See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331074337

Geothermal Well Targeting Method Using Structural Irregularities

Conference Paper · February 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 829

1 author:

Glenn Melosh

11 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tolhuaca View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Glenn Melosh on 13 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PROCEEDINGS, Fortieth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering
Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 26-28, 2015
SGP-TR-204

Geothermal Well Targeting Method Using Structural Irregularities

Glenn Melosh
2685 Sunrise Ave, Santa Rosa, CA 95409
gmelosh@gmail.com

Keywords: Structure, well target, geomechanics, stress

ABSTRACT
Studies of the association of hot springs and fumaroles with fault structures indicate a statistically valid preference for enhanced
permeability at structural irregularities such as fault step-overs, intersections, and bends near the surface (e.g. Curewitz and Karson,
1995 and Faulds et al, 2010). Other sites of local deformation that can result in high geothermal permeability include volcanic or
magmatic brecciation (Lawless and White, 1990). Meanwhile statistical rock fracture studies demonstrate the importance of varying
rock strength for the creation of abundant fractures. Structural locations of thermal features in geothermal areas, drilling results, and
mechanical considerations show that tensional zones in areas of variable rock strength are particularly permeable. Meanwhile study of
an exhumed fault zone originally formed at over 10 km depth shows remnant high porosity and permeability in tensional fault breccias
(Melosh et al, 2014) even within the brittle-ductile transition zone. Comparison of these surficial and very deep observations to
geothermal drilling history shows significant success at intervening depths in encountering high “sweet spot” commercial deliverability
wells in similar patterns. A direct comparison of structural setting to well success at Blue Mountain, Nevada demonstrates the co-
location of sweet spot well success with a tensional zone in a relatively simple structural irregularity. These consistent patterns from
outcrop and well results along with practical exploration drilling considerations are applied in a step-by-step conceptual well targeting
method that applies the stress orientation, fault and volcanic patterns, identification of tensional zones, interpreted depth extent of
structures, rock strength patterns, and practical well geometry.

1. INTRODUCTION
Geothermal well targeting involves a range of considerations including the reservoir conceptual model, geology, previous drilling
results, existing infrastructure, and drilling risk. Resulting well deliverability is affected by several important factors such as
permeability, temperature, fluid phase, well design, and entry depth. One of the more difficult aspects of the targeting process is the
identification of sites of possible high fracture permeability for production or injection targets. Given the well documented complexity
of rock fracture patterns, the difficulty of remotely sensing an open crack at depth, and the sparse nature of geothermal subsurface data,
this is a challenging endeavor. This report does not consider all of the important components of well targeting but instead focuses on the
issue of fracture permeability.

Many of the methods for permeability targeting use a simple model such as drilling a fault, stress-favored open fracture orientation,
geophysical anomaly, conceptual upflow zone, or drilling until permeability patterns are defined from well results. These targeting
methods have resulted in a proportion of geothermal wells with deliverability over 3 MW of about 70% worldwide and a strongly
lognormal distribution of successful wells that range over an order of magnitude (i.e. about 5 to 50 MW) (Sanyal and Morrow, 2011).

The broad dynamic range of fracture permeability and its sensitivity to drilling results indicates that improved strategies for fracture
targeting represent an opportunity to significantly boost average well deliverability and reduce well counts. This report describes an
approach that does not try to identify specific open fractures or even fracture orientations but rather takes advantage of more smoothly
varying mechanical conditions to target zones where permeable fractures are likely to occur. It applies statistical results on permeable
fracture mechanical settings, the history of well success worldwide, practical aspects of drilling, and surface expression of permeability
in the field area. Recently reported targeting strategies that apply similar structural information include a relatively simple focus on fault
damage zones (Bogie et al, undated) and a more elaborate work flow to create detailed 3D geologic and stress models (Hinz et al, 2013).
This report is intended to add to the discussion regarding these methods.

2. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE AND PERMEABILITY

Structural geologic studies indicate that fault permeability as evident in hot fluid production to the surface in hot springs is most
commonly found at fault irregularities such as fault tips, intersections, overlaps or steps, and bends (e.g. Curewitz and Karson, 1997 and
Faulds et al, 2010a). Active strain in these irregularities can result in fractures propped open by immature fault surface shapes, blocks in
the fault, repeated breakage, and residual stress concentrations but can also be sealed over time by mineralization. Detailed review of
permeable patterns in geothermal prospects suggests that the permeability near irregularities develops in stressed secondary extensional
and shear-extensional fracture networks or damage zones based on abundant hot spring, alteration, and fumarole locations and the
broader location of geothermal fields in shear-extensional fault overlap zones.

Study of 822 hot springs in 25 areas worldwide in a variety tectonic settings provides consistent statistical evidence that permeable
fractures held open dynamically (due to unresolved stresses at irregular fault shapes) dominate strongly over fractures re-opened

1
Melosh

kinematically (by repeated movement on smoother through-going faults) and hot spring permeability not evidently associated with
faulting (Curewitz and Karson, 1997) (Figure 1). Meanwhile, structural study of over 300 geothermal areas in the Basin and Range
setting (where the heat source is linked to flow on the fractures themselves so that field location is free of the influence of magma
location) corroborates the dominance of permeability shown by hot springs observed at irregularities versus locations on major faults
(Faulds, 2013) (Figure 2). In a similar way the pattern of permeability associated with fault irregularities also localizes magma flow
based on eruption vent locations in the East Africa Rift (e.g. Chorowicz, 2005) and elsewhere.

Fault irregularities can occur at scales from an entire geothermal reservoir or even series of reservoirs down to individual, relatively
small-scale fault bends or intersections. The volume of the interpreted fracture network around these irregularities is of key importance
since a larger network can represent a larger reservoir or an easier-to-hit drilling target. Curewitz and Karson (1997) interpret relative
sizes of fault breakdown areas that depend on the length of the fault and whether a locked segment allows stresses to accumulate.
Examples of breakdown area shapes are shown in Figure 3. The size of a breakdown area has not been related to the size of a
commercially permeable well target area (yet) but the radius of the breakdown area at an active fault tip based on geologic observations
is expected to be 5 to 10% of the length of the fault.

Extensional fault step-overs (as in Figure 3-b) are particularly attractive features because they can incorporate very large volumes of
rock. For example the right lateral extensional step-over from the Imperial Fault to the San Andreas Fault in Southern California is
roughly 30 km across and includes multiple geothermal reservoirs including what may be the largest system in the world at the Salton
Sea Field (400 MW installed with potential estimated from 1500 to 2300 MW). The Geysers Field (about 800 MW) in Northern
California occurs in a complex step-over including the Big Sulphur Creek and Little Sulphur Creek Faults in the broader Maacamas
Fault Zone within the strike-slip San Andreas Fault System. Even away from major strike slip fault zones, step-overs on smaller strike-
slip or oblique faults can be important. For example the Awibengkok reservoir (370 MW installed) may occur in a local shear-
extensional fault step-over within the regional compressional fault complex associated with the Sunda Arc Megathrust. The
observations of open fracture breccias preserved after exhumation from mid-crustal depth occurred in extensional fault stepovers
(Melosh, 2014) indicating that this type of structural feature may also be capable of supporting deep upflow.

Figure 1 –Hot Spring Locations in Tectonic Settings (Curewitz and Karson, 1997). Locations are categorized as Dynamic,
Kinematic, or Asystematic referring to whether fractures are held open by stresses at irregularites, re-opened by
movement, or not fault associated, respectively.

2
 Melosh

Figure 2 – Hot Spring Structural Locations in The Basin and Range categorized by the type of structural irregularity (Faulds,
2013). Location on a major fault is roughly consistent with the Kinematic category from Curewitz and Karson (1997).

