Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Geothermal resource and reserve assessment methodology: Overview,

analysis and future directions
Anthony E. Ciriaco *, Sadiq J. Zarrouk, Golbon Zakeri
Department of Engineering Science, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Resource assessment and reserve estimation play a crucial role in the decision-making, financing, development,
Resource assessment and operation of geothermal projects. The present study critically examines all existing resource assessment
Resource assessment methodology methodology and practices when quantifying power potential of geothermal fields. The potential generating
Power potential
capacity of geothermal projects at the early stage of development, where there is limited information about the
Volumetric method
Numerical reservoir simulation
resource, is typically estimated using the volumetric method. Sustainable operation and management of existing
Probabilistic resource assessment geothermal fields, on the other hand, rely on developing and updating a calibrated numerical reservoir model.
To-date, the volumetric method and reservoir simulation remain the most appropriate tools to use for geothermal
resource assessment. The former method is the recommended approach for projects that are still at the early
stage of development, while the latter technique is for predicting sustainable production capacity after explo­
ration drilling. However, building a numerical model for a project at the early due diligence stage is also useful
and can complement the volumetric method. Most studies of resource assessment methodologies highlight the
difficulty of obtaining accurate, predictable generating output potential. Quantification of uncertainty in pre­
dictable output is carried out using the Monte Carlo method. This review demonstrates that the probabilistic
assessment using Experimental Design (ED) and Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is a more promising
technique that can be easier and quicker to implement.

companies, resource developers and government agencies when

embarking on a new geothermal project.
1. Introduction
Several resource assessment methodologies have been developed
and used throughout the years, implementing both analytical and nu­
1.1. Background
merical solutions. Early approaches were heavily qualitative. Existing
geothermal fields were used as analogue fields to estimate the potential
Geothermal resource assessment is a standard practice adopted by
capacity of a geothermal prospect. The surface thermal flux (W/m2) was
the geothermal industry in evaluating a geothermal system and its po­
the very first quantitative method widely used in areas with abundant
tential generation capacity. It plays a crucial role in quantifying the
natural thermal surface manifestations [1,2]. The magmatic heat budget
amount of useful thermal energy that can be produced and utilized for
and planar fracture methods were then introduced, but both failed to
electricity generation or direct use applications. It also serves as a
become a widely accepted method due to limited applicability [2–4]. A
framework for developing a geothermal prospect in a sustainable
more systematic approach called the volumetric method was developed
manner. The success of a geothermal development project relies on a
by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) when they carried out a
robust resource assessment methodology that can predict, with a lower
regional resource assessment of the geothermal resources of the United
level of uncertainty, the magnitude of energy that is stored and can be
States [2,5]. The lumped-parameter and decline curve methods became
extracted and utilized from a given geothermal reservoir. It provides
popular in understanding the response of the reservoir to production
confidence to financial providers, banks, investment groups, electric
[6–8] since the numerical reservoir simulation only became acceptable
power utilities and independent power producers, exploration

Abbreviations: AGEG, Australian Geothermal Energy Group; AGRCC, Australian Geothermal Reporting Code Committee; AUPM, Analytical Uncertainty Propa­
gation Method; EGS, Enhanced Geothermal System; EnKF, Ensemble Kalman Filter; ESMAP, Energy Sector Management Assistance Program; HSA, Hot Sedimentary
Aquifer; WHP, Wellhead pressure.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.ciriaco@auckland.ac.nz (A.E. Ciriaco).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109515
Received 8 February 2019; Received in revised form 21 October 2019; Accepted 21 October 2019
Available online 18 November 2019
1364-0321/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Nomenclature Greek letters

φ Porosity
A Area (m2) η Efficiency
c Rock heat capacity (J/kg � C) ρ Density (kg/m3)
d Distance (m) ρc Volumetric specific heat (J/m3 � C)
D Decline rate
E MWe reserves per km2 Subscripts
F Capacity or load factor a Air
h Thickness (m) b Bulk volume
L Power plant life (years) conv Conversion
m Mass flow (kg/s) e Electric
MWe Power (electric) f Final
MWth Power (thermal) i Initial
MIP Mass-in-place ref Reference
n Multiplier for recovery factor l Liquid
P Pressure m Minimum
q Thermal energy (J) n Last number
qc Conductive heat loss (J/s, W) o Initial
qf Stored heat in the fluid (J/s, W) p Pore space
r Rock
qr Stored heat in the rock (J/s, W)
rech Recharge water
qsi Convective heat loss (J/s, W)
ref Reference
qtot Total amount of natural heat (J/s, W)
s Soil
r End temperature ratio
si Steam at initial reservoir condition
s Entropy (J/kg K)
sf Steam at final reservoir condition
t Production period
th Thermal
Rm Mass recovery factor
util Utilization
Rf Recovery factor
w Water
S Saturation
v Vapour
SR Steam rate or usage factor (kg/s MWe)
wh Wellhead
T Temperature (� C)
wi Water at initial reservoir condition
u Internal energy (J)
wf Water at final reservoir condition
V Volume of the rock (m3)
W Fluid mass rate

as a standard tool for resource assessment in the 1980s [9]. Later on, a
new approach called power density started gaining attention as a
simpler but crude way of estimating the power potential based on a plot
of the area and power density of existing fields [10–12]. There were only
a few instances that the total well flow and mass-in-place methods had
been used in the past.
As more geothermal fields have been identified and developed, it
became clearer that the exact conditions of these high-temperature
reservoirs are too difficult to define with certainty. This resulted in
modifying the deterministic way of estimating the resource potential by
incorporating Monte Carlo uncertainty simulation to generate a proba­
bilistic distribution of the power capacity. However, the methods that
are often used have been proven to overestimate geothermal resource,
and unlike the petroleum (oil and gas) and mining industries, there is no
internationally agreed methodology for geothermal resource
assessment.
The primary aim of this work is to present an overview of existing
methodologies to underline the advantages and disadvantages of these
methodologies, along with possible knowledge gaps and provide guid­
ance for conducting future resource assessment studies. Some reviews
already exist such as evaluating the advantages and limitations of sur­
face heat flux, volume, planar fracture and magmatic heat budget
methods [2], comparing the simple analytical methods with reservoir
simulation [10], determining which methods are applicable for booking
geothermal reserves [13], standardizing the approach to geothermal
energy sources and reserves classification [14], and formulating a
formal reporting code for geothermal reserves and resources [15,16]. On
the other hand, there are more specific reviews on the volumetric
method equations and on assigning values to the input parameters
involved [17–21]. Other reviews on the volumetric method focused on
the uncertainty of the parameters and how these uncertain parameters
are used as inputs in probabilistic resource evaluation [22–27] and
modified the basic governing equation to account for the thermal energy
contained in the fluid [16,28] and heat input for fields with significant
natural surface discharges [21]. There are studies that investigated the
applicability of using analytical uncertainty propagation method
(AUPM), randomized likelihood method and ensemble Kalman filter
(EnKF) [29,30]. Even the uncertainties in the forecasts of numerical
models were also investigated [31], and a linear analysis was applied to
quantify uncertainty in the prediction of reservoir simulation [32].
Recent works have successfully demonstrated the applicability of
developing polynomial models of numerical reservoir models and apply
Monte Carlo simulation to generate a probabilistic forecast of potential
capacity [27,33–35].
Understanding these methodologies requires knowing the type of
geothermal system, information about the likely temperature and
characteristics of the reservoir rocks and fluid [36] and how the method
was applied to every type of geothermal resource.
1.2. Classification of geothermal systems
A general classification of the geothermal system can be derived
according to the key features of the resource and the modes of heat
transfer that support the existence of the high temperature hydrother­
mal geothermal reservoir. The dominant mode of heat transfer near the
surface of the earth is thermal conduction. Convection occurs because of
the heating and the resulting thermal expansion of water at depth. This
hot geothermal fluid is the main product of interest, and it contains the

2
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

thermal energy that will be used for electricity generation. Table 2

A reservoir component called recharge sets a geothermal system Categories of resource assessment methods based on the nature of data of input
apart from oil and gas reservoir [14,37]. In some geothermal reservoirs, parameters.
a natural recharge may be induced by production or can be introduced Single point Historical
artificially by injection of cold water [2,13,14,21,36,38–42]. There are Methods of surface heat flux Decline analysis
hydrothermal systems with prominent discharges of hot fluid at the Planar fracture Lumped parameter
surface in the form of hot springs, seepages, fumaroles, etc. that could Magmatic heat budget Numerical reservoir simulation
indicate the presence of a geothermal resource at depth. There are also Total well flow
Volumetric
other geothermal systems with no surface manifestations, but a deep,
Mass-in-Place
hot and permeable reservoir actually exists underneath. However, not Power density
all geothermal energy sources are deep and hot. There are geothermal
areas with shallow reservoir where a very low enthalpy fluid can be used
for direct use applications. At the same time ground source heat pumps 6. Mass-in-Place
also known as geothermal heat pumps are gaining popularity around the 7. Power density
world and can also be classified as geothermal systems. Hence a
geothermal reservoir consists not only of a volume of hot rocks con­ On the other hand, the methods that utilize a series of data or his­
taining hot fluids [36], but also includes the shallow portion of the torical information for the input parameters are as follows:
ground few meters deep.
Characterization of the mechanism of how a geothermal system was 1. Decline analysis
formed is one of the primary aims of a geothermal resource assessment. 2. Lumped-parameter
The four main classifications of geothermal systems, as summarized in 3. Numerical reservoir simulation
Table 1 are warm-water, hot-water, two-phase liquid-dominated and
two-phase vapour-dominated [36,41].
The inferred average reservoir temperature as shown in Table 1 2.1. Resource assessment methods requiring single point data for input
cannot be solely used to distinguish whether the reservoir is two-phase parameters
liquid or two-phase vapour-dominated. The reservoir can be classified
further according to the enthalpy of the fluid. A complete discussion of The first three methods that will be described in the following dis­
the definition of these categories is found in the works of Hochstein cussion are qualitative in nature and often use analogue fields to
(1990) [36], Kaya et al. (2011) [41] and Zarrouk and McLean (2019) approximate the power potential. Of all the methodologies under this
[43]. category, the simplest and most widely used techniques are the volu­
metric and power density (areal) methods [44]. There are only a few
2. Resource estimation and assessment methods accounts were the total well flow method was used in the past [45].

There are several simple and complex resource assessment methods 2.1.1. Method of surface heat flux
available for quantifying the potential of a geothermal system [2,10,14]. This method, used interchangeably as natural heat flow measure­
These methods can be grouped into two broad categories based on the ments [46–53], approximates the total theoretical minimum amount of
nature of data of their input parameters [13] (see Table 2): heat that can be withdrawn from a geothermal resource through
measuring the heat loss or gain at the ground surface from:
1. A single point or static – methods that do not need production history
data, and � Hot springs and geysers
2. Historical or dynamic – methods that require production history � Fumaroles and steaming grounds
data. � Seepages
� Mud pools
The methods requiring a single point data for the input parameters � Thermal grounds
are as follows:
The total amount of natural heat qtot , expressed as the heat above
1. Method of surface heat flux 0 � C (this is effectively the triple point of water at 0.01 � C), in the natural
2. Planar fracture heat discharge is the sum of the convective qsi and conductive qc com­
3. Magmatic heat budget ponents [2,54]. qsi is the total thermal energy estimated from the indi­
4. Total well flow vidual (i) surface manifestations while the conductive heat flow qc can
5. Volumetric be calculated using the equation [55]:
dT
Table 1 qc ¼ Ak (1)
dz
Categories of geothermal systems (After Zarrouk and McLean, (2019)).
Category Temperature (T) Production Enthalpy where:
(h)

Warm-water (low temperature) T < 120 � C h < 504 kJ/kg

A Surface area of a hot ground (m2)
Hot-water (intermediate 120 � C T < 220 � C h < 943 kJ/kg k Thermal conductivity of rock (W/m � C)
temperature) T Temperature (� C)
Two-phase, Low- 220 � C < T < 250 � C 943 kJ/ z Depth (m)
liquid- enthalpy kg < h < 1100 kJ/kg
dominated Medium- 250 C < T < 300 C
� �
1100 kJ/
enthalpy kg < h < 1500 kJ/kg The fundamental equation for determining thermal energy is
High- 250 � C < T < 330 � C 1500 kJ/ expressed as:
enthalpy kg < h < 2600 kJ/kg
Two-phase, vapour-dominated 220 � C < T < 300 � C 2600 kJ/
kg < h < 2800 kJ/kg

3
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

X
n
qtot ¼ qsi þ qc (2)
i

This minimum natural heat flow, which is typically derived from

chloride springs [16], can be multiplied by a certain conversion effi­
ciency value to yield equivalent MWe of electricity. However, the surface
heat flux method has been proven to yield unrealistically low estimates
of the potential capacity of a geothermal field [13,16,56] as shown in
the plot of total heat loss and installed capacity for selected operating
fields (Fig. 1).
The data used to estimate the natural heat flow is prone to error,
approximation and subjectivity. Some surface manifestations are not
accessible, and there are other geothermal systems that do not have
surface thermal discharges. Hence, the method cannot be simply applied
to all types of geothermal resources. On top of these, the method often
underestimated the true potential capacity of the resource [2]. An up­
date of the original work of Wisian (2001) is shown in Fig. 1, where the
actual installed capacity was used. Many of the geothermal fields have
shifted up indicating that the method does not provide a reliable esti­
mate of potential MWe. Measuring the total heat loss is useful for
characterizing reservoirs, monitoring effects of exploitation on natural
surface activities, providing early signals of effects of accelerated fluid
withdrawal and for constraining reservoir models [49,57–61].

2.1.2. Planar fracture method

Muffler and Cataldi (1978) [2] best described this methodology, its Fig. 2. Schematic diagram illustrating the planar fracture model of Bodvarsson,
application and limitations. As illustrated in Fig. 2, a fluid with an initial (1974) (After Muffler and Cataldi, 1978).
temperature Tr is being heated to a certain final temperature To as it
passes through the hotter fracture. The final temperature of the fluid as it
exits the fracture is dictated by the initial temperature of the rock To Tm Trech
r¼ (3)
which is being heated through conduction. This final fluid temperature T0 Trech
is considered as the initial production temperature of the fluid. The
where:
theoretical extractable per unit fracture area can be estimated from the
end temperature ratio as proposed by Bodvarsson (1974) [4], which is
Tm Minimum rock temperature (� C)
expressed as:
To Initial rock temperature (� C)

Fig. 1. Installed Capacity vs total surface heat loss (Updated after Wisian, 2001).

4
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Trech Recharge water temperature (� C) Table 3

Geothermal field studies that use total well flow to estimate total field capacity.
The planar fracture model can be applied to multiple fractures on the Geothermal Field Capacity, MWe Reference
condition that the minimum distance d between them is equivalent to
Mofete (Japan) 10–15 [66]
Ref. [62]: Oguni (Japan) 20 [67]
� pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Otake (Japan) 11–12 [68]
d 2 ¼ 3 α � t0 (4) Matsukawa (Japan) 23.5 [69]
Copahue (Argentina) 30 [70]
where α is the thermal diffusivity and t0 is the production period. El Tatio (Chile) 50 [71]
The equations (3) and (4) introduced in the planar fracture method 100 [72]
Las Pailas (Costa Rica) 35 [73]
particularly for estimating the end temperature may have been derived
Las Tres Virgenes (Mexico) 4 [74]
using reasonable assumptions, but overall the method has not been a Aluto-Langano (Ethiopia) 7.3 [75]
useful tool for estimating the thermal energy due to its limited appli­
cability [2,56]. The approach is focused on a particular geologic setting
where the nature of fracture distribution can either be described by a ability of the field to deliver fluid but not the total potential capacity of
single fracture or by multiple fractures with insignificant interference. the field, which could be higher if more wells are drilled. At the same
However, the fracture orientation and distribution are generally un­ time, for pumped wells, the output can be constrained by the casing
known as this method was developed when numerical modelling was and/or pump size.
still not widely used. This method practically uses actual output well data and inarguably
gives a reliable minimum estimate of the indicative, but not the sus­
2.1.3. Magmatic heat budget method tainable capacity of the field provided the producing wells have been
This method is more of a qualitative assessment of relative potential tested simultaneously. Generally, exploration drilling programs do not
than a site-specific estimate of production capacity. This approach es­ drill the full field potential upfront of the development, and many de­
timates the volumes of silicic magma chambers to predict their age of velopers use a staged approach to field development, which only results
emplacement and to calculate the amount of geothermal energy in a limited capacity project at first as demonstrated by Table 3.
remaining in the intrusion and adjacent country rock [2,46]. Then
conventional calculations of conductive heat loss are applied. 2.1.5. Volumetric method
The magmatic heat budget method was used to estimate the resource The volumetric or stored heat method has been one of the most
potential of Japan and the United States [3,46]. widely used methods for quantifying resource capacity. The method was
Later on, Sanyal et al. (2002) [63] argued that the energy reserves developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in the 1970s
could be calculated if the temperature distribution around the magma [5] when carrying out the first systematic study of the geothermal
body is known and by using equation (5) below, originally presented in resource potential of the United States on a regional scale. The power
Brook et al. (1978) [64]. potential (MWe) can be estimated by multiplying the fraction of recov­
� erable thermal energy contained in a volume of porous and permeable
d � cv � T Tf � Rf � ηconv rock by power plant efficiency [62].
E¼ (5)
LF
q � Rf � ηconv
MWe ¼ (6)
where: F�L

E MWe reserves per km2 at a given distance from the center of the where:
caldera
d The depth down to which the energy reserves are to be estimated MWe power potential, MWe
cv Volumetric specific heat of the reservoir q thermal energy stored in the reservoir (MJ)
T Calculated average temperature (in absolute unit) between the Rf recovery factor
ground surface and depth at a given distance from the center of the ηconv conversion efficiency (%)
caldera L plant life (seconds)
Tf Average annual ambient temperature F capacity or load factor (%)
F Power plant capacity factor
Rf Recover factor (defined as the fraction of thermal energy in-place) The thermal energy q stored in the reservoir can be calculated by
ηconv Conversion efficiency dividing the reservoir into n different regions of volume Vi and tem­
L Power plant life. perature Ti , i ¼ 1, 2, .., n, using the equation [2,44,45,76]:
X
n
�
The above equation was used in estimating the reserves in one of the q¼ ρi ci Vi Ti Tf (7)
volcanoes in Nicaragua [63] and in estimating the resource potential of
i¼1

the Maule region [65]. where:

