KEPLINGER aui Ijj(lciatu, inc..
.
INTERNATIONAl;?4-" ENERGY CONSULTANTS
.,
3430
ENTEX BUILDING
1200. MILAM
STREET
HOUSTON,
TEXAS
77002
AREA
713/651·3127
CABlE: KEPPET
TELEX: 762·324
INTERIM EVALUATION
OF
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT STATUS,
GEOTHERMAL POTENTIAL
AND
ASSOCIATED ECONOMICS
OF
DIXIE VALLEY, NEVADA
(
FOR
MILLICAN OIL COMPANY
HOUSTON, TEXAS
SEPTEMBER 1, 1978
TULSA OFFICE: 320 SOUTH BOSTON
•
SUITE 320
•
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103
•
AREA 918/587·5591
..'
CONTENTS
I.
SUMMARY
II.
EXPLORATION PROGRAM
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • !t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Introduction
..........................................
•••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
.,;
"a.::;
Reconnaissance Drilling and Temperature Logging Program •••
19
5
12
Geothermetric Spring Sampling and Regional
III.
Z
III
3
10
...................................
21
LAND ACQUISITIO.NS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
32
Data Collection
~
III
3
.................
Scalar and Tensor Magnetotelluric Survey ..................
Multi-Level Aeromagnetic Survey - Phase II ................
Multi-Level Aeromagnetic Survey - Phase I
.:
1
IV.
:II::
V.
......................... .
GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMICS ..........................
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS
37
39
Exploration Wells ••••.•..••••••.•.•••••••...•••••.•••.• 0"..
44
Production and Reinjections Wells •••••••••••••••••••••••• ~
44
Replacement Wells •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••
44
Drilling Costs ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
45
....................................................
.................................................. .
VI.
CONCLUSIONS
VII.
REFERENCES
VIII.
APPENDIX •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
54
57
60
ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATES
plate
I
- Magnetic Features Map of Structural Relationships
Within Dixie Valley ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Plate II
SEE MAP
POCKET
- MT Features Map of Shallow-Heat Sources
And Hole Locations .••..•...•........•..•.••••...•.
SEE MAP
POCKET
Plate III - Map of Cross-Sections with Miscellaneous Data •••••••
SEE MAP
POCKET
.......................
SEE MAP
POCKET
Plate IV
- Land Map of Dixie Valley Area
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Magnetotelluric Features, South Dixie, Nevada ••••••••
Figure 2 - Apparent Resistivity at Period
=
11
10 Second,
......................................
13
Figure 3 - Isopach - Surface to Resistive Gabbroic Complex ••••••
14
South Dixie
Figure 4 - Idealized Cross-Section A-A'
Figure 5 - Idealized Cross-Section B-B'
Figure 6 - Idealized Cross-Section C-C'
Figure 7 ...
Photograp~
·....................... .
·........................ .
·........... ............ .
'
16
17
18
Looking Northeast Toward Drilling Sites
#H-l and #H-2 ••••••..•••...•••••••••.••••••••••.••
20
Figure 8 - Millican Oil #H-l: Temperature - Depth Plot with
Relative Thermal Gradient per 100 Feet ............
25
Figure 9 - Millican Oil ItH-2: Temperature - Depth Plot With
' ...........
Relative Thermal Gradient Per 100 Feet ••••••••••••
-ii-
25
FIGURES (Contld.)
Figure 10 - Photograph Looking Eastward Across
Dixie Valley from Spring #2 Site.
With Numerous Fuming Spring Outlets ••••••••••
26
Figure 11 - Location Map for Dixie Valley and
Nearby KGRAls
................................
31
Figure 12 - Postulated Growth of Installed Geothermal
Electric Capacity
~...........................
41
Figure 13 - Assumed Potential Capacity vs. Cost for
Electricity Without R, D, and D Advances
,.
49
Eigure 14 - Ranges of Projected Costs of Electricty Without
R, D, and D Advances •••••••••••••••••••••••••
50
Figure 15 - Assumed Potential Capacity vs. Cost for
Electricty for First Commercial Plants with
R, D, and D Advances
.........................
51
Figure 16 - Assumed Potential Capacity vs. Cost for
Electricity with R, D, and D Advances After
First Commercial Plants '......................
52
Figure 17 - Assumed Potential Capacity vs. Cost for
Electricity with R, D, and D Advances and
22% Depletion Allowance and Intangible Costs
Expensed
.....................................
',--- .
-i:U.-
53
TABLES
Table 1
- Millican Hole
#H-1 Temperature Gradient Data.
Logged May 16, 1978 (Section 16, T24N, R36E)
.........
22
......
23
Table 2
- Millican .Hole IIH-l Relog of above, June 7, 1978
Table 3
- Millican Hole IIH-2 Temperature Gradient Data.
.......
24
Table 4
- Variations in Dixie Valley Spring Geochemistry ••••••
28
Table 5
- Comparison of Hot Spring Geochemistry of Dixie
Logged June 21, 1978 (Section 31, T24W, R36E)
Valley, Beowawe and Brady Hot Spring KGRA's •••••••••
29
Table 6 - General Summary of KGRA Characteristics and
Ac t i vi ty ..... ~ ..............................•.....•.
Table 7
- Bidding History of Competitive Geothermal Lease
........
33
in Dixie Valley (1917) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
34
Sales on Federal Land in Dixie Valley (1976)
Table 8
Table 9
30
- Bid Results of Geothermal Federal Lease Sale
- Competitive Bidding, Dixie Valley and Other
Areas (1976) ••.....•.•.•.•••.. ........................
35
......
36
Table 9A - Regional Competitive Bidding" Nevada 1974-1976
Table 10 - Geothermal Development Scenarios Formulated by the
The U. S. Department of Energy, Div. Geothermal
Energy ••••.••••..••••••••.•••.••••••••••.••••••••••.
42
Table 11 - Anticipated Well and Plant Construction Schedules
for 50 MWe Power Plant Operation ••••••••••••••••• ~..
-iv-
43
r-,
TABLES (Cont'd.)
Table 12 - Footage Costs for Geothermal Drilling as a
Function of Rock Type and Well Depth ••••••••••••••••••
46
Table 13 - General Characteristics and Well -Costs for
Selected Geothermal Prospects.........................
47
Table 14 - Levelized Busbar'Costs of Electricity From Coal and
Nuclear Sources •••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••
I
.:"
-v-
48
"
.
INTERIM EVALUATION
OF
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT STATUS,
GEOTHERMAL POTENTIAL
AND
ASSOCIATED ECONOMICS
OF
DIXIE VALLEY, NEVADA
I. SUMMARY
Millican Oil Company has a dominant land position in Dixie Valley,
'Nevada and presently holds or controls approximately 54,000 federal
acres over a highly prospective, but untested, geothermal reservoir.
During late 1977, Millican Oil Company joined Southland'Royalty Com.,;
.:
.;
pany in a joint exploration program involving multi-level aeromagnetic
~
.."
.~
<>
.;".,
~=:
surveys, magnetotelluric surveys, thermal-gradient drilling (to 1,500
feet T.D.), and hot-spring geochemical monitoring.
"
IIIIi
III
C
!...
The aeromagnetic surveys have outlined structural relationships that
A-
lii
~
differ radically from the normal basin-and-range structures. The surveys have identified two areas with abnormal gradient, one on the
western boundary of Dixie Valley and one on the eastern boundary.
A
follow-up magnetotelluric survey indicated three relatively shallow
heat sources (ranging from approximately 20,000 feet to 26,000 feet)
on the western boundary and three overlying conductive (low resistivity) anomalies that suggest high fluid temperatures. Two of the
.
.
three anomalies occur within Millican Oil holdings. Both were drilled
to 1,500 feet T.D. to evaluate the overlying thermal gradient and
stratigraphic relationships in the area. A maximum of 97°C was encountered in one of the holes at 1,500 feet, after penetrating young
valley-fill and lucustrine deposits, a magnetite-rich gabbroic-like
unit and a highly-fractured metasedimentary unit to total depth.
A
second hole was essentially isothermal (SlOe maximUm) to total depth
(1,500').
Hot spring geochemical monitoring indicates, to date, that
long-term geochemical variations (1seasonal) do occur and that such
variations suggest mixing of recharge water from the Stillwater Range
with heated deep reservoir ground water.
Geothermetric calculations
will therefore be depressed and hence will not indicate actual deep
reservoir temperatures at the surface springs sampled.
Millican Oil and Southland Royalty, in cooperation with University
of Nevada at Reno, have cooperated in a joint proposal to the
u.s.
Department of Energy on a project involving exploration and reservoir
anaylsis of Dixie Valley.
A favorable response has been received and
contract negotiations are to begin in the near future.
The project
is designed to evaluate the hydrogeologic, tectonic and geophysical
aspects of Dixie Valley as they relate to its geothermal potential.
Drilling up to three deep holes (8,000 feet) is an integral part of
the proposed project.
The proposal was presented on a fixed-cost
basis with cost-sharing provisions.
Recent estimates indicate that Nevada will rank second only to California in growth of installed geothermal electric capacity by 1983.
Two areas that are undergoing intensive exploration are Brady Hot
Springs, KGRA and Beowawe KGRA, both are within 50 miles of Dixie
Valley and exhibit geological characteristics that are also present
-2-
in Dixie Valley. Using the former as economic guides, their commercial development will strongly influence the viability of Dixie
Valley; if the latter can produce comparable reservoir temperature
and flow rate.
The economic potential of Brady Hot Springs, Beowawe and Dixie
Valley in competition with coal depends to a large extent on cost
reductions expected over the next few years from research on development and drilling techniques and materials, as well as from federal
tax incentives allowing a 22% depletion allowance, expensing intangible drilling costs and a significant investment tax credit designed
to assist the geothermal industry.
.:"
.;
....."
Based on resource data from nearby areas and on limited data from
.:!
""
/-
~
~
':I
0:
. the recent exploration program,Dixie Valley appears to have a ininmum potential production sufficient to support six 50 MWe power plants
III
"
Z
over a 30-year period.
In addition, an average initial well produc-
::i
A-
lii
lIiI:
tion of 475,000 pounds/hr. (3.85 MWe/well) at a reservoir temperature
of 225°C appears possible at this time.
A flash recovery system would
be appropriate at such temperature and flow
rate~
A more accurate
assessment of the potential of Dixie Valley, however, can be made only
after the proposed deep drilling program has been completed.
II. EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Introduction·
During late 1977, Millican Oil Company joined Southland Royalty Company in a joint exploration program over a 300 square-mile area of
-3-
Dixie Valley, Nevada.
for the program.
Southland Royalty Company served as operator
The exploration program, however, was developed
jointly and costs were shared on a 50-50 basis.
quent interpretations have been shared.
All data and subse-
An agreement was made between
the two-companies that any additional land acquisition prompted by
data from the joint exploration program would be acquired and owned
jointly.
No other relationship exists at this time between Millican
Oil Company and Southland Royalty Company, with the exception of
joint ownership in 19,200 acres of newly acquired federal land in
Dixie Valley.
The exploration program was developed and supervised by Richard L.
j
Jodry, consultant to Southland Royalty Company, and Michael D. Campbell,
"
..!!
-~
Keplinger and Associates, Inc., consultants to Millican Oil Company.
~..:
The program consisted of the following:
~
'"
- Phase I
A.
Multi-Level Aeromagnetic Survey by Senturion Sciences, Inc.,
Tulsa.
B.
Completed October; 1977.
Scalar and Tensor Magnetotelluric Survey by Senturion
ences, Inc.
C.
Completed February, 1978.
Phase II Multi-Level Aeromagnetic Survey by Senturion Sciences, Inc.
D.
Completed June, 1978.
Reconnaissance Drilling and Temperature Logging Program
(up to 1500'TD).
E.
Sci-
Completed September, 1978.
Geothermetric Ground-Water Sampling and. Regional Data
Collection - Periodic Sampling Continuirig of Selected
Springs Within Dixie Valley Area.
-4-
Multi-Level Aeromagnetic Survey - Phase I
,..-- .
Five multi-level aeromagnetic profiles (approximately 50 miles) were
flown (at five altitudes) during the fall of 1977 over the western and
central parts of Dixie Valley.
This highly sensitive technique is used
to define faults, throw and dip (where possible) and areas of abnormal
gradients (suggesting heated ground water).
Preliminary structural re-
lationships were developed by Senturion Sciences, Inc. (see Plate I).
In addition, a major intrusive feature (apparently cold) was identified
in T22N, R36E and an area of abnormal magnetic gradient was identified
in T24N, R36E.
Two major features of the interpreted structural relationships developed
by Senturion Sciences have been challenged. The first feature is the
dip direction and relative movement of the "Old Stillwater Fault"; the
interpreted aeromagnetic data suggests that the fault, although high
angle, has a westward dip component under the Stillwater Range.
In a
previous report by Keplinger and Associates, Inc. (September 16, 1977),
we reported that the pertinent literature and available data concerning
the structural setting of Dixie Valley, and our own field evaluations
along the range-front fault (referred to by Senturion as the "Old Stillwater Fault") suggest a typical
basin-and-ra~ge
structural setting where
tensional stress has predominated as far back as early Tertiary and still
predominates the tectonic movements in the Dixie Valley area.
We sug-
gested that such conditions require a near vertical and basinward dip
(normal) for the
range~front
fault.
-5-
The significance of the dip .direction (and relative movement) of. the fault
in question is of paramount importance
tionships within Dixie Valley.
~n
developing the structural rela-
The location and characteristics of all
faults in the prospective area will guide future geothermal exploration.
very little direct structural information is available in Dixie Valley
because the area is covered by coalluvium, alluvium and lucustrine
deposits, which obscure the structural picture.
Therefore, what little
information does exist (e.g. seismic refraction data, range geology,
earthquake epicenters, lineaments and other features identified by areal
photographic techniques) must be placed within a general model that can
be used to extrapolate various known structural features and relationships into areas without data but with possible site-specific geothermal
potential.
If the Senturion interpretation is correct, and that is pos-
sible, the structural model required would involve compressional and
vert.ical tectonics, which differs significantly in general and in detail from a structural model involving tensional tectonics of the socalled "normal" basin-and-range structures.
The second major feature that has been ·challenged is the interpretation
involving the so-called "Stillwater Thrust", as well as the Mud Fault (or
part of it).
Dixie Valley.
The former feature occurs in a highly prospective area of
As
with tHe first feature mentioned above, all available
information suggests that such a feature is mechanically impossible within
a tectonic model involving tensional stress.
However, if a compressional
model were involved, such a thrust would not only be possible but also probable in such a tectonic environment.
-6-
Alternate interpretation of the aero-
magnetic data is nevertheless required at this time before the deep wellr-- _
site selection process is begun.
Some of the alternate interpretations
are discussed in the following review of aeromagnetic data.
Interpretation of multi-level aeromagnetic data depend upon the migration of a particular magnetic characteristic, as indicated by multi-level
flight lines, to calculate the dip component of a fault. _However, we
suggest that the magnetic characteristics used to define dip mayor may
not represent faulting.
Such characteristics do, however, represent
zones of magnetic discontinuity.
Such discontinuities could develop
above a relatively shallow heat source where excessive heat has altered
the ferrimagnetic rocks in such a manner that a zone interpreted as a
.:"
""
~
.~
fault may in fact be a boundary between ferrimagnetic and paramagnetic
rocks.
The fault zone, if known to be present, may not be apparent
"
~
under such conditions.
The magnetic characteristics used for fault
1:
"
el
c
identification may have been affected by alteration. The shape of a
...1M:~
zone of magnetic discontinuity would be in the form of an inverted
Z
cone, assuming the heat source is circular in horizontal dimension.
If the heat source is fault-controlled at depth, the zone would be in
the form of an irregular, elongate prism with an irregular apex upward,
which would be expected in the Dixie Valley area.
Interpretation of multi-level aeromagnetic data, especially those derived from surveys with high-response capability, also depend upon
variations in gross rock magnetism to identify separate geologic units.
However, magnetic variations are created by a number of geothermal and
geologic features, some of which are:
-7-
1.
Heating above Curie point of a geologic unit of presUmed
uniform ferrimagnetic content, thereby allowing the" inference
that where "significant" magnetic lows occur, heating and,
therefore, geothermal activity has occurred.
Some lows that
appear within areas of higher magnetics are characterized as
having "abnormal" gradients.
2.
A ferrimagnetic unit in contact with a paramagnetic unit
is a common relationship. This contact may be a high-angle
intrusive contact but (based on magnetic data) could be
interpreted as a fault in Dixie Valley; the former would
be expected (e.g. high-ferrimagnetic gabbro in contact with
.,;
.:
a low-ferrimagnetic volcanic or metasedimentarY unit) •
""
~
.;!
"'"
""
~::
3.
Detectable ferrimagnetic variations within the same unit,
"
if of sufficient magnitude, may also appear to be faults,
C
but in magnetic data may show systematic variation, which
l1li:
III
Z
:::;
A-
would not be uncommon.
lii
~
4.
Detectable ferrimagnetic variations between different units
at the same elevation may also appear as faults (similar
to 2) based on magnetic data.
This condition would also be
expected in Dixie Valley as indicated by the complex mosaic
·outcrop pattern consisting of many different units exposed
in the Stillwater and Clan Alpine Ranges.
Conditions should
not be different below the cover material in Dixie Valley.
It should be apparent that the applicability of all the multi-level
-8-
aeromagnetic interpretations has been challenged.
pendent data support the
aero~gnetic
However, where inde-
interpretations, such integrated
interpretations can be accepted with reasonable confidence that they
are accurate within reasonable limits. For example, the following interpretations do have independent support:.·
1.
The range-front fault (Old Stillwater Fault) is shown to have
major displacement, although the indicated strike and dip are
questioned.
2.
The Marsh Fault is accepted, supported by tensional model, by
the anomalous western boundary of Humbolt Salt Marsh, and by
the position of two microearthquake clusters along strike of
of the Marsh Fault.
lines Band C.
3.
It may be offset faulted between flight
(see'Plate I)
The. Buck Brush Fault is accepted, supported by tensional model
and by the anomalous occurrence of springs along the strike of
fault.
4.
Relative movement·consistent.
The Bernice Creek Fault is accepted, supported by relative movement and correlated with major fault trend in Stillwater Range,
which traverses Dixie Valley.
5.
The "Gabbro" Intrusive is accepted; such a unit must have a
striking magnetic character.
6.
The Dyer Fault is accepted, supported by known fault scarplet
with same strike direction in area.
sistent.
-9-
Relative movement is con-
7.
Area of abnormal gradient is accepted only because it was confirmed by the magnetotelluric survey, discussed later in this
report.
Multi-level aeromagnetic surveys do not generate unique solutions.
If
pertinent data can be marshalled, as is the case with many of the Senturion interpretations, to support Some of the critical aeromagnetic
interpretations challenged herein, the development of structural relationships within Dixie Valley would be well advanced at this time.
How-
ever, the very basic academic question of which tectonic model is applicable to the Dixie Valley must be addressed and resolved in the near
future •. The approach .to resolving this question will be discussed ·later
in this report under "U.S. Department of Energy Program".
Scalar and Tensor Magnetotelluric Survey
TWenty-seven scalar magnetotelluric stations (SMT), and one tensor magnetotelluric station (TMT) were occupied.
SMT stations recorded ·one
component of the telluric field and the TMT station recorded three components of the telluric field.
Audio-magnetotelluric data (AMT) supplied
to Senturion Sciences by Keplinger and Associates from earlier U.S. Geological Survey evaluations were integrated with the survey.
SMT and TMT, as well as AMT, are widely used in geothermal exploration
with excellent results to date.