Figure 3 – Fractured breakdown zones at fault irregularities from Curewitz and Karson (1997). Note that the slipping
intersections in D do not show breakdown areas.
Although worldwide, regional, and local geothermal structural permeability studies like these provide useful information on specific
structures and types of structures that are more likely to harbor permeability than other areas, they do not show that these features are
always or even usually permeable. Meanwhile the influence of structural setting is only part of the control on permeability and other
factors should be considered when interpreting subsurface fracture permeability for well targets. For example magmatic strains can also
play an important role in establishing fracture networks. Intrusions, phreatomagmatic events, magmatic evacuation or contraction, and
associated fault breccias are common in geothermal fields and have been shown to be important for hydrothermal permeability (e.g.
Lawless and White, 1990). An association of volcanic domes and fracture permeability that allows for cold water downflow into

3
Melosh

geothermal reservoirs has been observed in several fields including in New Zealand and The Geysers, California. In the Bulalo Field,
Philippines one side of the Bulalo Volcanic Dome focuses cold downflow while the other side supports excellent high enthalpy
production wells.

Rock strength also profoundly affects fracturing. Weak rocks will not sustain residual opening after fault movement. For example
argillically-altered rock above the reservoir is often weak and thick enough to seal fractures (or slough into open wellbores) such that
well targets avoid this rock type. Bogie et al (undated) emphasize the importance of competent rock in maintaining open fractures in
damage zones. Meanwhile rapidly varying rock strength causes more numerous cracks due to differences in deformation between rock
types. This results in the consistent observation that layered or variable rocks have more numerous and complex fractures (National
Resource Council, 1996) to the extent that positive correlations have been demonstrated between mechanical layer thickness and
fracture spacing (Gross et al, 1995 - Figure 4). Horizontal entry patterns in geothermal wells that persist from well to well commonly
evoke interpretations of primary lithological permeability. However in some cases these features are likely to be at least partly
mechanical. A rock strength variation model for permeability is consistent with poor drilling results in areas with very thick, consistent
rock formations like thick tuff beds (e.g. Valles Caldera, New Mexico or Silangkitang, Sumatra) or young granite intrusions (e.g. away
from the intrusive contact at The Geysers, California or Tongonan, Philippines).

Figure 4 – Correlation of joint spacing with Mechanical Layer Thickness (Gross et al, 1995). Labels show the number of joint
spacing measurements in each bed.
A combination of rock type effects have had a significant impact on development wells drilled at the Awibengkok field where deeply
weathered and argillically-altered impermeable tuffs occur in an under-pressured reservoir. At Awibengkok these weak rocks are often
positioned immediately above horizontally-correlated open fractures. Wells drilled through the weak altered tuff then often encountered
total lost circulation. The consequent rapid drop in wellbore fluid pressure allowed the overlying altered tuff to collapse into the hole
causing the drilling pipe to be stuck in place (Ganefianto, oral comm.). The option of casing off these sections would lead to giving up
commercial entries. The widespread distribution of this hazard/opportunity resulted in consistent and very expensive drilling problems
that required years of persistent innovation by Unocal to overcome.

Rock formation age can also affect fracturing since older rocks have seen a wider variety of stress orientations and fault patterns. For
example the Mesozoic granite reservoir at the Coso Field in California deviates from the pattern of infrequent entries in massive rocks,
perhaps due to its location in an area with a long history of shear-extensional deformation.

3. A HISTORY OF GEOTHERMAL WELL TARGETING

In order to support the extremely high flow and low decline rates required for commercial geothermal production, successful wells
generally access anomalous permeability on one or more open fractures in the reservoir within a more broadly connected fracture or
primary permeability network. However the complexity of natural fracture patterns, sparse data at depth, and the difficulty in imaging
as yet undrilled open fractures means that targeting wells to encounter specific open fractures is mostly a matter of inference rather than
reliance on a specific data set. The following brief history of well targeting describes some of the well targeting models that have been
applied.

The oldest approach to geothermal well targeting was to simply space the wells across an area of geothermal potential identified from
thermal areas and later using geophysics. This model was based on practice in oil and gas drilling and was designed to mitigate well
interference. Early on at the Geysers and Tiwi, Philippines, an ad hoc choice applied a 40 acre spacing to well targeting plans. Rank
exploration usually starts with a broader spacing. This initial drilling pattern was often followed by targeting follow-up wells near
previous highly permeable wells. Extensive drilling in several fields has shown consistent success from this follow-up sweet spot
4
 Melosh

approach. After dense drilling, maps of well permeability in some fields can even appear roughly contour-able with an overall high
permeability anomaly associated with the whole geothermal field and local extra-high permeability in one or more equant to elongate
areas of the field (e.g. Rejeki et al, 2010). High permeability areas can contain relatively high or low temperatures due to upwards or
downwards convective action. Sweet spot areas can also include individual wells with low permeability in spite of the otherwise fairly
smooth permeability variation among groups of wells around the field. Interference can influence productivity in closely-spaced wells
but the permeability in sweet spots is usually high enough that several wells can be drilled before interference becomes a serious issue.