The assumptions used in estimating the characteristics of the magma
in terms of volume, depth of burial, age and initial temperature, the ρi ci Volumetric heat capacity of a saturated rock, J/� C m3
temperature distribution as a function of time, and distance from the
Vi Volume of ith region of n numbers of lithology. The product of area
magma body are unverifiable. As the name of the methodology implies,
A and thickness h of the reservoir ðV ¼ A � hÞ, m3
it is applicable in assessing volcanic regions only.
Ti Initial temperature of ith lithology, � C and
Tf Cut-off or final abandoned reservoir temperature, � C
2.1.4. Total well flow
The total well flow method is a simple approach of summing up the
One unique feature of geothermal reservoirs is that around 90% of
measured output of the wells after performing intensive discharge tests
the thermal energy is stored in the rock [77]. The remaining 10% which
[10,16]. Table 3 is a list of the geothermal fields that used the total flow
is contained in the fluid is frequently found to be very small and can be
from drilled wells as a reference to estimate the total field capacity.
ignored in the calculation. This supports the assumption that the heat
Grant (2000) [10] argues that the total well flow demonstrates the

5
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

stored is independent of porosity. Thus, equation (8) is much simplified the rock qr and in the fluid qf by introducing porosity φ [2]. Equation (8)
[40,76,78]: then becomes:
� �� �
q ¼ ρr cr V Ti Tf (8) q ¼ qr þ qf ¼ Ah Ti Tf ð1 φÞρr cr þ φρf cf (13)

where: where:

ρr cr Volumetric heat capacity of the reservoir rock, J/� C m3
V Volume of the productive reservoir. Product of area A and thick­
ness h of the reservoir ðV ¼ A � hÞ, m3
The Australian Geothermal Energy Group (AGEG) established a
formal reporting code [15] and presented guidelines for reporting and
calculating resource potential in the Geothermal Lexicon for Resources
and Reserves Definition and Reporting of the Australian Geothermal
Reporting Code Committee (AGRCC) [16,37]. The process for calcu­
lating the resource potential described in the report was later called the
AGRCC method.
To-date, the three methods for calculating volumetric stored-heat
estimates are:
ρf cf The fluid volumetric heat capacity (J/� C.m3).
Watson (2013) [80] adopted equation (13) while Garg and Combs
(2015) [28] and O’Sullivan and O’Sullivan (2016) [44] introduced the
saturation term to distinguish the fraction of water Sl and steam Sv in the
rock pores with (Sl þ Sv ¼ 1). Equation (10) becomes:
�
q ¼ qr þ qf ¼ Ah Ti Tf ½ð1 φÞρr cr þ φðSl ρl cl þ Sv ρv cv Þ� (14)
2.1.5.2. The AGRCC volumetric stored-heat method. The AGRCC method
is very similar to second USGS method and defined the total thermal
energy, q, of a reservoir by separating thermal energy content of the rock
and fluid parts of the reservoir volume and is given by:

q ¼ Ah
1. The USGS method for calculating the thermal energy contained in �� �� � �� �
the rock. � ρr cr ð1 φÞ Ti Tf þ ρwi φSw hwi hwf þ ½ρsi φð1 Sw Þðhsi hwi Þ�
2. The USGS method for calculating the thermal energy contained in (15)
the rock and the fluid.
3. The AGRCC method for calculating the thermal energy contained in where:
the rock and the fluid.
A Areal extent of the reservoir, m2
In the following sections, these three different methods will be h Average reservoir thickness, m
explained in more detail, followed by a discussion on how the values for ∅ Average porosity of the fluid saturated rock, %
the input parameters in each equation are identified or assigned. Ti Average initial temperature, � C
Tf Rejection temperature, similar to the reservoir reference temper­
2.1.5.1. The USGS volumetric stored-heat versions. The USGS method ature, � C
introduced two ways of calculating the volumetric stored heat. The first ρwi ; ρsi Density of steam and water at initial reservoir condition, kg/
treats the reservoir as a whole instead of discretizing it into sub-regions. m3
Williams et al. (2008) [19] adopted this method, as shown in equation hwi ; hsi Water and steam enthalpies at reservoir temperature, kJ/kg
(8), in the regional re-assessment of the potential of geothermal re­ hwf Water enthalpy at rejection temperature, kJ/kg
sources in the United States and calculated the power capacity. Ti is Sw Relative water saturation of the reservoir, %.
suggested to be the average initial reservoir temperature while Tf is
referred to as the reference or dead-state temperature. The equation to calculate the electric production potential ðMWe Þ, is
The thermal energy that can be extracted at the wellhead qwh is given similar to equation (6).
by: Zarrouk and Simiyu (2013) [21] proposed correction for equation
� (15) by using internal energy instead of the specific enthalpy. The spe­
qwh ¼ mwh hwh href (9) cific internal energy is suggested as the fluid in the reservoir at its un­
exploited state is considered immobile in general. Hence it has internal
where mwh is the extractable mass flow rate in kg/s, hwh , is the enthalpy energy, not enthalpy. For a given volume of the reservoir, the total mass
(kJ/kg) of the produced fluid and href is the enthalpy (kJ/kg) at some of the fluid, denoted by mr ; can be calculated using:
reference temperature.
The thermal energy in the reservoir is recovered in the wellhead by mr ¼ φðρl Sl þ ρv Sv Þ (16)
the recovery factor, Rf , defined as:
where:
qwh
Rf ¼ (10)
q φ Rock porosity
The available thermal power can then be estimated using: ρl ; ρv Density of water and steam
� �� Sl ; Sv Saturation of liquid and vapour, Sl þ SV ¼ 1:
MWth ¼ mwh hwh hf Tf swh sf (11)
The heat contained in a given volume of rock containing fluid can
The electrical power, ðMWe Þ, for a given period typically 30 years is
determined by multiplying the available thermal power by a utilization then be expressed as:
efficiency, ηutil . q ¼ Ah
�� �� � �� �
MWe ¼ MWth � ηutil (12) � ρr cr ð1 φÞ Ti Tf þ ρwi φSw uwi uwf þ ½ρsi φð1 Sw Þðusi uwi Þ�

Miyazaki et al. (1990) [79] used the same method (equations (8)– (17)
(11)) for available thermal and electrical power in their nationwide
where:
assessment of the geothermal potential of Japan which was estimated to
be 20,540 MWe for 30 years.
Ah Volume of the reservoir
The second USGS method calculates separately the thermal energy in

6
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
uwi ;usi Water and steam internal energy at reservoir temperature, kJ/
kg
uwf Water internal energy at rejection temperature, kJ/kg
For hydrothermal systems with a natural thermal output qtot � 100
MWth, Zarrouk and Simiyu (2013) [21] proposed to include the natural
heat flow in equation (6):
nq o Rη
(18)
f c
MWe ¼ þ n qtot
L F
where:
qtot Measured natural thermal power output of the system in MWth
and as given in equation (1)
n Multiplier of recovery factor (n � 1) indicating that there is a high
recovery factor for the natural heat output than that for stored heat
(n ¼ 2.0 is recommended)
The volumetric method suffers from several major uncertainties. The
challenge lies in estimating the size of the reservoir useful for production
and estimating the fraction of recoverable thermal energy [81]. To un­
derstand the possible sources of uncertainty and how the values for each
input parameters are determined will be explained in the following
sections.
2.1.5.3. Volumetric specific heat. The term ρc is often called as the
volumetric specific heat capacity of saturated rocks. It was first intro­
duced to obtain the estimated stored heat of Steamboat Springs, where
volumetric specific heat of 0.6 cal/cm3 (2.5 J/m3) was assumed for a
temperature near 100 � C and 0.7 cal/cm3 (2.9 J/m3) near 300 � C [82]. A
plot of volumetric specific heat capacity as a function of the temperature
of different rocks sampled from different levels of the Eastern Alpine
crust is shown in Fig. 3 [83]. There is a small difference in the volumetric
specific heat amongst the three different rock types across all the tem­
perature range. This is not surprising as it was pointed out in the early
works of USGS that most natural substances have similar volumetric
specific heats [82]. Since the variation is small and it may be taken as
approximately constant, the calculated mean value of
2.5 � 106 J/kg K m3 can be used in the stored heat calculations [4,76].
Fig. 3. Plot of mean values and ranges of variation of volumetric specific heat as a function of temperature for magmatic, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks (After
Vosteen and Schellschmidt, 2003).
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
2.1.5.4. Reservoir temperature. The most reliable way of determining
the temperature of the reservoir is through well drilling and testing.
However, for geothermal fields that are still at the initial exploration
phase, an alternative way of inferring the average reservoir temperature
is by collecting representative fluid samples from natural surface man­
ifestations and analyzing them using geothermometry to estimate the
reservoir temperature [14,19,84,85].
During the exploration stage and before any deep wells are drilled,
the subsurface temperature of a given resource can be inferred through
geochemical analysis of water and steam collected from hot springs,
fumaroles and geysers. Silica (SiO2), Magnesium (Mg) and Sodium/Po­
tassium (Na/K) are principal temperature indicators of deep reservoir
fluids. High concentration of SiO2 is a good indicator of the minimum
temperature while the total absence of Mg is suggestive of reservoir
temperature of at least 200 � C and the atomic ratio Na/K is a reliable
indicator of high temperature at depth.
2.1.5.5. Enthalpy. The enthalpy is the sum of the internal energy, heat
and work. In reservoirs with a compressed fluid, only the temperature is
needed to estimate the enthalpy, while for superheated fluid, both the
temperature or pressure are used to estimate the enthalpy and the other
corresponding fluid properties. For a saturated steam reservoir where
the water saturation is required to be able to calculate the total fluid
enthalpy and the state of the reservoir fluid.
At an early stage of development, although there may be indicative
signs based on the chemistry of the fluids collected at the surface of the
likely state of the reservoir, the exact estimation of enthalpy from
minimum information would be difficult if not impossible to know.
Therefore, we believe that equation (8) is more appropriate since it does
not require an estimate of saturation or enthalpy.
2.1.5.6. Porosity. Porosity is defined as the ratio of the volume of pore
space to the bulk volume of reservoir rock and can be expressed as:
Vp
φ¼ (19)
Vb
where:
Vp Volume of pore space
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
Vb Bulk volume of the reservoir rock.
A survey of geothermal reservoir properties suggested that porosity
decreases with temperature [86]. The analysis of the core samples
collected from The Geysers geothermal field suggested that porosities
decrease with depth [87], but this was not observed in Darajat
geothermal field [88].
A summary of the mean porosity used in the volumetric stored heat
assessment of various geothermal field worldwide is summarized in
Fig. 4.
Porosity is an important reservoir parameter. However, it is not
known for any given resource before drilling and as most of the heat in a
geothermal reservoir is contained in the rock, the effective porosity may
be neglected in the stored heat calculation. This also supports the use of
equation (8) when estimating the total heat stored in any geothermal
system.
2.1.5.7. Resource size: area and thickness. A simplified way of getting
the reservoir volume is to treat the reservoir as a box in order to estimate
area and thickness. There are various established ways during the
exploration stage to estimate the areal extent of a resource. The most
common geophysical techniques employed to delineate the area are
electrical resistivity measurements and the magneto telluric (MT)
methods. Areas of low resistivity (high electrical conductivity) are
indicative of a high temperature resource and are potential targets for
drilling.
Resource thickness, on the other hand, refers to the vertical extent of
the resource. The upper limit is set to the depth of reference temperature
or the depth of the casing shoe. The value for the lower limit is based on
the rig limit/well depth plus 500 m to account for the vertical drainage,
equivalent to the lateral drainage boundary [16,76,89–91].
In summary, delineating the size of the resource depends largely on
what stage of development the project is and the available data:
1. If there are no exploration slim hole wells, shallow thermal gradient
wells or deep boreholes:
o The area of the reservoir is defined by the electrical resistivity and
structural boundaries [14,92,93].
o The thickness of the reservoir is estimated based on the drilling rig
depth limit minus the thickness of the inferred impermeable for­
mation cap from interpreted MT results [14].
2. If there are exploration slim hole (small wells), shallow thermal
gradient wells or deep boreholes:
Fig. 4. Histogram of mean porosity values used in the assessment of 65 geothermal fields (see Appendix A for the data).
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
o The area of the reservoir is defined by the resistivity, structural
boundaries or the isotherms above the cut-off temperature below
which the wells will not produce [94].
o The thickness of the reservoir is estimated based on the rig limit
minus:
� the thickness of impermeable cap based on MT results of as
inferred from full heated shut temperature data of the well, or
� The depth associated with 180 � C [80].
� The depth associated with 220 � C [91].
� The depth associated with 150 � C [79].
The reinjection area can be included as part of the areal extent of the
resource, especially if the reinjection area is hot enough to sweep heat
from the rocks.
2.1.5.8. Reference temperature. The reference temperature is defined as
the temperature below which the thermal energy has sub-economic
value to the geothermal project. The choice of reference varies be­
tween countries and depends on the type of conversion process (see
Fig. 5). The three commonly used reference temperatures Tref are:
1. Ambient temperature: 15 � C or 20 � C [19,44,62,95–98].
2. Rejection temperature [16,98].
3. Separation temperature [99,100].
Depending on the stored heat method that will be used and the
choice of conversion technology, the reference temperature could mean
any of these three. The USGS, for example, adopted the volumetric
method and used the ambient temperature of 15 � C in their regional
assessment of the geothermal resources of the United States [5,19].
The AGRCC method recommended using the rejection temperature
and underscored the importance of distinguishing base temperature
from cut-off temperature. The base temperature is defined as the lowest
reservoir temperature as a result of extraction while the cut-off tem­
perature is the minimum temperature required for wells to be self-
discharging for convective geothermal systems or minimum economic
fluid temperature for commercial energy extraction for systems that
require pumping for the hot fluid to flow to the surface. They further
suggested using the cut-off temperature in delineating the volume of the
reservoir and setting the base temperature to a value lower than the cut-
off by slightly over 100 � C [16].
In stored heat calculations of high-temperature geothermal resources
in the Philippines, the separation temperature of 180 � C is typically used
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
Fig. 5. Plot of reference temperature used worldwide (see Appendix A for the data).
as the reference temperature [99]. This is primarily because existing
developed fields mainly use conventional flash steam plants.
Recent work suggested using the triple point temperature of water
(0.01 � C) as it is the minimum temperature at which the liquid can exist
[101]. It further argued that using the triple point temperature would
yield theoretical thermal energy inherently stored in the reservoir.
The choice of the reference temperature is proven to affect the
overall calculation of recoverable heat as it influences the choice of the
recovery factor.
2.1.5.9. Recovery factor. Estimating the amount of stored heat is
straightforward, but determining the fraction of the thermal energy that
is practically recoverable at the surface is difficult. This makes the stored
heat method highly uncertain and inaccurate. The problem lies in the
recovery factor (equation (10)) that is used to calculate the recoverable
energy from the thermal energy calculated using either equation (8) or
equation (15).
The recovery factor is introduced to account for everything else that
the method cannot explain or has no theoretical basis to derive or esti­
mate. It is the ratio of the thermal energy recovered at wellhead to the
thermal energy initially present in the system. It is important to relate
the recovery factor to the base temperature. If the base temperature is
set to a low value like the ambient temperature, the recovery factor
should logically be reduced. However, if the recovery factor is set to a
more realistic level, like plant rejection temperature, a higher recovery
factor may be required.
A summary of the recovery factor values recommended and used
worldwide is given in Table 4.
Sanyal (2004) [17] reviewed the 37 operating geothermal fields in
the United States. Grant (2018) [76] used selected geothermal fields and
concluded that the recovery factor is not a fixed value and is a function
of resource size and the reference temperature. Table 5 gives a summary
of the recovery factor values derived retrospectively from operating
geothermal fields (see Fig. 6) and Table 6shows the recovery factor used
in HSA and EGS.
From our experience, the recovery factor values used in many com­
mercial field assessments studies are chosen arbitrarily. Sometimes high
values as high as 0.5–0.8 are used at times to maximize the geothermal
field potential.
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
2.1.5.10. Power plant conversion efficiency. The conversion efficiency
ηconv is determined by the first and second laws of thermodynamics,
plant design size, gas content in the geothermal fluid, dissolved minerals
content, power plant parasitic load, ambient conditions and other pa­
rameters [20]. The higher the resource temperature the larger the
fraction of available thermal power can be converted to electricity,
therefore the conversion efficiency will be higher [106]. An alternative
utilization efficiency parameter, ηutil used in equation (12), is based on
the available energy in the fluid recovered at the surface that could be
turned into work often referred to as exergy [107]. ηutil is also based on
the second law of thermodynamics but measures the available work as
defined by equation (11). The size of the power plant for a given project
life can then be calculated by multiplying the available work (or exergy)
WA with utilization efficiency ηutil .
A plot of average efficiency of the actual engine and initial rock
temperature shown in Fig. 7 is one of the earliest methods used to es­
timate conversion efficiency [4]. SKM have previously used the empir­
ical correlation shown below for high temperature natural geothermal
systems where either large condensing turbines or combined cycle
plants are to be used [16]:
ηconv ¼ ð0:0484 � T 0:5096Þ � 0:01 (20)
The empirical relationship between conversion efficiency and the
reservoir parameters temperature and enthalpy was first studied in
2008. It has been demonstrated that for a reservoir with a temperature
above 175 � C, ηutil is approximately 0.4 [19]. This was further investi­
gated in 2014 [20] and 2017 [108] using relatively more data from
fields that have installed single flash, dual flash and binary plants. The
findings suggest that the enthalpy and not temperature is a better pre­
dictor of actual efficiency. Furthermore, the work revealed that due to
insufficient available data, a low R2 rendered the utilization efficiency a
poor predictor of actual efficiency.
We believe that the approach for estimating the conversion is well-
studied. We also concur with the recommendation of Varney et al.
(2017) [108] of using enthalpy in estimating the conversion efficiency
for resource assessment of new geothermal fields. A summary of all the
available empirical correlations for estimating conversion efficiency is
tabulated in Tables 7 and 8. The data used by Zarrouk and Moon (2014)
[20] was updated using the data collected by Rivera Diaz et al. (2016)
[42] and updated conversion efficiency plots are shown in Figs. 8–10. A
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Table 4 � An optimistic value of conversion efficiency may be used if a brand