This survey located three unusually
shallow heat source areas (see Plate II) at a depth ranging from 19,600
to 26,000 feet (six to eight km) and three overlying conductive (low
resistivity) anomalies, which indicate high fluid temperatures (see Plate
II and Figure 1).
The two northern areas ("Stillwater" and "Mine"
-10-
..'".
'0
o
.I
o
T
24
Hill ican Oil
N
'I
o
Po:::: ::O:\m
toT T. 30 sc::or.:)S
<:)
1I::1. T s(.ur: E
:S i31:::.0ll.CiER?
G
I
~
~
I
T
23
N
31
FIGURE 1
T
22
SOUTH
DIXIE. NE')
N
~9°';~'
11,.
I ...
30
R ·35
E
R
35
E
R
37
E
MT FEATURES
anomalies) correlate well with areas along the multi-level aeromagnetic
profiles which exhibited abnormal gradients. __ It should be noted that
Millican Oil holdings are located, in part, over two of the three heat
sources and associated conductive anomalies reported in that survey.
Heat sources are defined as having anomalously low resistivity (1 to 5
ohmeters).
Conductive anomalies were derived by plotting and contouring
apparent resistivity at selected recorded frequencies.
Anomalies were
defined as having apparent resistivities of 20 ohmeters at the 30-second
period recording frequency.
frequency recorded.
They change location with respect to the
Such variations are a function of depth and suggest
changes in fracture pattern, high fluid salinity and/or high fluid
temperature.
The IO-second period depth representation may indicate
maximum drilling depth (see Figure 2).
In general, the I-second
recording frequency suggests conditions at a depth of approximately
5,000 feet, the IO-second at 7,000 feet, the 30-second at 12-14,000
feet and the IOO-second at greater than 18,000 feet. (See Figures 4,
5, and 6).
The depth from surface to a resistive unit (defined by Senturion
Sciences as the gabbroic complex) has been calculated (see Figure 3).
Multi-Level Aeromagnetic Survey - Phase II
Follow up aeromagnetic profiles were flown to tie-in the data obtained.during the original survey in an attempt to reevaluate the
dip component of the "Old Stillwater Fault".
In addition, exist-
ing profiles were extended eastward across Dixie Valley to the Clan
Alpine Ranges (see. Plate I).
The hade of the "Old Stillwater Fault"
-12-
i
·0
o
on
"7
o
..
o
...
----,--1--I
It
.1
!
31
I
'
T
Millic:an Oil
2.:'·
Ii
"
~
I
r
fI
::t..
31
~
6
~
6
I
......
...
w
I
I
T
'F.l.T:C:II
"':'UI.TF.:n
;: I
~curH
!)l~!~
I).!.S~
ST.:.ilu»l
CJ
~
I
t
I
I
.\
q
.,,,, Am
~"
!o·
j
23
~
N
NE:VAD.3.
n
f
,i
sun ... :;·(
ARE ..
i
36
FIGURE 2
T
2"
N
SOUTH
DIXIE, NEV.
APPAr:-(E.tJT RESiSTIVln- 1
( 0 h m r.~ L:t c r ~ )
,
0
!O
39
30
';$'
AT .PE: I.CD,
C.I. ..
R
~5
E
R
36
E
R
37
F
_ .. :....
A~-,
.-'
,= 10 SEC.
::.Hr.)··\N
7
/'!"'JI ., _
I
i
!
i
,
'0
......,.
o
\
..
o
•
'"
I
I
~~_3_~._~___~I .~ ~
__
__
____
~
~
____ _____
~_3&___~_~_I~____-r____~____;R
6
T
Milli~an
0
2.4
N
!.
I.
Oil
1("
.>
,. • 1'.l.IH.iEO S7.l. nOI<
~
SO'JTH
DIXIE
Si":.n014
D:'SE
T
23
N
•
NE'JAG~
11
SU~'J~T
A'lr.A
3S
JG
,I
.,.
.>'
3':;
~
FIGURE 3
T
~o
~)
-',':,
r
30
was reconfirmed as having a reverse relative movement and a dip toward
the. west.
In the eastern profiles a new area was identified as liaving
a significant ·geothermal potential (see Plate I, Profile F).
A four-
cycle magnetic high of exceptionally sharp· relief was reported at the
intersection of Sections 19 and 30, T38N, R23E; Section 24 and 25,
T37N, R23E.
The anomaly has a range of 558 gammas in three miles.
An
unusually high magnetic gradient falloff rate east of the magnetic apex
(in Section 25, T37N, R23E) has been interpreted as an indication of an
abnormal loss of magnetism due to an increase in temperature at relatively
shallow
d~pth.
However, a ferrimagnetic dike could also be interpreted
from the magnetic data, but the associated abnormal gradient still has
."
considerable geothermal potential.
0:
~
0;:;:'=
..
Independent data supporting the eastern anomaly is indirect.
A shallow
'"
,
:l
"1
hole (500 feet?) was drilled a few years ago. to the north of the anomaly
...
and reportedly had a 5-8 0 C /100 feet thermal gradient.
'=
III:
"
z::;
...
A.
noted that this is an unconfirmed report.
It should be
In addition, a resistivity
~
survey a few miles to the southeast also reported very low resistivity
(high temperatures) at relatively shallow depths.
firmed.
This also is uncon-
A follow-up magnetotelluric survey is merited.
Additional faults have been identified along the eastern border of Dixie
Valley.
Senturion Sciences was requested to integrate all aeromagnetic
and magnetotelluric data and to generate their geological interpretations
via cross-sections of Dixie Valley (see Plate III and Figures 4, 5 and
6).
The general structural configuration. expressed suggests that a com-
pressional model is applicable to this part of Dixie Valley.
-15-
Figure 7
(
KEPLINGER ctnl='_mlclctleJ. iKc,
A
IDEALIZED CROSS SECTION A-A', DIXiE VALlEY, NEVADA
NORTHWEST
MIP-IE ANDMAL Y
5000-
0-
I
I
31E-23N
;38E-23N
-sooo
I
I
\~!I
~
'~OC()-
SOUTHEAST
ALPINE ANOMALY
36E'-24N
I
I
A'
DATA DERIVED FROM SCALAR MAGNETOTE:'LUIIiCS AND MULTILEVEL
AEROMAGNETICS ALONG FLIGHT LINES r-E' AND F-F'
-0
I
~ I
\1\
o
Q.
I
~
0\
I
LEGEND
HORIZONTAL AND VERflCAL SCALE: I',
511 r: SCALAR IIAGN(TOTELLIIR'C$
MAli: MULTILEVEL AEAOIIAGNETICS
1.91 miles
OlO STIllWATER FAULT- ATTITUDE,IIOTION ANO POSITION IlIoPP[O BY M""
PROJECTED FAUL T rRO .. PROFILE 5 '5' - NOTiON ""PPED BY III.'"
OEPTH TO GABBRO caMPlE. fRON SNT
UNUSUAL MAG GRADIENTS?
I
STILLWATER THRUST FAULT-ATTITUDE,NOTION AND POSITION IIAPPlD IY IIAII
DEPTH TO BASENENT FRDN II AlII
IIVD rAUL T - ATTITUDE, NOTION AND POSITION IIA PPED 81 IIAiI
PROHCl[O FAULT FAON A-A' [HENSION -IoI0110H IIAPPED BY 111.11
FOUR SECONDARY FAULTS - THEORIZ ED
DEPTH TO GA8SRO COMPLEX FROII II A 101
HIGH FAVLT - NOTIOH AND POSITIOH NAPPED BY IIAII
INTER'A'!' olSSllIlLATION OR GROWTH
AR!A - RfSULTING MOVEIIENT Of SOLID
aLOCKS 'BILlINGS, " , . .
OYER FAULT -PROJECTED INTO PRO"LE -P~08A8LT OBSCURED 8Y UNUSUAL
GRADIf.HTS IN 81-SElIENT 8LOCK 8, IIOTION IIAPPlO 8Y IIAII
DEPTH TOGABBAO CO¥~lEX "ROIIYAII
[AST FAULT -MOTION AND POSITION MAPPED.' IIAII
c::J "IT CONDUcTIVE AHDIIAllES
c::J MODELED CONDUCTIVE"HALI'SPACE DERIVED fROIl SliT
.c:J
UNUSUAL MAGNETIC GRADI[NTS MAP'ED BY IIAII
\
FIGURE 4
'\
IDEALIZED CROSS SECTION B-B~ DIXIE VALLEY, NEVADA
DATA DERIVED FROM SCALAR MAGNETOTELLURICS AND MULTILEVEl.
AERO MAGNETICS ALONG FLIGHT LINES N-N'AND S-S'
8
SOUTHWEST
scoo-
8'
36E-23N
NORTHEAST
36E - 24N
-sooo
0-
-0
·5000-
-.sooo
.....
-..J
I
lEGEND
"- .....
"-
1·.1.91 miles
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCIILE:
SMT: 'CIILAR MAGNETOTELLURICS
MAM: MULTilEVEL AEROMAGNETICS
OLD STILLIOATER fAULT-MOTION AND POSITION M... PPto IT ..... W 10EnCTED TWICU
DEPTH TO G... eBRO COMPlU AT 'NT nATIONS /19 NOTED
UNHANED fAV\. T I - NOTIOH AND P051110H NAPPED 8T NAN
UNNAWID rAULT II - WOTION ANO POSITION WAPPto 8T NAN
lU.tlSH fAULT - ATTITUOE, NOTION "NO POSITION NAPPEO 8T W....
VNNANE D fAULT III - PROBAILY OesCUREO n UNUSUAL GRADIENTS IN IASEII£HT ALOHG 'LIGHT LINE ,.,'
UNNAIIEO 'IoULf Dr - NOTION IoNO POSITION I",PP[O eT NAil
UNNA"EO fAULT lr - COINtID!! IOITH INFLECTION POINT N"PP[O BY WAil
UNNA .. tD ,AUL T lEI .' COINCIDfS WITH INflECTION POINT ..APPED BY "All
UNN ..... Eo 'AUL llCl- PROBA&LT OBSCUREO 8T U"USUAL GRADIENTS IN BAstYENT
UNNAMED 'IoUl T lIIII- NOTION 101,0 POSITION WAPPEO IT WAil
c::::J
c::::J
c::::J
·sln CONDUCTIVE "NON"'Llts
1II00tl.,£0 eONovellV' "Al"PIoCE DERIVED ,RON .NT
UNUSUAL MAO NETIC GRADIENTS M... PPtO aT MAN
FIGURE 5
\
/
I
KEPLINGER anUnccialo.
;"C.-
IDEALIZED CROSS SECTION C-C', DIXIE VALLEY, NEVADA
DATA DERIVED FROM SCALAR MAGNETOTE~LURICS AND MULTILEVEL
AEROMAGNETICS ALONG FLIGHT LINES C-C AND C-C' EXTENSION
C
NORTHWEST
5000-
35E - 23N
36E-23N
36E-22N
c·
37E- 22N
GABeR
SOUTHEAST
-5000
________~y~ALl~E~YL__f~I~.O~O~R~--------_____
Qol
001
0-
-0
GABBRO
- 5000,..
INTRUSIVE
...>
LEGEND
1-·1.91 miles
;:
v
~'"
ov
Z4
00.
...
vII>
o...l
w<
oJ:!:
o'"
o
::I
--5000
"OR'ZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCAl':
SMT: SCALAII MAGNETOTELLURIC'
IIAM: MULTlLEV£~ AIROIiAGNETICS
OLD STILLWATER fAULT· ATTITUDE, tlOTIOH AND POSiTIOH IIIAPPEO 11 1110 ..
DEPTH TO OABBIIO COM'l£K fROM 'Mt
MAIISH faULT - UTiTUDE, MOTION AN? POSITION MAPPlO 111 .. All
eue_BRuSH fAULT· ATTITUDE, MOTION AND POSITION MA'PEO 81 'UM
DEPTH TO GABBRO INTRUSIVE fROIl YAM
OYER fAULT-ATTITUDE,IIOTlO" AND POSITION 11""101' .. AM
1100 UN""M£O fAUL.TS PIIOJECTED '"1)11 0-0' ,XTENIION - MOTION II"PP[O BY IIAM
TwO UNNAM'D fAUL.TS fRO ..
EXTENSION - "OTIDII AIID POSITION IIAPPIO IT ......
r=J
c:J
c·c'
'MT CONDUCTIVE ANO"AL.IIS
MODELED CONDUCTIVE H"lflPACE DERIVED 'flO" S .. T
FIGURE 6
is a photograph of the western boundary of Dixie Valley and the Stillwater Range.
Drilling locations are shown (Millican #H-l and' #H-2).
Reconnaissance Drilling and Temperature Logging Program
Based on the identification and confirmation of heat sources and overlying conductive areas, an intermediate-depth thermal-gradient drilling
program was begun in early summer of 1978.
To date, drilling data
is available-on four holes (see Plate.II for locations), two on
Millican Oil Company land and two on land held by Southland Royalty
Company.
A fifth hole is presently being drilled on Southland Royalty
land.
Millican No. H-l site was selected to evaluate the thermal gradient and
stratigraphy above one of the anomalies produced by the MT survey
("Mine" anomaly).
In addition, the site was also selected to evaluate
the dip of the range-front fault and/or associated faults.
Scouting
information indicated that an intermediate depth hole had been drilled
in the immediate vicinity which encountered down-hole temperatures
greater than 125 0 C.
Millican No. H-I encountered a recorded bottomho1e temperature of 97.3 0
C at 1,500 feet (T. D.).
Although a full lithologic log has not been
completed to date, the supervising geologist (R. L. Jodry, Consultant
for Southland Royalty) indicated that a gabbroic-like unit with an
unusually high magnetite content was encountered at approximately
1,145
feet~
a metasedimentary unit was encountered at 1,470 feet to
total depth of well (1,500 feet).
-19-
I
.:"
FIGURE 7:
' ..... "
PHOTOGRAPH LOOKING NORTHEAST TOWARD DRILLING
SITES H-l AND H-2.
(SEE PLATE IV FOR COVERAGE
OF PHOTOGRAPH).
During the drilling,
evaluation.
2 (rerun).
ten~foot
samples were taken for later study and
Down-hole temperature data are tabulated in Tables' 1 and
Figure 8 is a generalized temperature-depth plot with
associated relative thermal gradient per 100 feet.
Note increase in
AT at top of grabbroic unit (between 1,100 and 1,200 feet depth).
Millican No. H-2 location was selected to evaluate the thermal gradients and stratigraphy above the major "Stillwater" MT anomaly.
Low
temperatures and a low thermal gradient were encountered to 1,500
feet T.D.
Lithology consisted of alluvium, interbedded valley fill
and lucustrine deposits.
3 shows recorded down-hole
A gabbroic unit was not encountered.
temperature~.
Table
Figure 9 is the temperature-
gradient-depth plot.
Southland Royalty hole locations were also selected to evaluate either
anomalous areas or fault zones.
Temperatures and gradients were re-
portedly lower than Millican No. H-l.
Geothermetric Spring Sampling and Regional Data Collection
I
Two major hot springs on the boundary of the Humbolt Lopolith in Dixie
Valley have been sampled over the past two years (see Figure 10).
term variations in geochemical character have been monitored.
term variations were discussed in
a
Short-
Short-
previous report by Keplinger and
Associates, Inc. (September 16, 1977).
The indicated variations were
small.
Additional samples, however, were obtained during 1978 which indicate
that substantial geochemical variations do occur over the long-term
-21-
TABLE 1:
'-'
.
MILLICAN HOLE H-1 TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
DATA. LOGGED MAY 16, 1978 (SECTION 16,
T24N, R36E)
~
°c
0
22.6$
~8.70
40
80
120
160
47.50
52.80 '
57.00
58.70
59.7
60.4
61.6
62.5
63.6
64.9
66.3 '
67.6
68.8
69.8
70.8
71.6
73.6
7lJ. 1
200
I
.,;
.:
.;
~
"I
.~
~
'I
I II
0
z
:;
~
III
~
240
280
320
360
400
440
lJ80
520
560
600
640
680
720
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
1040
. 1080
1100
1120
1140
1160
1180
1200
1220
1240
1260
1280
1300
7lJ.8
75.5
76.5
77.5
78.6
79.5
80.2
80.9
81.6
81'.5
81.9
83.0
83.7
84.4
84.8
85.3
85.9
86.5
87.2
68.2
88.8
89.3
89·6
89.9
90.1
90.4
90.8
91.3
91.9
9'2.3
92.7
93.1
93.7
94.3
95.0
95.7
96. 1,
13~0
1340
1350
1360
1370
1380
1390
)1,00
1410
1420
1430
Jl,lJo
1450
1460
\
1470
1480
1490
1500
-22-
TABLE 2 :
/~-
,
DEf'T.H
0
10
I
.:"
.;;
~
.~
""
::t
~
'"
D:
IU
0
Z
:::i
Go
IU
lit
20
30
. 40
50
60.
70
80
90
100
10
20
,30
40
50
60
70
80
90
200
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
300
\0
20
)0
40
SO
60
70
80
90
400
10
20
' ..
,.
30
1J0
50
60
. 70
80
90
500
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
MILLICAN HOLE H-1 TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
DATA LOGGED JUNE 7, 1978 (SECTION 16,
T24N, . R36E)
°c
37.3
22.3
27.7
32.1
34.7
·37.9
41.8.
4".7
46. ,
47. 1,
48.7
50.2
51.8
53.4
54.8
56.1
57.\
57.9
58.7
59·2
59.6
59.8
59.9
60.1
60.4
60.7
61.0
61.3
. 61.6
61.8
62.1
62.4
62.7
63.0
63.3
63.6
63.9
64.2
6".5
6".8
65.3
65.8
66.2
66.6
67.0
67.3
67.7
68.1
68.5
68.8
69.2
69. 1,
69.8
70.1
70.lj
70.7
71.0
71.3
71.6
7\.9
~
°c
600
\0
20
,30
40
50
60
70
80
90
700
10
20
,30
lio
50
60
70
80
90
800
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
' 900
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
72.2
72.5
12.8
73.1
73.3
73.5
73.7
73.9
74.\
74.4
74.7
75.0
75.2
75. 1,
75.7
76.0
76.2
76.4
76.7
76.9
77 .2
17.5
77.8
78.0
78.2
78.5
78.8
79.0
79.3
79.5
79.8
80.1
80.4
80.8
81.1
81.4
81.6
81.9
82.1
82.3
82.5
82.7
83.0
83.3
83.6
83.9
8".1
8".4
84.6
84.9
85.1
85.3
85.5
85.9
86.3
86.6
86.9
87.2
87.5
87.8
lloO
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-23-
DEPTH
1200
\0
20
30
40 .
50
60
70
80
90
·1300
10
20
,30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1400
10
20
30
"0
50,
60
70
80
90
\500
°c
88. ,
88.4
88.6
88.9
89.2
89.5
89.8
90.1
90 . 4
90.7
91.0
91.4
91.7
92.0
92.3
92.6
92.9
93.2'
93.5
93.8
94.2
94.5
9".8
95.1
95.4
' 95.7
56.0
96.4
96.7
97.0
97.3
TABLE 3:
I
.:"
...
~
.!