The sweet spot approach still leaves early well targets and step-outs effectively blind in terms of encountering permeable fractures. A
variety of methods have been attempted to specifically target wells on fractures to improve success rates.

The oldest and still most common specific fracture permeability target applied during geothermal development is a fault interpreted
from surface mapping, geophysics, or from the alignment of entries in other wells. This has been shown to work in fault-based systems
such as Dixie Valley, Nevada or Silangkitang, Sumatra although it has not been consistently successful elsewhere. For example at Blue
Mt, Nevada permeability does not extend for more than about 1.5 km along the two permeable faults through the field (Figure 5) leading
to multiple dry holes drilled on these faults.

However abundant information on fault patterns and hot springs indicates that faults are not generally permeable. For example Curewitz
and Karson (1997) show much lower likelihood of permeability along a fault trace compared to locations at fault irregularities. Faulds et
al (2010a) also show that only 5% of hot springs are found on the main range front normal faults in the Basin and Range. Meanwhile
faults with large offset (that are easier to identify) commonly develop gouge that creates an impermeable fault core such that they can
also turn out to be permeability barriers. In summary the simple fault targeting strategy has been literally hit or miss.

Figure 5 – Blue Mountain Wells and Faults (modified from Casteel et al, 2010 and Faulds and Melosh, 2008). Although the
entries in production wells (in red) and western injectors (blue) show good correlation with the short NNW trending fault
mapped to the east, the fault does not continue to be permeable away from a narrow upflow. This fault/permeability
pattern is included in Figure 7.
Another approach to well targeting has been to drill across a stress-favored pattern of interpreted fractures to obtain a higher probability
of well success. This approach is supported by detailed study of fracture permeability and stress orientation that indicates that permeable
fractures are typically oriented to fail in the local stress field. This conclusion was based on study of generally low permeability
fractures in core holes and was validated by the orientation of the productive fault in the fault-focused geothermal field at Dixie Valley,
Nevada (Barton et al, 1997). The approach of drilling across a preferred fracture direction has been attempted with some success and
some failure in limited numbers of wells elsewhere. However studies of well orientation vs. permeability in at least three large
magmatically-heated fields with hundreds of wells each have shown that well orientation is not a valid method of well targeting in those
fields (e.g. Beall and Box, 1991) (Figure 6). Sweet spot drilling success suggests that the direction from the well pad to the sweet spot
may be more important than the direction of the wells relative to possible open fractures.

5
Melosh

Figure 6 - Plot showing inclination and azimuth of wellbore at points of steam entries. Data from 1,078 steam entries in south
half of Geysers field. From Beall and Box (1991). This pattern was interpreted to show that well orientation is not an
effective well targeting strategy in the South Geysers.

Other methods have focused on application of geophysical anomalies such as shear-wave splitting or relatively intense overlying
conductors as measures of permeability in the reservoir. These methods are at least ambiguous and are subject to artifacts of geologic
noise, distortion, or processing. There has been occasional success using these approaches but no consistent results have been reported.
Unfortunately more powerful and precise methods using seismic reflection as applied in oil and gas are not commonly useful in
geothermal because of difficulty in obtaining information from the reservoir due to high reflectivity in overlying volcanic rocks, lack of
consistent beds from which to infer offset, and the near invisibility of individual fractures or steeply dipping faults to seismic reflection.