Summary of recommended recovery factor values based on geothermal system. new flash plant will be installed or if the location of the site has a
Geothermal System Recovery Additional Notes References cooler ambient temperature. A higher conversion efficiency value is
Factor estimated from the upper bound of the fitted equation.
Elastic sediments 10% First rough estimate [4] � A conservative conversion efficiency value may be used if either an
depends on reservoir old power plant or second-hand equipment is planned to be installed
conditions or a hotter environment with higher ambient temperature is ex­
Hydrothermal 20–40% Pressure of the steam [102] pected. The lower conversion efficiency value can be estimated from
convection system must be at least 8 bars
Hot-water reservoirs 25% Maximum theoretical [2]
the lower bound of the fitted equation.
value is 50% for an � The average conversion efficiency value can be estimated from
ideally permeable equation (21).
reservoir with porosity
of 0.20
Of the three available types of geothermal power plants, the single
In real field situations,
recovery factor will not flash plant is the most commonly used. Nowadays, however, binary
exceed 25% plants are becoming more popular for geothermal fields with enthalpy
High temperature 2.5 * Based on New Zealand [90] higher than 1000 kJ/kg although the available published data are still
geothermal systems porosity, geothermal fields limited as reflected in Fig. 10.
maximum of
50%
Fracture dominated 5–20%, mean Varies on the assumed [95,96] 2.1.5.11. Water saturation. Water saturation is defined as the fraction of
reservoirs in the USA of 10% reservoir size and the total volume of fluid in a given pore volume. If a rock sample has a
geometry pore space of Vp and the total liquid water volume in the pore is Vw, the
Fracture dominated 8–20%, mean Insufficient basis for a [16]
reservoir (including of 14% site-specific recovery
rest of the pore volume being filled by steam, then the saturation of
EGS) factor. liquid and vapour can be calculated using:
Use a realistic plant
Vw
rejection temperature Sl ¼ ; Sv ¼ 1 Sw (22)
Sedimentary reservoir or 10–25% Insufficient basis for a [16] Vp
porous volcanic-hosted site-specific recovery
reservoirs, of moderate factor Similar to porosity, although water saturation plays an important
porosity (<7% on Use a realistic plant role in describing the response of the system during exploitation, it does
average) rejection temperature not have a significant impact on the calculation of stored heat and may
Sedimentary reservoir or 2.5 * Insufficient basis for a [16] be ignored. Therefore it is our recommendation to use equation (8) when
porous volcanic-hosted porosity, site-specific recovery
reservoirs, of maximum of factor
estimating the total heat in place.
exceptionally high 50% Use a realistic plant The volumetric method is useful, simple to apply, applicable to all
porosity (>7% on rejection temperature types of geothermal resource applications, e.g. direct use and electricity
average) generation, and can be used to assess all types of geothermal systems, e.
Fracture-dominated 8–20% [19]
g. warm-water, hot-water, two-phase liquid dominated and two-phase
reservoir
Sediment-hosted 10–25% [19] vapour-dominated and Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS).
reservoir The volumetric method calculates for the total useful theoretical
Not specified 0–20% 20% max based on [23] thermal energy in a given geothermal resource. Around 90% of this
production from energy is in the rock. In order to compute the remaining 10%, one needs
liquid-dominated
reservoirs
to assume the average effective porosity, water saturation and enthalpy
of the reservoir fluid. However, these parameters are difficult to measure
and best approximated using numerical simulation. The authors believe
that there are limits as to how detailed estimation of the theoretical
Table 5
thermal energy must be carried out. Hence, of all the available volu­
Summary of recommended recovery factor values based on the review of
metric method equations, we found the basic equation (equation (8))
existing geothermal fields.
which requires fewer parameters already sufficient for calculating the
Recovery Factor Condition References
potential capacity of a geothermal prospect. Implementing a resource
3–17% mean of [17] capacity estimation using this methodology is relatively easy and has
11% been found to serve its intended purpose of providing an initial estimate.
13 � 5% Tight reservoir definition Reference temperature [76]
Efforts of improving this methodology should shift towards
is ambient temperature
27 � 15% Tight reservoir definition Reference temperature [76] improving estimates of the resource size and recovery factor.
is separator temperature
5 � 2% Wide reservoir definition Reference temperature [76] 2.1.5.12. Heat-in-place method for shallow geothermal systems. The
is ambient temperature
volumetric method is also being used to estimate the potential capacity
of shallow geothermal systems. Similar to equation (8) and using the
new empirical correlation of conversion efficiency as a function of volumetric heat capacity of the water cw instead of the rock cr , the
reservoir enthalpy with a higher R2 (0.80) was derived and is given in thermal energy of the shallow geothermal system is calculated using the
equation (21): equation below [110–114]:

ηconv ¼ 7:6301 lnðhÞ 43:9589 (21) q ¼ ρw cw VΔT (23)

Figs. 8 and 9 provide an updated estimation of conversion efficiency where:

according to the conversion technology and depending on the condition
of the power plant that will be installed using data from Zarrouk & Moon ρw ¼ density of water at 10 � C (999.7 kg m 3)
(2014) and Diaz et al. (2016) [20,108]: cw ¼ volumetric specific heat capacity of water
(4.20 � 106 kJ kg 1 K 1)

10
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Fig. 6. Histogram of recovery factor used in the assessment of 84 geothermal fields (Appendix A).

Table 6 Table 7
Summary of recovery factor and reference temperature used for EGS and HSA. Summary of correlations for estimating conversion and utilization efficiencies as
System Geothermal Recovery Tref Reference
a function of reservoir enthalpy or temperature.
Type Field Factor Efficiency regression model R2
HSA Foreland Basin 0.10 60 C (heat
�
[103] Conversion efficiency (this work) ηconv ¼ 7:6301 lnðhÞ 43:9589 0.80
exchanger), [104] Brine efficiency, Varney et al. (2017) 0.96
ηbrine ¼ 0:00321ðhÞ2 þ 9:4081h
10 � C (heat [108]
pumps) Enthalpy efficiency, Varney et al. (2017) 0.85
ηenthalpy ¼ 7:619lnðhÞ2
EGS 0.02 [105] 30 � C [104] [108] 44:066h
2%–20% 10 � C [105]
Utilization efficiency, Varney et al. ηu ¼ 0:1021Ti þ 18:19 0.25
(2017) [108]
Conversion efficiency, Zarrouk & Moon ηconv ¼ 7:8795 lnðhÞ 45:651 0.76
(2014) [20]
Conversion efficiency (SKM, 2002) [90] ηconv ¼
ð0:0484 Ti 0:5096Þ 1000
=

Table 8
Summary of empirical correlations for estimating conversion efficiency for bi­
nary plants using low-temperature geothermal fluid.
Efficiency regression model R2

Conversion efficiency, Zarrouk & Moon ηconv ¼ 6:9681 lnðTin Þ 0.68

(2014) [20] 29:713
Conversion efficiency, Zarrouk & Moon ηconv ¼ 6:9681 lnðhÞ 37:929 0.67
(2014) [20]
Conversion efficiency, Liu et al. (2018) η ¼ 0:0005T2i 0:0577Ti þ
[109] 8:2897

Note: h is the enthalpy of the saturated liquid at average reservoir temperature.Ti

Fig. 7. Efficiency of ideal and real thermal water engines (after Bod­
varsson, 1974).
V ¼ volume of the lake (m3) or flow rate of the river (m3/s)
In a system where both air and water are present, the total heat ca­
pacity is calculated as the sum of the heat in the soil qs , water qw and air
qa .
q ¼ qs þ qw þ qa
However, the thermal capacity of air is very small. Equation (24) can
be reduced to Refs. [112,115]:
�
q ¼ qs þ qw ¼ V Ti Tf ½ð1 φÞρs cs þ φρw cw � (25)
Analytical [116–118] and numerical solutions are also being used to
estimate the theoretical heat capacity of the shallow geothermal energy,
but the most commonly used one is the simple heat-in-place method (see
Table 8).
The theoretical heat content of the aquifer in Cologne (Germany) and
Winnipeg (Canada) was calculated using Equations (8) and (25), and the
results are presented in Table 9 [112]. The calculated average heat
content in the water and soil is of the same order of magnitude (e12), and
as expected, the majority of the heat is stored in the rock. For shallow
(24) geothermal systems like Cologne with high water content, the calculated
heat content using Equation (25) is higher by 32%. However, for areas
like Winnipeg, where the fraction of water is very small, the difference is
only 10%.
Not all shallow geothermal systems have accessible groundwater at
shallow depths as some are situated above the piezometric level.
Considering that there is only a small difference in the calculated heat

11
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Fig. 8. Geothermal power plant generic conversion efficiency as a function of reservoir enthalpy (data from Zarrouk & Moon, 2014 and Diaz et al., 2016).

Fig. 9. The single flash and dry steam plants conversion efficiency as a function of reservoir enthalpy (data from Zarrouk & Moon, 2014 and Diaz et al., 2016).

content using Equations (8) and (25), the simple version of stored heat ρðTi Þ Fluid density (kg/m3) at the average reservoir temperature Ti
proves to be useful and reliable for estimating the volumetric heat-in- (� C)
place of both deep and shallow geothermal systems.
The electrical generating capacity of the system is given by:
2.1.6. Mass-in-place method
MIP � Rm
Parini and Riedel (2000) [22] followed by the Australian Code MWe ¼ (27)
SR � F � L
(AGRCC, 2010a) [37] described another volumetric method that uses
the total mass in-place (MIP) instead of stored-heat. The total mass where:
in-place is described as:
MIP ¼ VφρðTi Þ (26) Rm Mass recovery factor defined as total steam Ms produced over the
initial mass in-place.
where: SR Steam rate or usage factor, kg/s MWe

V Volume of the reservoir, m3 The mass-in-place method calculates the total available and recov­
φ Average total porosity erable mass of a geothermal resource by implementing numerical

12
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Fig. 10. Binary plants conversion efficiency as a function of temperature (data from Zarrouk & Moon, 2014 and Diaz et al., 2016).

the plot was estimated by adding a 500 m buffer around all current
Table 9
production well tracks and calculating the enclosed production area.
The estimated heat content of the aquifer in Cologne and Winnipeg (After Zhu
A plot of the collected data of temperature and power density is
et al., 2010) calculated using Equation (8) and Equation (25) (assuming only
heat in the soil).
shown in Fig. 11. Qualitative interpretation of the plot leads to grouping
them into five clusters according to tectonic settings and temperature.
Cologne Winnipeg
The overall fit was called the main sequence. Geothermal fields
Water Soil Water Soil belonging to a variety of tectonic settings belong to this group. The
Porosity 0.20 0.80 0.06 0.94 second and third cluster are fault-based geothermal systems of moderate
Volume (m3) 5.7 e8 2.3e9 2.6e8 4.1e9 temperatures of 130–200 � C. Moreover, the fields with temperature
Volumetric heat capacity (KJ-m-3-K 1) 4150 2150 4150 2250 ranging from 200 to 280 � C that is mostly associated with volcanic arcs
Heat content (TJ) 9.6 19.6 4.4 36.4
in compressional setting, respectively. The fourth group are the fields
Total heat content (TJ) using Equation (8) 19.8 36.9
Total heat content (TJ) using Equation (25) 29.2 40.8 that are mostly associated with rifts and extensional rift-like provinces
% Difference 32% 10% such as the Taupo Volcanic zone and have a temperature above 280 � C.
Finally, the fifth group is called the mature fields, which are fields that
have been under production for many decades and have witnessed some
simulation and volumetric method calculation. The mass recovery factor level of pressure decline.
required for this method is different from the heat recovery factor dis­ The power density method requires very few assumptions compared
cussed earlier. This method is prone to underestimating the true po­ to the other methods for estimating resource potential. However, its
tential of the resource. usability and reliability are as good as the data that was used to generate
the plot and the empirical correlation. The method described for
2.1.7. Power density method delineating the reservoir area [11,12] is not applicable for projects at the
The power density method assumes that power capacity per unit area exploration phase and may not be appropriate when there are only a few
MWe/km2 of the productive resource is a function of reservoir temper­ wells drilled. Furthermore, the available capacity of geothermal fields
ature Ti . The concept was first introduced to describe a relationship changes with time. Overall, the power density method can be useful in
using empirical formula (see equation (28)) based on an earlier study providing a rough estimate of resource capacity and may only be
correlating the power potential per unit hot water as a function of applicable as an indicative estimate.
temperature [119].

MWe
�
T
�2
2
¼ (28)
km 86:9
It was further suggested that a specific net power output of 10 and 15
MWe/km2 for high temperature two-phase and dry fields could be used
for predicting power potential of reservoirs with known surface area and
temperature [119]. Grant (2000) [10] later collected and plotted the
power density data versus temperature from producing fields and sug­
gested that the power density for most fields ranges from 8 MWe/km2 at
230 � C to up to 30 MWe/km2 at 300 � C. The main issue in using the plot
is that there are no prescribed guidelines about the process of estimating
the resource area.
Wilmarth and Stimac (2014, 2015) [11,12] updated Grant’s using
data from 53 producing fields. The area of the geothermal fields used in
2.1.8. Sample calculations
To demonstrate how the stored heat calculated from various avail­
able equations differ, a sample calculation is provided in this section.
Using the data collected by Grant (2018) [76], the different versions
(Equations (8), (13) and (15)) of the volumetric stored heat method was
used to calculate the theoretical stored heat in PJ for the field data in
Table 10.
Fig. 12 shows the plot of the calculated thermal energy for Tiwi,
Makban, Ngatamariki and Ohaaki geothermal fields. In all cases, the
USGS (rock and fluid) and AGRCC methods yielded a higher estimate
compared to the USGS (rock) method. The difference is only about 1%
and 0.5% respectively. The small difference is expected. In fact, it is
consistent with the observation of Muffler and Cataldi (1978) [2] and
supports the argument that the simple form of the volumetric method

13
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Fig. 11. Plot of power density and temperature for 53 high-temperature geothermal fields (After Wilmarth & Stimac, 2015).

should be used.
Table 10
Summary of values for the input parameters in the stored heat calculation.
Tiwi Makban Ngatamariki Ohaaki 2.2. Resource assessment methods that require historical data for input
2
parameters
A, km 20 [76] 7 [76] 3.5, 15.5 4 [76]
[76]
H, km 2 [76] 2.5 [76] 2.5 [120] 1.9 [76] The resource assessment methods used for assessing future power
Ti, � C 285 [121, 280 275 [120] 275 potential capacity vary from a simple analytical decline analysis and
122] [123] [76] lumped-parameter model to a sophisticated 3D numerical model that
Tsat at 9 bara Separator 175.4 175.4 175.4 175.4
includes transient heat and mass transfer and phase change.
Pressure, � C
Water saturation 0.70
Porosity 0.08 2.2.1. Decline analysis
Decline analysis is a simple method for estimating the resource po­
tential over a short period. It involves fitting a known production history
data, and the fitted equation is then used to forecast future production
capacity. The production data declines with time. This decline in

Fig. 12. Calculated stored heat using the three different methods.

14
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

production is normally assumed to follow harmonic or exponential

decline trends.
Table 11 summarizes the equations used for analyzing decline flow
rate using exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic equation. These
equations are generally based on the empirical assumption that the
decline rate dW=dt is proportional to the production rate W raised to
some empirically derived exponent b:
� �
1 dW
¼ D � Wb (29)
W dt

where b ¼ 0 (exponential) or b ¼ 1 (harmonic) and D is the decline rate.

Decline analysis is mostly used as an assessment tool during the
production stage. By fitting a production history data, an estimate of the
likely future output of wells affected by pressure drawdown and oper­
ating at a constant wellhead pressure (WHP) and makeup well re­
quirements at different assumed decline conditions can be determined.
A list of geothermal field studies that uses decline curve analysis is
tabulated in Appendix B.
The decline analysis method has been widely applied in The Geysers
and proven useful for providing short-term production flow forecast of
wells in Cerro Prieto, Mexico. Experiences from The Geysers have shown
that at varying reservoir management strategies, different decline trends
and reservoir response were observed [63,124]. However, the method is
considered not suitable for long-term reserves estimation and is inferior
to a well calibrated 3D numerical reservoir model.
2.2.2. Lumped-parameter
In a simple lumped-parameter model the reservoir is treated as a
single box or closed tank. The pressure decline as a result of fluid
withdrawal can be described as a linear function of the cumulative
production and the mass and energy equations are often reduced to
ordinary differential equations. Lumped parameter models have been
widely used to study field responses to production and investigate the
occurrence of injection returns or thermal decline [125]. A list of
geothermal fields that have used lumped-parameter models is found in
Appendix C.
If the box of Fig. 13 undergoes a pressure change ΔP, it expels a fluid
mass mΔP, by conservation of mass:
dP
m þ Wprod Wrech ¼ 0 (30)
dT
Lumped parameter models use average reservoir properties to
describe the reservoir condition. Time is the only independent variable,
and the system can be characterized mathematically by representing
total mass and energy balance.
A simple lumped-parameter model can become a complex model
when relationships between recharge and pressure decline are incor­
porated. Recently, stock models were introduced as another method to
estimate geothermal capacity that can be used for both green and brown
fields [126]. The method is similar to the lumped parameter and con­
siders the amount of thermal energy as a stock of energy, which can be
produced and resupplied. The initial stock and recharge rate in the
reservoir is estimated using the volumetric method, the rate of extrac­
tion is estimated using a single exploration well and recharge function is
based on an analogous existing geothermal field [126].
A lumped-parameter can be invaluable in understanding reservoir
Fig. 13. A single box representation of the reservoir.
behavior and estimating short-term production capacity. It has been
used in describing and understanding reservoir response during pre-
exploitation [6,127] and exploitation stages [128]. It has also been
used to model the effect of injection returns and understand reservoir
processes [125,129]. However, similar to decline analysis, in most cases,
the predictive capability of lumped-parameter models are still limited
and inferior compared to numerical reservoir models.
2.2.3. Reservoir simulation
The numerical reservoir simulation has been proven as the most
reliable option for geothermal resource assessment. It is a more
advanced tool that numerically models the physics of fluid flow and heat
transfer and the complex nature of reservoir geometry. The industry
started to realize the compelling need for reservoir simulation when
advancements in computer technology become readily available.
Reservoir modelling is a continuous process of data interpretation,
model calibration and model validation with measured field data. The
three important stages in numerical development are as follows:
1. Stage 1: Development of Conceptual model [9,130,131].
� It involves understanding the important aspects of a given reser­
voir and physical processes affecting it.
� It serves as a guide in setting up the numerical model.
2. Stage 2: Numerical Model Calibration [9,10,130,131].
� Natural state matching: It involves matching the pre-exploitation
temperature and pressure profiles and surface manifestation data
(natural thermal power output).
� Production history matching: With the natural state as initial
condition, production history matching involves simulating field
responses to fluid withdrawal and injection.
3. Stage 3: Forecasting [9,131].
� The final model calibrated against pre-exploitation and production
history data is used to test various future production scenarios
being considered going forward in time.