"
,~
':/
~
III
0
Z
::;
A-
lii
ill:
MILLICAN HOLE H-2 TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
DATA.LOGGED JUNE 21, 1978 (SECTION 31,
T24N, R36E)
DEPTH
°c
DEPTH
°c
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
60
80
200
20
40
60
80
300
20
40
60
80
400
20
40
60
80
500
20
, 40
60
80
600
20
40
60
80
'700
20
40
60
80
17.0
19·0
19.5
20.3
21.0
21.2
21.6
21.9
22.3
22.9
23.3
24.2
24.5
25.0
25.4
25.8
26.2
26.7
27.1
27.5
27.9
28.3
28.7
29.0
29.4
29.7
30.2
30.6
31.0
31.4
31.9
32.3
32.7
33. I
33.6
34.0
34.4
34.9
35.3
35.7
800
20
40
60
80
900
20
40
60
80
1000
20
40
60
80
1100
20
40
60
80
1200
20
40
60
' 80
1300
20
40
60
50
1400
20
40
60
80
1500
36.2
36.6
37.0
37.5
37.9
38.5
38.9
-24-
39.3
39.7
40.1
40.6
41.0
41.4
41.8
42.2
42.7
43.1
43.5
43.9
44.3
44.7,
45.1
45.5
46.0
46.4
46.e
47.2
47.7
48.1
48.6
49.0
49.4
i!9.8
50.2
50.7
51.2
DrPr~(fT)
o
-r---=-
\00 1.00
r""
300
400
Soo
~oo
floo
gro-
<toel,bOO
1.100
I,z..co
I,~
1,400
',SCO
I
10
20
I
~o 40 5b (.0 10 €-o '70 100 110
TEM PER/\TV R E
°c
FIGURE 8:
Millican Oil flH-l Temperature - Depth
Plot with Relative Thermal Gradient
Per 100 ft.
OfPPl(P)
o
100 looo
300
40c>
;00
"(,00
fiCO
I,b()O
1,100
1,U'lC>
I,~'XI
1,400
, , S CO-4---,-.,---r--,
10
20
-,
3040 SO (.0
I I!
I
10 60 "'To Ie;) I/O
3
4
S
~ljIoon(c~
TEM P ERf\TV R E
°c
FIGURE 9:
Millican Oil flH-2 Temperature -Depth
Plot with Relative Thermal Gradient
Per 100 ft.
-?'i-
FIGURE 10: PHOTOGRAPH LOOKING EASTWARD ACROSS DIXIE VALLEY
FROM SPRING NUMBER 2 SITE. NOTE NUMEROUS FUMING
SPRING OUTLETS. (SEE PLATE IV FOR COVERAGE OF
PHOTOGRAPH.
-26-
(seasonal?), in this case one year (see Table 4).
Although data obtain-
ed to date do not permit B; firm conclusion because of limited baseline
information, it is apparent that the springs are in direct communication
with seasonal surface recharge from the Stillwater Range, which supports
previous tentative conclusions that mixing of meteoric gr.ound water with
deep, heated reservoir ground water does occur.
This will act to depress
the calculated geothermetric temperature of the deep reservoir.
If
spring geochemistry were found to be constant, however, mixing would not
be indicated and any calculated temperature would be indicative of subsurface conditions, within the limits imposed by the methods used.
To assess the general similarity of Dixie Valley spring geochemistry
with other areas of known geothermal significance, a comparison of
spring geochemistry of Dixie Valley, Beowawe and Brady Hot Spring is
shown on Table 5.
Beowawe KGRA is located approximately 55 miles to
the northeast of Dixie Valley, while Brady Hot Spring (Brady - Hazen
KGRA) is located approximately 40 miles to the southwest (see Figure
11).
These areas are presently undergoing extensive exploration.
Eco-
nomic consideration of these areas will be discussed later in this report.
Table 6 is a general summary of KGRA characteristics and recent
activity within a 125 mile radius of Dixie Valley.
It is apparent in. Table 5 that Dixie Valley spring geochemistry is not
significantly different from that of other springs in areas under intensive exploratio~ by industry.
The extent to which mixing is involved
in the other springs is presently unknown.
-27-
KEPLINGER (lnUJJt'ci(llt~, inc.-
.*
Samples taken: *Ju:1e 29 through July 7, 1977. and *April 28 and May 4, 1978
** Samples taken at Spring
D2
*** Ambient Temperature mean during 1977 sampling period:
26.4; 1978 period:
-28-
18.3
(
\
TABU: S
Ctttl'AR1S(l\ OF H01 SPRlt'C
C.£OC!ltMISTRY or OllIE VALLEY.
ijr.~A·..·!: A."\D BkAt'Y HOT SPRING RCMa.
(See
~'.-:?
(PPM)
:
~~
1~'l.·~lQ"
l:!.'j." ':.~ ~
Ll
...!!L
-~-
2!s.-
-k-
HC0 3
~
lli
_8_
~
1.-,. ("C)
l!Q2.
....2!L
~6.
:" .h:·
4.
O.(t~
I l4.
B.n
65.7 ..••
I).
O. )1
,lo.t
9.~"
':?':'.3
Mj.
_.
--1lL-
1 ~>.
.,
;;
.q
~~d"K ~2
0.B8
478.
".7
o.n
65.0S
58.
704.
Std.Dev. 0.01
2'.
0.2
0.06
0.'
7.
97.
"'6..
0.56
208.
7.'
0.24
8.0t.*
100.
222.
76.
0.12
17.
1.1
0.19
0.65
20.
54.
12.
1. 18
216.
24.1
0.51
0.84
123.*
48.
95.
1.6
)58.
Std. Dev. 0.2i
9.
5.9
0.58
0.36
S5.
11.
15.
0.7
148.
~.)
1!·1..
'.6
!~L
,.
7.2
7).
1.
Std.D~v.
;;
Bf"o"'·... ,,·c
!:-.,t!y l; ..... : 5: pr1 !'IS 'I
'"
1.1
Std.bev. 0.8
570
12.7
1.1
40.0
144.
644.
)21.
18.8
1.)
15.9
iO.
SZI.
Mean
8
","roll )
S~.Vh~
fnr-
("·.~r;i.!'J:'1nn
and
c~tio:-:s
purpo.e,.
'C3J~!'
.hovn have been
IInlon.
.!:~e~.
-29-
,I.
1.1 ... •
.0.4
4._
1.97
-
~7.
J'J ....
(;.oq
I.""
76]
Bf''}
1.9
)
't.'
:'.~
;,. "1
1,1.14
TABLE 6
General Summary of KGRA
Characteristics and
Activity (See Figure")
KGRA
An"8
Beo·",awe
Brady Hot SFrings
Surface
Temperature
Subsurface
Temperature
98'
240'
98"
214"
Geochemical
Si02
~
226'
Estimated
Depth to Top
of Reservoir
Area of
Reservoir
(Acres)
3,300'
5,200
242'
179"
1,600'
3,000
Desert Peak
Recent Activit:!
~!a"iClu!ll
Companies
96'
170·
155'
176'
Stearn Boat Springs
96·
210·
207'
226'
9,600'
700'
214"
Ma gma
Po,",e r .
Earth Energy
Phillips Union
Stand. CaUf.
4,500'
5,000'
7,000'
5,000'
214"
Phillips
7,000'
250·
3,200'
200·
1,850'
200'
725'
185'
1,500'
97"
Phillips
1,000'
I,SOO
~la"i:I:,,:n
TE:rnpera~ure
Po,",er
(Chevron)
Stand. Calif.
Phillips
Magma
Rye Patch
Leach
Drlllins Depth
PhllUps
Magma Power
Southern Union
Dixie Valley
82'
>200'
175'*
146'*
3,000'
*Mixing indicated.
-30-
32,000(1)
Millican, Southland
Royalty, Sunoco
Republic Geothe~al
.--" ":
'\..
oQ
'"
"
';rr') .-:-.-
I
. :l't..f _... ;",.. ""........
~.
L.k,,_
'-.lh \\
,
,H",
-::[v'~-1 \j-~'-'--":: }'n:~I;Z~\\l
UI~ri":\VA:I~l--f?: i " · ',18/ ,,-";;- \\:
,,~
. .,;
"
,.,!tur:,~
,
1)(
/ ,
'''-I ,/ ,I
,-..
~
, I
I
'I \
\
\
\
.'
I.~.•~ ;:.'.
.
i
~
r
',_
i \)' ""',
r ", '\'
.
.~
--~-
--;'
_. ,
"
.
~'"
,
.
...._ _ .-A
.'~
' .~
t
••...
.'
r
" .. -
"
,
... 0.72
~
r:
/.
':·:lStillv:.at~~!
~SDua'lake
~n
sa\~~IlJ!
. "I: Bas,p
\
I .
'"
o·
50
ad .;. :"
... _.. __ ..
50
,
0
FIGURE 11:
50
,,, -I
,_J
.'
I. / '.
..
f \/ '
; . \ ....~'~'J
j
I
' / . r ' ~:
J '
' ,
....;
f"
'_........ JI
.
.:
r-
J
, .,.-" _ r ' -
.J
,'.' .
' '," 'i
, ."
'
1
~
/
f
6
A1.95
1.~
.
t
.
1 /'
8
":.
i
'.
150
...----.~.28
\'19!
:2.52
62.30
150
.oL~·
,
I
,-
':L!1t
1.30
\ ;'
200
~
300
r..:'
.8).:
.
!.--:J
1
. \larm Spri~gS
200
250
•
'J:/: •.~ ,
·250
, miles
,
350 kilomete,s
LOCATION MAP FOR DIXIE VALLEY AND NEARBY KGRA'S
-31-
,,'.:_J..
_. '
,,,,\,40,
), ... 1.20
i
(
,I,'" 2 '\''.
',./
..-
---'-
":1..::::-
I
I
. . . .0 0 . ,
.'
I
I
i·;, ... 1.50'
1,11 ..20 .
, "
' . : " ." _ -'-'------1
,.1...
;~-:
.
I!
\\ '. tio~. SpttflgS
I,' ~
, _ ,_ , ;
' '. .
..
i
<'i
J
/~.
I
j
)-
'.
J
;A
I
. 'i,
---'j"
~"~ui":':l';o
0.65'
/.
/
100
100
/"
t..·:·
/'
f ;.'"
, ;:
tl'I": 7 'u
I
._....
J ---
f++::J
E3
IIb:)i/'~
/'
.,
~
L
, . ,
I
I,
at Sprins Point /
'~ll.
\\
•
.
,. \ <!tn~,!.
L·· . . . :.
I,
50
t
~ /~:;.' ';.3
6
"V: '.
ElkDHot
Spllngs
_~
.;.<.:/ ioo.£1
J
Ir;t!( •.1 .... ~
I"C~I~dO.;
;" 'J ,Iii;,( ...I/ '"',
_' p.50~.....
,~·II'"
I
/
. ',;
a /.II'J .»I •~::::...r-- '"
't" - '
1
....
,i:
'
;.
rr-· -- -·--:.+.:W~· '._/ .'.{.~.. Valley
/ \1 " ,-/(
• •
II.:
; ..;..~~J.Je
,
_.,;,/.f
. :-\
:~:::. e; (:/'
..
,;
I r'\/ ,h.
/ " '. \
,:.
1/ , I
"0
\, ,
/
/';
.'1. / \
;~.,~
).8,0; (,,;' "'2.10 : ~
1 ..i6 '6 ~.50 -' " . - .
\-1 2:00
• /"
~
~;'J.50.,~ ....
'.
--::---l
"._.
! ,... ~.:>(l.
" , .. /
Ii (•
Springs'~
• I'~ • '. ~tlson • .
(.@,
~
~ '.
'\' \
Hot Springs
\. \., '. ! ~'..
\ . \/¥ j i . . . . [ l
\
Z
:::i
A-
___
,:;,
".
41 h "
,.:J
~
.
Kyle Hot ' \
EU d F·Ho7Cg
I'·
.
.'
'
)·1.84 . 6 l.sa
;.
J
.
. ' '. I
. ~
: '1'4'.
't,!;6~'
. ."
~'.':
".' '1
, : ...... \
',.
2 .36
40.83/ .' ..~ & '
.:
.. 1 .~ ,'.:;,J , .. ' .
,
t
I
1,'
.... 2A&, '... ,'.... = f '
'i':j \. DillfDUgh iO ,...,
\
I
_,-..
'Q
I
t-
"'\.06
c
\
I
\r
l
. •
........~
. f-'-~e·".: .... 15~
' • .J
0\,1 b ~.
'. ...
f;,~S~';~'::;:~; '.. ·.'F u~
".
...1:25 .... :
..
'
.•
1/
'
0'_
•.
~~
.'~.BO .....
_ . ; ...7 , 0 0 . . .
19
ii...;
.I
~~'''''' I ''''';
"
-
I Mo~na Srrings
...':;,,::. '.
I
""'~'.
:j.
:\~
\:,:~!t'7:- ~...'''I\'jF'
.
,,"' ... 2.'0
...
...::
(
,
'"..r..
" (: .; .,~~\, ! ,
.
o
\.,
'
/ ; ' Oes~rt
,"',: \
,."
'
i • •:,".; \ jO, c':. \"
\
I
•
0 ISan Ernidlo
:-.:iY
-,:-::-"'c"'f-'-;"-,
, ffi,ckWDllrth.
t
'I
r
.
- ,
,'/,., ...,'
" ,.
·B··OUUbl~t'sprinIlS
Gerla h l.). Gerlaclo
R
j ~JDrthc.. st :
~. ~
,
<".'
,
r\. "I \ 0 (
"...
\:"~
\
!
,.
1'0 1 ' - .
•
Nendel· ~;'.", .,'
','
dL~. '?,'.
:~ i ~" \
1.93
,.....
h'-"O~c-q~! .~;
1/.. .f,~. ~6 / /.~
q'='
'
':".
,;
I~nt/) . ut prm9S
/ ' " .•
\~\-·\-\-\·\;,!C
, I
,:'~':"", :;~::' 'j;,:'-:;,
'\
'(-'i
./
/.
\
r71
.,
' . '
~.}
I /
\'
'"'
/_1l~~v ~a-:~DrXc~~-; .: ;f.~~{~:~.40:- '-':-i :·-"l'·/~o-J~·':---
'
tj':
v
'a/:' :.
,..",,'.
·~''-'~,~=",,~,I;.:~''~·\.
\:.. .' [) P rt' I 's "
J~'
\ > ,', "',
\ \ ' './
'll
Soldier J;~
Meadow,'.'
l'
'.~,.'
j"
'.
~'
'. \
./.
~\ ~
\.
~ 0
., ,\
' ' ' . '.0
It should be noted that local geology will have a dramatic effect
on reservoir ground water.
If carbonate units are present in the
reservoir, the possibility exists that serious calcium and alkalinity
levels cou1d'be present which could promote sealing within the reservoir and scaling within production wells and collection pipes.
Monitoring of springs should continue to evaluate geochemical variations in Dixie Valley.
III. LAND ACQUISITIONS
Over the past 4 years, leasing of federal lands on either a competitive
basis (lease bid) or noncompetitive basis has increased significantly
in Nevada.
Table 7 is a summary of the competitive bidding held during
1976 on lands in 'Dixie Valley.
In 1977, Millican Oil bid on prime land
in Dixie Valley (see Table 8).
Non-competitive federal leases were 9b-
tained in 1975, 1976 and 1978.
Regional bidding activity is shown in
Table 9.
dustry.
Lease costs, of course, depend upon the interest shown by inLands requiring competitive bid sales are within known Geo-
thermal Resource Areas (KRGA's), areas previously defined by the U. S.
Geological Survey as having significant geothermal potential. '
As of late 1977, Millican Oil held or controlled by agreement 33,920
federal acres in Dixie Valley.
At present Millican holds (or controls)
approximately 54,400 federal acres, of which 9,600 acres is 50% of land
held jointly with Southland Royalty (See Plate IV).
Southland Royalty has increased its land holdings from 14;080 (in
late 1977) to 27,520 federal acres, which also includes 9,600 acres
.'-.-.
~f
the Millican, Oil-Southland Royalty joint venture •
, -32-
TABLE 7
1I101'1>tG .. ,STOol, ", T"~ CI'M"tTlTlV( GF.OTl.[RM'l
SALtS 0" r~r.F;".L lAOiIl
Lf&~[
RF'CEIYEO IIICSI
TIlAcrs.
ACCf.prEO RIDSI
T.RACTS.
TRACr
4.
l560.CO
AC~"S.
o IIIDS.
NO IIID
tRAcr
5.
2319.59 .cllrs.
o !lIDS.
NO fllD
o IIII)S.
~O
10 8105.
TOTAL 81ns •
s 204R69.58.
TorAl HIGH BIDS. S 160840 •• 0
HIGH BIOS. , 1608100.40
"10
I III?S. lEASED
A"PUflLIC GEOr"ERI<AL' !iIGH SIn. IF''SE N-12S';9
Rflll/FlllC GEOTHEUMAL
I ;1105. LEASEo
s
3.33/ACRE.
TAACT 10.
1905.50 ACllrS.
ArpURLIC Gr.OTHERMAL. HIGH 810. LEASE
N-12~60
GEOT"ERWAL. HIGH BIn. LF.AS(
N-128~1
~rpU~LIC
REPURLIC
GfO'HE~~AL
3 RIDS. LEASFO
SIII/DCO F.NERGY DF;YELOPHENT CO •• HIGH 8JD. LEASE N-1286Z
.s
359910.'10
,
13731.010
,
7.211ACP.E.
REPURLIC
S
13662.410
,
7. I 7"CIII'.
CHEVIIO., OIL COMPANY
TAACr II.
SUNDeo
2309.5'1 ACRES.
£"E~GY
GEO'HEA~AL
2 1111)5. LEASEO
S 661>95.17
DE\lELOPM(PH CO"P'N'
SUNoeo ENERGY
SUI,OCO (NE::IGY OEVELOP>1fNT
S '16,,35.70
7.21/ACRE.
OF.VELOP~rNT
CO,,· HIGH BID. LEASE "'·12863
cn~"ANY
QfPuRLIC GEOTHERMAL
o qlns. NO RIO
TRACT 13.
S
2560.00 Acprs.
lOl9U.log
,
25~0.OO
ACRES.
o '11!lS.
NO BIn
TAACT IS • . 1263.23
AC~E~.
o BI"S,
NO 1110
TAACT 11>.·
Ae~fS.
O· aIDS. NO 810
TRACr 14.
19?I.S~
SII ... OCO ENERGY IlEv£LO">1ENT co,. HIG>1 BID. LEASE N·12Bt.4
I I'IIf)S •. L£A5£D
t.
o RIDS. NO RID
TRACT
S
I~.
1970.00 AcuES.
4Z03.29
o
RIOS. NO I!t!)
?I7IAC P r. •
-33-
TABLE 8
BIDS Arm RESULTS OF GEOTHERi-iAL LEASE SALE
I
JULY 19, 1977
..... ""
STATE OF NEVADA
BL,., Geothermal Lease Sale - il-16930 - July 19,1977:
Leasing Unit No. 1 :
Total
Earth Pm'ler Corp.
Per Acre
$8,811.40
$3.77
$7,385.60
$5.77
$5,318.40
$2.77
$13,519.36
$5.281
$16,951.52
$7.312
Leasing Unit flo. 2:
Earth PO\'/er Corp.
Leasing Unit No. 3:
Earth Pm-/er Corp.
leasin9.Unit tlo. 4:
Republic Geothermal, Inc.
.:"
.;
~
leasing Unit No. 5:
Republic Geothermal, Inc.
.~
..
...
~
leasing Unit tlo. 6:
"
*
leasing Unit ilo. 7:
No Bids
~
III
0
Z
:.
A.
III
~
Sunoco Energy Deve1op~ent Co. $48;358.40
Millican Oil Company
$32,099.20
Amax Exploration. Inc.
$28,800.00
Republic Geothermal, Inc.
$104,123.25
$18.89
$32.07
$11. 25
$1)0.675
leasing Unit No.8:
Millican Oil Company
~55.122.25
Sunoco tnergy veveJopment Co. $35,3ll.16
Amax Ex~loration, Inc.
$28,608.75
Republic Geothermal, Inc.
