Calpine wells from January 2000 to
February 2009 that were flowing before the start-up of SRGRP in
October 2003. Additional steam, produced by activities, such as new
wells brought on-line or increased flow due to improved gathering
system facilities, has been subtracted from the total steam. In other
words, in Fig. 4 the steam production shown before and after SRGRP,
is under similar conditions, so as to reflect the effect of SRGRP.
The production data without SRGRP is fitted with a 4.5% harmonic
decline rate starting in November 2000, and represented by a solid
line in Fig. 4. This decline rate is consistent with the 6% harmonic
decline rate in January 1995 estimated for Calpine’s market units
(Goyal and Box, 2004). Areas between actual steam production data
and the extrapolated curve are then calculated for each year from
November 2003 to October 2008. These areas represent mass (kg)
of additional steam recovered from SRGRP injection. Similarly, the
amount of water injected during these annual intervals is converted
into mass of water. The ratio of the additional steam amount, pro-
vided by injection, to the amount of water injected over the same
period of time is defined as the “recovery factor” (Goyal, 1995).
This recovery factor (RF) is also called the “original annual RF” in
this paper to differentiate it from the “revised annual RF” discussed
below.
The SRGRP RFs achieved for the first 5 years are shown in Fig. 5.
An original annual RF of 17.6% was realized in the first year, 26.1% in
the second year, 37.1% in the third year, 39% in the fourth year, and
44.6% in the fifth year. These numbers are close to or slightly higher
than the forecasted RF of 13.6%, 27.2%, 43.1%, 42.4%, and 41.8%,
respectively. Forecasted SRGRP recovery factors were based on a
326 K.P. Goyal, T.T. Conant / Geothermics 39 (2010) 321–328

Fig. 5. SRGRP recovery factors for first 5 years.

combination of geochemical data (primarily stable isotopes in pro-
duced steam), tracer studies, and numerical model results (Barker
et al., 1995; Goyal, 1999). Calculated injection derived steam (IDS)
using tracer tests was found to be higher than that calculated by
using a decline curve method (Goyal, 1999). This discrepancy can
be explained by the fact the IDS may have displaced some normal
reservoir steam that would otherwise have been produced by the
wells in its area of influence. Additionally, IDS provides an instan-
taneous value for the time when the tracer test was conducted,
unlike RF that considers the ratio of the mass of water injected and
the mass of additional steam produced over a given period of time.
Thus, IDS percentage may be significantly higher than the RF.
Cumulative recovery factors are also shown in Fig. 5. The cumu-
lative RF of 17.6%, 22.4%, 27.3%, 30.3%, and 33.2% were calculated
for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years, respectively. For
the 5-year cumulative recoveries, the increased production after
each year is combined to calculate recovered steam. This recov-
ered steam is then divided by the cumulative injection for the same
period to obtain cumulative RF. Thus, after 5 years, increased steam
production has amounted to 33.2% by mass of the SRGRP water
injected. This suggests that one third of the injected SRGRP water
has already been produced as steam, and the remaining two thirds
is still in the reservoir.
Based on the regression analysis of the data in Fig. 5, the fol-
lowing relations can be used to calculate original annual RF and
cumulative RF for a given year.
Original annual RF = −0.0107T 2 + 0.1309T + 0.0533 (1)
Cumulative RF = −0.0041T 2 + 0.0634T + 0.1159 (2)
where T is time in years
5. Revised definition of annual SRGRP recovery factors
The recovery factors discussed above are defined as the ratio of
mass of steam gain per year divided by the mass of water injected

Fig. 6. Comparison of annual recovery factors calculated by two methods.