Table 11 The three most commonly used reservoir simulators are [9]:
Equations used for decline analysis.
1. STAR [132].
Model Equation
2. TOUGH2 [133], and
Exponential WðtÞ 1
¼ Dt 3. TETRAD [134].
Wi e
Harmonic WðtÞ 1
¼
W ð1 þ DtÞ These codes have the capability of handling multiphase, multi-
Hyperbolic WðtÞ 1
Wi
¼ component flows. Other codes such as AWA, GEMMA, SING, SIM.FIGS
ð1 þ bDtÞ1=b

15
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
and GEOTERH/HYDROTHERM, have been developed but not widely
used [9]. Recently, there are four new emerging software for numerical
reservoir simulation. The first three are upgrades to TOUGH2, while the
fourth is a new addition to oil & gas suite software, ECLIPSE:
1. OOMPFS [135].
2. Waiwera [136–138].
3. TOUGH3 [139].
4. ECLIPSE Reservoir Simulator [140].
Reservoir simulation is usually performed when a considerable
amount of production data is available to constrain a numerical model.
A calibrated reservoir model characterizes a hydrothermal system
numerically and matches the measured steady-state and production data
can be used to make deterministic and probabilistic resource assess­
ment. A summary of the geothermal models developed to date is tabu­
lated in Appendix D.
There are two different contrasting opinions about using reservoir
simulation as a resource assessment tool during the early stages of
geothermal development. Although there are a few published papers
that discourage using a poorly constrained reservoir model for pre-
development resource assessment purposes, we strongly argue that
there is a strong advantage of building numerical models that describes
numerically the observed physical phenomenon such as surface
manifestations.
The complex nature of geothermal systems can only be represented
using numerical models. Experience shows that full-scale numerical
models are difficult to build, and the calibration process is time-
consuming. Most if not all of the existing geothermal fields have at
least one numerical model of their resource.
Some authors argue that numerical simulation is an unnecessary
complexity for resource assessment [13,37,141]. Others made it clear
that computer modelling provides a useful check for consistency with
Fig. 14. Different probability distributions commonly assigned to key reservoir parameters: a) uniform distribution, b) triangular distribution and c) lognormal
distribution.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
conceptual models and helps in planning exploration and monitoring
program [44]. We believe that carrying out volumetric stored heat and
numerical simulation in parallel is useful even at the early stage of
development. Although computer modelling should be the preferred
method, the volume method has the advantage of providing a quick,
reliable way of estimating potential capacity when there is limited in­
formation about the resource.
2.3. Probabilistic resource assessment
This section discusses probabilistic methods for predicting potential
capacity using the volumetric method and reservoir simulation. By
assigning a range of possible values to the reservoir parameters used in
calculating the power potential, a probability distribution of MWe ca­
pacity can be generated.
The volumetric method lends itself well to a probabilistic approach
[22,27]. Each parameter in the volumetric method equation can be
described by probability distributions such as uniform, triangular, and
lognormal, as shown in Fig. 14 [22]. A random number based on the
defined probability distribution is generated for each parameter, and the
power output is then calculated. The calculation is repeated multiple
times to obtain a reliable and reproducible estimate.
The most common probabilistic application is carried out through
the Monte Carlo method [16,22,142]. This is widely applied in the
volumetric method (equations (6), (7), (12)–(14)) to generate a proba­
bilistic distribution of power capacity [13,24,53,90,99].
The results from the Monte Carlo simulation are usually presented in
terms of a probability density function (PDF) as shown in Fig. 15 and are
presented in the terms P90, P50 and P10 are also common [22] referring
to the low, best and high estimates.
Different studies have been carried out in the past to quantify un­
certainty in the prediction of power potential. One of the early use of
reservoir simulation in probabilistic resource assessment was carried out
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
Fig. 15. Sample probability distribution plot of MWe using Monte Carlo method.
by Parini et al. (1995) [143] for the Berlin geothermal field, El Salvador.
In 2000, a hybrid approach of reservoir simulation and volumetric
methods was performed [22]. The reservoir simulation was conducted
to approximate the recovery factor for the volumetric method. A Monte
Carlo simulation was then performed through the volumetric equation.
The uncertainty in the forecast results of a lumped parameter model
was analyzed using Randomized Maximum Likelihood (RML), and
Kalman Filter (EnKF) analyzed. RML appeared to be a more robust
method for lumped-parameter models [29]. An investigation comparing
the results of doing probabilistic estimate using Analytical Uncertainty
Propagation Method (AUPM) with Monte Carlo method also carried out
[30].
Previous works that evaluated the uncertainties in the forecasts using
reservoir models such as uncertainties in the predicted enthalpies of the
Ngatamariki [31] and quantified uncertainties in prediction using linear
analysis [32]. This approach can be laborious, and time-consuming,
particularly for projects that are still at an early stage of development.
Using polynomial approximations in lieu of the reservoir models are
becoming more popular nowadays. A simpler equation of power ca­
pacity or total cumulative steam as a function of key reservoir param­
eters can be created by describing the relationship of these parameters
Fig. 16. Screening process to determine significant variables and production and injection.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
one-factor-at-a-time [33] or by systematically building an experi­
mental design and fitting a polynomial (proxy) model [35]. Pasikki et al.
(2016) [34] developed a polynomial model of generation potential,
expressed in MWe, as a function of the average decline rate for evalu­
ating green fields. However, the issues on generalizability and applica­
bility to any green field remain yet to be proven. Quinao and Zarrouk
(2018) [27] tested the response surface methodology using the Ngata­
mariki calibrated numerical model and were able to demonstrate the
applicability of building a proxy model of the reservoir model using
experimental design and linear regression analysis. Fig. 16 shows the
process involved in the screening and building of a polynomial model
using this methodology. The resulting linear model can be integrated
with Monte Carlo simulation to generate a probabilistic resource
capacity.
3. The geothermal resource development and management:
moving forward
Using the geothermal energy for electricity generation or direct use
applications still remains a challenge. The difficulty of obtaining accu­
rate predictable generating potential at different levels of project phase
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

together with high upfront costs and high resource risk make the
geothermal projects unattractive as an investment.
Although there are several available methodologies for estimating
the MWe capacity of a given resource, the preferred way of doing it is to
usually employ the same approach or equation as the previous estima­
tion or assessment. It is because it would be easier to check for consis­
tency of assumptions and allows for the comparison of the calculated
values. However, it makes even more challenging to introduce a uniform
methodology that all geothermal players would embrace and use.
This paper proposes a methodology for the industry to apply and use.
After reviewing all the existing methodologies for estimating the
resource potential, it is apparent that there are two methods that are
more appropriate to use depending on what phase of the project
development:

1. Pre-development
2. Production, Operation and Maintenance

Having a clear picture of the overall project plant and a good un­
derstanding of the different phases involved in a geothermal develop­
ment enables to identify the critical information that needs to be
available and determine the appropriate methodology to use.

3.1. The overall project plan

Gehringer and Losksha (2012) [144] describe the phases of

geothermal power project development in the World Bank and Energy
Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) Geothermal Hand­
book: Planning and Financing Power Generation and is shown in Fig. 17.
This paper does not cover a detailed discussion about each of these
phases but acknowledges the dependencies present and the importance
of correctly extracting the right information from each phase. Interest­
ingly, during the first 4 phases of project development, the two crucial
information that needs to be knownare:

1. Size of development, and

2. Development strategy

The development size is the most critical information to know. It

dictates how the rest of the processes will be carried out. In the last
remaining phases which involve operation and maintenance of the field,
resource assessment is performed to know:

1. Whether to increase output or not

2. The location and strategy for infill wells
Fig. 17. Different phases of geothermal power project development (after
3. If there’s a need for plant optimisation or reconfiguration
ESMAP, 2012).

Resource assessment attempts to provide an answer to all of these.

understanding of the reservoir in the form of a conceptual model and
calculate the estimable power potential using a volumetric method.
3.2. Approach to size estimation and project management
Using equations (6) and (8) and the recommended values summarized in
Table 12, the MWe potential of a geothermal project can be calculated.
3.2.1. Pre-development stage (phase 1 to 4)
Of all the parameters in the simple volumetric method equation, the
Prior to the development of a geothermal project, what is known is
recovery factor is the one that has not been well defined. There is still no
that a geothermal resource exists. Deciding on the best way to use a
clear rule for this yet, but historical data suggest that it should be be­
geothermal resource requires the efforts of a team of geologists, geo­
tween 10 and 15%.
physicists, geochemists and engineers. A thorough geothermal assess­
Geothermal resource assessment at this stage is used to determine the
ment describes all the scientific aspects of evaluation. It should at the
development size and development strategy. Once there is sufficient
minimum include the following:
evidence for project demonstration, test drilling, project review and
planning will follow before actual field development and construction.
� Inferred location of upflow region
� Rocks description
3.2.2. Production, operation and maintenance stage (phase 5 to 8)
� Top and extent of the reservoir
Modern management of a geothermal resource relies on a program of
� Resource temperature
regular field measurements that are used in conjunction with a numer­
� Resource boundary
ical reservoir model. Intensive reservoir management is required to
ensure delivery of the nominated capacity. The appropriate tool for
These pieces of information are sufficient enough to draw a collective

18
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Table 12 single or multiple fractures with known fracture spacing. Such

Recommended values for the input parameters of the volumetric method information is not normally available even after exploration
equation. drilling. Therefore we feel this method is not practically
Input Parameter Unit of Recommended Values applicable.
Measurement 3. The method of magmatic heat budget is more of a qualitative
Rock volumetric J/kg K m3 2.5 � 106 assessment, and there is not enough evidence to support its un­
specific heat, ρr cr derlying assumptions. Similar to the planar fracture method, it
Volume, V m3 Refer to section 2.1.5.7 can only be applied at a high level for assessing volcanic regions.
Average reservoir �
C Inferred from geochemical analysis of 4. The total well flow method calculates that total available output
temperature, Ti fumaroles or hot springs from production wells that have successfully sustained discharge.
Reference �
C During the old days ¼ 180 � C However, summing the total production output does not correlate
temperature, Tf Nowadays ¼ 160 � C
to the total field potential capacity. However, MWe output
Function of technology (flash or
binary or hybrid)
derived from testing of individual wells is not reliable. Simulta­
Recovery factor, Rf % 10–15 neous discharge of production wells is the minimum requirement
Conversion efficiency, % Refer to Table 9 to determine the reliable total available output from producing
ηconv wells. Moreover, as the usual development strategy is a staged
Plant capacity factor, 80 to 100 approach, exploration-drilling programs do not drill to the full
F field potential upfront and cannot be estimated from the suc­
Plant life, L years 30 or 50 cessfully producing wells.
5. The mass-in-place method implements both numerical simulation
and volumetric method calculation. The method calculates for
modelling the dynamic behavior of the system is through the use of
the total available and recoverable mass in a given geothermal
numerical simulation. Reservoir simulation is an essential part of man­
system. Given that most of the thermal energy is stored in the
aging the large-scale use of a geothermal resource.
rocks and not in the fluid, this method has a huge potential of
Predicting the future capacity of any geothermal field should also
underestimating the true potential of the geothermal resource.
take into account the uncertain nature of the values of the parameters
6. The power density method uses analogue field history that has
involved and how the uncertainty propagates in the prediction.
been producing for a long period. It may be useful for early stages
of exploration where a quick indicative estimate is required. The
3.2.3. Probabilistic resource assessment
method described by Wilmarth and Stimac (2014, 2015) [11,12]
The two prevailing methods for quantifying uncertainty in predict­
for delineating the reservoir area is not applicable for projects at
able outputs are the Monte Carlo simulation and linear analysis. Latest
exploration phase and may not be appropriate when there are
works on probabilistic resource assessment show that a probabilistic
only a few or no wells drilled.
distribution of the power potential output can be generated by building
7. Decline analysis can be a useful tool for predicting make-up well
a polynomial approximation of the numerical model using response
requirements when analyzing production decline over a short
surface methodology and applying Monte Carlo simulation to the proxy
period. Decline trend could change with time depending on the
model [27,120].
resource management strategies in-place at a particular produc­
tion period. Hence, this method is not applicable for carrying out
4. Summary
long-term forecasts.
8. The power of lumped-parameter method lies in its ability to
Geothermal resource assessment is a game-changing tool for
provide a good understanding of the reservoir behavior and
appraising the potential for the development of a geothermal project.
future field capacity over a short period of production. It has also
However, finding a balance between a reliable resource assessment and
been proven invaluable in understanding reservoir processes like
limited time and resources is challenging for any organization, espe­
injection returns or thermal decline. However, this method re­
cially during the conception stage of a geothermal project when there is
mains inferior to reservoir simulation in terms of predictive ca­
minimal information. To-date, the volumetric method remains to be the
pacity over a long period.
most useful approach for evaluating geothermal projects at the pre-
9. The volumetric method calculates the recoverable thermal en­
development stage while numerical reservoir simulation is no doubt
ergy for a certain volume of the geothermal reservoir. It the most
the most powerful and suitable tool for managing producing geothermal
widely used and has been proven to be useful for estimating the
resources and predicting their future behavior and capacity. Using the
geothermal potential on a regional and national scale. The
other methods in parallel, particularly for understanding the short-term
method is adequate for the purpose of estimating potential output
reservoir processes taking place as a result of fluid extraction is
for geothermal prospects during early exploration where there is
considered as an ideal resource assessment practice.
very limited available information. The total theoretical thermal
From the above review, we conclude the following:
and/or electrical powers can be calculated from the thermal en­
ergy stored in rock. There are several forms to the governing
1. The method of surface heat flux calculates the total theoretical
equations; this work demonstrates that the basic equation
thermal energy based on surface heat flow but underestimates the
(equation (8)) which requires limited parameters is deemed suf­
true potential of a geothermal resource. The data used in the
ficient and simple to use.
calculation is likely to suffer from errors and incompleteness.
10. Reservoir simulation is an adequate tool for reservoir manage­
There are other surface manifestations that discharge a relatively
ment and predicting future remaining capacity under production.
high amount of thermal energy but are not accessible. The
Experience shows that full-scale numerical models are difficult to
method is limited only to geothermal systems with significant
build, and the calibration process is time-consuming. Some au­
surface thermal discharges.
thors argue that numerical simulation is unnecessary complex for
2. The planar fracture method is applied to a specific and selected
resource assessment [16,141,142]. Others made it clear that
geothermal system but has not been a universal tool for esti­
computer modelling provides a useful check for consistency with
mating resource potential. The approach applies to systems
conceptual models and helps in planning exploration and
where the nature of fracture distribution are to be described by

19
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

monitoring program [44]. We believe that numerical reservoir
simulation is useful even at the early stage of development.
Moreover, we were able to demonstrate in this review that one
equation (Equation (8)) can be used with confidence for estimating the
heat content of all geothermal systems regardless if the resource is deep
or shallow. For a more accurate estimate of the resource potential,
provided with sufficient details about the reservoir, numerical simula­
tion is still the most reliable solution. While the volumetric method and
numerical reservoir simulation have a long-standing history of usability
and applicability as geothermal resource assessment tools, the tech­
niques for estimating resource potential can still be improved. The
principal issues that the volumetric method is an oversimplification of
the actual geothermal reservoir and that a prohibitively large number of
simulation runs is needed before a probabilistic distribution of power
potential can be realized from a numerical reservoir simulation can be
addressed by using the Experimental Design (ED) and Response Surface
Methodology (RSM). This methodology allows the use of a numerical
reservoir model, minimizes the required number of simulation runs by
identifying the significant predictors of MWe and develops a polynomial
model that approximates the numerical reservoir model which can be
easily integrated with Monte Carlo simulation to generate a probabilistic
distribution of MWe. The ED and RSM technique is a promising hybrid
approach that is much easier and quicker to implement and can be
applied even for projects that are at the initial stage of development. It is
a powerful tool that could be more useful than the volumetric method.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the New
Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for
their financial support through the Empowering Geothermal Energy
funds.

Appendix A

Summary of values for input parameters used worldwide.