$49,214.86
Southland Royalty Conpany
$51,544.99
leasing Unit
:~o.
$22.07
Si:-J.89
$11. 25
$19.354
$20.27
9:
J·lill i can Oil Conpany
$18.099.20
$7.07
$3,878.12
$3.07
S5~807.09
$3.07
leasing Unit No. 10:
tli 11 i can Oi 1 Company
leasing Unit No. 11:
Hill i can Oil Company
leasing Unit Ho. 12:
No Bids
leas i n9 Unit tlo. 13 :
No Bids
-34-
TABLE 9:
S7ATf
Unit
K~AA
No.
COMPETITIVE BIDDING, DIXIE VALLEY AND OTHER AREAS,
1976
O.no or
,\c,.,:-
Lease
'ge
5.,1 e
Son
r:;rdio
-.-~
'-1?-76
6-15-76
1,699
IG
'-02-76
1,612
17
1-2Q-76
6-15-76
1,920
I)
l-Z0-75
0-15-76
5.231
J,51Q
I
3-03-76
1,2'~
total
'..Ii 1'on
19
;o:-s;~ I r.o ~
Ourough
S;:)rlnss
C
1.9a)
0
2,2~1J
0
)
4-20-76
" S~I)
I)
5,eO]
0
~
4-20-76
2,S60
0
5
1t-20-76
2,,20
0
9
~-20-76
2,143
10
4-2G-76
1,506
11
~-ZO-76
2,309
1
~
12
4-20-76
1,Slt3
'0
"
....
13
14
It-l0-16
1,560
I
:'-211-76
1,560
a
0
.~
"
::t
15
4-20-7S
1,2S3
:
16
4-211-]6
1,892
G
GIl
17
4-%0-76
2,~93
0
0
Z
i8
4-20-76
1,910
0
12
4-20-76
11~3]
II
10
"
III
::;
a.
III
~
Si lver
20
4-20-76
3 4 .2 11
2,547
~
21
~-20-76
l.pS
0
4,9 24
I
8-18-76
l,g4S
0
8-IS-76
8-18-76
1,959
1,360
0
0
8-1S-7S
2.282
0
7.547
n
640
640
0
~onte
2
3
~
"
I
6-18-76
6
10-1 ?-76
subtotal
i\u~v
Chevron ell Co.
3.69
3.33
Repub II c: Geother.... 1
Repub I I c: 'eoth.r... 1
13,662.44 - $
35,994.50
Sunoco Enersr Deye Io'pmen t
Sunoco Energy Dev.
18.S8
16,6)5.70 -
66,695.\7
Sunoco Energy !)e.. clop"",n~
~unoco
Enorgy Dav.
2S.88
20,198.40
Sunoc() E;>ergy Oeve I opr..... n t
SunOCQ En"';lV Oe ...
7.89
llag.... POwer toopany
lias.., Power Co.
5.19
Gettl Oil
(.e:tx all
Acceptold B~
\':liTer
Ac~ .. ,,~~d
2,419
4
S-le-7~
640
0
S-18-16
Rve
801
1l1411.~5
Tot.:t of
5!.is SO
/."·::~~t.,d
16,522.00 •
~"t<lZ
1.052
S-:d..
13,471.35
S .107.20
6-18-16
Subtotal
ot
fo:':! of
AC'::ao;t~d ;';C3 'S
1,280
6
160.840.40
$
I
Tot::L
Subtotal
Su,to:al
Chevron 01 I ''''''Pony
17
To:at of
SubtOtal
Neva
10.37
Totat of
ACC8;>t:.ld B;.d.3 SO
1,466.86
.:"
.;
Chevron 0" Co.
Tc:"l of
$
16,720.00
AC':J?:Jd si..d.:J
0'
~,776.00
4-20-70
volley
$/Acr~
Lesleo
Chevron 011 Comp.ny
Rcof'fered 01'5 troet
4-20-76
Cixle
High Oldd"r
Reofforcd as tnn 26
16,720.00
2
Subtot.1
Rong< of 81ddlng
0
IS
SllC-
r:":)t
till.
of
'lid.,;
"
ot
:J
A.C:"·~l~ :~d ?~ ..
ls.noz.1J -
Cc~o.]nv
::0.
1.98
5.107.20
244 ,~gJ. 22
Union all ',,",p.ny
Un i O~ 0 II Cc..p.ny
Union 011 Cc,,?ny
Union 01 I Co.
101. 00
244 .~S8.22
)l.36~.711
46./,0
P.tch
l'!olCh
~
~
I
10-19-16
2,520
4.435.20
1o.."ln Oi'l USA, Inc.
Amln Oi I US ...
1. 76
2
")-19-;6
1,482
4,36~.O6
Ar.1in 011 US .... Inc.
l
10-IS-76
2,60'1
4 ,S~I.df,
.v..ln 011 US,\, Inc.
A. "I" 011 USA
Mlln 011 USA
1. 76
1. 76
-35-
TABLE 9A:
)f,\ f~
Uni t
~G~
No.
REGIONAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING,NEVADA, 1974-76
Oa:o or
Aere-
Uo.
L~a 50
.ge
of
5,1.
n.n •• of Bidding
High 8idder
less ••
UnIon OIl Co.
UnIon OIl Co.
S.26
Chevrc;n OIl 'Q~
7.75
20l.0C
$1 ACI"~
Sid.
3rol~v-:-:..;::!n
19
6-15-76
2,536
20
6-15-76
1,505
Su'=>-
0
7,2 17.62
~2 ,~97
6
12-18-74
1,943
2
2
12-18-74
1,920
'0
3
\2-1$-74
1,93a
0
12-18-7~
2,"9
j
12-18-710
2,511
12-'8-74
2,46a.
to:.1
~
6
7 12-18-710
8
12-18-74
...
..!l
.~
~
...
:l
"'1
8410
3
0
2, 41 2
I
IIt.II)
12
~ 21
22
6-15-76
1,920
0
6-15-76
23
6-15-76
1,938
844
0
'it
Subtotal
III
«'
Z
::i
II.
~,t
'S"'J'rt :'\'~S
~
III
37,017 .45 -
Chevron 0 II
Ccr.I~any
Chevron 011 C,""pony
Chevron 01 I Co,
~5,371.16
Getty 01 I C"",p.oy
Getty 011 Co.
75,4~0.92
Chevron Oil Company
Chevron 011
lO,2~1.63
Gea:z: Oil,
G~ttv
Ctr.lo.Jnv
Com~~ny
Oi 1 Ccmoolny
18.00
30.58
12 . .'>0
.4~eB'D:~c1
a..:.c.s
67 1 ,257.37
25,015.46
So. Union 'roduct Ion Co.
So. Union Prod. Co,
12.90
Cheyron 011 C",
Chevron OJ I Co.
49.07
Toeat of
ai6
25,015'.46
$ 12,846.)6 - $
115,274.67
Chevron 011 Company
23.040.00 -
125.619.20
Chevron' OJ I Co.":1:lanv
12-18-7~
6~0
0
2
12-18-14
2,141
2
l
12-18-7~
2,560
3
3-01-75
5 , 341
640
j
7-0)-75
2-01-16
640
Rcoffered as tract
640
TRAtlSFER TO
Ol.blo bplorulon
,-01-76
~O
TRANSFER TO
Diablo txplorHlon
24
6-15-76
61i0
0
25
6-15-76
640
0
',290
0
4-0$-75
9-23-75
1-20-76
1,801
a
4-08-75
2,037
0
1,467
1
lIa'tMas C""pany
Ibtomas Company
Thermal Powor Co.
J.25
Sun OJ I Company
7.77
3.28
"at
111:
50S ,088.77
-
A.~~2-;'~2d
4, 702
total
f'.::i n:'
13,112.00 -
1
Su~-
!;rir:-;;'5
IS,074.8~
Totct of
total
v
2,002.00 -
25,256.£.1
Su~-
.:
67,5~~.IS
$
53.84
Tota! of
3
ill:
Ac""':)t~d
iI:'d3
240.893,87
TAAHSFER TO
Ceo. Resourcos' Int I,
~5
Toec:t of
S~b-
total
f!x.
~
2
,(cce!)t~d
Ei.d.a
SO
1-20-16
4-08-15
7-01-75
3,007.47 - $
7,702 .. 07
tran~
4
4-08-75
2,161
16,790.97
S
4-08-75
2,578
8,455.8.
6
4-08-75
1,890
7
4-()B-7~
2, ~45
Suo-
.-08-75
tO~31
~-23-75
14.479
5,728
\-20·76
5.nS
0
0
6-26-75
)-03-76
2,560
0
2
6-<0-75
2.609
0
')
6-25-75
3 '0)-76
1,968
0
4
6-26-75
2,528
Sun all Company
C~lv.rt
Drilling Company
C.lvert DrillIng Co.
Reofferod as tract 3
0
8,1~e,e;
5
fer
Tot.:lZ ~!
ACCJ?t.d 3£<13
CC!'lvert Ort l' inn
$
0
0
Co.~!"Janv
t.lv.,t Drl1l1no to. ~,2a
41,297.76
St £11·..... tt:r"
50:a
LJ":,!
Rcoffered '.. tract 2
)-03-76
Rcoffered as tract 3
"'eoffered "
12,058.
:6
tract 4
Phillips Petroleum Co.
-36-
Phillips Pet. Co.
4.77
Other holdings within Dixie Valley are shown on Plate IV.
IV. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS
A request for proposal was received from the U.S. Department of Energy
regarding a DOE project involving a geothermal reservoir assessment
case study of the northern Basin and Range Province.
A proposal
was submitted as a cooperative venture between Millican Oil Company,
Southland Royalty Company and the Minerals Research Institute of the
Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada at Reno.
Integration of
industrial and academic expertise is provided in the proposed
venture~
The proposal is presented in a multi-phase format, with each phase
encompassing specific tasks.
This format inherently includes major
decision-points, both within each phase and between phases, to allow
.....
for redesign or modification of each of the following tasks or phases
based upon evaluation of previous results.
In addition, it provides
DOE with the option of selecting the proposal as an entire program
leaciing to reservoir assessment, or as a multi-phase program in which
each phase can be sequentially selected and negotiated.
The contractural posture which is proposed will have the SouthlandMillican cooperative venture as Prime Contractor, with the University
of Nevada group as a sub-contractor.
All phases of task accomplish-
ment and reporting will be achieved with the cooperative assistance
of University personnel coordinated through the Prime Contractor's
representatives.
-37-
This proposal contains provisions for the sale of: 1) existing data
derived from surface and subsurface investigations, and 2) development
of new data from subsurface investigations and from the drilling of a
minimum of three deep exploratory wells.
The industrial-academic effort will involve subprojects on 1) the
hydrogeologic framework to assess recharge and potential reservoir
characteristics, 2) the structural and tectonic setting in the
Stillwater Range-Dixie Valley-Clan Alpine area to evaluate all
aeromagnetic and other data for developing a structural model of
the basin, 3) the alteration effects within basin rocks to petrologically evaluate rock behavior in the geothermal environment
(relative to sealing and faulting) and 4) the seismic framework
via microseismicity to support development of a technically" appropriate structural model of the Dixie Valley area.
The proposal is designed to have the first well under way by early
1979, with the first drilling site to be selected· from eleven permitted sites already approved by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
The final selection of ·the first well location" will be made following review of the existing data by the industrial-academic personnel involved in the venture.
The second well site is to be based on
data developed from new surface investigations and the results of
the first well.
The third well site is to be selected based upon a
final model of the area which will be developed by integrating all
data from surface and subsurface investigations completed by the
-38-
time the
r~g
is ready to move off the second well.
It is ex-
pected that the entire program, including well testing and reservoir
analysis, will be completed by the end of FY 1980.
The proposal was presented on a fixed-cost basis with inflation adjustment for four phases of work.
The proposal is flexible with re-
gard to method of cost-sharing, but has incorporated fixed price (with
inflation adjustment) in the proposal because of its relative ease of
administration.
A highly significant aspect of this proposal is the large geographical area involved in the Millican-Southland acreage.
A substantial
amount of existing data is available for immediate dissemination
which indicates the existence of a significant potential geothermal
reservoir.
Further, the exploratory drilling program will result
in a near-term assessment of not only the Dixie Valley area, but of
the state-of-the art techniques utilized in evaluating geothermal
prospects.
The Millican Oil-Southland Royalty cooperative venture was recently
advis.ed by DOE that the proposal has been approved on the basis of
technical feasibility.
Final contract negotiations are to begin in
the near future.
V. GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMICS
Geothermal exploration has increased in Nevada over the past few· years.
u.s.
Department of Energy has recently estimated that Nevada will rank
second only to California in growth of installed geothermal electric
\
-39-
capacity by 1983 (see Figure 12).
by 1983 (see Table 10).
Two 50 MWe plants may be in operation
Brady Hot Springs and Beowawe are presently un-
der intensive evaluatiori (see Figure 11).
DOE's development' scenario for
Brady Hot Springs, Beowawe, Steamboat Springs (Nevada) and Leach KGRA's
are included in the Appendix.
It is apparent that strong similarities
exist between Brady Hot Springs and Beowawe and Dixie Valley, the former
areas being at an advanced exploration stage relative to Dixie Valley at
this time.
However, input derived from the proposed DOE research and
development (including drilling) will close the gap in defining reservoir
potential (temperature and flow rate) within 2 years, while the other areas
continue to lead the way in field development and production techniques.
The power on-line schedule for the Nevada sites shown in Table 11 suggests the necessary well construction schedule that allows for a sufficient number of exploration, production, reinjection and replacement
wells to meet the specified power production goal.
Although not as ad-
vanced in exploration as Brady Rot Springs or Beowawe, Dixie Valley
has similar characteristics and potential.
Conservative estimates of
a possible schedule can now be made to define the reservoir requirements
before deep drilling is begun.
Temperature and flow-rate minimums can
now be established (based on nearby areas) that will guide future
economic considerations of Dixie Valley.
This is a fortunate situation
in many respects because the reliability of future economic considerations,will be higher in Dixie Valley (if similar temperatures and
flow-rates can be produced) than early economic studies conducted on
the Brady Hot Springs and
B~owawe
-40-
areas.
wASHiNGTON
MONTANA
OREGON
IDAHO
WYOMING
CALIFORNIA
tooO
~
III
on
ill
r"t
REGION IV
0
...-+------11---11
18
....
I
~
I-'
COLORADO
'"
I
UTAH
~:w
~
. M
~
....
~
o
~
-
8~
H ~~
HAWAII
--_.
ARIZONA
i.
-u
8....
j4tS
"
~51 5l
<XI
~
FIGURE 12:
o
-! , H
POSTULATED GROWTH Of INSTALLED GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC CAPACITY
INocreditformethanaincluded.
LOUISIANA
KEPLINGER
a.JeA-m'cial'J, inc.-
TABLE 10
GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
FORMULATED BY THE DIVISION OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGyl
PROSPECT
GENERATING CAPACITY INSTALLED EACH YEAR (MW e )
Pre·
1983
CALIfORNIA & HAWAII
Brawley, CA
Coso Hot Springs, CA
East Mesa, CA
Geysers, CA (liquiddominated)
Geysers, CA (steam)
Glass Mt., CA
Heber,CA
Lassen, CA
Mono·Long Valley, CA
Pu,,., HI
Salton Sea, CA
Surprise Valley, CA
I
.l>N
I
1983
1984
SO
1678
160
220
1985
1986
SO
SO
SO
SO
100
100
SO
1990
100
100
150
100
ISO
100
150
SOO
SO
100
100
100
100
400
SO
100
100
850
1400
1700
SO
200
300
3000
3,150
100
700
850
100
800
1,000
10 2
100
ZIl2
I.!!OQ
750
100
SO
SO
50
100
100
75
75
SO
100
SO
100
100
SO
50 2
100
50 2
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
~g
SOl
100
SO
SO
50
SO
SO
SO
50
-
SO
SO
166
80
SO
SO
1300
1400
750
SO
100
50
100
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
100
GULf COAST!
Acadia Parish, LA
Brazoria, TX
Calcasieu Parish, LA
Cameron Parish, LA
Corpus Christi, TX
Kenedy County, TX
Matdgorda County, TX
100
50
2.5
100
100
SO
SO
SO
50
2188
25
2408
27
3068
35
450
1,500
SO
50
50
250
1800
250
400
1550
200
400
350
2,225
350
500
1,650
300
500
30,923
200
4793
54
6093
69
6793
77
9143
103
30923
342
21
269
351
434
848
48S8
'MITRE.assumed plan! capacities fo', analysis. These capacities are not included in the cumulative generating capacity total.
500
1150
3668
41
Pilot,plants are not inCluded In this table.
1,000
230
1,500
1,500
1,000
100
200
100
SO
SO
SO
50
1678
19
1,000
600
100
1,000
1,000
100
250
900
2,000
2,000
700
100
50
100
TOTAL
2,168
110
SO
SO
Brow,awt; NV
I
1989,
SO
THWEST
rady Hot Springs, NV
Cumulative Gener:,png Capacity
Oil Equivalent (10 bbl/day)
Asso~iated Methane
(10 SCF/day)
1988
SO
NORTHWEST
Alvord, OR
B.ker Hot Springs, WA
Bruneau·Grandview, ID
Mount Hood, OR
Rail River, ID
Vale Ho! Springs, OR
Weiser-<:rane Creek, ID
West Yellowstone, MT
Chandler, Al
Cove·. ort Sulphurdale, UT
L.. ,h, NV
Roosevtlt Hot Springs, UT
Safford, Al
t.amboa! Springs, NV
Thermo, UT
Valles Caldera, NM
Post
1990
1987
('
KEPLINGER
ANTICIPATED
4'«Lj~~()ci4{t~, ;HC.-
WELLT~~NtLtoNSTRUCTION
SHCEDULE
FOR
50 MWe POWER PLANT OPERATION
KGRA AREA
1.
1978
1979
Exploration Wells
Production Wells
Re-Injection Wells
Replacement Wells
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
5
""1 50
11
5
Plant (/2
5
1
:·~SO
1
2
') 150 Plant J/3 & 04, 100
• I 5
5
5
30
30
14
14
4
4
7
11
1
Plant OJ
)150
• 5
11
5
2
5
5
04 & 05
5
22
10
3
2
5
22
10
3
>~OO~
5
22
10
5
BRADY
Exploration Wells
Production Wells
Re-Injection Wells
Replacement Wells
,
,
1982
Plant 01
5
On-Line Power (NWe)
~
1981
BEOWAWE
On-Line Power (MWe)
n.
1980
Plant III
>\50
5
15
7
5
1
Plant 112
5
2
IS
7
2
fJS & 06
5
30
14
7
)ollOO~
5
30
14
10
W
III.
STEAl-IBOAT
On-Line Power (}lWe)
Plant III
Exploration Wells
Production Wells
Rc-Injection Wells
Replacement Wells
IV.
5
10
I
5
16
7
2
16
7
2
\
)r; 50
OJ & 114
>1100~
32
14
2
4
4
7
LEACH
Plant 01
On-Line Power (MWe)
Explorat ion ~Iells
Production ~ells
Re-Injcction Wells
Replacement Wells
V.
.
Plant 112
~;50
10
5
- 150
~ I 5
24
10
2
Plant
5
24
10
2
(/2
5
48
20
2
"150~
5
48
20
4
DIXIE' VALLEY"
Plant III
On-Liner Paller (MWe)
Exploration Wells
Production Wells
Re~Injection Wells
Replacement Wells
*Prelitdnary estimate only.
2
3
3
)-i 50
3
13
6
3
Plant
3
~2
4
=-1 505
2
2
13
2
Based on limited data when compared to other KGRA's.