Another aspect of well targeting is the decision on when to stop drilling. Geothermal fracture permeability, like any fracture network,
broadly shows exponentially declining permeability with depth. Decisions to stop drilling however are rarely applied until clear
negative information is encountered to demonstrate that additional drilling is either risky or the bit is below the reservoir. Even if the
original targets have been passed, the relatively low cost to continue makes further untargeted drilling appropriate. The observation of
open fracture breccias generated at depths up to 10 km (and later exhumed) (Melosh et al, 2014) argues that targets may persist to great
depth although they may be localized and difficult to identify from the surface. In some cases early assumptions that the well was in
basement rock or decisions to stop drilling to save money were later shown to be erroneous.

4. SWEET SPOTS AND STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES

The geometry of sweet spots is consistent with the shape of breakdown zones. They both cover local areas rather than being extensively
persistent along faults or dependent on well orientation. Blue Mt is a relatively simple demonstration of a more direct association. Blue
Mt shows a tightly constrained, very high permeability sweet spot in an extensional zone at the intersection of a strike slip fault and a
normal fault pattern (Figure 5). Permeability does not extend on the other side of the intersection with the strike-slip fault or very far
along the normal fault trend. This example may be so clear because of the lack of competing magmatic deformation and the limited
variation in rock strength. Unfortunately for long term well performance at Blue Mt. the persistently crystalline character of reservoir
rock (either metamorphic or intrusive rock without intervening weak formations) does not result in extensive secondary fracturing that
might improve heat exchange or reservoir volume.

6
 Melosh

5. CONCEPTUAL GEOMECHANICAL WELL TARGETING

Detailed evidence on structural permeability from fault irregularity-hot spring mapping, the historical successes and failures of
geothermal well targeting methods, and the obscurity of specific fractures at depth makes it appropriate to test a target method that
interprets fracture networks at fault or magmatic irregularities that can extend to depth under local conditions that result in open cracks.
So while an individual open crack or fault is difficult to image at depth and permeability on any particular identified fault or fracture
orientation is unreliable, the conditions that support open cracks such as rock type, stress field, structural setting, fracture orientation,
volcanic features, and secondary mineralization intensity vary more smoothly and may allow definition of targetable sweet spots.

Understanding the conditions that support geothermal permeability in any particular area can involve assembly of a wide variety of
geologic information. Fortunately there are relationships between stress, strain, strength, and structures that can help integrate at least
the mechanical data. Pertinent mechanical information includes regional tectonics, seismicity, focal mechanisms or moment tensors,
borehole breakout studies in regional wells, orientations of volcanic features, the distribution of hot springs, fumaroles, and alteration,
structural geologic mapping, fault kinematic studies, Lidar topography, stratigraphy, and geologic history. Igneous intrusive, extrusive,
and collapse events must also be considered as important sources of local strain. These data, where available, can be integrated to
interpret fracture zones locally held open by movement or propping. Other key data that may be available later in development could
include well logs, mini-frac or leak-off testing, and rock strength measurements. Although this may seem complicated, it is in line with
the existing process of conceptual model development.

Due to the complexity of fracturing and the sparse mechanical data in most fields, the inferential approach to working through the
available data described here is primarily conceptual and must be calibrated by direct evidence of permeability at the surface and in
wells. The primary difference between this approach and the previous methods is that targeting does not start with a simple, pre-
conceived model for permeability, require a pre-defined well success pattern, or extensive and detailed data but instead considers a wide
range of mechanical models based on field analogs while attempting to narrow down the model set and optimize results based on direct
and indirect local mechanical and permeability data. This approach may be complementary or preliminary to the work flow described by
Hinz et al (2013) in which detailed surface mapping and incorporation of other detailed data including previous well results are used to
establish specific 3D structural-hydrothermal and stress calculation models. In many cases during exploration the available data are
inadequate to constrain detailed 3D models. The variety of data sets and resultant models for targets inherent in this approach should
accelerate the learning process while drilling in individual fields.