Country Geothermal Porosity Recovery Factor Reservoir Reference Conversion/ Load Factor References
Field Temperature Temperature Utilization
Efficiency

Canada Meager Not specified Not specified 220 170 0.30 0.85 [145]
Mountain
Western 0.118 Not specified >150 60 (heat
Platform exchangers)
30 (heat
pumps)
Chile Apacheta – 0 (min), 20 (max) – 212-250-256 151.8 0.75 0.95 [98]
El Tatio (5% min for indicated 213-250-260
Tolhuaca geothermal resources) 250-280-300
Puchuldiza 200-250-270
La Torta 240–270
Tinguiririca 210–300
Mariposa 210–300
Nv. de Chillan 220–260
Cordon Caulle 240–300
El Salvador Various fields Not specified 10% Refer to source 25 0.12 Not [146]
specified
Iceland Krafla 10% (5% min, 20% 15% (10% min, 20% Not specified 170 Not specified – [147]
max) max)
Hengill 180 [99]
Indonesia Awibengkok 0.03 < 0.05<0.09 20% 260 < 270<290 0.13 – [148]
Italy Larderello 12.0%/2.9% 19.5%/2.0% 235/303 15 – – [149]
Travale 12.0%/2.6% 18.0%/2.0% 213/263
Mt. Amiata 12.0%/2.5% (main 21.0%/2.0% (main 179/284 (main
reservoir/basement) reservoir/basement) reservoir/
basement)
Iran NW Sabalan 8% (4% min, 12% 20% (15% min, 25% 180 0.11 [150]
max) max)
Japan S. Kyusuhu Not Specified 25% 500 15 0.4 [79]
N. Kyushu
Sann-inn
Kantou
S. Tohoku
M. Tohoku
N. Tohoku
W. Hokkaido
E. Hokkaido
Kenya Olkaria 6% (1% min, 12% 20% (15% min, 25% 285 (240 min, 330 180 0.12 (0.10 min, 0.95 [151]
max) max) max) 0.15 max)
Not specified 10% min, 20% 75 min, 100 30 0.11 min, 0.15 [152]
maximum maximum max
Not specified 5% min, 200 min, 300 max 30 0.08 min, 0.14
15% max max
New Kawerau 15% 50% 250 100 7.4% [78] [153]
Zealand Mokai 180 0.9 [90]
(continued on next page)

20
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

(continued )
Country Geothermal Porosity Recovery Factor Reservoir Reference Conversion/ Load Factor References
Field Temperature Temperature Utilization
Efficiency

10% (8% min, 12% 25% (20% min, 30% 280 (260 min, 325 0.130
max) max) max) (0.121 min,
0.152 max)
Ngatamariki 8% (5% min, 10% 20% (13% min, 25% 260 (250 min, 270 180 0.121
max) max) max) (0.116 min,
0.126 max)
Ohaaki 8% (6% min, 10% 20% (15% min, 270 (260 min, 180
max) 25% max) 280 max)
0.126 (0.121 min,
0.130 max)
Rotokawa 10% (6% min, 12% 25% (15% min, 280 (260 min, 180
max) 30% max) 290 max)
0.130 (0.121 min,
0.135 max)
Tauhara 12% (10% min, 15% 30% (25% min, 38% 260 (240 min, 270 180 0.121
max) max) max) (0.111 min,
0.126 max)
Wairakei 15% (10%, 38% (25% min, 50% 255 (250 min, 265 180 0.118
20%) max) max) (0.116 min,
0.123 max)
Nicaragua Momotombo 3% (min), 10% (min), 20% (max) 250 (min), 285 Not specified Not specified – [154]
7% (max) (max)
Philippines Mahanagdong 0.06 (mean), 20% (15% min, 28% 260 180 0.12 0.9 [89]
0.12 (sd) max) (0.8 min,
1.0 max)
Southern Leyte 8% 20% 260 Not specified 0.12 0.92 [91]
Various fields 5% 15% Not specified 180 0.1 0.75 [53]
Baslay-Dauin 0.06 (mean), 250 (220 min, 270 180 Not specified 0.92 [155]
0.02 (sd) max) (0.8 min,
1.0 max)
Alto Peak 0.06 (mean), 260 (220 min, 345 180 Not specified 0.92
0.02 (sd) max) (0.8 min,
1.0 max)
Taiwan Chingshui 7.2% (min), 17.0% 15% (10% min, 20% 190 (180 min, 200 25 0.45 0.90 [156]
(max) max) max)
Turkey Balcova 0.2% min, 7% max 18% (7% min, 24% 135 (100 min, 145 80 [157]
max) max)
Not specified 15, 100 [158]
USA The Geysers 5% 11% 240 15 Not specified – [95]
Coso 5% 8% 275 15 Not specified –
Dixie Valley 13%/5% 21%/8% 220 15 Not specified –
15, 21 [17]

Appendix B

Geothermal fields that used decline analysis.

Purpose Geothermal Field Capacity/Resource Characteristic Additional Note Reference

Capacity estimate, Rundown, Makeup well Larderello 145 � 109 kg (cumulative production) Calculated at abandonment [7]
requirement, Reservoir characterization and pressure of 5 atma
management The Geysers Flow rate declines by 50% in 8 and 12 For wells with 5 and 40-acre [8]
years spacing
The Geysers 2510 � 106 lbs After 10 years (abandonment [159]
year ¼ 1998.8)
The Geysers Design reinjection strategies [160]
Western Geopower Corp 25.5 MWe Project life of at least 20 years [161]
(WGP), The Geysers
Palinpinon 2 38.3 MWe (maximum) Additional modular plant [162]
Cerro Prieto I Average annual decline of 10.67% [163]
(group 1) to 20.99% (group 2)

21
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Appendix C

Geothermal fields that used lumped-parameter models.

Geothermal Field/Country Lumped-Parameter Model Purpose Additional Note Reference

Wairakei Single box [164,165]

Ohaaki Cylindrical [166]
Cerro Prieto Not specified Simulation of two-phase scenario [167]
East Mesa [167,168]
The Geysers [169]
Svartsengi [170]
Italy [7,171]
Miravalles 1-2, Open and closed Tank Model pressure drawdown [172]
Hofsstadir 2-3, Open and closed tank Reinjection study Simulated water level [173]
Bacon-Manito 1,2, Open tank Model pressure drawdown Used LUMPFIT (Axelsson, 1992) [174]

Appendix D

Summary of resource assessment methods used worldwide.

Country Geothermal Field Installed Resource Assessment Year Additional notes Reference
Capacity [175, Method
176]

Argentina Copahue – Total well flow 2000 Used existing steam from wells [70]
Bolivia Laguna Colorada – Volumetric method 2000 Forecast future capacity [177]
Reservoir modelling 2000 Forecast future capacity, development scenario [177]
Canada Meager Mountain Volumetric method 1991 Forecast future capacity [145]
Western Platform Volumetric method
Chile El Tatio – Total well flow 1975 Forecast future capacity [78,79]
– Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity [98]
Apacheta – Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity [98]
Tolhuaca – Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity
Puchuldiza – Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity
La Torta – Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity
Tinguiririca – Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity
Mariposa – Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity
Nv. de Chillan – Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity
Cordon Caulle – Volumetric method 2016 Forecast future capacity
China Tianjin – Reservoir modelling 1986 Test hypothesis for future exploitation [178]
Yangbajain 28 Reservoir modelling 1995 Forecast future capacity [179]
Costa Rica Miravalles 165 Lumped parameter 2005, Reservoir management, forecast future capacity [172,180]
2010
Reservoir modelling 2000 Reservoir management, drilling schedule, forecast future [181]
2002 capacity [182]
Reservoir management
Las Pailas 42 Total well flow 2010 Forecast future capacity [73]
Ecuador Chachimbiro Volumetric method 1990 Forecast future capacity [183]
Power density 2015 Forecast future capacity [183]
Chacana (Jamanco & Power density 2015 Forecast future capacity [183]
Cachiyacu)
Oyacachi (Chacana) Volumetric method 2009 Forecast future capacity [183]
Tulfi~
no Volumetric method 1990 Forecast future capacity [183]
Chalupas Volumetric method 1990 Forecast future capacity [183]
El Salvador Ahuachapan 95 Reservoir modelling 1990, Forecast future capacity [184]
1991 Reservoir management [185]
1991 [185]
1995 [143]
2010 [186]
Berlin 109 Reservoir modelling 1995 Forecast future capacity [187]
2002 [188]
Ethiopia Aluto-Langano 7.3 Total well flow 1999 Basis of plant development [75]
Guatemala Amatitlan 24 Reservoir modelling 2002 Forecast future capacity [189]
Zunil 28 Reservoir modelling 1991 Resource characterization [190]
Zunil-II – Volumetric method 2000 Forecast future capacity [191]
Iceland Krafla 60 Lumped parameter 1983 Forecast future capacity [192]
Reservoir modelling 1983 Forecast future capacity [192]
Volumetric method 2010 Forecast future capacity [147]
Hamar – Lumped parameter 1989 Forecast future pressure response [39,193]
Laugarnes – Lumped parameter 1989 Forecast future pressure response [193]
2005 [194]
Hofsstadir Lumped parameter 2010 Forecast future capacity [173]
Volumetric method 2010 Forecast future capacity [173]
(continued on next page)

22
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

(continued )
Country Geothermal Field Installed Resource Assessment Year Additional notes Reference
Capacity [175, Method
176]

Glerardalur-field Lumped parameter 1989 Forecast future pressure response [193]

Nesjavellir 120 Lumped parameter 2010 Forecast future capacity [39]
Reservoir modelling 2000 Forecast future capacity [195]
2010 [39]
Svartsengi 76 Lumped parameter 1986 Resource characterization [170]
Reservoir modelling 1999 Forecast future capacity [196]
Indonesia Gunung Salak 377 Reservoir modelling 2008 Reservoir management [197]
(Awibengkok)
Darajat 260 Reservoir modelling 1990 Forecast future capacity [198]
2005 Reservoir management [199]
2016 [200,201]
Reservoir modelling 2005 Forecast future capacity [35]
(Probabilistic)
Sibayak 11 Reservoir modelling 2001 Forecast future capacity [202]
Kamojang 200 Reservoir modelling 1990 Resource characterization [203]
Wayang Windu 227 Reservoir modelling 2011 Forecast future capacity [204]
Dieng 60 Reservoir modelling 2015 Forecast future capacity [205]
Arjuno-Welirang Reservoir modelling 2016 Forecast future capacity [206]
Iran NW Sabalan Volumetric method 2005 Forecast future capacity [207]
2012 [150]
Reservoir modelling 2011 Forecast future capacity [208]
Italy Bagnore 20 Lumped parameter 1990 Can be used for reservoir management and forecast future [209]
capacity
Mofete Total well flow 1986 Forecast future capacity [66]
Reservoir modelling 2016 Forecast future capacity [210]
Larderello 594 Decline curve analysis 1978 Forecast future capacity [7]
Travale 160 Reservoir modelling 2009 Forecast future capacity [211]
Larderello-Travalle 795 Reservoir modelling 2010 Forecast future capacity [212,213]
Japan Onikobe Reservoir modelling 1990 Forecast future capacity [214]
Hatchobaru Reservoir modelling 2010 Forecast future capacity [215]
Kakkonda Lumped parameter 1995 Resource characterization [216]
Reservoir modelling 1995 Resource characterization
Guantao Reservoir modelling 2013 Resource characterization, Reservoir management [217]
Oguni Reservoir modelling 1995 Forecast future capacity [218–220]
2000 [67]
Total well flow 2000 Forecast future capacity [67]
Uenotai Reservoir modelling 1990 Forecast future capacity [221]
1995 Resource characterization, Forecast future capacity [222]
2004 [223,224]
Mori Reservoir modelling 2010 Forecast future capacity [225]
Wasabizawa Reservoir modelling 2000 Forecast future capacity [226]
Sumikawa Reservoir modelling 2017 [227]
Kenya Olkaria 636 Lumped parameter 2010 Forecast future capacity [39]
Reservoir modelling 2018 Can be used for reservoir management and forecast future [228]
capacity
Menengai Reservoir modelling 2013 Forecast future capacity [229]
Mexico Cerro Prieto 720 Lumped parameter 1981 Resource characterization [167]
1990 Can be used for reservoir management and forecast future [209]
capacity
Reservoir modelling 1981 Reservoir management [230]
1991 Forecast future capacity [231]
2000 [232]
Los Azufres 194 Reservoir modelling 1985 Resource characterization [233]
2005 Forecast future capacity [234]
Los Humeros 94 Reservoir modelling 2000 Forecast future capacity [191]
Volumetric method 1997 Forecast future capacity [191,235]
2000
Las Tres Virgenes 10 Total well flow 1995 Forecast future capacity [74]
Reservoir modelling 2001 Forecast future capacity [236]
New Kawerau 140 Reservoir modelling 2016 For consent purposes [237]
Zealand Wairakei/Tauhara 399/24 Volumetric method 1982 “The decision to install plant was presumably based on a [78]
stored heat calculation.”
Lumped parameter 1979 Forecast response to production [164]
1982, A summary of models done as of 2009 [78]
2009 [238]
Reservoir modelling 1982 Forecast future pressure and enthalpy response [239]
1998 Reservoir management (Tauhara) – Resource [240]
2000 characterization and future reservoir management [241]
2004 Forecast future capacity, Reservoir management [242]
2005 Investigate effect of mass withdrawal to surface [243]
2009 manifestations, Forecast future capacity [238]
2010 Forecast future capacity [244]
2015 Audit past models based on latest data [245]
Ohaaki Lumped parameter
(continued on next page)

23
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

(continued )
Country Geothermal Field Installed Resource Assessment Year Additional notes Reference
Capacity [175, Method
176]

1979 Forecast future capacity, Optimisation [127]

1990 Can be used for reservoir management and forecast future [209]
capacity
Reservoir modelling 1983 Resource characterization [246]
2001 Forecast future capacity [247]
2004 Reservoir management [248]
2011 Re-consenting purposes, [249]
2014 Forecast future capacity [250]
2015 Audit past models based on latest data [245]
2017 Resource characterization [251]
Rotokawa 167 Reservoir modelling 2010 Can be used as a reliable predictive tool [252]
2015 Reservoir management [253]
2016 Reservoir management and field optimisation Reservoir [254]
management, make-up well location [255]
Ngatamariki 82 Reservoir modelling 2010 Resource characterization [256]
2011, Future development plan [257,258]
2012
Reservoir modelling 2014, Probabilistic resource assessment [27,120]
(probabilistic) 2018
Ngawha 25 Reservoir modelling 2016 Forecast future capacity [259]
Reporoa 57 Volumetric method 2002 Forecast future capacity [90]
Rotokawa 167 Volumetric method 2002 Forecast future capacity [90]
Mokai 111 Volumetric method 2002 Forecast future capacity [90]
Nicaragua Momotombo 77 Volumetric method 2008 Forecast future capacity [154]
Reservoir modelling 2005, Forecast future capacity [260]
2007 [261]
2008 [154]
San Jacinto-Tizate 82 Reservoir modelling 2014, Reservoir management [262]
2015 [263]
Philippines Tongonan 722 Lumped parameter 1979 Resource characterization [6]
Volumetric method 1990, Forecast future capacity using stored heat (Internal report [264]
1993 and Mesquite)
Reservoir modelling 1987 Forecast future capacity, Reservoir management [265]
1993 Mahanagdong, Forecast future capacity [264]
2002 [266]
Palinpinon 192.5 Reservoir modelling 1988 Forecast future capacity [267]
1993 [268]
Volumetric method 2005 Palinpinon 2, Forecast future capacity [162]
Decline curve analysis/ 2005
Lumped parameter
Bac-Man 152 Lumped parameter 2000 Forecast future capacity [174]
2010 [269]
Reservoir modelling 2010 Forecast future capacity [269]
2015 [270]
Mt. Apo 103 Reservoir modelling 1999 Short-term forecast of future capacity [271]
2010 [272]
Northern Negros 49 Reservoir modelling 2006 Forecast make-up well requirements and future capacity [273]
Southern Leyte Volumetric method 2005 Forecast future capacity [91]
Portugal Ribeira Grande 28 Reservoir modelling 2009 Forecast future capacity, make-up well requirement and [274]
reservoir management
Taiwan Chingshui Reservoir modelling 2016 Forecast future capacity, Resource characterization [275]
Turkey Kizildere 107 Lumped parameter 1990 Can be used for reservoir management and forecast future [209]
capacity
Reservoir modelling 2002 Reservoir management [276]
2015 Forecast future capacity and make-up well requirement [277]
Balcova-Narlidere Lumped parameter 2005 Forecast future capacity, Reservoir management [194]
2014 [278]
Reservoir modelling 2005 Forecast future capacity and make-up well requirement [279]
Russia Pauzhetsky 14 Reservoir modelling 2004 Resource characterization, Forecast future capacity [280]
2007 Forecast future capacity and make-up well requirement [281]
Mutnovsky 62 Reservoir modelling 2005 Forecast future capacity and make –up well requirement [282]
USA The Geysers 1584 Decline curve analysis 1987 Resource characterization, Forecast future capacity [8]
1989 [159]
Reservoir modelling 1994 Forecast future capacity [283]
1990 Field optimisation [284]
1993 [124]
1995 [285]
2010 [286,287]
East Mesa 126 Reservoir modelling 1982 Mentioned works of Morris and Campbell (1981) on the [78]
use of numerical simulator for power station planning
Brady Hot Springs 26 Reservoir modelling 2004 Forecast future capacity [288]
Chena Hot Springs 0.7 Surface heat flux 2008 Forecast future capacity [289]

24
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Appendix E

Single flash plant pressure showing separator and turbine exhaust pressure (data from Zarrouk & Moon, 2014 and Diaz et al., 2016).

Country Field Plant Name Running Capacity Mass Flow (kg/s) Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

Costa Rica Rica Miravalles (1,2,3, Well head unit) 156 1500.6 1100
El Salvador Salvador Ahuahapan (U1,2) 85 800 1050
Berlin (U1,2,3) 105 870 1300
France Bouillante 2 11 125 1110
Guatemala Amatitlan-Geotermica Calderas 17.81 94.4 1300
Iceland Svartsengi (Unit 5) 30 220 1448
Indonesia Java (Kamojang) 200 437.5 2792
Gunung Salak 377 3200 1149
Wayang Windu 227 424.5 2700
Italy Larderello 498.7 1027.8 2770
Travale/Radicondoli 174.7 360 2820
Japan Iwate (Matsukawa) 23.5 55.8 2797
Akita (Uenotai) 25 66.7 2250
Fukushima (Yanaizu-Nishiyama) 50 138.9 1882
Akita (Onuma) 9.5 150 966
Iwate (Kakkonda) 75 810.3 992
Akita (Sumikawa) 46.5 243.9 1600
Miyagi (Onikobe) 12.5 173.6 1020
Oita (Takigami) 27.5 380.6 925
Ogiri 29.8 320.8 1209
Kenya Olkaria (Olkaria1) 31 113.9 2120
Mexico Los Azufres 185 627.8 2220
Cerro Prieto (CP-4) 605.75 3315 1725
Las Tres Virgenes 10 71.1 1203
Nicaragua Momotombo (Unit 1–2) 30 388.9 1200
Philippines Mindanao (Mindanao1) 54.2 420.8 1175
BacMan (Palayan, Cawayan, Botong) 150 719.4 1990
Leyte (Mahanagdong) 198 1099.4 1482
Southern Negros (Palinpinon 1, 2) 192.5 972.2 1450
Russia Mutnovzky, Kamchatka 62 350 1600
Pauzhetka 11 240 780
Turkey Kizildere 84 833.3 864
USA California – The Geyser 844 1736.1 2650
Utah-Roosevelt Hot Springs (Blundell1) 48 285.4 1150

Appendix F

Dual flash plant pressure showing separator and turbine exhaust pressure (data from Zarrouk & Moon, 2014 and Diaz et al., 2016).