6
2
Plant fJ3 & ~4
5
26
12
6
5
26
12
6
.....1 1 0 0 - 4
I 5
26
12
6
Exploration Wells
The number of exploration wells drilled for developing the first 50
MWe plant in Dixie Valley depends heavily on how effectively and
how soon the reservoir's structural and other geologic conditions
can be defined.
Based on U.S. Department of Energy evaluations, ap-
proximately 5 to 10 reconnaissance wells may be required before a
fieldsite can be established for development drilling of production
wells.
Table 11 also includes 'our estimates of the necessary explo-
ration activity in Dixie Valley over the next 12 years.
Production and Reinjection Wells
The determination of the number of production and reinjection wells
necessary to support one 50 MWe plant is based upon the temperature
of the produced reservoir and the produced flow rate.
The following
data are used herein:
Area
Temperature (OC)
MWe/Well
No. of Wells
1. Brady Hot Springs
214
3.33
15
2. Beowawe
240
4.55
11
3. Dixie Valley
225
3.85
13
Replacement Wells
Geothermal, production wells begin to decrease in power production almost as soon as they are brought online.
Replacement wells must be
drilled and completed to 'provide constant heat input for the plant.
-44-
Based on experience in The Geysers and other areas, approximately 10%
of the production wells in service will be replaced each year.
Drilling Costs
Altnough drilling costs depend upon each site's unique geological characteristics and 'associated inherent potential subsurface problems, costs
have been estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy for nearby areas
(see Tables 12 arid 13); we have revised our estimation of well costs
for Dixie Valley (see Table 13).
The effects of cost reductions of geothermal development derived from
1) research, development and drilling advances and, 2) Federal tax incen-
.:"
tives within the next few years will play a major role in geothermal
development in the United States.
The "busbar" costs of electricity
(producer plus utility costs to consumer) from competing resources
(coal and nuclear) will also playa major role in regional geothermal
development.
Table 14 summarizes the expected costs of such compe-
tition, against which geothermal development must be measured.
Figures 13 through 17 illustrate the relative effects of research,
development and drilling advances(R, D & D) and of federal tax incentives (22% depletion and expensing intangible drilling costs) on cost
of electricity from liquid-dominated geothermal prospects.
Investment
tax credit incentive is also under consideration for revision in geothermal projects.
It should be noted that the indicated cost of coal
and nuclear power are conservative while the cost of geothermal power
is estimated to be high because of uncertainties in development and
production technology.
However~
-45-
existing technology (without any cost.
TABLE 12
FOOTAGE COSTS FOR_GEOTHERMAL DRILLING
AS A
FUNCTION OF ROCK TYPE AND WELL DEPTH
ROCK
HARDNESS
I
.:"
COST/FOOT (1977 DOLLARS)
<5000 FEET
>5000 FEET
80
160
Medium
100
120
Medium-Hard
125
Hard
200
Soft
-46-
.
250
400
,
KEPLINGER a.nUplJcia.lu, inc.-
TABLE 13
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND WELL COSTS
FOR SELECTED GEOTHERMAL PROSPECTS ProbAble
Coot Per
Exploration, P=o~
4
3.4
2
Reservoir
Temperature
Depth to
Prospect
('c)
Reservoir km
Geysers (steam) • CAo
Bratoria, TX
"'240
146
)40
240
Salton Sea. CA
Valles Caldera. WI
6'I~XI NV
I
1
4
1
1.4
1.4
3.4
1.4
I
.j:--
......
I
3.4
1
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
1.4
1
1
1
1
4
1.4
4
2.0
4.0
1.0
l.0
~14
g,~
Brawley. CA
260
Roosevelt. UT
Beowa'We. NV
Coso. CA
230
240
220
220
200
190
1.5
0.8
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.S
'fono-Long Valley. CA
Cove Fort/Sulphurcale. UT
Beber. CA
Gey~;ers (hvdro). CA
East Hes •• CA
urprlsc a
Chandler, AZ
Leach, NV
Calcasieu Parrish, LA
Broneau-Grandvlew, 10
Lassen, CA
Puna, HI
178
170
156
200
240
168
200
146
140
164
169
200
160
160
200
140
210
275
Mt. Hood. OR
Baker Hot Springs. IIA
16S
Yellowstone, WY
no data
Kenedy County,
TX
Alvord, OR
Hatagorda. TX
Caneron. LA
Aca.dia. LA
Corpus Chr isti. TX
Safford. AZ
Weiser/Crane Creek, ID
Vale. OR
Thermo. UT
Raft River. [0
Glass Mountain. C.\
w.
In
2,4 Dixie Valley
225
NOTES -
1 - binary plant
2 - binary or flash plant
3 - gt.·oprt'sslJrl·d
4 - depth to reservoir estimated
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.3
.0
2.0
2·2
4.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
I.S
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
Average
Classification (20]
Medium
Soft
Sof~
Hard
Uard
Soft
Medium-Hard
lhu: d
Medium-liard
Med lum-Hard
Medium-Hard
Soft
Medium
Soft
Medium-Hard
Medium-liard
Medium
Medium-Hard
Soft
Mediur.o-Hard
Medium-Hard
Soft
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Medium-Hard
Medium-Hard
Soft
MedIum
Soft
Medium-Hard
Hard
Medium
Med ium-Hard
Soft
Hard
Depth to
duction and Re-
Reservoir Plus
placement ,""p11
($xlO)
0.5 krn
2.5
4.5
1.5
1.5
~,O
2.0
1.3
~I~
1.S
1.S
2.0
1.5
2.S
1.5
O.B
1.5
2.5
~I~
4.S
2.5
1.5
4.5
2.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.S
2.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
1.8
Probable Cost
Per Reinjection
lIell ($xl0 3)
1962
400
984
100)
1962
400
984
400
53)
400
53)
laO)
m
2a&
61S
615
1523
600
1141
600
328
923
1711
~~ ~§
~~6
m
615
615
lOIS
400
1141
400
615
1140
~42~
1962
2138
61S
2590
24 )7
1962
2662
1962
2000
2138
923
591
1219
910
1426
2281
738
2138
912
1962
1426
615
2590
1625
1962
2662
1962
2000
1426
61S
)94
812
607
1426
2281
492
1426
912
1180
780
TABLE 14
LEVELIZED BUS BAR COSTS OF ELECTRICITY FROM
COAL AND NUCLEAR SOURCES
(1977 mills/kWhr)
CENSUS REGION/PLANT TYPE
MOUNTAIN
PACIFIC
COAL
NUCLEAR
COAL
NUCLEAR
PLANT-ON-LINE DATE
AND
SCENARIO
. 1
1985 National Energy Plan
.:"
.;
~
1985 Recent Trends Scenario
1
1985 High Escalation
27.0
20.0 2
21.5
16.7
24.5
23.2
22.2
20.9
.~
"
'""
1985 Low Escalation
'ot
1990 National Energy Plan
~:c:
1
28.1
20.6
22.8
17.5
l1li:
III
"a.z
1990 Recent Trends Scenario
::::i
III
~
1990 High Escalation
1
1990 Low Escalation
1
27.0
25.7
23.4
22.3
Denotes alternative chosen as a basis for comparing geothermal
costs.
2 Underlined values represent the sources which are. expected to be
the main competitors to geot~errnal energy in the respective
regions.
-48-
\
PACIFIC CENSUS REGION
1
MOUNTAIN CENSUS REGION
(ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, HAWAII, OREGON,
WASHINGTON)
(ARIZONA, COLORADO,IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA
NEW MEXICO, UTAH, WYOMINGI
<i.
u
...
'0
2l
10
c:
0
u
'E
'"
0
'":>
~
~
>
'"
'"
ICJ
J::
I
.t\0
I
[
Not shown:
Baker H.S ..
50 MWe at
120 mills/kWh
J
N
.>i
q:
OJ
~
~
..
..,.
"1;)
ci ::;
0
'"
"1;)"
0
..>/
Itl
'5
a
c:i
3:
.0
0
~
>
.r.
~
.~
:::l
0;
<i.
u
-e:>
<i.
~
~
0;:
0
c.
~
(I)
","
n;
>
q:
"E
~0
£
'"
u.
Ii <i.
u
.'"
(I)
...,:
60
","
:::l
:E
OJ
u 1977 technology
N
.r.
0"3
70
...
=ac:
.r.
'"
n;
U
~
U
c:i
OJ"
..J
i >a'" >~
OJ
...,:
[
Not shown:
Mt. Hood, OR. - Temperature too low
Raft River, 10. - 100 MW e @ 90 mills/kWh
W. Yellowstone, Mt. - No data
Leach, NV. - 1500 MWe @ 11 0 mills/kWh
~o
<i.
u
Z
50
Costs of
{ 1990
Electricity
from Nuclear Plants ""';'<9:"'8:"'3'-L"''''~'-'-'I.~:''':''''-'''''''~4If.~~-'J.''''-4
10
8
6
4
2
o
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Total MWe Potential for 30 Years IX 103 ,
FIGURE 13:
ASSUMED POTENTIAL CAPACITY vs. COST FOR ELECTRICITY FROM HYDROTHERMAL LIQUID-DOMINATED
PROSPECTS WITHOUT RD&D ADVANCES
1
<i.
u
"'0
e
'"c
PACIFIC CENSUS REGION
MOUNTAIN CENSUS REGION
(ALASKA. CALIFORNIA. HAWAII. OREGON.
WASHINGTON)
(ARIZONA. COLORADO. IDAHO. MONTANA, NEVADA.
NEW MEXICO. UTAH. WYOMING)
....:
'E
:::l
0
0
-0
':;
0'
~
a:0
~
'"
'"
>
<i.
(!)
0
:E
>-
.!!:
::J
.c:
a.
",'
:;
....: II?
....
'"
"'0
'jij
:::l
0
u
0.
If)
'E:J
Z
u 'jij
..: >
~ ';:
'"
'"
'" l:I ... 0a:
> .c:
« f-'" (3'"
T:i
....
oj
'jij
<i.
u
E
til
.!!:
<i.
u
.'"
<i.
~
...'"
<i.
en
u
.....
:i
'" .0'"
VI
W
80
u
",'
'"
J:
0
0
U
u
0
c
0
~
.,;
<i.
u
>'"
~
D5'"
60
<i.
U
c'
50
'"
'"'"
'"
Costs
of 1990
Electricity
...:
:::l
0
...
0;
40
<i.
u
I
til
J:
...J
..;
o
:>Z
'jij
0
...J
I
70
>-
c
>
II>
>
0
U
i
.¥.
~
'"
':;
.
0
"'0
c
'"
N
(!)
oCt
OJ
-0
:,
'"c;2
CJ)
.
-'"
0
If)
;:
co
;:
.!!:
>
f3.'"
'jij
ci
",'
<i.
C7>
VI
:>
Z
1::
0
u.
ci
>
Q.
...co
If)
0
.0
E
>
Z
Plants
983
1
... -
FIGURE 14:
'jij
~
51
';
~
.
'
'"
'6
C
co
,
.c:
U
J:
>
"'0
D5"'
en'"'"
a:
If)
If)
.:.
oCt
0
30
Costs of
{--------:--f'~_.El&_+*"'.,.-­ 0
From Nuclear
0
N
0
0
",'
'"c
..'"
,S
0
'"
CJ)
'"t!
c;
---;;.1;::===~~~E::===========~19:9=0
}from
Electricity
20
Coal1983
10
RANGES OF PROJECTED COSTS OF ELECTRICITY FROM HYDROTHERMAL
LIQUID DOMINATED PROSPECTS (WITHOUT RD&D ADVANCES)
Fired Plants
-I
!a
o.J
!!!.
."
-
(1983)
!!:
"'~
0
0
QI
-g-
~--,
);
~
(II
'"lo
0
lo
Alvord, OR.
(1990) -:::!:-:r--"_~=---J
The Geysers (liquid·Dominated), CA.
Surprise Valley, CA.
:E C
lo"
(1)0
X:o
-Z
Z-
."
lo
Q
"
0
0
m
Z
:0
m
Zlo
(II
OX
-4'
(II
Cillo
-;e
c
0
,-
Cil
}i
0
:0
Z
m
G)
0
oso .5., CA.
-Mono-Long Valley, CA.
Brawley, CA.
CA.
Z
-=t.I='~:..!Lassen,
,.;
Puna, HI.
Salton
Sea, CA.
w
f:8l
'-J
0
Nt
""
0
0
(11
0
OJ
0
"
Z
r-
....
Levelized Blisbar Cost
0
Q
Nt
Roosevelt H.S., UT
Steamboat Springs,
(1983)
(1985)
!a
<II
=>
~
:III
Mills/kWh
l'>
.;:
t:......
Beowawe, NV
'-J
Q
Valles Caldera, NM.
(0
w
co
:::!
0
-<
'"
;;;
""
~
j;;'
....~
~.
;:
!'
);
X
0
:0
til
N
_w
0
Z
lo
co
Z'
O
m
:EO
s:5
m:o
o
Chandler, AZ.
Xlo
0- 0
,0,0
C0
-4
lolo
II
o
o
. .0
~~
o
3:
0
0
$~
z
>
-lo
Z.,
Cil-
-4
!'I'I
s:
0
c
Z
-I
~
Z
O
m
Z
Vl
c
Vl
:0
m
G)
0
Z
-}>
o
Z
m
~
:J
'>
/
=
PACIFIC CENSUS REGION
MOUNTAIN CENSUS REGION
(ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, HAWAII, OREGON,
WASHlil/GiONI
(ARIZONA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA
NEW MEXICO, UTAH, WYOMINGI
c{
u
'0
!!l
IV
S
..
C
u
°E
..'"
0
::J
~
"., ~
CT
cC :::i
a
>
.
>
.
C)
or;
f-
Oi
>
u
i
.
N
>-
£..
In
cC c(
.~
0
::J
;;;
u
...
-...
c{
.; .0
>
60
u
>-
~
c{
u
w
.!!!
;;;
50
>
>
&
c Z
Cii
.,
&J
.-'~
:r
Costs of
Electricity
from Nuclear Plants
1977 technology
".
70
I
:0
<{
.!!!
;;;
In
..
<{
is
5
:l:
N
...c
.,
G >
VI
N
u
..J
c{
IV
I
....,
o~
0
~
~.
~
co
05
,; :l:~
or;
3:
&J
0
-0
;:lin
40
...~~
.,0
co
11990
~~LL~~~~~~LL~~~~~~
1990 J Costs of
~~Izz:Z::ZZ2:Z:;~Z:Z:ZZZZZ:ZZ2Z2~!ZZ:Z:ZZZZZ2Z22: Electrici ty from
1983 CoaloFired Plants
1983
10
8
6
4
2
o
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Total MWe Potential for 30 Years (X 103 ,
FIGURE i6:
ASSUMED POTENTIAL CAPACITY
VS.
COST FOR ELECTRICITY FROM HYDROTHERMAL LIQUID·DOMINATED
PROSPECTS WITH RD&D ADVANCES
KEPLINGER 4HUm'ci4itJ, ;HC.-
PACIFIC CENSUS REGION
MOUNTAIN CENSUS REGION
(ALASKA. CALIFORNIA. HAWAII, OREGON,
WASHINGTON)
(ARIZONA. COLORAOO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA
NEW MEXICO, UTAH, WYOMING)
<i.
u
:;;
..
~
5
c
u
..
'g
~
0
~
0
il
'3
a:
0
-0
,.0
::l
CD
'0
r::!
'"
,.
:.J
.!:!
...~
c:i
N
'"OJ «
..>i
~
~
'">- <i.
u
'"
<i
CI
i
5
:-:
.!!
Ii -i
u
.~
a
0
.;
j
VI
;;;
>
J
<i.
:i...
U
...
::i!
...
.(
w u
:-:
.!!
;;;
>
50
>
:E
z
to-
,;
>
E
OJ
z t=.
~ en
J i
on
{ 1990
~
Electricity
~~'"""~~~~~~
from Nuclear Plants 1983
-
~ ~
....
~
::.
~
1990
r==1~_~ZZ~~~:= z z ? ? Z2 2 Z Z I Z2~ Z 2 I 2 Z Z Z Z ( '
~ ~
.
1983
8
FIGURE 17:
1977 technology
...:
::>
60
Z
Costs of
~
70
>
~
..
'C
c
6"'
'"
...J
;;;
I
U
c:i
OJ
~
~
6
4
2
o
2
4
6
Total MWe Potential for 30 Years (X 103 ,
8
10
12
J Costs
of
Electricity from
Coal·Fired Plants
14
ASSUMED POTENTIAL CAPACITY vs. COST FOR ELECTRICITY FROM HYDROTHERMAL LIQUID-DOMINATED
PROSPECTS-FIRST PLANTS ON LINE WITH RD&D ADVANCES, 22% DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE AND EXPENSING INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS
reductions in the future) is capable of making geothermal generally
competitive during the 1980's if coal and nuclear power experience
any form of unforeseen price escalation.
If cost reductions do oc-
cur, geothermal energy will become a significant source of energy for
the entire western United States.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
It is very apparent that Dixie Valley has significant geothermal potential.
Furthermore, although early indications were not as dramat-
ic as nearby areas (e.g. high spring and geothermetric temperatures),
Dixie Valley has a potential for future development very similar to
that of Brady Hot Springs and Beowawe KGRA's.
Timing is important in any resource development project.
It is a
prime favorable factor in the development of Dixie Valley.
The area's
exploration and development can draw heavily from the experiences of
nearby areas, which will no doubt result in reduced costs relative to
those projects preceding it.
Early signs of Dixie Valley's economic
viability (or the lack of it) will be apparent'.
In addition, the
Federal Government may revise tax incentives to promote growth of
geothermal development.
The timing of this revision, if one is made,
will certainly affect Dixie Valley and its future viability.
Based on the geologic evaluations of Dixie Valley to date, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
-54-
1)
Two shallow heat sources have been identified along the
western border of Dixie. Valley within. land held. by Millican Oil Company.
A third heat source, also within
Millican holdings, is possible on the eastern boundary
of the valley.
2)
Thermal gradient drilling near one of the heat sources
suggests subsurface temperatures greater than 200°C at
depths of 3,000 to 4,000 feet in the fractured metasedimentary units below the gabbroic complex.
dominated reservoir is expected.
A liquid-
However, a reservoir
at depths greater than 8,000 feet may be steam-dominated
because of the very high temperatures indicated, but
exploration is not sufficiently advanced at this time
to suggest such a condition.
3)
Faulting is widespread and complex within the basin which
allows for numerous avenues of upwelling heated ground
water to reach intervals within economic drilling depths,
i.e. less than 9,000 feet, depending· upon the temperature
and flow rate encountered.
4)
Ground-water geochemistry-may be similar to Brady Hot
Springs and Beowawe areas, and thus may present sealing
and scaling problems during the development of the
reservoir.
-55-
5)
Although remote from population centers, the Dixie Valley
area is located approximately 30 miles north of a 230
KV power line.
6)
Land position of Millican Oil Company is excellent.
As-
suming a minimum of 7 sections (4,500 acres) of production, approximately six 50 MWe plants could be supported
via substained total production of 300 MWe over a 30-year
period.
Balanced land position allows a widespread
coverage of the various structural plays in the area.
7)
Per well initial production of 475,000 pounds/hr. (3.85
MWe/well) is necessary for economic viability and appears
possible at this time, although drilling must be undertaker
to substantiate such potential.
8)
A production temperature of 225°C appears possible at this
time, if temperature gradient of previously drilled well
(H-l) represents a
somewhat less than linear relationship
with depth.
9)
Flash production may be appropriate for any production
temperatures in excess of 200° C.
10) .