Geomechanical fracture network targeting proceeds by interpreting the recent sense of local deformation on fault and volcanic
irregularities based on the stress field in areas of appropriate rock types to identify vertically-distributed open fracture networks in areas
of local extension based on comparison to analog fields. The geometry of these patterns are extrapolated to depth to identify well
targets. Since the assembly of local fault and volcanic structures can be very complex, no attempt will be made to characterize all
situations. Guiding examples of fault patterns that result in geothermal permeability are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Examples of Geothermal Structural Settings. Red areas show the locations of geothermal reservoirs or hot springs.
Maps A through D are from Faulds et al (2011). E is from Faulds et al (2010a). G is from Faulds et al (2010b). H is from
Curewitz and Karson (1997). Map D shows Blue Mt (Faulds and Melosh, 2008). F is from a geothermal field in Chile.
Based on the sense of motion on local faults, several key fracture settings can be interpreted to be open or closed and targetable or not
for injection or production wells as follows:
7
Melosh

1. A map-view bend or step-over in a strike-slip fault can be characterized as extensional and potentially permeable or compressional
and tight. Strike slip faults may also have more easily interpreted depth extent.

2. One side of a wrench fault termination can be interpreted as compressional and the other extensional.

3. At an intersection of two faults, interpreted offsets allow definition of whether the fault is locked or slipping and which quadrants
may be compressional and extensional.

4. In contrast normal faults may encounter bends along strike, but as long as motion is down-dip, open secondary fracturing is unlikely
at the bend.

5. Parallel antithetic normal fault intersections might result in horizontally-distributed secondary fractures near their intersection, which
while of interest for reservoir permeability are not oriented to guide hydrothermal upflow or downflow, have limited extent along
reasonable wellbores making them hard to hit, and are difficult to identify from the surface.

6. Normal fault step-overs and terminations can result in fault ramp and fault tip fracture networks with vertical extent and have been
shown to conduct hydrothermal upflow.

7. Volcanic dome extrusion can result in intrusive brecciation and collapse of the formation after passage of the magma - leading to
open fracture networks. Field analogs suggest that this has commonly resulted in downflow due to the surface connection such that it
may be an injection target.

8. Caldera or other collapse or subsidence faults can be directly related to heat source location but like other faults are less likely to be
permeable away from irregularities or intersections.

9. Hydrothermal brecciation can also focus fracture permeability however it is directly associated with sealing mineralization, at least
in surface-nucleated eruption features.

4.1 Method
The sense of local strain in a particular area is based on interpretation of the regional stress field orientation. Regional stresses are
inferred from strain data. Stresses are used for interpretation instead of strain because the dynamic range of strain is much higher than
the range of stress orientation, which varies more smoothly. For example strain on a fault plane can relieve stress in a much broader
area just like stresses that are applied to a pencil are relieved across the entire pencil when broken. Local stress field orientations and
magnitudes would clearly be better but can be difficult to obtain and are usually not available in an exploration setting.

Once regional stresses and stress history are defined from local and regional data, fault maps are developed to identify fault
irregularities. Where surface exposures are limited, it is important to grade fault interpretations to avoid patterns that look like uncooked
spaghetti dropped on the dance floor at a wedding, with abundant lineaments going every which way. Identified faults and lineaments
should be more than one person’s visualization such that there is corroborating evidence by detailed mapping, scarps, offset, multiple
interpreters, seismicity, or other objective data. In this regard Blue Mt. again provides a useful example since very detailed fault
mapping (Szybinski, 2007) changed significantly upon review by another geologist (Faulds and Melosh, 2008).

At each fault irregularity the interpreted sense of offsets on structures or lineaments are used to identify possible zones of extension or
shear-extension. Shear extension is important because of the potential for shear movement to result in a propped cracks in vertically
elongate fault intersections. Shear extension can result in extensive fracture networks through development of a combination of shear
and extensional fractures (e.g. Sibson, 1996). Shear offset can also cause faults to be locked by opposing offsets at an intersection. In
contrast fault intersections that allow slip on both faults will relieve stresses that might otherwise hold open cracks (Curewitz and
Karson, 1997) (Figure 3-d).

Areas with interpreted secondary extensional faulting are then compared to the likely rock types at depth. Uniformly weak rocks (such
as argillic-altered volcanics or shale) are unlikely to hold open fractures at fault asperities. Uniformly strong rock will hold open cracks
but the complexity of the fracture network is likely to be low. Ideally there are a variety of rock strengths in a target area. Interbedded
lavas and unwelded tuffs are an ideal target since they include both a wide variety of mechanical behaviors such that cracks may be
numerous as well as having a significant primary pore volume and perhaps matrix permeability in the tuff. Dikes, sills, welded tuff, and
lavas will tend to be strong while tuffs, breccias, and lahars may be weaker.