Country Field Plant Name Running Capacity Mass Flow (kg/s) Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

El Salvador Ahuahapan (U3) 28 256.7 1091

France Bouillante 1 4.7 41.7 1092
Iceland Krafla 60 273.9 1825
Hellisheidi 213 1577.5 1365
Japan Oita (hatchobaru) 80 700 1125
Mexico Cerro Prieto (CP-1, Unit 5) 26.25 708.3 742
Cerro Prieto (CP-2) 172.5 1616.9 1442
Cerro Prieto (CP-3) 182 1263.9 1519
New Zealand Reporoa 46.7 388.9 1150
Kawerau 95.7 1116.7 1280
Ohaaki 40 278.9 1150
Philippines Leyte (Tongonan 1) 112.5 385.8 1750
Makiling-Banahaw (Plant A,B,C) 330 1095 1910
Mindanao (Mindanao2) 54.24 213.9 1850
USA California-East Mesa (GEM2, 3) 16.9 247.7 920
California-Heber (Heber) 14 462.2 750
Nevada (Beowawe) 64 2053.6 697

25
A.E. Ciriaco et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515

Appendix G

The binary power plants data (data from Zarrouk & Moon, 2014 and Diaz et al., 2016).

Country Field Plant Name Running Capacity Mass Flow (kg/s) Tin (� C) Tout (� C) Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

Austria Altheim 0.5 77.3 106 70 444

Bad Blumau 0.18 28.6 110 85 461
China Huabei 0.36 31.7 110 85 461
Nagqu 1 83.3 112 77 470
El Salvador Berlin (U4) 41.4 460 160 140 1090
France Soultz-Sous-Forets 1.5 27.2 155 49 654
Germany Landau (landau) 3 64.2 150 56 632
Neustadt-Glew 0.21 33.6 95 70 398
Unter-Haching (Unter-Haching) 3.36 112.8 120 44 502
Japan Oita (hatchobaru) 2 22.8 246 146 1068
Mexico Los Azufres (U-11,12) 3 77.8 180 117 763
New Zealand Te Huka 21.8 208.3 250 133 1086
Nicaragua Momotombo (Unit 3) 6 174.4 155 100 654
Philippines Makiling-Banahaw (Binary 1, 2, 3, 4) 15.73 222.2 177 132 750
Portugal Ribeira Grande 13 117.1 253 139 1100
Thailand Fang 0.2 20.6 116 55 487
Turkey Salavatli 51.45 1166.7 170 80 710
USA Alaska (Chena Hot Springs) 0.73 130.8 73 57 306
California-Casa Diablo (MP-1,2/LES-1) 16 580.3 175 100 741
California-East Mesa (Ormesa 1) 24 736.7 147 80 619
California-East Mesa (Ormesa 2) 18 431.9 154 73 650
California-East Mesa (Ormesa IE) 9 292.8 136 58 527
California-East Mesa (Ormesa IH) 10.8 259.7 153 71 645
California-Heber (Heber2) 33.5 907.2 166 100 702
California-Honey Lake (Wineagle) 0.7 48.9 110 82 461
Idaho (Raft River) 9.61 292.8 140 85 589
Nevada (Wabuska) 2.09 168.8 104 62 436
Nevada-Fallon (Soda Lake1) 10.7 262.8 188 105 799
Nevada-Washoe (Steamboat1,1A,2,3) 27.8 1521.1 160 126 676
Utah-Roosevelt Hot Springs (Blundell2) 10 233.3 177 88 750
Wyoming-Casper (Rmotc-Ghcg) 0.15 13.1 91 52 381

References [17] Sanyal SK, Klein CW, Lovekin J, Henneberger RC. National assessment of U.S.
geothermal resources - a perspective. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2004:
355–62.
[1] Banwell CJ. Thermal energy from the earth’s crust. N Z J Geol Geophys 1963;6:
[18] Williams C, Reed M, Galanis S, DeAngelo J. The USGS national geothermal
52–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1963.10420089.
resource assessment: an update. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2007:
[2] Muffler P, Cataldi R. Methods for regional assessment of geothermal resources.
99–104.
Geothermics 1978;7:53–89.
[19] Williams CF, Reed MJ, Mariner RH. A review of methods applied by the U.S.
[3] Noguchi T. An attempted evaluation of geothermal energy in Japan. Geothermics
geological survey in the assessment of identified geothermal resources. 2008.
1970;2:474–7.
[20] Zarrouk SJ, Moon H. Efficiency of geothermal power plants: a worldwide review.
[4] Bodvarsson G. Geothermal resource energetics. Geothermics 1974;3:83–92.
Geothermics 2014;51:142–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[5] White DE, Williams DL. Assessment of geothermal resources of the United States -
geothermics.2013.11.001.
1975. 1975.
[21] Zarrouk SJ, Simiyu F. A review of geothermal resource estimation methodology.
[6] Grant MA. Preliminary reservoir estimation for Tongonan geothermal field. Proc
In: Proc. 35th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2013.
N Z Geotherm Workshop 1979.
[22] Parini M, Riedel K. Combining probabilistic volumetric and numerical simulation
[7] Atkinson P. Analysis of reservoir pressure and decline curves in Serrazzano Zone,
approaches to improve estimates of geothermal resource capacity. In: Proc. World
Larderello geothermal field. Geothermics 1978;7:133–44.
geotherm. Congr. Kyushu-tohoku, Japan; 2000. p. 2785–90.
[8] Ripperda M, Bodvarsson GS. Decline curve analysis of production data from the
[23] Garg SK. Appropriate use of USGS volumetric heat in place method and Monte
Geysers geothermal field. Proc Twelfth Work Geotherm Reserv Eng Stanford Univ
Carlo calculations. In: Proc. Thirty-fourth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford,
Stanford Calif 1987:23–7.
Calif: Stanford Univ; 2010.
[9] O’Sullivan MJ, Pruess K, Lippmann MJ. State of the art of geothermal reservoir
[24] Garg SK, Combs J. A reexamination of USGS volumetric “heat in place” method.
simulation. Geothermics 2001;30:395–429.
In: Proc thirty-sixth work geotherm reserv eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ;
[10] Grant MA. Geothermal resource proving criteria. Japan: World Geotherm. Congr.
2011.
Kyushu-Tohoku; 2000. p. 2581–4.
[25] Tureyen OI, Onur M. Assessing uncertainty in future performance predictions of
[11] Wilmarth M, Stimac J. Worldwide power density review. In: Proc. Thirty-ninth
lumped parameter models using the randomized maximum likelihood method.
work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2014.
Proc World Geotherm Congr Bali Indones 2010.
[12] Wilmarth M, Stimac J. Power density in geothermal fields. In: Proc. World
[26] Quinao JJ, Zarrouk SJ. Applications of experimental design and response surface
geotherm. Congr. Melbourne, Aust.; 2015.
method in probabilistic geothermal resource assessment - preliminary results. In:
[13] Sanyal SK, Sarmiento Z. Booking geothermal energy reserves. Proc Geotherm
Proc. Thirty-ninth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ;
Resour Counc Trans 2005;29:467–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.430.
2014.
[14] Clotworthy AW, Ussher GNH, Lawless JV, Randle JB. Towards an industry
[27] Quinao JJD, Zarrouk SJ. Geothermal resource assessment using experimental
guideline for geothermal reserves determination. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc
design and response surface methods: the Ngatamariki geothermal field, New
Trans 2006:859–65.
Zealand. Renew Energy 2018;116:324–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[15] Lawless J, Ward M, Beardsmore G. The Australian code for geothermal reserves
renene.2017.09.084.
and resources reporting: practical experience. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr.
[28] Garg SK, Combs J. A reformulation of USGS volumetric “heat in place” resource
Indones; 2010.
estimation method. Geothermics 2015;55:150–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[16] Australian Geothermal Energy Group AGRCC. Geothermal lexicon for resources
geothermics.2015.02.004.
and reserves definition and reporting. second ed. Australian Geothermal Energy
[29] Tureyen OI, Sarak H, Onur M. Assessing uncertainty in future pressure changes
Group (AGEG) and the Australian Geothermal Energy Association (AGEA); 2010.
predicted by lumped-parameter models: a field application. In: Proc. Thirty-
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 (2010).
second work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2007.
[30] Sarak H, Türeyen O € I,
_ Onur M. Assessment of uncertainty in estimation of stored
and recoverable thermal energy in geothermal reservoirs by volumetric methods.