~uture
exploration and development in Dixie Valley will be
considerably enhanced by the industrial-academic project
presently being seriously considered by U. S. Department
of Energy.
-56-
11)
It should be noted that many of. the quantitative conclusions made herein are clearly based on limited and speculative information at a stage of the project where such
probabilities must be considered in view of assessing
risk.
We reserve the right to alter our conclusions as
additional data become available.
VII. REFERENCES
Armstead, H. C., 1973, "Geothermal Engergy, Review of Research and
Development"; Unesco Press, 186 p.
Anon., 1978, "Proposal on Geothermal Reservoir Assessment Case Study
Northern Basin and Range Province", Dept. of Energy, RFP ET-78-R-US0003, Millican Oil Company, Southland Royalty Company and University
of Nevada at Reno, 160 p.
Bhattacharyya, B.K. and L.K. Leu, 1975, "Analysis of Magnetic Anomalies
Over Yellowstone National Park:
Mapping of Curie Point Isothermal
Surface for Geothermal Reconnassance", Journ. Geophy. Res., Vol. 80,
No. 32, pp. 4461-4465.
Goldstein, N. E., 1977, "Northern Nevada Geothermal 'Exploration Strategy
Analysis", L.L.L. Labs Report 7012, U. S. Department of Energy, TID 4500-R66, 55 p.
,Gupta, J. N. and J. G. Leigh, .1978, "Gelcom, A Geothermal Levelized
Busbar Cost Model, Description and User's Guide", Mitre Corporation,
-57-
Report M78-17, January, 127 p.
Keplinger and Associates, Inc., 1977, "A Preliminary Evaluation of The
Hughes Geothermal Properties in Churchill County, Nevada", Report for
Millican Oil Company, April 21, 65 p •
. Keplinger and Associates, Inc., 1977, "Phase II Preliminary Evaluation of Dixie Valley, Nevada:
Geothermal Potential and Associated
Economics", Report for Millican Oil Company, September 16, 1977,
46 p.
Leigh, J., et .al., 1978, "Site-Specific Analysis of Geothermal
Development", Volume 1, Summary Report, U. S. Department of
.;
.:
Energy, Div. Geothermal Energy, Mitre Corporation, Washington,
D. C., DGE/4014-2, August, 58 p.
Mitre Corporation, 1978, "Prospects for Improvement in Geothermal
Well Technology and Their Expected Benefits", for U. S. Department
of Energy, HCP/T4014-04, June, 128 p.
Pearl, R. H., 1976, "Hydrological Problems Associated with Developing Geothermal Energy Systems", Ground Water, Vol. 14, No.3,
May - June, pp. 128-137.
Sacarto, D. M., 1976, "State Policies for Geothermal Development",
National Conference of State Legislators, Denver, 94 p.
Senturion Sciences; Inc., 1977, "High-:-Precision Multilevel Aeromagnetic Survey Over Dixie
Va~ley",
Report for Southland Royalty
Company and Millican Oil Company, October, 15 p.
-58-
Senturion Science, Inc., 1978 "Part 2 - High Precision Multilevel
Aeromagnetic Survey Over Dixie Valley", Report for Southland Royalty
and Millican Oil Company, June, 13 p.
Senturion Sciences, Inc., 1978, "South Dixie Valley, Nevada: Scalar
Magnetotelluric Survey", Report for Southland Royalty and Millican
Oil, February, 45 p.
Trehan, R., et aI, 1977, "Site-Specific Analysis of Geothermal
Development - Scenarios and Requirements", Volume II, Mitre
Corporation Report MTR-7586, April, 655 p.
Williams, F., et. a1., 1977, "Site-Specific Analysis of Geothermal
Development
Data Files of Prospective Sites", Volume III, Mitre
Corporation Report MTR-7586, October,620 p.
"---
-59-
VIII APPENDIX
I
..;
.3
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
AND
SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS
OF
SELECTED
PROSPECTIVE GEOTHERMAL AREAS
IN NEVADA:
A)
BRADY HOT SPRING KGRA
B)
BEOWAWE KGRA
C)
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS KGRA
D)
LEACH KGRA
-60-
--~ '"
BRADY HOT SPRINGS, NEVADA
Postulated Development Scenario
PLANT
NUMBER
I
...'"
INSTALLED CAPACITY
(MWe)
PLANT
ON-LINE DATE
1
50
1983
2
50
1986
3
100
1988
4
100
1990
SUBSEQUENT
PLANTS
700
1991-1997
TOTAL
1000
to 1997
.~
Estimate of Resource Characteristics
RESOURCE CHARACTERISTIC
Subsurface Fluid
Temperature (OC)
ESTIMATE
Range:
200-230
Best Estimate: 214
Total Dissolved Solids (PPM)
2,450
Electric Energy Potential (MWe 30 years).
1,000
Overlying Rock
Hard:
Basalt and alluvium
Depth to Top of Reservoir (Meters)
Land Status
Total KGRA acres
Total Federal acres
Federal acres leased
Total State and private acres
State and private acres leased
1
500
98,508
59,358
26,049 1
.39,150
No data
A11 Federal land in the KGRA was offered in the
Federal lease sale.
BRADY HOT SPRINGS, continued.
Development Status and Activity
Several companies have been drilling in the area since 1959.
Magma Power Company drilled several shallow wells between 1959
and 1961.
Earth Energy, Inc. drilled a well to 1,519 meters (5~062
feet)· in; 1964.
By August 1975, Phillips Petroleum Company and Union
Oil Company had drilled deeper than 2,100 meters (7,000 feet) and
Magma had drilled two wells, one to 1,050 meters (3,500 feet) and the
other to f,350 meters (4,500 feet) near the old holes.
By February 1977, Southern Union Products company had suspended
operation and Standard Oil of California had drilled • producing
well.
One 1,500 meter (4,900 fooi) well had a temperature of 214°C
and a high flow rate.
Phillips has new high-flow-rate wells east of the old Brady
Magma wells.
In 1977, ERDA (now part of DOE) approved an application for
~3.46
million in loan guarantees by Geofood Products, Inc., to build
a plant to use heat from the Brady geothermal resource for dehydration of food products.
loan has been
gr~nted
Total project cost is $4.96 million.
by the Nevada National Bank.
The
.' ~--.
BRADY HOT SPRINGS, continued.
Major Development Problems
There do not appear to be any severe technological problems
at Brady Hot Springs.
However, .the fo llowing determiI\at ions must
be made before development can begin:
•
Whether or not the brine at Brady may lead to severe
calciting, ~s has been suggested may happen •
•
What the noncondensible content is, as this may affect the
choice of convers.ion technology.
Also, injection feasibility must be demonstrated, and the maintenance
of production flow must be demonstated in formations having low
permeabilities.
Postulated Development Scenario:
First Commercial-Scale Plant:
Status and Implications
50 MWe in 1983
III:
o
z
The postulated development schedule at Brady Hot Springs
:::;
~
:.=
calls for a 50-MWe plant to begin in operation in 1983.
ment schedule appears in Figure 22-1.
The develop-
As shown, the commitment to
develop the site must be made at the beginning of 1979 while plant·
design must be completed in mid-1980 to achieve power on line
in 1983.
The required timing for the availability of new technology
would thus be 1980.
A complementary schedule in Figure 22-2 presents
the activities of principal paricipants in the development of the
series of plants postulated for Brady "ot
Sp~ings.
It is anticipated
that this plant will use flash cycle conversion technology because:
KEPLINGER anUHlJcialo, jltc.-
-
'"'[1111 !"IN(;
EUTlTlr.S
lJSr.S
Issue STe Drilling Permit
Issue Lan": Jse Permit
I~suc Dr! II Ing Permit
Ul~1
Lca.:iu Land
UI.H
l'rocI!9S EIA/ElS
Dt=velope['
I::xploratory Drilling &
Res"rvoir Evaluation
Dev~loP Utility Interest
FeaSIbility Study
01.1·'
Ct,unty
x
X
,
boo
ACTIVITY
Developer
I)evelope r &
Utillty
rroducer (0" Finnnc1al Nl!gotiations
velol'l!r) &
Ut lllty
Site Selection
I'rod'ul:t!r
Design.
I'rouuct!r &
Utility
f'roJuccr &
Comml trnent to Development
Ut Illty
rroduccr &
Prepare ''''ster Development
Ut II I ty
Plan
lit ll1ty
Prcp~re £nvlronmcnt~l Data
Statement
nLll,rpc ,Stat· Cl!rtiCy Plant & Site, IsslI(
u::es
I'ermlts
uses
P.['occss EIA/EIS (Drilling
FPC
I'coc"ss EIAIEIS (PI and
Process EIMErS (TransFrc
mission Line)
Devclo,pn",nt llrlll1ng
rruJucer
Utility
I'lant Constructlun
Ut UHy
Install Transmission Ltne
(161;m)
IIECIPIENTS
Developer
Developer
Developer
o..veloper
CEQ
1977
}
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
198)
ASS HED CDHI' £TED
--
-
I-- .
~
BUi uses
r-
DUlFPC
State,County
i -
Producer &
Utility
O:Q
C~<l
CEQ
'--
FIGURE 22·'
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR FIRST PLANT: BRADY HOT SPRINGS. NEVADA
{FEDERAL LANDI
1984
1985
1986
,. 1987
KEPLINGER
IWF.IlATlIIl;
r:IIHTltS
01Jner
L~3~@
'-'-~
County
State
1..3",1,
-- .. -..... .
l~gue
........
_....-
rruNpecting remit
....
----- ._--1977
AI:TlVITY
...
El vfronmcntnl Rel·"rt - I're-l,,"aa
I'lStll: lttntl U'-" P"rllllt
l'rnces9 r:nvlr('t"mcnt~11 Report - Orilllng
rrOCf!!lS
l
F.nvirunment:al R~port. LMoe Land
Issue rrn'rectl"~/E'rlorntlon Permits
Issue Drilling PermIts
CcrtHy rl/'nr :tntl Site - Is.ue Permita
rrt)c:C:~9 tuv t ronnll'utl11 Rerens
Drilling,
PI:l'lt f:on~tr\lct ion, Trnn.",lssion Line.
PI'OC(lSS
-
--
1980
1979
----- -
...,..
IlOI/lIS(:S
Evaluation
to Jll~vr.tcpl\\t!nt
rrl'r:Jrf! Huster Development Plan
n~·Jelorr.1rnt Dr1111nll
DOl/nUl
MI/USfS
--
1987
1985
- ,..
-.-
-
L
,-
-
~
--
-
---
I
I-
1
-----j,\
L
I-
II-Lines
1
50 IJ}
Orlillne r~ .. rult
Drilling
\'Y'''rr~~ 1:1h!1:15
-
1
-
1
f.'A/F.lS. I.",,~e Lnnd
STC UrlllJnr. rcrmlt
rrOCf'S!1
IS~\Jr.
-
,.1
rrnt:c"!1 t:I""El~, l,..~·s(: land
T~!':HP. !iTC Dr 11 \ Inn Pcr .. lt
Cert Hy rlant Dnd SHe, Issue Permits
1'185
- ,..
----
tL---
Cc..'.'hllt: LO Devc)ormenl
l!l!'HU!
1984
It
r~l'lur:tt. tUil :111') Rl'~~rvolr
Pr{"l':are EIIV irnn 1nt'nlll1 DaLa Stlltement
:1n,1 f-1."tcr Ucvclormcnt Plan
C,"'n~ t ru(' t rl:1nt, In. tall Transm1s.ion
l'ower on tine
/
198)
-
)<"
Utility
1982
l
<:t''I'II~i l
X
1981
1
-
Devl!loper
1978
anU~~"ciait~, inc.
FIGURE 22·2
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR ALL PLANTS: BRADY HOT SPRINGS. NEVADA
- ----- ---~-
l--
------
(
KEPLINGER (u.Usscciaie$, i"c.-
01'1:1".\1 we
I\CTIVITY
[IITlTIF:S
. 1908 1989 1990
- - "- - I- - - 2...
- - L- - .L
19~1
19'13
1992
1994
19'15
1996
1997
100&
100&9
.~
I.nnrl, IB9uC! rrosJ'eclf.ng Penott
Ovner
Le:\F;C
County
rrncrCB f.nvJromn("ntnl Rrrort - r,e-Ie~s"
"~"e
Lnnd U"e r.,.mlt
rrocfsfI ['IV lro"Iftcntn 1 nerort - Drllllnc
Scote
Ileveloper
><
><
Utility
rrocess "Ellvfronmentlll "Report, Lens" Land
19~1Ic rro!ir~ct'nr./F.x\)lor:1tJon rermlto
J"~tIC l)rl11JI1& frrmlts
Certify rlnnt and Slt~ - Issu(! rermits
rrocc", [IIvlron ... "nul Reports - IlrUi1ng,
rl:.nt Construction, Tr~nsmls9ton LJnes
[xrJor:ttfnn nod Rcncrvotr Evaluation
,.
Commlt to lIcvcloJlmcnt
Prcl,arc H.lster Development PIon
Il"velol'tncnl DrUlI"I'
Cotn:'11t
to Devel0p.,enl
J'I'r.p;]rc l:n\·fronm('ut~,l Ilntn Statement
nnd nnstcr ncvclor,Tlr.nt rlan
COI'9t~UCt rl~nt. Intl~lL TransmIssion Lines
\'0"'(''[' on 1.lnc
DOL/USeS
tn~"('
nrUlInr.
r ... rmlt
l'rC'cC's9 CIA/tIS - DrJIII"G
00 11 DLlI
DOI/USFS
Prncess EIA/EI~, t.f!.1S(! 1.:u1l1
l!t~ .. " STG Drll11ng rerm1t
C~rLHy rl""l Dnd Site, lasue rermits
--- --
~-
.- -
5
'L-
I-
9
~
'L
.-
-
'L
-
-
9_ _
-
--
9
-
?_--_.
9
~
I.~
-- --
1
~
~
i--
--1
)
f-
-
-
':i'::
~
.. -
9
~
2...00&
1..-
~
S
L
-'"
L
- . -- --
9_ _
100&
11)0&
-L- _L
-
10llA'
--
- --., r-'L-- L
-
----
5
9
-
PrOC~S9 ~II\/EIS, I.ensc Lllnd
Issue STC Drlll1nr. I'ermlt
FIGURE 22·2 (CONCLUDEDI
9
1006
100&
I
1913
BRADY HOT SPRINGS, continued.
•
Reservoir temperature appears high enough to give flash
technology an economic advantage over binary; and
•
Flash technology may appear to the developers to be
less risky than binary in this time frame.
However, certain resource characteristics which are not known at
present may affect the choice of technology.
Possible high non-
condensible gas content (>3 percent) might necessitate a binary cycle,
because noncondensible gases in a flash system requlre high pumping
power to remove the gases from the condenser.
I
..;
.:
Calciting tendencies
in the brine might lead to problems of scaling.
In the context of a possible binary plant, the experience
gained at the Niland thermal loop wilJ be relevant.
The problems
associated with binary systems are described in detail under Salton
Sea, California.
In the following, the use of a flash cycle plant
is assumed.
Development Problems.
This plant would be one of the firs,t
flash geothe'rmal plants constructed in the United States and, in the
absence of experience with similar type plants, is 'likely to be
perceived as a relatively high-risk venture.
The schedule requires
that a utility company be identified in mid-1977, commitment to
development ,be made in early 1979, design be completed by mid-l980,
and construction started by mid-1981.
While the attitude to develop-
ment in the area is relatively favorable, mild constraints and brief
delays may be anticipated.
XXII-7
... - ....
BRADY ROT SPRINGS, cantinued.
Reservoir conditions appear fairly good.
High flaw rates are
reported to have been obtained from test wells, although no numerical
data are available.
A low TDS of 2450 ppm has been reported.
It is believed that the major problems
associa~ed
with this and
other similar reservoirs in Nevada are high noncondensible gas
content, possible calciting tendencies of the brine, and maintenance
of product ian well flow from low permeability reservoir formations.
Drilling in the hard rocks assaciated with this reservoir may
".;
.!
~
.!
"
'""
~
:::t
be difficult, but is"well within current capabilities.
Well
completions at the estimated reservoir temperature of 214°C should
present
~o
problems.
Wells have been successfully completed under
~
"
.:
III
much more severe conditions (Salton Sea, Cerro Prieto, The Geysers) •
Z
:::i
Since some good well flows have been demonstrated, it is not expected
~
A.
III
~
that deep well pumps will be required, although ~ontrol of noncondensible gases and/or calciting might necessitate their use.
Since flash plant conversiantechnolagy has been demanstrated
elsewhere in the world, no. severe technological problems are fareseen.
~efare
the development canpraceed, it will be necessary to' demonstrate
injection of $pent brine in this fractured valcanic rock enviranment,
but this is expected to' be feasible.
Table 22-1 shaws a summary of
important site-related needs and RD&D impacts.
In summary, while it appears" that there are no initial technological obstacles to development on "the postulated schedule, additional
XXII-8
TABLE ~2·1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: BRADY HOT SPRINGS. NEVADA
FLASH SYSTEn • 50 ~w ELECTRIC FLANT
FItiST PLAliT ON 1111£ DATE: 1983
T£~PERATU~E IN CENTIG~AD[ £lGF1ES (BES! lSIINATE) : 214
WELL DEPTH I~ ~E1ERS :
lUUO
BRINE SALlI/Ill :
1011
OVERLYING ROCK TYFE : HA~D
TKE IiHt fLO. RArE IS NOT .. PECIFlH : 'IHE DEFAULT fLOW RATE USED (KGII./H·S.)=
20$886
THE COST PEP. PROCUCTION ~E~L IS HOT SPECIfIED
THE DEFAULT COST fEn PRODUCTION WELL (S)
THE CCST ~ER INJECTION WELL IS NOT SPECIPIED : THE CEFAULT Cosr PER IaJECTICN WELL ($)
PRODUCER FINANCIAL DATA
x
x
I
-0
0.3U
FdACTIOtl :
ANNUAL INTE~ESI RATE ON CEbT (FRACTION)
REQUIRED RATE OF RErURN ON EQUITY (F&ACIION)
PROPERTY lAX illITE IFliACTlCII) :
REHliUE TAX RATF. OR nOYALlY (FRAC1l0H) :
EFFECTIVE TOIAL INCCt:E TAX RArE (HAC'IION)
EFHCTlVE INVlST.UPlT TAi CfifOIT (fRACTlON)
ESCALATION FACTCR FOR 0&" cosrs :
ESCALATICN FACIOR fOR ENE~GJ CC3rs :
ESCALATION fACTOR FOR CAfIill COStS:
LIn SPAN Of U'IlLITY PLANT (EARS, :
UL1In1T£ CAPACITI FlCTOn
STA.T UP COST "UlTIPLIER :
OEB~
0.06
0.:'/0
0.01
0.10
0.50
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
10.00
10.00
20.00
1.oal
NuneER OF WELLS • CAFltAL COSTeASIS AND 0&" COSTS • AND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
WITH~UT
0&" COSTS 11977
1S tRODUCTION WELLS :
7 INJECTION W~LLS :
PRODUCER PLANr EXCLUDING ~ELLS
REPLACE"ENT ERODUCTI0N WELLS :
REPLACE~ENT INJECTICN MEIIs :
6EPLACEIIENT ELlN! :
TOTAL FeR PRCCUCTICN fIELD
GENERA1ING PLANT :
TOTAl :
656168.1
6561&6.1
UTILITY FINANCIAL DAtA
oreT rBACTIC~:
ANNUAL INIERESI RATE ON DE~T (fRACTION,
REQUIREC ~AtE OF FETURH OH £~UITY (FRActION)
HOPE!l!Y TAX RATE (FRACTIOb) :
REVENUE TAX BAH ell hOYALU (fRACTION) :
EFFfCTIVE rOTH INCC!'!!': TAX nATE /FRACTION)
EFFECTIVE lNVESTKENI TAX CaEOII 1 FRA C710N)
ESCAIA11CN fACTOF fCR C~~ COSIS :
ESCALATION fACTOR fCR ENE~Gr eeSTS :
ESCAlAlION fACTOR fOft CAPIlAL COSTS:
LIFE S~AN Of PRC[UCTION WELLS (YEARS)
L'IH SPAN OF IIlJECll{)N WEl .. S ('YURS, :
LIfE SHN Of PRO[UCEh PLANl (nAGS) :
STA~IUP COSI nULllPLIER :
*
~
11.8116
5.529
6.149
10.118
Q.722
2.713
Q
1.079
2$.8111
66.8911
•
DIllIn
TOTAL
25.382 "ILLS/KNHII
7.5tt NILLS/«WHa
3~.89J MILLS/«WHB
•
Ree InPAcrs
U.Ub
0.12
O. (} 1
0.0
0.50
V.Uij
0.05
0. u5
0.05
30.00
V.8U
1. 038
¥
$~/J~.,
PRODUCER
GENFIIAL :
WELL :
DEEP WELL PUMP :.