Once the current stress orientations, fault patterns and irregularities, interpreted extensional zones, magmatic strains, and rock types
have been considered, many conceptual well permeability targets are likely to be available. They have to be checked relative to actual
permeability information for the area as evident from the occurrence of fumaroles and hot springs, alteration patterns (including
geophysics), and later from well results. It is important to not short-cut this process too much since going straight to the surface or well
permeability evidence may result in an overly simplistic interpretation. This simplistic approach led to the “target faults” approach that
has not been thoroughly successful in optimizing well success rates. Ideally, thoroughly considered multiple mechanical permeability
models will be created in geothermal fields that get validated, elaborated, or eliminated by well testing to support successful models that
can then be applied to find new permeability targets.

8
 Melosh

Once provisional well targets are available, the practical considerations of drilling should be applied prior to selection of the targets.
Issues include whether multiple targets can be obtained in a single wellbore, whether the target zone can be easily or extensively
penetrated given a practical well geometry, available drilling pad options, and drilling risks.

4.2 Work Flow

1. Interpret and measure the regional and (ideally) local stress field orientation and if possible recent stress and strain history

2. Map reliable fault networks, magmatic movement, and identify irregularities

3. Interpret fault motions at irregularities from the stresses

4. Interpret locked and slipping faults and intersections

5. Interpret areas of secondary extension and shear extension versus compression

6. Characterize the local stratigraphy and likely rock strength distributions at depth

7. Check resultant open fracture network interpretations with evidence from surface and well permeability data

8. Relate these interpretations to the overall set of conceptual model alternatives to help consider possible upflow and downflow
patterns.

9. Target wells to test permeability and conceptual models. Consider the number and size of the targets or length along possible
wellbores, and the potential to support several successful wells after the initial discovery.

10. Drill multiple wells and learn from success and failure.

5. COMPARISON TO A 3D MODEL APPROACH

Hinz et al (2013) describe a workflow that applies detailed geologic mapping, downhole data, geophysics, and geochemistry to develop
3D structural/conceptual models. The models are used for stress calculations to help identify specific drilling targets on fractures. Their
method should be particularly useful in areas with extensive surface and downhole data. In areas with less data the difficulty in
constructing models may limit the number of alternative models considered such that the subsurface models do not span the uncertainty
and may support a mistaken impression outside the geology team that the model represents reality. The approach described in this paper
is based on the similar mechanical concepts but is designed to facilitate multiple alternative models with less detail that are tested and
modified based on initial drilling results and further data collection. A conceptual approach that supports multiple models allows the
team to prepare for the surprise of actual well results. This approach may be more appropriate to the limited data availability in an
exploration prospect and lead to detailed 3D models at later stages of data acquisition.

6. CONCLUSION
Evidence for surficial geothermal permeability at fault irregularities and volcanic features appear similar to patterns of sweet spot
drilling success in several geothermal fields as well as deeper open fracture geometry exhumed in fault zones. These observations and
rock mechanical considerations support the hypothesis that a methodical, conceptual, geomechanical approach to identifying zones
favorable to well permeability may result in an increased learning rate for establishing successful well targets in individual fields.