26
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
In: Proc. Thirty-fourth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford Calif: Stanford
Univ; 2009.
[31] Moon H, Clearwater J, Franz P, Wallis I, Azwar L. Sensitivity analysis, parameter
estimation and uncertainty propagation in a numerical model of the Ngatamariki
geothermal field, New Zealand. In: Proc. Thirty-ninth work. Geotherm. Reserv.
Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2014.
[32] Doherty J, Yeh A, Colina R, Omagbon J, O’Sullivan J, O’Sullivan M. Experiments
with inverse modelling and uncertainty quantification with a geothermal model.
In: Proc. 39th new zeal. Geotherm. Work.; 2017.
[33] Acuna JA, Parini MA, Urmeneta NA. Using a large reservoir model in the
probabilistic assessment of field management strategies. In: Proc. Twenty-seventh
work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2002.
[34] Pasikki R, Cita F, Hernawan A. Application of experimental design (ED) in
geothermal greenfield size assessment. In: Proc 4th indones int geotherm conv
exhib; 2016.
[35] Hoang V, Alamsyah O, Roberts J. Darajat geothermal field expansion
performance - a probabilistic forecast. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Antalya,
Turkey; 2005.
[36] Hochstein MP. Classification and assessment of geothermal resources. In:
Dickson MH, Fanelli M, editors. Small geotherm. Resour. - a guid. To dev. Util.
Rome 1990. UNITAR/UNDP Centre on Small Energy Sources; 1990. p. 31–59.
[37] Australian Geothermal Energy Group AGRCC. The geothermal reporting code
(second edition): Australian code for reporting of exploration results, geothermal
resources and geothermal reserves. 2010.
[38] Hochstein MP. Assessment and modellilng of geothermal reservoirs (Small
utilization schemes). Geothermics 1988;17:15–49.
[39] Axelsson G. Sustainable geothermal utilization - case histories; definitions;
research issues and modelling. Geothermics 2010;39:283–91. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2010.08.001.
[40] Grant MA, Bixley PF. Simple quantitative models. Geotherm Reserv Eng Second
Ed 2011:29–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-383880-3.10003-4.
[41] Kaya E, Zarrouk SJ, O’Sullivan MJ. Reinjection in geothermal fields: a review of
worldwide experience. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:47–68. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.032.
[42] Rivera Diaz A, Kaya E, Zarrouk SJ. Reinjection in geothermal fields A � A
worldwide review update. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:105–62. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.151.
[43] Zarrouk SJ, Mclean K. Geothermal well test analysis: fundamentals, applications
and advanced techniques. 1st Edition. Elsevier Academic Press; 2019.
[44] O’Sullivan MJ, O’Sullivan JP. Reservoir modeling and simulation for geothermal
resource characterization and evaluation. Geotherm. Power Gener. Elsevier;
2016. p. 165–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100337-4.00007-3.
[45] Grant MA. Resource assessment, a review, with reference to the Australian Code.
Proc World Geotherm Congr Melbourne Aust 2015.
[46] Smith RL, Shaw HR. Igneous-related geothermal systems. In: Assessment of
geothermal resources of the United States - 1975. Geological survey circular 726
(white, D. E. and williams, D. L.); 1975.
[47] Whiteford PC, Graham DJ. Conductive heat flow through the sediments in Lake
Rotomahana, New Zealand. Geothermics 1994;23:527–38.
[48] Dawson GB, Dickinson DJ. Heat flow studies in thermal areas of the North Island
of New Zealand. Geothermics 1970;2:466–73.
[49] Williams CF. Evaluating heat flow as a tool for assessing geothermal resources. In:
Proc. Thirtieth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ;
2005.
[50] Seward A, Ashraf S, Reeves R, Bromley C. Improved environmental monitoring of
surface geothermal features through comparisons of thermal infrared, satellite
remote sensing and terrestrial calorimetry. Geothermics 2018;73:60–73. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2018.01.007.
[51] Hayakawa M. Geothermal energy of reservoirs and heat sources in Japan
estimated from heat flow measurements and others. Geothermics 1970;2:459–65.
[52] Gregg DR. Natural heat flow from the thermal areas of Taupo Sheet District (N
94). N Z J Geol Geophys 1958;1:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00288306.1958.10422795.
[53] Pastor MS, Fronda AD, Lazaro VS, Velasquez NB. Resource assessment of
Philippine geothermal areas. Proc World Geotherm Congr Bali Indones 2010.
[54] Suyama J, Sumi K, Baba K, Takashima IYK. Assessment of geothermal resources
of Japan. In: Proc. United states-Japan geol. Surv. Panel discuss. Assess.
Geotherm. Resour. Tokyo, Japan, oct. 27, 1975; 1975. p. 63–119.
[55] Mwawasi HM. Heat loss assessment of selected Kenyan geothermal projects. Proc
Geotherm. Resour Counc 2012.
[56] Wisian KW, Blackwell DD, Richards M. Correlation of surface heat loss and total
energy production for geothermal systems. Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2001;
25:331–6.
[57] Garg SK, Rice LF. Two-dimensional simulation of the Wairakei geothermal field.
Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1979;2.
[58] Allis RG. Changes in heat flow of Wairakei geothermal field. Proc N Z Geotherm
Workshop 1979:11–3.
[59] Mannington W, O’Sullivan M, Bullivant D. An air/water model of the Wairakei
-Tauhara geothermal system. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Kyushu-tohoku,
Japan; 2000. p. 2713–8.
[60] Burnell JG, Kissling WM, Gordon DA. Rotorua geothermal field: modelling and
monitoring. In: Proc. 29th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2007.
[61] Ratouis TMP, O’Sullivan MJ, Alcaraz SA, O’Sullivan JP. The effects of seasonal
variations in rainfall and production on the aquifer and surface features of
Rotorua geothermal field. Geothermics 2017;69:165–88. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.05.003.
27
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
[62] Nathenson M, Muffler LJP. Geothermal resources in hydrothermal convection
systems and conduction-dominated areas. In: Assessment of geothermal resources
of the United States - 1975. Geological survey circular 726 (white, D. E. and
williams, D. L.); 1975.
[63] Sanyal SK, Henneberger RC, Klein CW, Decker RW. A methodology for assessment
of geothermal energy reserves associated with volcanic systems. Proc Geotherm
Resour Counc Trans 2002;26:59–64.
[64] Brook CA, Mariner RH, Mabey DR, Swanson JR, Guffanti Marianne, LJPM.
Hydrothermal convection systems with reservoir temperatures 1 90" C,. In:
Muffler LJP, editor. Assessment of geothermal Re- sources of the United States -
1978. U.S. Dept. of the Interior; 1978. Geologi- cal Survey Circular 790.
[65] Aravena D, Lahsen D. Assessment of exploitable geothermal resources using
magmatic heat transfer method, Maule Region, Southern Volcanic Zone, Chile.
Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2012:1307–13.
[66] Guglielminetti M. Mofete geothermal field. Geothermics 1986;156:781–90.
[67] Yamada M, Iguchi K, Nakanishi S, Todaka N. Reservoir characteristics and
development plan of the Oguni geothermal field, Kyushu, Japan. Geothermics
2000;29:151–69.
[68] Hayashida T, Ezlma Y. Development of Otake geothermal field. Geothermics
1970;2:208–20.
[69] Hanano M. Sustainable steam production in the Matsukawa geothermal field.
Japan Geotherm 2003;32:311–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6505(03)
00023-3.
[70] Pesce AH. Argentina country update. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr.
Melbourne, Aust.; 2015.
[71] Lahsen A, Trujillo P. The geothermal field of El Tatio, Chile. In: Proc. Second
united nations symp. Dev. Use geotherm. Resour; 1975. p. 170–7.
[72] Huttrer GW. The status of world geothermal power production 1990-1994.
Geothermics 1996;25:165–87.
[73] Moya P, P� erez LD. Las Pailas geothermal project: a 35 MW plant. In: Proc. World
geotherm. Congr. Bali, indones; 2010.
[74] Torres-Rodriguez MA, Sanchez-Velasco RA. Development of the las tres virgenes
geothermal field, Mexico. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1995;19:417–23.
[75] Teklemariam M, Kebede S. Strategy for geothermal resource exploration and
development in Ethiopia. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Bali, indones; 2010.
p. 25–9.
[76] Grant MA. Stored heat and recovery factor reviewed. In: Proc. 43rd work.
Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2018.
[77] Quinao JJ, Zarrouk SJ. A review of the volumetric stored-heat resource
assessment: one method, different results. In: Proc. Thirty-sixth new zeal.
Geotherm. Work. Auckland, new zeal; 2014.
[78] Watson A, Maunder BR. Geothermal resource assessment for power station
planning. In: Proc. New zeal. Geotherm. Work; 1982. p. 75–9.
[79] Miyazaki Y, Tsu H, Minoru U, Takakura S, Okubo Y, Ogawa K. Nationwide
geothermal assessment in Japan by a volume method. In: Proc. 12th new zeal.
Geotherm. Work; 1990. p. 57–62.
[80] Watson A. Geothermal engineering: fundamentals and applications. 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8569-8.
[81] Williams Colin F, Reed MJ. Outstanding issues for new geothermal resource
assessments. Proc. Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2005:315–20.
[82] White DE. Geothermal energy. 1965.
[83] Vosteen H, Schellschmidt R. Influence of thermal conductivity, thermal capacity
and thermal diffusivity for different types of rock. Phys Chem Earth 2003;28:
499–509.
[84] Giggenbach WF. Graphical techniques for the evaluation of water/rock
equilibration conditions by use of Na, K, Mg and Ca contents of discharge waters.
In: Proc. 8th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 1986. p. 37–43.
[85] Fournier RO, Truesdell AH. An empirical Na-K-Ca geothermometer for natural
waters. Geochem Cosmochim Acta 1973;37:1255–75.
[86] Bjornsson G, Bodvarssont G. A survey of geothermal reservoir properties.
Geothermics 1990;19:17–27.
[87] Gunderson RP. Reservoir matrix porosity at the Geysers from core measurements.
Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1990:1661–5.
[88] Rejeki S. Reservoir porosity analysis at the Darajat geothermal field. In:
Proceeding 5th ina. Annu. Sci. Conf. Exhib; 2001.
[89] Bayrante F, Reyes A, Sanchez R. Resource assessment of the Mahanagdong
geothermal project, Leyte, Central Philippines. In: Proc. 14th new zeal. Geotherm.
Work; 1992. p. 171–8.
[90] Sinclair Knight Merz Limited. Resource capacity estimates for high temperature
geothermal systems in the Waikato region. 2002.
[91] Sta Ana FX, Layugan DB, Bayon FE, Aleman ET. Preliminary evaluation update of
the reservoir potential of Southern Leyte geothermal project, Philippines. In:
Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005. p. 24–9.
[92] Bibby HM, Dawson GB, Rayner HH, Bennie SL, Bromley CJ. Electrical resistivity
and magnetic investigations of the geothermal systems in the Rotorua area, New
Zealand. Geothermics 1992;21:43–64.
[93] Soengkono S. Te Kopia geothermal system (New Zealand) the relationship
between its structure and extent. Geothermics 1999;28:767–84.
[94] Donaldson IG, Granti MA. An estimate of the resource potential of New Zealand
geothermal fields for power generation. Geothermics 1978;7:243–52.
[95] Williams CF. Development of revised techniques for assessing geothermal
resources. Proc Twenty-Ninth Work Geotherm Reserv Eng Stanford Calif 2004.
[96] Williams CF. Updated methods for estimating recovery factors for geothermal
resources. In: Proc. Thirty-second work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif:
Stanford Univ; 2007.
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
[97] Williams CF. Evaluating the volume method in the assessment of identified
geothermal resources. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2014;38:967–74.
[98] Aravena D, Mu~ noz M, Morata D, Lahsen A, Parada MA, � Dobson P. Assessment of
high enthalpy geothermal resources and promising areas of Chile. Geothermics
2016;59:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.09.001.
[99] Sarmiento ZF, Bj€ ornsson G. Reliability of early modeling studies for high-
temperature reservoirs in Iceland and the Philippines. In: Proc. Thirty-second
work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2007.
[100] Takahashi S, Yoshida S. A rational and practical calculation approach for
volumetric method. In: Proc. Fortieth work. Geotherm. Energy reserv. Eng.
Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2015.
[101] Takahashi S, Yoshida S. A desktop review of calculation equations for geothermal
volumetric assessment. In: Proc. 43rd work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford,
Calif: Stanford Univ; 2018.
[102] Nathenson M. Reservoir factors determining the fraction of stored energy
recoverable from hydrothermal convection systems. In: Proc. Stanford geotherm.
Work; 1975.
[103] Banks J, Harris NB. Geothermal potential of foreland basins: a case study from the
western Canadian sedimentary basin. Geothermics 2018;76:74–92. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2018.06.004.
[104] Grasby SE, Allen DM, Bell S, Chen Z, Ferguson G, Jessop A, et al. Geothermal
energy resource potential of Canada. 2012.
[105] Tester JW, Anderson BJ, Batchelor AS, Blackwell DD, DiPippo R, Drake EM,
Garnish J, Livesay B, Moore MC, Nichols K, Petty S, Toks€ oz MN, Shrock RR,
Veatch RW. The future of geothermal energy impact of enhanced geothermal
systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21 Century. 2006.
[106] DiPippo R. Geothermal power plants: evolution and performance assessments.
Geothermics 2015;53:291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2014.07.005.
[107] Bodvarsson G, Eggers DE. The exergy of thermal water. Geothermics 1972;1:
93–5.
[108] Varney J, Zarrouk SJ, Bean N, Bendall B. Performance measures in geothermal
power developements. Renew Energy 2017;101:835–44. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2016.09.046.
[109] Liu X, Falcone G, Alimonti C. A systematic study of harnessing low-temperature
geothermal energy from oil and gas reservoirs. Energy 2018;142:346–55.
[110] Bayer P, Attard G, Blum P, Menberg K. The geothermal potential of cities. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2019;106:17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.02.019.
[111] Epting J, Müller MH, Genske D, Huggenberger P. Relating groundwater heat-
potential to city-scale heat-demand: a theoretical consideration for urban
groundwater resource management. Appl Energy 2018;228:1499–505. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.154.
[112] Zhu K, Blum P, Ferguson G, Balke KD, Bayer P. Erratum: the geothermal potential
of urban heat Islands. Environ Res Lett 2010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/6/1/019501. 5 (044002)). Environ Res Lett 2011;6.
[113] Allen A, Milenic D, Sikora P. Shallow gravel aquifers and the urban “heat island”
effect: a source of low enthalpy geothermal energy. Geothermics 2003;32:569–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6505(03)00063-4.
[114] Arola T, Eskola L, Hellen J, Korkka-Niemi K. Mapping the low enthalpy
geothermal potential of shallow Quaternary aquifers in Finland. Geotherm Energy
2014;2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-014-0009-x.
[115] Wang G, Li K, Wen D, Lin W, Lin L, Liu Z, et al. Assessment of geothermal
resources in China. In: Proceeding thirty-eighth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng.
Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2013.
[116] Alcaraz M, García-Gil A, V� azquez-Su~n�e E, Velasco V. Advection and dispersion
heat transport mechanisms in the quantification of shallow geothermal resources
and associated environmental impacts. Sci Total Environ 2016;543:536–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.022.
[117] Alcaraz M, Vives L, V� azquez-Su~n�
e E. The T-I-GERmethod: a graphical alternative
to support the design and management of shallow geothermal energy
exploitations at the metropolitan scale. Renew Energy 2017;109:213–21. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.022.
[118] Casasso A, Sethi RG. POT: a quantitative method for the assessment and mapping
of the shallow geothermal potential. Energy 2016;106:765–73. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.091.
[119] James R. Power potential of geothermal fields. Proc 6th New Zeal Geotherm Work
1984:97–100.
[120] Quinao JJ, Zarrouk SJ. Probabilistic resource assessment using the Ngatamariki
numerical model through experimental design and response surface methods (ED
and RSM). In: Proc. New zeal. Geotherm. Work. Taupo, new zeal; 2015.
[121] Menzies AJ, Villase~ nor LB, Sunio EG. Tiwi geothermal field, Philippines: 30 years
of commercial operation. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Bali, indones; 2010.
[122] Calibugan AA, Villase~ nor LB, Molling P. Applications of sulfur isotopes in
characterizing the acid fluids at the Tiwi Geothermal Field, Philippines. In: Proc.
World geotherm. Congr. Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[123] Sta Maria RB, Abrigo-Villadolid MF, Sussman D, Mogen P. Development strategy
for the Bulalo geothermal field, Philippines. Proc World Geotherm Congr 1995:
1803–5.
[124] Pham M, Menzies AJ. Results from a field-wide numerical model of the Geysers
geothermal field, California. Proc. Geotherm. Resour. Counc. Trans. 1993;17:
259–65.
[125] Malate RCM, O’sullivan MJ. Modelling of chemical changes and thermal changes
in well PN26 Palinpinon Geothermal Field, Philippines. Geothermics 1991;20:
291–318.
28
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
[126] Júlíusson E, Axelsson BA, Landsvirkjun G. Stock models for geothermal resources.
Geothermics 2018;72:249–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2017.11.006.
[127] Grant MA. Broadlands optimisation. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1979.
[128] Gudmundsson JS, Olsen G, Thorhallsson S. Svartsengi field production data and
depletion analysis. In: Proc. Tenth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford Calif:
Stanford Univ; 1985. p. 45–51.
[129] Harper RT, Jordan OT. Geochemical changes in response to production and
reinjection for Palinpinon-I geothermal field, Negros Oriental, Philippines. In:
Proc. Seventh new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 1985. p. 39–44.
[130] Grant MA. Review No. 1: geothermal reservoir modelling. Geothermics 1983;12:
251–63.
[131] Grant MA, Bixley PF. Simul Geotherm Reserv Eng 2011:201–17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-383880-3.10011-3.
[132] Pritchett JW. STAR: geothermal reservoir simulation system. In: Proc. World
geotherm. Congr; 1995. p. 2959–63.
[133] Laboratory LB, Pruess K. TOUGH2 - a general-purpose numerical simulator for
multiphase fluid and heat flow. 1991.
[134] Vinsome PKW, Shook GM. Multi-purpose simulation. J Pet Sci Eng 1993;9:29–38.
[135] Franz P. Oompfs - a new software package for geothermal reservoir simulation.
In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[136] Croucher A, O’sullivan MJ, O’sullivan J, Pogacnik J, Yeh A, Burnell J, et al.
Geothermal supermodels project: an update on flow simulator development. In:
Proc. 39th new zeal. Geotherm. Work. Rotorua, new zeal; 2017.
[137] O’Sullivan J, Croucher A, Yeh A, O’Sullivan M. Experiments with waiwera, a new
geothermal simulator. In: Proc. 39th new zeal. Geotherm. Work. Rotorua, new
zeal; 2017.
[138] Burnell J, O’Sullivan M, O’Sullivan J, Kissling W, Croucher A, Pogacnik J, et al.
Geothermal supermodels: the next generation of integrated geophysical, chemical
and flow simulation modelling tools. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr.
Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[139] Jung Y, Shu G, Pau H, Finsterle S, Pollyea RM. TOUGH3: a new efficient version
of the TOUGH suite of multiphase flow and transport simulators. Comput Geosci
2017;108:2–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2016.09.009.
[140] Stacey RW, Williams MJ. Validation of ECLIPSE reservoir simulator for
geothermal problems. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2017:2095–109.
[141] Pruess K. Modeling of geothermal reservoirs: fundamental processes, computer
simulation and field applications. Geothermics 1990;19:3–15.
[142] Subir K, Sanyal ZS. Booking geothermal energy reserves. Geotherm Resour Counc
Trans 2005;29:467–74.
[143] Parini Mauro, Guido Cappetti, Michele Laudiano RB, MM. Reservoir modeling
study of the Ahuachapan geothermal field (El Salvador) in the frame of a
generation stabilization project. Proc World Geotherm Congr 1995:1543–8.
[144] Gehringer M, Loksha V. Geothermal Handbook: planning and financing power
generation. World bank technical report. Energy sector management assistance
program (ESMAP), 002/12; 2002.
[145] Jessop AM, Ghomshei MM, Drury MJ. Geothermal energy in Canada. Geothermics
1991;20:369–85.
[146] Campos T. Geothermal resources of El Salvador. Preliminary assessment.
Geothermics 1988;17:319–32.
[147] Halld�orsd�
ottir S, Bj€
ornsson H, Mortensen AK, Axelsson G, Guðmundsson A. �
Temperature model and volumetric assessment of the Krafla geothermal field in
N-Iceland. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Bali, indones; 2010.
[148] Hochstein MP, Crosetti M. Electric power potential estimates of high-temperature
Geothermal fields in Indonesia and the Philippines (A historic review). In: Proc.
New zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2011.
[149] Cataldi R, Lazzarotto A, Muffler P, Squarci P, Stefani G. Assessment of geothermal
potential of central and southern tuscany. Geothermics 1978;7:91–131.
[150] Abdollahzadeh Bina F, Johari Sefid P, Porkhial S. Estimating the geothermal
power potential of the NW-Sabalan geothermal field, Iran, by the volumetric
method. In: Proc. Thirty-seventh work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif:
Stanford Univ; 2012.
[151] Ofwona CO. Resource assessment of Olkaria I geothermal field, Kenya. In: Proc.
World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[152] Axelsson G, Arnaldsson A, Armannsson
� H, Arnason
� K, Einarsson G, Franzson H,
et al. Updated conceptual model and capacity estimates for the greater Olkaria
geothermal system, Kenya. In: Proc. Thirty-eighth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng.
Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2013.
[153] Macdonald WJP, Muffler LJP. Recent geophysical exploration of the kawerau
geothermal field, north island, new zeland. N Z J Geol Geophys 2012;15:303–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1972.10422334org/10.1080/
00288306.1972.10422334.
[154] Bjornsson G. Review of generating capacity estimates for the Momotombo
geothermal reservoir in Nicaragua. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2008:
341–5.
[155] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ENECE). Selected case studies.
In: Application of the United Nations Framework classification for resources
(UNFC) to geothermal energy resources; 2017.
[156] Chen C-Y, Sanyal SK. Power generation potential at Chingshui geothermal field,
Taiwan. In: Proc. Thirty-first work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif:
Stanford Univ; 2006.
[157] Arkan S, Parlaktuna M. Resource assessment of Balçova geothermal field. In: Proc.
World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[158] Başel EDK, Serpen U, Satman A. Turkey geothermal resource assessment. In: Proc.
World geotherm. Congr. Bali, indones; 2010.
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
[159] Sanyal SK, Menzies AJ, Brown PJ, Enedy KL, Enedy S. A systematic approach to
decline curve analysis for the Geysers steam field, California. Proc Geotherm
Resour Counc Trans 1989;13:415–21. [191]
[160] Reyes JLP, Li K, Horne RN. A new decline curve analysis method applied to the
Geysers. In: Proc. Twenty-ninth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif:
Stanford Univ; 2004. [192]
[161] Sanyal SK, Klein CW, Mcnitt JR, Henneberger RC, Macleod K. Assessment of
power generation capacity of the western geopower leasehold at the Geysers
geothermal field, California. In: Proc. Thirty-third work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. [193]
Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2008.
[162] Orizonte RG, Amistoso AE, Malate RCM. Optimizing the Palinpinon-2 geothermal
reservoir, Southern Negros geothermal production field, Philippines. In: Proc. [194]
World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[163] Hector E, Campbell R. Decline analysis at Cerro Prieto I geothermal field. In: Proc.
12th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 1990. p. 153–6. [195]
[164] Sorey ML, Fradkin LJ. Validation and comparison of different models of the