SPENT BRINE TkEAT~E~1
CHE~ICAL & IIECHANICAL CLEANING
TOTAL :
UTILITY
GENFIIAL
CH£IIICAL & IIECHANICAL CLEANING
TOTAL :
•• REVEIIUE f<I!CUIIIEIIENTS . .
PRODUCER
ANY
O.SO
O.QOl
O.IUq
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.54~
. 0.753
0.0
0.753
",
.-
KEPLINGER aHUJJ()cialu, ;HC.-
TABLE 22·1 (CONTINUED)
• R&D 'I!IPACTs fa!; PLANT 110. 1 - all LIII! DATr : 198J ..
R&D CO!POHENT
ANTICIPATED CHANGE
(I)
-5.00
-5.00
CAPIllL COST PER FRCDUCTICH 8£lL
CAfITAL COST PER INJECTION WELL
CHANGE IN REVENUE
REQUIRE"ENIS (IIIILS/KNHfi)
-0.6792
-0. J 170
··,ReVENUE REQUIRE"ENTS IIIlH ALL THE R&D I"PACrS INCLUDEC • • .o
•
PIWDUCER
UTILITr
TOT"L
~2.622
"ILLS/KIIHR
1.511 "ILLS/KNHR
30.1J3 "ILLS/KNH~
..
.. SENSITIVITY Of COST OF ELECTRICITY (FRO" PLANT NO.1. R&D I"PACTS INCLUDED) •
RESOURCE & OPERATING PARAIIETERS
,
o
IIILLS/KIIHR
HIGH RESOURCE TEftPERATURE lS1IIIATE (230 tIGREES CENTIGRADE)
LOll RESOURCE TEIIPfRATURE ESTIftATE (200 DEGSEES CENTIGRADE)
HIGH CAPACITY FACTO~ VALU!: 0.85
LOll CAPACITY FACTO~ VALUE
0.60
EXPENSING OF INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS ( 70.01 OF WELL COSTS EXPENSED)
DEFIETICN ALLOMANC! ( 22.0~ Cf G60SS INCOlln
INVESTIIENT TAX CR£DIT ( 26.2. GROSS. 15.01 EPFECTIVE)
.. R&t IIIPACTS fOE PL""T 110.
26.023
44.324
28.36C
'10.177
27.006
25.689
28.428
2 - 011 LINE DkTE : 1986 •
Rt:D COIIPOllENT
ANTICIPAT!D CHANGE
(I)
NUMBER CP PRCDUCTION IIELLS
CAPITAL COST PER PRODUCTION WELL
CAPITAL COST PEa INJECTICN W£ll
CAfITAL COST OF GATHERING slS1£ft
CAPITAL COST OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEII
CAPITAL COST OF TURfINE GENERATOR
CAPITAL COST OF fROCESS ME~HANICAL (UTILITY)
LIFE SPAN OP PRCIUCTION WELLS
LIfE SPAN OF INJECTION NELLS
START UP COST IIUITlfLIERS
-3.00
-12.00
-12.00
-10.00
-10.00
-).00
CHANGE IN REVEIIUE
REQUIREIIENTS (IIILLS/KVHR)
0.0
-1.6302
-0.76UtI
-0.0711
-0.0348
-0.0808
-0.0279
-0.9'111
-10.00
20.00
100.00
(PRODUCER: -q.16 • UTILITY: -2.12)
-1. '1111
-1.2158
:>
":r.
• .o
ReVENUE REQUIREIIENTS WITH ALL T'HE R&D IIIPACTS IIICLUDED ....
PIiODUClR
UlIlI'II
•
TOTAt
19.900 IIILLS/KWHR
7.246 "ILLS/K~Hk
27.1q5 ftILLS/KWHR
•
KEPLINGER
4nUJJ()ci4t~J' iKc.
TABLE 22·1 (CONCLUDED) .
• RBD ·I"PACTSFOR PLANT NO.
3 -
ON LIRE DATB : 1988.*
R&D CO"EeIlEIIT
ANTICIPATED CHARGE
MunDER OF PRODUCTION WELLS
CAPITAL COST PER fRCDUCTIOb WFII
CAfItAL COST PEB INJECTION NELL
CAPITAL CCST OF GATHERI~G SIStE"
CAPITAL COST OP DISlfilBLT10N SJS7En
CAPITAL COST OF 7USEINF GEbFFA~OB
CAEIIAL COST OF PReCESS "fCHANJCAL (UTILITY)
LIfE SPAN OP PBOtUCIIO~ WELLS
LIFE SPAN Of INJECTICN WELLS
START UP COST·"ULTIPLIERS
**
*
UUlITY
TOrAL
19.867 "ILLS/KNOB
7.2Q6 "ILLS/KNHB
27.112 BILLS/KWHR
• R&D I"PACtS FOR PLANT NO.
~&t
CHANGE IN REVENUE
RECOIREft£NTS ("ILLS/KWH~I
U.D
-1.6302
-U.7608
-0.0777
-0.0)48
-O.OGOg
-0.02n
-1.0115
-1.11299
-'.2158
REVENO! REQOIRE"ENTS WITH ALL THE R&D lriPACTS INCLUDED •••
PRODOCER
x
x
(~)
-3.00
-1l.00
-12.00
-10.00
-10.00
-3.00
-10.00
20.00
100.00
(PRODOCER: -Q.'6 , U7ILITY: -2.121
q -
•
ON LINE DATE : 1990 •
CCIIFCNENT
ANTICIPATED CHANGE
NUIIBIa OF PRODUCTION WELLS
CAPITAL COST PER FRCDUCTICti WELL
CA~ITAL COST PER INJECTION YELl
CAPl1AL COST Of GATHERING SYSTEft
CAPI1lL COST Of DIS1RIBUTIuM SIST£"
CAPITAL COST OF tUREINE GENERAtCB
CAPITAL COST Of FROClSS "fCHARICAL (UTILITY,
LIfE SF AN OF P~OtUCIION WE~LS
LIfE SPAN Of INJECTICH WELLS
StART UP COSt nUIIIPLIERS
",
•• RiVENUl ftlQUIRfftlNTS WITH ALL THE B&D IIIPACTS INCLUDED •••
HODucn
UTILITY
•
TOTAL
CHAPGE 1M REVENUE
BECOIRE"ENTS IP-ILLS/KWHRI
-3.00
-20.00
-20.00
-10.00
-10.00
-3.00
-10.00
20.00
100.00
(PRODUCER: -~.16 , UtILITY: -2.12;
18.526 "ILLS/KIKft
7.2Q6 "ILLS/KNHR
25.772 "ILLS/KIHft
•
0.0
-2.1170
-1.2619
-0.0177
-0.03'16
-(/.0608
-0.0279
-1.0115
-1.11299
-1.2158
..,'".,
r.
"
"
'"<:
BRADY HOT SPRINGS, continued.
information about reservoir and fluid characteristics might alter
this perception.
Economic Analysis.
The projected economics of electrical genera-
tion at the Brady Hot Springs geothermal power prospect are presented
in Table 22-1.
The levelized busbar cost of electricity1 produced by
a flash conversion system at this site is estimated to be 32.9 mills/
kWh using currently available technology.
Taking into account antici-
pated cost reductions from the RD&D program, the first commercial-scale
plant at this site, postulated to come on line in 1983, is expected
to have a levelized busbar energy cost of 30.1 mills/kWh.
It is assumed that geothermal electric plants in this region
will be competing primarily for base-load generating capacity addition against coal-fired steam plants.
The levelized busbar cost of
electricity from these sources is expected to be about 20.0 mills/kWh
for plants coming on-line in 1985, rising to 20.6 mills/kWh for
plants coming on-line in 1990 under assumptions of the National
Energy Plan scenario for escalation of coal prices.
It can be seen that the cost of electricity (with RD&D benefits)
at this prospect is not competitive without the advantages of further
incentives.
intangible
~he
sensitivity analysis for Plant 1 shows that expensing
~rilling
costs would reduce the levelized busbar cost by
about 3.1 mills/kWh, that a 22 percent depletion allowance would
1See Chapter 2 for details of the computer print-out and assumptions
and data used in this analysis.
XXII-12
BRADY HOT SPRINGS, continued.
reduce costs by at most 4.4 mills/kWh, and that an increased investment tax credit to 15 percent effective would reduce costs by about
1.7 mills/kWh.
Thus, the use of further incentives (such as an
investment tax credit of approximately 25 percent plus depletion and
expensing intangibles) would be required to render this plant roughly
competitive on the basis of cost.
Within limits, changes in the
levels of the depletion allowance or tax credit would produce proportional cost changes to achieve a desired level of incentive.
Subsequent Plants
The second plant at
line in 1986.
B~ady
Hot Springs is scheduled to come on
This means that the commitment to develop must be made
in 1982 for design to be completed in 1984 prior to start of construction.
It is clear that operating experience at Plant 1 will not be
be acquired in time to have a major impact on the design of Plant.2.
Moreover, on the basis of the postulated development schedule, there
will be insufficient time for operating experience at any United States
commercial-scale. liquid-dominated geothermal plant. to influence
plant 2 at Brady Hot Springs.
Based on the impacts of RD&D shown in Table 22-1, Plant 2 is
expected to have a levelized busbar cost of 27.1 mills/kWh.
This
indicates that the first two tax incentives (expensing intangible
drilling costs and applying a 22 percent depletion allowance) would
bring electricity costs to about a competitive level.
XXII-13
BRADY HOT SPRINGS, concluded.
Plant 3 at Brady Hot Springs is postulated to come on line in
1988 at an estimated cost of electricity of 27.1 mills/kWh.
This
plant should benefit from prior operating experience at Brady Hot
Springs, Beowawe, Roosevelt Hot Springs,and Valles Caldera.
Plant 4, on line in 1990, has an estimated cost of electricity
of '25.8 mills/kWh.
XXII-14
BEOWAWE, NEVADA
Postulated DevelOEment Scenario
PLANT
NUMBER
INSTALLED CAPACITY
(l1We)
PLANT
ON-LINE DATE
1
50
1983
2
50
1986
3
50
1988
4
100
1990
SUBSEQUENT
PLANTS,
TOTAL
750
1991-1998
1000
to 1998
Estimates of Resource Characteristics
RESOURCE CHARACTERISTIC
ESTIMATE
Subsurface Fluid
Range:
Temperature (OC)
Total Dissolved Solids (PPM)
Best estimate: 240
.1,200
Electric Energy Potential
(MWe 30 Years)
Overlying Rock
De~th.to
624
Hard: .Tertiary basalt
. and Quaternary alluvium
Top of Reservoir (Meteis)
Land Status
'Total KGRA acres
Total Federal acres
Federal acres leased
Total State and private acres
1
165-280
1,000
33,225
16,530
13,766 1
19,112
Nearly all the Federal land has been offered and leased in recent
Federal lease sales.
BEOWAWE, continued.
Development Status and Activity
As. of August, 1975, the deepest well drilled was 2,915 meters
(9,563 feet).
By
June~
1976, more than 12 holes had been drilled,
with Magma Power Company (Chevron) planning additional holes.
By
February, 1977, one well had been drilled by Standard Oil Company of
California.
Phillips Petroleum Company has also been involved in
development.
Major Development Pro.blems
This is an isolated site.
If a purchaser/utility can be iden-
tified, then .there should be no severe problems.
Still it is recom-
mended that the following potential problem areas be investigated:
•
silica scaling
•
return flow injectibility
•
low sustained flow rates from production wells.
Postulated Development Scenario:
Status and Implications
First Commercial-Scale Plant:
50 MWe in 1983
No clear-cut major leaseholder/developer of .the Beowawe site
has been identified.
However, companies such as Chevron, Staadard
Oil, and Phillips Petroleum Company have leased Federal lands in the
area.
Based on current information, a 50-MWe flash conversion power
plant appears possible at this site by 1983.' However, the site
1S
remote from population centers (20 miles to a town of 1800 people),
. XXI-2
BEOWAWE, continued.
and a utility may have marketing problems with a plant at this
isolated site.
Also, the site is situated about 150 miles from a
primary distribution line (750 KV).
Figure 21-1 shows a possible development schedule for Plant 1
at the Beowawe site.
For 1983 power-on-line, commitment to develop-
ment must take place at the beginning of 1979.
Final design must
be completed in 1980, and the technological RD&D, to contribute to
this plant, must be available at about the same time.
Since Plant I
is to undergo development in parallel with other early-phase flash
conversion power plants (Valles Caldera, Brady Hot Springs, Brawiey,
Roosevelt Hot Springs, and possibly Salton Sea), some interrelated
technology undergoing development can be shared, but no operational
experience with commercial-scale plants will be available to support
the aeowawe plant development.
Figure 21-2, which complements the preceding figure, shows the
s~heduled
activities of the principal participants in the develop-
ment of all the plants postulated for Beowawe.
Development Problems.
Principal RD&D problems at this site
include possible scaling from a high silica content in the geothermal
fluid and the l'ong-term injection of the spent brine into the
fractured volcanic formation.
Testing to date has indicated low
reservoir 'permeabilities and resultant low 'volumetric flow rates from
production wells.
Reservoir stimulation technology could therefore
be important at this prospect.
-
Again, Beowawe should be able to share
XXI-3
HI'l:.It""U!f;
,·:nrrnES
I
~
Ar.·C(VITY
BLH
uses
Ut.M/CNllo,
81.:1
t:ounty
Issue STC Ddlling P" ....1t
Issue Drilling Pormlt
Lease Land
"ruccss ForA/EIS
bou", Land Use Permits
OevelQt' e['
Exploratory Drlllln& 110
Resorvolr F.valuation
Develop Utility Interest
f~aslbility Study
U\!valopcr
Ilevclopl!r 110
Ut Illty
Producer (D" flnanci41 N.,&otl"tlons
velo!'er) 110
Utility
P('odu~ct'
Site Selection
Deaign
Prud"c~r ,.
UtIlity
I'roducor ,
eummItment to Developftl/!nt
Ut I Ilty
rroduccr 110
l'rcpare ~ster Development
UlLJlty
Pl"n
PI'C!p3r~ EnvIron...,ntBl Data
Uti \lty
StatCaK!nt
DI}I, FPC
Stat",USCS
U:;CS
fPC
fl'C
J'rdduccr
Utllity
UlIlity
Cort Ify Pl'''It 6 Site,
Is"u!! Permits
I'rocess EIA/f-IS (Drilling)
Process EIAIEIS (Plant)
Prucess EIA/EIS (Tr~nsmIs" Ion line)
Il<!vclupment Drilling
Plant Construction
Inal~ll Tral16mlsslon Une
(4Ukm)
RECIPIENTS
Developer
Developer
Il<!velopcr
CEQ
Developer
1977
I
1978
1979
ASSI 1[0 COl-1Ft ITED
1980
1981
1982
.
--
- -
,
BUI,
uses
BUI, FPC,.
STATE,County
Producer'
Utility
I-I--
CEQ
CEQ
CEQ
FIGURE 21·1
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR FIRST PLANT: BEOWAWE, NEVADA
(FEDERAL LANDIPOSSIBLY SOME PRIVATE)
(98)
1984
1985
1986
1987
KEPLINGER a..l='-Hocialo. iHC.-
Ul'tRATIlIC
EnTiTlES
ACTIVITY
1917
Leolle
County
rcoce9s Enviconmenlol Report - Pre-lene.
, e.'le L:'Ind Use Perlll1t
rrocC!S9 F·nvlronmentnl Rerort - Drilling
Lond~
100ue
---~----'
State
.
Jlev~lopel'
x
- ---.
Ovner
Utility
X
I
VI
DOl/USGS
Prosr~ctlng
1979
Ct'llII1Iit to Develop.,ent
Prel' ... e Envlronm.m181 Data Statf!lllent
nnd tI:'Int~r D~velopment rlan
·Cnnstruct t'l:1.nt. l"sull 1r.n.... l.alo" Linee
rower on Line
.-.
IJOI/USFS
1984
1983
- ,-
-
--.
-
--
- r-
-
1
L-....
-
'>
-
-
---
L
~
6.1
f--
-- -_._.---
I--
--
4
r'
~
6.1
I!....--
4
SOl..I
-
--
r--
;,
rrOC~RM F.IA/F.I~. L~AR"
I
ProcrS9 EIA/ElS,
Issue STC Drilling Permit
FIGURE 21·2
DEVELOPMENT SCHEOUlE FOR All PLANTS: BEOWAWE. NEVADA
--
._---
4
_.
i
r-
l
DrIlling rermlt
KIA/F.IS - Drilling
I."ane Land
- ,- Z- --
I
I
Land
Issue STC Drll11ng r"r~lt
C~rtirJ Plant Rod Sit .. , III.ue 'erlllits
L f-
--
1967
1986
1985
.'
rrn~~.s
WI/BUI
1982
--
Permit
r.xplorllll"n nnd Reservoir F.ve1uat1on
Co .... lt to D~velopmcnt
""pne tla9tl!r Devdnpment Plan
Ilevl!lormr.nt Dr 1111ne
1981
1980
--.- -...... ...--.- .'-.". ....
Process Environmental Report, Lellge '.onet
h."e 'rollreellnll/J:xrlorntlon Per.U.
laslle Or1111n& Pet1lllU
Certify rlnnt 0,,01 Site - lasue 'er.,lt.
Proccsn Environmental Report. ~ Drilling,
Pl:'1nt COllstructlon, Trllns.. h.lon Linn
l~sue
1978
---- -
-.L
-
r---U-J'I-:I~-\l-lI-IG~--------------------------~----------~-----~--~----~----~--~----~----~--~-----,
[JITlTlES
1960
ACTIVITY
ICounty
J'rocr.s! f.nvlronmt'ntn\ Rcrort - rte-Iease
h.cu(! L:lIld Ufle PC!rmlt
I','oce •• [ndronm"ntnl n~rOTt - Drlllinc
St"l:e
r.-ncc!]s EuvJrollmC!nt:'ll Rerort, Le:tsc I.nnt]
I ~."c rronrcctlnr.ll':y.plorotlon rermHo
l~n"c »rl11lne 'er~lt9
Ccrt I£y rJ~nt ,,",1 Site - Is.ue Permits
rrocti •• F.ltvlr""m~,nt"l nel'orts - Dr1lling.
rJ:.nl Cnn!Jtrnclion, TrnncfDi8sion Lincs
ncve1ol'"r
x
X
Utility
I
0.
["r10r:\1 fon om!