REFERENCES
Barton, C. , S. Hickman, R. Morin, M. Zoback, T. Finkbeiner, J. Sass, D.: Benoit Fracture Permeability and its Relationship to In-Situ
Stress in the Dixie Valley, Nevada, Geothermal Reservoir; USGS Staff-Published Research, Paper 359 (1997).
Beall, J., and W. Box; 1991; The Nature of Steam-Bearing Fractures in the South Geysers Reservoir; Geothermal Resources Council,
Monograph on The Geysers Geothermal Field, Special Report No. 17, pp 69-75
Bogie, I., P. White, J. Lawless, G. Ussher, and P. Barnett; undated; Obtaining Permeability in Geothermal Wells by Targeting Fault
Damage Zones; SKM Presentation; http://www.powershow.com/view/273aa-YTdmZ/Obtaining_Permeability_in_Geothermal_
Wells_by_Targeting_Fault_Damage_Zones_powerpoint_ppt_presentation, 19 figures.
Casteel, J., R. Trazona, G. Melosh, K. Niggemann, and B. Fairbank; 2010; A Preliminary Conceptual Model for the Blue Mountain
Geothermal System, Humboldt County, Nevada; Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010, 6 pp.
Chorowicz, J.; 2005; The East African Rift System; Journal of African Earth Sciences, 43, pp. 379-410.
Curewitz, D. and J. Karson; 1997; Structural Settings of Hydrothermal Outflow: Fracture Permeability Maintained by Fault Propagation
and Interaction; Jour. Of Volc. And Geothermal Research, 79, pp. 149-168
Faulds, J. and G. Melosh; 2008; A Preliminary Structural Model for the Blue Mountain Geothermal Field, Humboldt County, Nevada;
GRC Transactions, Vol., pp. 273-278.

9
 Melosh

Faulds, J., M. Coolbaugh, V. Bouchot, I, Moeck, and K. Oguz; 2010a; Characterizing Structural Controls of Geothermal Reservoirs in
the Great Basin, USA, and Western Turkey: Developing Successful Exploration Strategies in Extended Terrranes; Proc. WGC, 11
pp.
Faulds, J., I. Moeck, P. Drakos, and E. Zemach; 2010b; Structural Assessment and 3D Geological Modeling of the Brady’s Geothermal
Area, Churchill County (Nevada, USA): A Preliminary Report; Proc. 35 Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, SGP-TR-188; 5 pp.
Faulds, J., N. Hinz, M. Coolbaugh, P. Cashman, C. Kratt, G. Dering, J. Edwards, B. Mayhew, and H. McLachlan; 2011; Assessment of
Favorable Structural Settings of Geothermal Systems in the Great Basin, Western USA; GRC Transactions, Vol 35, pp. 777-783.
Faulds, J.; 2013; Tectonic and Structural Controls of Great Basin Geothermal Systems: Developing Successful Exploration Strategies;
US DOE; http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ geothermal/pdfs/nevada_hotwater_peerreview2013.pdf; 29 pp.
Hinz, N., J. Faulds, and D. Siler; 2013; Developing Systematic Workflow From Field Work to Quantitative 3D Modeling for Successful
Exploration of Structurally Controlled Geothermal Systems, GRC Transactions, Vol 37, pp. 275-280
Lagat, J., and S. Malimo; 2013; Feasibility Report for Exploration and Appraisal Drilling in Suswa Geothermal Prospect; GDC report,
91 pp.
Lawless, J. and P. White; 1990; Ore-Related Breccias: A Revised Genetic Classification with Particular Reference to Epithermal
Deposits; NZ Geothermal Workshop; pp. 197-202.
Melosh, B, C. Rowe, L. Smit, C. Groenewald, C., Lamert, P. Macey, P., 2014, Snap, Crackle, Pop: Dilational fault breccias record
seismic slip below the brittle-plastic transition. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 403, 432 - 445.
National Research Council; 1996; Rock Fractures and Fluid Flow: Contemporary Understanding and Applications. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
Rejeki, S., D. Rohrs, G. Nordquist, A. Fitriyano; 2010; Geologic Conceptual Model Update of the Darajat Geothermal Field, Indonesia;
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010, 6 pp.
Sanyal, S and J. Morrow: Success and the Learning Curve Effect in Geothermal Well Drilling – A Worldwide Survey;
PROCEEDINGS, Thirty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
January 30 - February 1, 2012, SGP-TR-194
Sibson, R.; 1996; Structural Permeability of Fluid-Driven Fault-Fracture Meshes; Jour. Structural Geology, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 1031-
1042.
Stimac, J., G. Nordquist, Suminar, A., and L. Sirad-Azwar; 2008; An Overview of the Awibengkok Geothermal System, Indonesia;
Geothermics 37, pp. 300-331
Szybinski, A.; 2007; Revised Structural Setting of the Blue Mountain Geothermal Development Project, Humboldt County, Nevada;
Nevada Geothermal Power internal report.

10

View publication stats