 K.P. Goyal, T.T. Conant / Geothermics 39 (2010) 321–328
Fig. 7. Steam production decline trend in Calpine market units without SEGEP,
SRGRP, and other improvements.
per year. This definition is revised to include the effect of un-flashed
water left in the reservoir. Therefore, the revised RF is defined as the
ratio of mass of steam gain divided by the mass of water injected
in a given year, plus the total un-boiled water left in the reservoir
up to that year (starting from year zero). The annual RFs calculated
using both definitions are shown in Fig. 6. The RFs based on the
original definition shows an increasing trend from 17.6% in year
one, to 44.6% in year five. The revised RFs exhibit a declining trend,
from 17.6% in year one to 12.2% in year five. A decreasing trend in
the “revised annual RF” suggests overall boiling is decreasing with
cumulative increase in the un-flashed water in the reservoir.
Based on the regression analysis of the data in Fig. 6, the follow-
ing relations can be used to calculate revised annual RF for a given
year.
3 2
Revised annual RF = 0.0017T − 0.0136T + 0.0163T + 0.171
where T is time in years.
6. Decline rate of Calpine wellfields (market units)
Fig. 7 shows the steam flow-rate data associated with the
Calpine market plants from the dashed curve in Fig. 3. This fig-
ure is an extension of Fig. 3 of Goyal and Box (2004) to which the
data from 2003 to 2008 are added. Data points in this figure reflect
steam production from The Geysers under base (normal operat-
ing) conditions, but without the estimated benefit from sources of
water outside The Geysers. The data points do include effects of the
injection of creek water and steam condensate. Loss of steam deliv-
erability due to conversion from production to injection wells is also
included. Fig. 7 supports a harmonic decline rate of 6% starting in
January 1995. The data points above the trend line in 1999–2001,
may reflect “puff” production following heavy seasonal power plant
curtailments which occurred from 1995 to 1998. The term “puff”
is used to describe a rebound in reservoir pressure and a tempo-
rary increase in steam production (Goyal, 2002), following reduced
steam withdrawal from the reservoir. Since 1999, Calpine has pro-
duced the field with little curtailment. The 6% harmonic decline
rate starting in January 1995 translates into a base decline rate of
approximately 3.3% in 2008. This decline rate is quite small com-
pared to more than 25% observed in the late 1980 s, suggesting the
field is being managed sustainably.
7. Conclusions
Calpine’s efforts at The Geysers have focused on extending the
life of the field and increasing its output by improving plant effi-
327
ciency, developing untapped reserves, and extracting additional
heat energy through water injection. From May 1999 to December
2008, these improvements resulted in a total increase of approx-
imately 190 MWnet in the field capacity. Of the latter amount,
plant efficiency improvements, developing additional reserves, and
the injection of SEGEP and SRGRP provided a gain of 26 MWnet,
20 MWnet , 36 MWnet, and 105 MWnet, respectively.
Calpine began receiving 482 L/s of SRGRP water for injection
in October 2003 and, by December 2008, recognized a net gain
of 105 MWnet . The calculated gain from SRGRP indicates annual
injection recovery factors (original) of 17.6%, 26.1%, 37.1%, 39%, and
44.6% for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years, respec-
tively. The corresponding cumulative recovery factors are 17.6%,
22.4%, 27.3%, 30.3%, and 33.2%. The revised annual recovery factors
for these years are 17.6%, 16.1%, 14.6%, 12.4%, and 12.2%, respec-
tively. Without the SEGEP and SRGRP injection, and with no other
improvements, the estimated annual decline rate for all Calpine
market units would have been 6% harmonic starting from January
1995, or approximately 3.3% in 2008. The combined benefits of
injection projects and improvements in the steam field and power
plants have reduced the decline rate to essentially zero for the past
6 years (2003–2008).
Prior to 1995, annual decline rates of steam production were
much higher, exceeding 25% during the late 1980s. The dramatic
moderation of decline rates can also be attributed to the following
factors in addition to the abovementioned improvements. These
factors include: plant retirements, effective field management, and
operating efficiencies related to the consolidation of competing
interests from as many as 11 separate companies to two (Sanyal,
2000).
Acknowledgements
(3)
Authors would like to thank Dr. Subir Sanyal for reviewing the
paper, Eloise Leonard, Corky Bracisco, and Linda Kalmar for their
helpful comments, and Calpine Corporation for permission to pub-
lish this paper.
References
Barker, B.J., Koenig, B.A., Stark, M.A., 1995. Water injection management for resource
maximization: observation from 25 years at The Geysers, California. In: Proceed-
ings World Geothermal Congress, Florence, Italy, pp. 1959–1964.
CDOGGR, 2008. Annual Report of the State: Oil & Gas supervisor. Division of Oil, Gas,
& Geothermal Resources, California, Department of Conservation, Sacramento,
California, USA, Publication No. PR06, pp. 249–262.
City of Santa Rosa, 2003. Connections – Santa Rosa utilities update. 1 (1), October, 2
pp.
County of Lake, 1991. Agreement for TAC Supervision of GeothermEx Reservoir
Modeling. Planning Department – Resource Management Division, Lakeport,
California, USA, September 10, 1991, 18 pp.
Geysers Geothermal Association, 1995. An update on The Geysers, November 1994.
Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin 24 (1), 9–21.
Goyal, K.P., Box, W.T., Jr., 1991. Reservoir Response to Production: Castle Rock
Springs Area, East Geyers, California. Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper No,
21790, Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA, March 20–22,
14 pp.
Goyal, K.P., 1995. Injection recovery factors in various areas of the Southeast Geysers,
California. Geothermics 24 (2), 167–186.
Goyal, K.P., 1999. Injection experience in The Geysers, California – a summary.
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 23, 541–547.
Goyal, K.P., 2002. Reservoir response to curtailments at The Geysers. In: Proceed-
ings 27th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California, USA, January 28–30, pp. 39–45.
Goyal, K.P., Box Jr., W.T., 2004. Geysers performance update through 2002. In:
Proceedings 29th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, USA, January 26–28, pp. 5–10.
Isherwood, W.F., 1977. Reservoir depletion at The Geysers. Geothermal Resources
Council Transactions 1, 149.
Pruess, K., Narasimhan, T.N., 1982. On the fluid reserves and the production of
superheated steam from fractured vapor-dominated reservoirs. Journal of Geo-
physical Research 87 (B11), 9329–9339.
328 K.P. Goyal, T.T. Conant / Geothermics 39 (2010) 321–328

Sanyal, S.K., 2000. Forty years of production history at The Geysers geothermal field,
California – the lessons learned. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 24,
317–323.
Sanyal, S.K., Klein, C.W., McNitt, J.R., Henneberger, R.C., MacLeod, K., 2007. Assess-
ment of power generation capacity of the western geopower leasehold at The
Geysers geothermal field, California. Geothermal Resources Council Transac-
tions 31, 447–455.
Snedaker, G., 2007. Re-commissioning non-operating power projects, the Bottle
Rock geothermal case study. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 31,
535–537.
Stark, M.A., Box Jr., W.T., Beall, J.J., Goyal, K.P., Pingol, A.S., 2005. The Santa Rosa-
Geysers Recharge Project, Geysers geothermal field, California. Geothermal
Resources Transactions 29, 145–150.