Wairakei geothermal reservoir. In: Proc. Stanford geotherm. Work; 1979.
[165] Grant MA, Donaldson IG, Bixley P. Long-term behavior: the observed response of [196]
fields to exploitation. Geotherm Reserv Eng 1982:193–233. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-295620-1.50014-X.
[166] Grant MA. Broadlands - a gas-dominated geothermal system. Geothermics 1977;6: [197]
9–29.
[167] Westwood JD, Castanier LM. Application of a lumped parameter model to the
Cerro Prieto geothermal field. Proc Seventh Work Geotherm Reserv Eng Stanf [198]
1981:23–8.
[168] Castanier L, Sanyal SK. Geothermal reservoir modeling - a review of approaches.
Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1980;4:313–6. [199]
[169] Dee JF, Brigham WE. A reservoir engineering analysis of a vapor-dominated
geothermal system. In: Proc. Tenth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif:
Stanford Univ; 1985. p. 97–103. [200]
[170] Gudmundsson JS, Thorhallsson S. The Svartsengi reservoir in Iceland.
Geothermics 1986;15:3–15.
[171] Brigham WE, Neri G. Preliminary results of a depletion model for the gabbro zone [201]
(Northern part of Larderello field). In: Proc. Stanford geotherm. Work; 1979.
p. 229–40.
[172] Vallejos-Ruiz O. Update of a lumped parameter model of the Miravalles [202]
geothermal field, Costa Rica. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Bali, indones;
2010. p. 25–9.
[173] Gaoxuan G, Axelsson G, Chao Y, Baodong X. Assessment of the Hofsstadir [203]
geothermal field, W-Iceland, by lumped parameter modelling, Monte Carlo
simulation and tracer test analysis. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Bali,
indones; 2010. p. 25–9. [204]
[174] Fajardo VR. Lumped parameter model of the Bacon-manito geothermal
production field Albay, Philipppines. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Kyushu-
tohoku, Japan; 2000. p. 2551–4. [205]
[175] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2005–2010 update report.
Geothermics 2011;41:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2011.10.001.
[176] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2010–2014 update report.
Geothermics 2016;60:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [206]
GEOTHERMICS.2015.11.003.
[177] Terceros ZD. State of the geothermal resources in Bolivia. In: Proc. World
geotherm. Congr. Kyushu-tohoku, Japan; 2000. p. 153–8. [207]
[178] Brandi GP, Ceccarelli A, Di Paola GM, Fengzhongii L, Pizzi G. Model approach to
the management of the Tianjin hydrothermal field, China. Geothermics 1986;15:
639–55. [208]
[179] Hu B. Reservoir simulation of the Yangbajian geothermal field in Tibet, China.
Proc World Geotherm Congr 1995:1691–5.
[180] Vallejos-Ruiz O. Lumped parameter model of the Miravalles geothermal field, [209]
Costa Rica. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[181] Pham M, Sanyal SK, Cranados EE, Mainieri A, Gonzales C. Numerical modeling of [210]
the Miravalles geothermal field, Costa Rica. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans
2000;24:421–6.
[182] Mainieri A, Gonzdlez C, Moya P, Sainchez E, Yock A, Pham M, et al. Updated
numerical simulation of the Miravalles geothermal field, Costa Rica. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2002;26:835–40. [211]
[183] Beate B, Urquizo M. Geothermal country update for Ecuador: 2010-2015. In: Proc.
World geotherm. Congr. Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[184] Ripperda M, Bodvarsson GS, Cuellar G, Escobar C, Lippmann MJ. An exploitation [212]
model and performance predictions for the Ahuachapan geothermal field, El
Salvador. In: Proc. Fifteenth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng; 1990. p. 47–53.
[185] Ripperda M, Bodvarsson GS, Lippmann MJ, Cuellart G, Escobart C. An [213]
exploitation model and performance predictions for the Ahuachapan geothermal
field. El Salvador Geotherm 1991;20:181–96.
[186] Monterrosa M, Montalvo L� opez FE. Sustainability analysis of the AhuachapA¡n
~ [214]
geothermal field: management and modeling. Geothermics 2010;39:370–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2010.09.008.
[187] Parini M, Pisani P, Monterrosa M. Resource assessment at the Berlin geothermal [215]
field (El Salvador). Proc World Geotherm Congr 1995:1537–42.
[188] Monterrosa ME, Salvadore~ na G, Nueva SA, Salvador S, Libertad E, Salvador CA.
Reservoir modelling for the Berlin geothermal field El Salvador. In: Proc. Twenty- [216]
seventh work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2002.
[189] Flores-Armenta Magaly, Leon Quijano, Luis Jose, Palma Julio, Cuevas H. [217]
Numerical simulation results of the Amatitlan, Guatemala, geothermal field. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2002;26:95–100.
[190] Menzies AJ, Granados EE, Sanyal SK, Mbrida IL, Caicedo AA. Numerical modeling
of the initial state and matching of well test data from the Zunil geothermal field,
29
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
Guatemala. In: Proc. Sixt. Work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford
Univ; 1991. p. 193–201.
Lima Lobato EM, Palma J. The Zunil-II geothermal field, Guatemala, Central
America. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Kyushu, tohoku, Japan; 2000.
p. 2133–8.
Bodvarsson GS, Pruess Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory K, Valgardur Stefansson C.
A summary of modeling studies of the Krafla geothermal field, Iceland. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1983;7. 391–296.
Axelsson G. Simulation of pressure response data from geothermal reservoirs by
lumped parameter models. In: Proceeding fourteenth work. Geotherm. Reserv.
Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 1989. p. 257–63.
Sarak H, Onur M, Satman A. Lumped-parameter models for low-temperature
geothermal fields and their application. Geothermics 2005;34:728–55. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2005.09.001.
Steingrimsson B, Bodvarsson GS, Gunnlaugsson E, Gislason G, Sigurdsson O.
Modeling studies of the Nesjavellir geothermal field, Iceland. In: Proc. World
geotherm. Congr. Kyushu-tohoku, Japan; 2000. p. 2899–904.
Bj€ornsson G. Predicting future performance of a shallow steam-zone in the
Svartsengi geothermal field, Iceland. In: Proc. Twenty-fourth work. Geotherm.
Reserv. Eng; 1999.
Acu~ na JA, Stimac J, Sirad-Azwar L, Pasikki RG. Reservoir management at
awibengkok geothermal field, west java, Indonesia. Geothermics 2008;37:
332–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2008.02.005.
Java W, Whittome IAJ, Salvfson JO. Exploration and evaluation of the Darajat
geothermal field west java, Indonesia. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1990;
14:999–1005.
Alamsyah O, Bratakusuma B, Hoang V, Roberts JW. Dynamic modeling of Darajat
field using numerical simulation. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Antalya,
Turkey; 2005.
Kaya E. Modelling reinjection into vapour-dominated two-phase systems: Part 1 -
experiments on model design. Geothermics 2016;60:175–95. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.12.005.
Kaya E. Modelling reinjection into vapour-dominated two-phase systems: Part 2-
reinjection experiments on the 3D Model. Geothermics 2016;60:196–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.12.006.
Atmojo JP, Itoi R, Fukuda M, Tanaka T, Daud Y, Sudarman S. Numerical
modelling study of Sibayak geothermal reservoir, North Sumatra, Indonesia. In:
Proc. Twenty-sixth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng; 2001.
O’Sullivan MJ, Brian Barnett SG, Yunus Razali M. Numerical simulation of the
Kamojang geothermal field, Indonesia. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1990;
14:1317–24.
Mulyadi AA. Reservoir modeling of the northern vapor-dominated two-phase
zone of the Wayang Windu geothermal field, Java, Indonesia. In: Proc. Thirty-
sixth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2011.
Sirait P, Ridwan RH, Battistelli A, Geo Dipa Energi P, Building R, Adityawarman
Kav J, et al. Reservoir modeling for development capacity of Dieng geothermal
field, Indonesia. In: Proc. Fourtieth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif:
Stanford Univ; 2015.
Wardana A, O’Sullivan J, O’Sullivan M. Natural state and future production
modelling of Arjuno-Welirang geothermal field, Indonesia. In: Proc. 38th new
zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2016.
Barnett P, Clotworthy A, Bogie I, Talebi B, Khosrawi K. Stage 2 exploration and
development, NW Sabalan geothermal field, Iran. In: Proc. World geotherm.
Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
Noorollahi Y, Itoi R. Production capacity estimation by reservoir numerical
simulation of Northwest (NW) Sabalan geothermal field, Iran. Energy 2011;36:
4552–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.046.
Alkan H, Satman A. A new lumped parameter model for geothermal reservoirs in
the presence of carbon dioxide. Geothermics 1990;19:469–79.
Carlino S, Troiano A, Giulia M, Giuseppe D, Tramelli A, Troise C, et al.
Exploitation of geothermal energy in active volcanic areas: a numerical modelling
applied to high temperature Mofete geothermal field, at Campi Flegrei caldera
(Southern Italy). Renew Energy 2016;87:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2015.10.007.
Cei M, Barelli A, Casini M, Romagnoli P, Bertani R, Fiordelisi A. Numerical model
of the Travale geothermal field (Italy) in the framework of the I-GET European
project. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2009:1041–5.
Romagnoli P, Arias A, Barelli A, Cei M, Casini M. An updated numerical model of
the Larderello-Travale geothermal system. Italy Geotherm 2010;39:292–313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2010.09.010.
Barelli A, Cei M, Lovari F, Romagnoli P. Numerical modeling for the Larderello-
Travale geothermal system (Italy). In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Bali,
indones; 2010. p. 25–9.
Sanyal SK, Antunez EU, Abe M, Nakanishi S. Numerical modeling of a mature,
high temperature geothermal reservoir: a case history from the Onikobe Field,
Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1990;14:1339–45.
Yahara T, Tokita H. Sustainability of the Hatchobaru geothermal field, Japan.
Geothermics 2010;39:382–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2010.09.001.
Mcguinness M, White S, Young R, Ishizaki H, Ikeuchi K, Yoshida Y. A model of the
Kakkonda geothermal reservoir. Geothermics 1995;24:1–48.
Lei H, Zhu J. Numerical modeling of exploitation and reinjection of the Guantao
geothermal reservoir in Tanggu District, Tianjin, China. Geothermics 2013;48:
60–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.03.008.
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
[218] Nakanishi S, Norifumi Chitoshi Masatoshi Y. A reservoir simulation of the Oguni
field, Japan, using MINC type fracture model. Proc World Geotherm Congr 1995:
1721–6.
[219] Pritchett JW. A numerical simulation study of the Oguni geothermal field. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 1995;19:529–37.
[220] Pritchett JW, Garg SK. A modeling study of the Oguni geothermal field, Kyushu,
Japan. Proc World Geotherm Congr 1995:1727–33.
[221] Antunez EU, Sanyal SK, Menzies AJ, Naka T, Takeuchi R, Iwata S, et al.
Forecasting well and reservoir behavior using numerical simulation, Uenotai
geothermal field, Akita Prefecture, Japan. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans
1990;14:1255–62.
[222] Pham M, Sanyal SK, Menzies AJ, Naka T, Takeuchi R, Iwata S. Numerical
modelling of the high-temperature two-phase reservoir at Uenotai geothermal
field, Akita Perfecture, Japan. Proc World Geotherm Congr 1995:1703–7.
[223] Butler SJ, Sanyal SK, Klein CW, Iwata S, Itoh M. Numerical simulation and
performance evaluation of the Uenotai geothermal field, Akita Prefecture. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2004:455–60.
[224] Butler SJ, Sanyal SK, Klein CW, Itoh M. Numerical simulation and performance
evaluation of the Uenotai geothermal field, Akita Prefecture, Japan. In: Proc.
World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[225] Osada K, Hanano M, Sato K, Kajiwara T, Arai F, Watanabe M, et al. Numerical
simulation study of the Mori geothermal field, Japan. In: Proc. World geotherm.
Congr. Bali, indones; 2010.
[226] Sanyal SK, Pham M, Iwata S, Suzuki M, Inoue T, Yamada K, et al. Numerical
simulation of the wasabizawa geothermal field, akita prefecture, Japan. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2000;24:623–9.
[227] Kondo K, Itoi R, Tanaka T, Iwasaki T. Numerical simulation of the Sumikawa
geothermal reservoir, Japan, using iTOUGH2. In: Proc. 42nd geotherm. Work.
Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2017.
[228] Rop E, Fujii H, Jalilinasrabady S. An updated numerical model of the Greater
Olkaria geothermal system, Kenya. In: Proc. 43rd work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng.
Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2018.
[229] Kipyego E, O’Sullivan J, O’Sullivan M. An initial resource assessment of the
Menengai caldera geothermal system using an air-water TOUGH2 model. In: Proc.
35th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2013.
[230] Tsang CF, Mangold DC, Lippmann MJ. Simulation of reinjection at Cerro Prieto
using an idealized two-reservoir model. Geothermics 1981;10:195–206.
[231] Antunez EU, Menzies AJ, Sanyal SK. Simulating a challenging water dominated
geothermal system - the Cerro Prieto field, Baja California, Mexico. In: Proc. Sixt.
Work. Geotherm. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 1991. p. 183–91.
[232] Butler SJ, Sanyal SK, Hennebergerl RC, Klein CW, Puente HG, de Leon JS.
Numerical modeling of the Cerro Prieto geothermal field, Mexico. Proc Geotherm
Resour Counc Trans 2000;24:401–6.
[233] Iglesiasa ER, Arellano VM, Garfiase A, Mirandaf C, Aragonf A. A one-dimensional
vertical model of the Los Azufres, Mexio, geothermal reservoir in its natural state.
Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans. 1985:331–6.
[234] Torres-Rodriguez MA, Mendoza-Covarrubias A, Medina-Martinez M. An update of
the Los Azufres geothermal field after 21 years of exploitation. Proc Geotherm
Resour Counc Trans 2005:837–42.
[235] Upton PS. Los Humeros geothermal field, Mexico. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc
Trans 1997;21:435–9.
[236] Flores-Armenta M, Jaimes-Maldonado C. The las tres virgenes Mexico geothermal
reservoir. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2001;25:525–34.
[237] Milicich SD, Clark JP, Wong C, Askari M. A review of the kawerau geothermal
field, New Zealand. Geothermics 2016;59:252–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2015.06.012.
[238] O’Sullivan MJ, Yeh A, Mannington WI. A history of numerical modelling of the
Wairakei geothermal field. Geothermics 2009;38:155–68. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2008.12.001.
[239] Blakeley MR, O’Sullivan MJ. Modelling of production and recharge at Wairakei.
In: Proc. New zeal. Geotherm. Work; 1982. p. 23–31.
[240] O’Sullivan MJ, Bullivant WIM DP, SEF. Modelling of the Wairakei-Tauhara
geothermal system. In: Proc. 20th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 1998. p. 59–66.
[241] Menzies AJ, Lawless JV. Two-dimensional modeling of the Tauhara geothermal
field. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2000;24:611–6.
[242] Mannington W, O’Sullivan M, Bullivant D. Computer modelling of the
Wairakei–Tauhara geothermal system, New Zealand. Geothermics 2004;33:
401–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2003.09.009.
[243] O’Sullivan M, Mannington W. Renewability of the Wairakei-Tauhara geothermal
resource. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[244] O’Sullivan M, Yeh A, Mannington W. Renewability of geothermal resources.
Geothermics 2010;39:314–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2010.09.003.
[245] O’Sullivan M, Clearwater E, Yeh A, O’Sullivan J, Shinde A, Zarrouk S, et al.
Computer modelling retrospective on wairakei and Ohaaki. In: Proc. World
geotherm. Congr. Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[246] Blakeley MR, O’Sullivan MJ, Bodvarsson GS. A simple model of the Ohaaki
geothermal reservoir. In: Proc 5th new zeal geotherm work; 1983. 11–5.
[247] Newson J, O’Sullivan M. Modelling of the Ohaaki geothermal system. In: Proc.
Twenty-sixth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2001.
[248] Zarrouk SJ, O’Sullivan MJ, Newson JA. Computer modelling of the Ohaaki
geothermal system. Proc 26th New Zeal Geotherm Work 2004:114–20.
[249] Clearwater EK, O’Sullivan MJ, Brockbank K. An update on modelling the Ohaaki
geothermal system. Proc N Z Geotherm Workshop 2011.
30
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
[250] Clearwater EK, O’sullivan MJ, Mannington WI, Newson JA, Brockbank K. Recent
advances in modelling the Ohaaki geothermal field. In: Proc. 36th new zeal.
Geotherm. Work; 2014.
[251] Ratouis TMP, O’Sullivan MJ, O’Sullivan JP, Mcdowell JM, Mannington WI.
Holistic approach and recent advances in the modelling of the Ohaaki geothermal
system. In: Proc. 39th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2017.
[252] Bowyer D, Holt R. Case study: development of a numerical model by a multi-
disciplinary approach, Rotokawa geothermal field, New Zealand. In: Proc. World
geotherm. Congr. Bali, indones; 2010. p. 25.
[253] Hernandez D, Addison S, Sewell S, Barnes M. Rotokawa: reservoir response of 172
MW geothermal operation. In: Proc. 37th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2015.
[254] Hernandez D, Clearwater J, Burnell J, Franz P, Azwar L, Marsh A. Update on the
modeling of the Rotokawa geothermal system: 2010-2014. In: Proc. World
geotherm. Congr. Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[255] Clearwater J, Hernandez D, Sewell S, Addison S. Model-based decision making to
manage production in the western compartment at Rotokawa. In: Proc. 38th new
zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2016.
[256] Boseley C, Grant MA, Burnell J, Ricketts B. Ngatamariki project update. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2010:177–82.
[257] Clearwater J, Burnell J, Azwar L. Modelling the Ngatamariki geothermal system.
Proc N Z Geotherm Workshop 2011.
[258] Clearwater J, Burnell J, Azwar L. Modelling the Ngatamariki geothermal system.
In: Proc. Thirty-seventh work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford
Univ; 2012.
[259] Burnell J, Weir G, Kissling W. Modelling the Ngawha geothermal field. In: Proc.
38th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2016.
[260] Porras EA, Tanaka T, Fujii H, Itoi R. Numerical modeling of the Momotombo
geothermal system, Nicaragua. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey;
2005.
[261] Porras EA, Tanaka T, Fujii H, Itoi R. Numerical modeling of the Momotombo
geothermal system. Nicaragua Geotherm 2007;36:304–29. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2007.04.004.
[262] Mcdowell JM. Discrete fracture embedding to match the injection returns in a
single porosity model. In: Proc. 36th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 2014.
[263] Mcdowell JM. Discrete fracture embedding to match injection returns in a single
porosity model. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[264] Sarmiento ZF, Aquino BG, Aunzo ZP, Rodis NO, Saw VS. An assessment of the
Tongonan geothermal reservoir, Philippines, at high-pressure operating
conditions. Geothermics 1993;226:451–66.
[265] Salera JRM, O’Sullivan MJ. Computer modelling studies of the Tongonan
geothermal field. In: Proc. 9th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 1987. p. 169–78.
[266] Sta Ana FXM, Hingoyon-Siega CS, Andrino RP. Mahanagdong geothermal sector,
greater Tongonan, Philippines: reservoir evaluation and modelling update. In:
Proc. Twenty-seventh work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng; 2002.
[267] Sta Ana FXM, O’Sullivan MJ. Computer modelling of the southern negros
geothermal field, philppines. In: Proc. 10th new zeal. Geotherm. Work; 1988.
p. 85–93.
[268] Amistoso AE, Aquino BG, Aunzo ZP, Jordan OT, M Sta Ana FX, Bodvarsson GS,
et al. Reservoir analysis of the palinpinon geothermal field, negros oriental,
Philippines. Geothermics 1993;226:555–74.
[269] Jemuel J, Austria C. Sustainable production assessment of the Bacon-Manito
geothermal reservoir, the Philippines. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Bali,
indones; 2010.
[270] Villacorte JD, Colina RN, Marquez SL, Xavier Sta Ana FM. An update on the 3D
numerical model of the Bacon-Manito geothermal field. In: Proc. World geotherm.
Congr. Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[271] Esberto MB, Sarmiento ZF. Numerical modelling of Mt. Apo geothermal reservoir.
In: Proc. Twenty-fourth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng; 1999.
[272] Emoricha EB, Omagbon JB, Malate RCM. Three dimensional numerical modeling
of Mindanao geothermal production field, Philippines. In: Proc. Thirty-fifth work.
Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2010.
[273] Esberto MB. Two-dimensional numerical modeling of the Northern Negros
geothermal field, Philippines. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2006:785–9.
[274] Ponte C, Cabecas R, Martins R, Rangel G, Pham M, Klein C. Numerical modeling
for resource management at ribeira grande, sao miguel, azores, Portugal. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2009:847–53.
[275] Zhang K, Lee B-H, Ling L, Guo T-R, Liu C-H, Ouyang S. Modeling studies for
production potential of Chingshui geothermal reservoir. Renew Energy 2016;94:
568–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.099.
[276] Yeltekin K, Parlaktuna M, Akin S. Modelling of Kizildere geothermal reservoir,
Turkey. In: Proc. Twenty-seventh work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif:
Stanford Univ; 2002.
[277] Garg SK, Haizlip J, Bloomfield KK, Kindap A, Haklidir FST, Guney A. A numerical
model of the Kizildere geothermal field, Turkey. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr.
Melbourne, Aust; 2015.
[278] Türeyen OI,
€ Kırmacı A, Onur M. Assessment of uncertainty in future performance
predictions by lumped-parameter models for single-phase liquid geothermal
systems. Geothermics 2014;51:300–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2014.01.015.
[279] Gok IM, Sarak H, Onur M, Serpen U, Satman A. Numerical modeling of the
Balcova-Narlidere geothermal field, Turkey. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr.
Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[280] Kiryukhin AV, Yampolsky VA. Modeling study of the Pauzhetsky geothermal
field, Kamchatka, Russia. Geothermics 2004;33:421–42. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2003.09.010.
A.E. Ciriaco et al.
[281] Kiryukhin AV, Asaulova NP, Rychkova TV, Obora NV, Manukhin YF,
Vorozheikina LA. Modeling and forecast of the exploitation the Pauzhetsky
geothermal field, Kamchatka, Russia. In: Proc. Thirty-second work. Geotherm.
Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 2007.
[282] Kiryukhin AV. Modeling of the dachny site Mutnovsky geothermal field
(Kamchatka, Russia) in connection with the problem of steam supply for 50 MWe
power plant. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr. Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[283] Antunez EU, Bodvarsson GS, Walterst MA. Numerical simulation study of the
Northwest Geysers geothermal field, A case study of the Coldwater Creek
steamfield. Geothermics 1994;23:375–6505.
[284] Williamson KH. Reservoir simulation of the Geysers geothermal field. In: Proc.
Fifteenth work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ; 1990.
p. 113–23.
31
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109515
[285] Menzies AJ, Pham M. A field-wide numerical simulation model of the Geysers
geothermal field, California, USA. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr; 1995.
p. 1697–702.
[286] Butler SJ, Enedy SL. Numerical reservoir-wellbore-pipeline simulation model of
the Geysers geothermal field, California, USA. In: Proc. World geotherm. Congr.
Bali, indones; 2010.
[287] Enedy Steven L, Butler SJ. Numerical reservoir-modeling of forty years of
injectate recovery at the Geysers geothermal field, California, USA. Proc
Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2010:1221–7.
[288] Holt R, Campbell D, Matlick S. Reservoir simulation of Brady’s geothermal field,
Nevada. Proc Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2004;28:589–93.
[289] Erkan K, Holdmann G, Benoit W, Blackwell D. Understanding the Chena Hot
Springs, Alaska, geothermal system using temperature and pressure data from
exploration boreholes. Geothermics 2008;37:565–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2008.09.001.