Rt.~~cr'Yolt'·
1989
1994
1'93
1995
1976
19?7
1998
-~tL-.. 1----~~--_4-----4----_+----~-----~
--
-~
1992
____
L--_=-=-_~_lL-
-r_____
~ ____;-~o_2___4-----+-U-_
_
_
_
lZ...-.
_,r~-T_____+-o___
~L--
_
_
Evnluo.tlon
,
COI:lllllt l~ lJC'Vc}('Illmcnt
;\
Pl'r.I'ar.: U:sster Devc)ormcnt rlnR
J)~\'cr()l",ent Dr 11l1nC
I--
Cl'nult Lo n(!v~lopmcnt
"I'C'p,'Irf'! J.:nvll'unmcnt .. l Unto StatemC!nt
nnd lIasl.,r DcYclol'lnent !'lan
COII" Tucl PI'lIIt, Instnll Transmias10n Lines
1·1" .... I,.... r on J.lnC'
1991
1990
,~
,
-
12
jl!2
f-
LL.
I--
5
l~
5-0-A·-+_b=l:::SO===;A==!:1=O=O:::::A='*=OoA=:5==!=lO=O=A=~1=O=O=A==1=I=OO=",~=lFlooA.=~=fl=O:::o=::A-_o
30 'A,I 2
1--~~~---4----~------t
OOl/USG~
00lloUl
I~,"ue nrlllln& P~rmlt
,'r<'ce •• ':JA/J;lS - nrlUlnll
t-;~I "'--- -
1--
-
1--'
I','OCC"," F.r"'/r.I~.
I,.","" r,and
STC brJ IIln& Permit
C('rLHr rlnnt and Site, Issue Pentitll
19m1~
DOJ/USFS
_0_____--
rrocc.s EIMErs, 1.":1se L:lnJ
1 ..... " STU IIr llllnr. r(',nlllt
FIGURE 21-2 (CONCLUDEDI
-
1--
-
1--
U.
_-11----------,-----~-----I-----~---~
"
BEOWAWE, continued.
in the parallel experience at the Roosevelt Hot Springs and Brady
sites, which are all expected to encounter similar problems in these
technical areas of concern.
No apparent environmental problems have
been identified at this site nor has local opposition to development
been expressed.
Economic Analysis.
The projected economics of electrical genera-
tion of the Beowawe geothermal power prospect
21-1.
"
b us b ar cost
The leve 1 lzed
0f
~re
presented in Table
fl as h -system converSlon
"1
" " 1
e e~trlclty
from this site is estim~ted to be 32.1 mills/kWh using currently
available technology.
Taking into account anticipated cost reduc-
tions from the RD&D program, the first commercial-scale plant at this
site, postulated to come on line in 1983, is expected to have a
levelized busbar energy cost of 29.1 mills/kWh (see second pag: of
Table 21-1).
It is assumed that geothermal electric plants in this region
will be competing primarily against coal-fueled steam plants for
additions to baseload generating capacity.
th~
Under the assumptions of
National Energy Plan scenario for escalation of coal prices, the
levelized busbar cost of electricity from coal-fueled steam plants is
expected to
b~
about 20.0 mills/kWh for plants coming on-line in
1985, rising to 20.6 mills/kWh for plants coming
1
on~line
in 1990.
See Chapter 2 for details of the computer print-out and assumptions
and data used in this analysis.
XXI-7
TABLE 21·1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: BEOWAWE.J'lEVADA
FLASH SYStIB • SO ~W ELECTRIC PLANT
FIRST flARt OM
lIN~
DATE
1983
TEftPERA1URE IN CENTIGRADE DEGRIES (BESt EStIftITE)
2110
REIL DEPTH IR BETERS :
1500
ERINE SALINITr :
LOM
OVERLYING ROCK TIEE : HARD
TH! MELL FLOII UH IS HOT ~PEClFIED : THE DEFAOLT FLCII BIlTE USED (IIGft./HII.)" 1911299
THE COST PER PRO[UCTION WELL IS N07 SPECIFIED
rHI DEFAULt COST PER PRODUCTION MELI CS, • 9SQ251.6
THE C.05T PER INJIC'IION IIEL,. IS NOT SPECIFIED : THE DEFAULT COST PER INJECTION MELL (S, z 9811251.6
PRODUCER fINANCIAL DAll
....,
UTILITY FINANCIAL DATA
DI8T FRACTION:
ANNUAL INTEREST RATE ON DIBT Cl&.CTION)
REQUIREt &ATE OF &ETURH ON ECOITY CFRICTION,
PIIOPIRTr TAX RATE (FIlACTION, :
REVENUE TAX IIAtE OR ROrAnl CFUCTIOII) :
EFfECTIVE TOTAL INCO"E TAX RATE cr61CTICN)
EfFECTIVE INVESTftENT TAX CbEC17 (FRACTION,
ESCALATION fACTOR fOR ot" ~OSTS :
ESCALATION FACTOF FOR ENEKGY CCSTS :
ESCAiATICN FAC10& FOR CAPIIAI COSTS :
LIfE SFAN OF PRODUCTION WELLS (IEARS,
LIFE SPAN OF IHJICTIOR WELLS (IIABS) :
LIfE SPAN OF PRODUCER PLANI (IElRS, :
STARI UF COST ftUITIFIIER :
0.30
0.08
0.20
0.01
0.1U
0.50
0.0"
0.05
0.05
0.05
10.00
10.00
20.00
1.081
DEBT FRICTIOII :
ANNUAL INTE&EST RATE ON DEBl (FRACTION,
REQUIRED RATE OF RETURN CN ECUITY (F8ACTION)
P1iOPERTJ TAX RATE (FRACTICR, :
REVENUE Till RATE OR ROHIH (FUCTicN' :
EFfECT lYE TOTAL INCO"E TAl BATE (FRACTION)
ErFECTIVE INVEST!ENr TAX CRICll (FRACtIOR)
ESCALATION FlCTOR FOR Ct" cests :
ESCALAtION FACTOR FO& ENIEG! COSTS :
ESCALATION FAC10R ?OE CAfllAL COSTS :
LIfE SPAN OF UTILITI PLANT (YEARS) :
ULTI"ATE CAPACITI FACTCR
S7ART UP COST BUL11PLIEB :
0.50
0.08
0.12
0.01
0.0
0.5U
0.0"
0.u5
0.U5
U.U5
3U.UO
0.80
1.0311
• NunBER Of WELLS • CAPITAL CCSTBASIS lBD 06B COSTS • AMD REVENUE REQUIREBENTS WITHOUT ANI R&D I"PACTS •
CAPITAL COSTSASIS (1977 Sft,
11 PRODOCTICH VEILS:
5 INJECTION VELLS :
PRODUCER PLANT EXCLUDING IIELLS
REPLACE"ENT PRODUCTIOI MEILS :
REPLACE"ENT INJECIIOM. VELLS :
8FFLICEMENT FLARt :
TOTAL fOR PBODUCTIOI FIELD :
GENERAIING PlANT :
TOTAL :
OtM
13.032
5.924
4.U26
11. 130
5.059
1.777
1I0.9Q8
23.281
6Q.229
•• BEVERU! RECUIRE"ER!S ••
1'1I0DUCER
UtILITY
•
TOTAL
COSTS
(1977 'M/IB.,
PRODOCFR
GEIERAL :
IIELL :
DEEP WELL PU"P :
SPENT BRIRI TREAT"E.l :
CHE"IeAl & "ECHAIICAI CLEANING
TOTAL :
UnLltY
GENEliAL
CHEnICAl 6 MECHlNICAL CLEARING
TOTAL :
25.309 ftILLS/KWHR
6.714 ftItLS/KVHR
32.063 HILLS/KWH~
•
0.36&
0.157
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.5116
U.619
0.0
U.619
TABlE.21-1 (CONTINUED)
• R&D IIIPACTS FOB PLAIT RO. ,.- or LIIE DlTE : 1983 •
. R&D COIIPONEIIT
ANTICIPATED CHANGE
,SI
CAPITAL COST PER PRODUCTIOI VEIL
CAPITAL COST PER IRJECTIO~ VEL 1
-5.00
-5.00
CdANGE IN fiEVENUE
RECUIREIIENTS (IIILLS/KWHR,
-0.1472
-0.3396
.
•• RAVENtE RBQUIBEIIEITS WITH ALL THE B&D rllPiCTS IICLUDED •••
Pl!ODUCES
•
UTIun
TO'UL
22.312 IIILLS/KWHB
6.77q IIILLS/KWHB
29.066 IIILLS/KVB&
•
• SEISITI'Ilr 01 COST CF ELECTRICITI (FROII PLART RO. 1 , R6D IIIPAcrs INCLUDEDI •
x
x
I
..0
RESOURCE I: OPERATlJG PA&AIIETEBS
IIILLS/KIIHR
HIGH RESOURCE TEIIPfRATURE ESfIIIATE (280 DEGREES CENTIGRADE)
LOV RESOURCE TEIIPE5ATURE E~TIIIAlE (165 DEGREES CENTIGRADEI
HIGH CAPACITI 'ACTeF 'ALUE: 0.85
LOV CAPACIty FACTOR VALUE
C.60
EXPENSING OF INTANGIBLE tRlLLIRG COSTS ( 70.0J Of WELL COSTS EXPENSEDI
DEPLETICN ALLO~AMCf ( 22.0' Of GROSS IICOIIEI
I"'ESTIIE8T TAX CRECIT , 26.2' GROSS, 15.0' EFfECTI'E)
• 8&0 IIIPACTS F06 PLAMT NO.
20.935
93.815
27.375
38.781
25.672
211.703
27.11110
2 - OM LINE DATE : 1986 •
R&I: CCIIPORERT
ARTICIPATED CSARGE
(I'
RUIIDER or PRODUClIOR VELLS
CAPITAL COST PER PReDUCTIO. 8Ell
CAPITAL COST P!R INJECTIOB VELI
CAPITAL cost OF GATaE9IRG ~rsTfll
CAPITAL COS! OF DIS1RIBUTIOR SIST!ft
CAPITAL COST or fUBEINE GENERAtOR
CAPITAL COST OF PROCESS IIEeHl.ICAL (UTILIT!,
LIfE SPAR OF PROtueTIOR HELLS
LIFB SPAR or INJECTIOR HELLS
START UP COST IIUltIPLIERS
-3.00
-12.00
-12 .OU
-10.00
-10.0U
-3.00
-lO.OU
20.00
100.00
(PRODUCER: -11.16 , UTILlt!: -2.12)
•• RE'fIUE REQUIRE!!.ts RitH 1LL tHE R&D IIIPACTS IRCLUnED. ••
PRODUCER
uuun .
•
TOUL
CHANG!
19.Q8q ftILLS/K8HR
6.537 IIILLS/KVRR
~6.021
ftILLS/KVR5
•
IR REVENUE
("ILLS/KWRR,
BE~UIR!ftEHTS
0.0
-1.7932
-0.B151
-0.05111
-U.022U
-0.061:19
-0.0:<66
-1.U902
-1.5120
-1.1971
KEPLINGER
anUu"cialtJ, iH~.-
TABLE 21·1 (CONCLUDED)
• RSD IBPACIS FOR PLART RO.
3 - OR LIIE DATE : 1988 •
R&D COIIFOIIEIIt
ANTICIPATED CHANGE
I~I
BUIIBIR OF PRODUCtION YELLS
CAPITAL COST PEB FECDUCTION VEIL
CAPI1AL COST PER INJECTION WELL
CAPI1AL COST OF GATHERING ~YST!II
CAPI1AL COST OF DIStRIBU1IuN SIST!II
CAPITAL COST OF lDEPINE GEHEEA10B
CAFI1AL COST Of PROCESS IIECRANICAI (UtILIIT)
LIfl SPAN OF PROtUCiIOR WELLS
LIfE SPAN OF INJECTION YELLS
START UP COST IIULTIPLIERS
CHANGE
IN REVENUE
("ILLS/KVUBI
~!CUIREIIENTS
0.0
-3.00
-12.00
-12.00
-10.00
-10.00
-3.00
-10.00
20.00
100.00·
-1.1932
-0.8151
-0.0561
-0.0220
(PRODUCER: -4.16 , U1ILITI: -:<.12)
-0.06&9
-0.0266
-1.1127
-1.5321
-1.1971
•• REVEIOE REQUIBEIIEITS VITH ALL TRE R&D IBPACTS INCLUDED •••
PftODUCEB
UULIn
•
TOTAL
19.448 BILLS/KYRR
6.531 BILLS/KYHR
25.985 IIILLS/KVRR
•
I
o
• R&D IftPACTS FOB PLAIT 10.
q -
OR LIIE DATE : 1990 •
ANTICIPATED CHANGE
(II
R&D COllfOIlERT
101l8E8 OF PRODDC1IOI YELLS
CAPI1AL COST PEB FECDUCTIC. Vll1
CAPITAL COST PER INJECTION VELI
CAPItAL COST OF GA1HERING ~IStIft
CAPI1AL COST Cf DIStRIBUTION SISTEB
CAFITAL COST OF tURBINE GENEEA1C&
CAPItAL COST OF PROCESS ~ECHANICAI (OTILITI,
LIFE SPAN OF PROtUC1ION MELLS
LIFE SPAN Of INJECTIeR VEILS
START UP COST ~UllIPLIERS
-.LOO
PRODOCI!B
UTILITY
TOTAL
0.0
-20.00
-10.00
-10.00
-0.05b1
-0.0220
-0.U6119
-0.0266
20.00
-1.11:<1
-'0.00
-3.00
'00.00
(PRODUC!R: -4.16 • UTILITY:
".985 "ILLS/KWHR
6.531 "ILLS/KWH6
A4.522 nILLS/KWHR
•
IN REVENUB
(BILLS/KYHRI
-2.91;81
-1.3585
-20.00
•• RiVERUE 8IQOIR!B!RTS vIrH ALL THE 8&D InPACTS INCLUDED •••
•
CHANG!
6ECUIRE~ENtS
-1.5l:.l'
-2.'~1
-1.1911
'"i
"c:.,
BEOWAWE, concluded.
The costs of electricity (with RD&D benefits) at this prospect
are therefore not competitive without the advantage of further
incentives.
The sensitivity analysis for Plant 1 shows that expens-
ing intangible drilling costs would reduce the levelized busbar cost
by about 3.4 mills/kWh, that a 22 percent depletion allowance would
reduce costs by at most 4.4 mills/kWh, and that an increased investment tax credit to 15 percent effective would reduce costs by about
1.7 mills/kWh.
Thus, the use of all three .of these incentives
would be required to render this site roughly competitive on the
basis of cost.
Subsequent Plants
Beowawe Plant 2, another 50-MWe plant,
line in 1986.
However, with the
three~year
1S
postulated to go on
lead time necessary to
incorporate design improvements, little prior operating experience
.will be available from the 1983 plants to benefit Plant 2.
As shown in the concluding pages of Table 21-1, continuing RD&D
impacts, as designated, result in further decreases in cost of
e~ectricity.
Subsequent plants in 1986, 1988 and 1990 are expected
to have costs of 26:0, 26.0, and 24.5 mills/kWh, respectively.
Even
in 1990, the site would require special tax incentives to place it in
a competitive economic position.
XXI-ll
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS,
t~VADA
Postulated Development Scenario
PLANT
NUMBER
INSTALLED CAPACITY
(MWe)
PLANT
ON-LINE DATE
1
50
1985
2
50
1988
3
100
1990
200
to 1990
SUBSEQUENT PLANTS
TOTAL
· I
.:;"
Estimates of Resource Characteristics
RESOURCE CHARACTERISTIC
ESTIMATE
Subsurface Fluid
Range:
No data
Temperature (OC)
Best Estimate 210
Total Dissolved Solids (PPM)
2,500
Electric Energy Potential (MWe 30 Years)
208
Overlying Rock
Medium-Hard:. Granite
and Metamorphic Type, Volcanic
Depth to Top of Reservoir (Meters)
300
Land Status
Total KGRA acres
8,914
Total Federal acres
4,450
Federal acres leased
1,548.
Total State and privat~ acres
7,366
State and private acres leased
Deve1opme~t
Status and Activity
Many shallow wells are tapping the Steamboat Springs resources
for space heating in the Reno suburbs.
No deep wells have been
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, continued.
drilled.
Companies involved at Steamboat Springs include Magma Power
. Company, Southern Union Production Company, Phillips Petroleum
Company, and Gulf Oil Company.
Major Development Problems
No severe technological RD&D problems have been identified.
Major developmental hurdles at this site appear to be the proof
of the existence of a viable power-producing reservoir and the
resolution of conflicts regarding how the land will be used.
8LM,
for example, is considering the development of housing units on the
.:"
...
~
.~
~
land •
Postulated Development Scenario:
Status and Implications
First Commercial-Scale Plant:
50 MWe in 1985
'i
~
e
Some commercial interest has been shown in this site •. Develop-
z
~
III
ment of a flashed steam plant is postulated at Steamboat Springs by
~
1985, according. to the schedule shown in Figure 28-1.
Figure 28-2
shows the scheduled activities of the principal participants in the
development of the three postulated plants at the Steamboat Springs
prospect.
To obtain power on line in 1985, commitment to development
of the site is required in 1980, and final design must be completed
in 1981.
Development Problems.
A likely attribute of this site is
its shallow reservoir depth, with a thin rock cover.
XXVIII-2
Wells should
(
=
o,'I:I\,\'I'J,;';
,·::rrlTlJ;';
I
ACTIVITY
Land
Hf.'l!Owllcr
1I!..'f
Lease
Developer
I'rcl1min3ry Geol,hys1clll
Exploration
,
STG Vr11ling Permit
f1UI
ISSUe!
USGS
Issue DrilUng Permit
Issue Use Permit
Expluratory Drilling &
Reservoir Evaluation
Develop Utility Interest
Developer
FeasIbility Study
D~velofler &
Utility
Producer (De Financial Negotiations
vo>loper) &
Vt III ty
Producer
Sit" Selection
Design
I'coducf!r &
Utility
Commitment to Development
fl"tJdlJcer &
Utility
Prep.3re Haster Development
I'roducar &
Plan
Uc illty
!'repare Environmental Dato
Ut 111ty
St.1tuDlcnt
BUl,irC,
SCate,USGS .
USGS
FPC,State PU
FI'C, $c"ce
I'ue
I'roduccr
Ut ill ty
Ut III ty
DCe£Qeloper
l'rf)ces$ EIA
County
Ueveloper
""
RECIPtF.NTS
Certiey Plant & Site,
Issue Permits
Process F.IA (Drilling)
'Process EIA (Plant)
Process EIA (Trunsmission
LIn,,)
Ilevelop"",nt Drilling
Plant Construction
Install Transmission .Line
Developer
Developer
Developer
1977
}
1978
1979
1981
19RO
1982
1983
ASSU lED COMPL 'TED
-
-
f-
-.A
BU!, USGS
BUI, FPC,
State,County
Producer &
Utility
CEQ
CEQ
CEQ
-
f-
-
f.::-
(l6km)
FIGURE 28-1
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR FIRST PLANT: STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, NEVADA
1')8'0
1985
I
19R~
1987
/
KEPLINGER anUm'cialeJ, ;nc.-
Ol'J:RATlIIC
O·."n,cr
Lease Land,
County
Process Environmental Report - Pre-lease
Issue Land Use Permit
Proccss Environmental Report - Drilling
..
Stale
Iss"~
1978
1977
At:T[VITY
r.UTlTIES
Prospecting
1979
1980
1981
1982
l'~rm1t
-
1983
-
-
....
UtiUty
- ..-OO[/USGS
!lOl/ow
IlOI/USI'S
~
._. -'-
_---
1987
-
L--
..
-
L
-
-
L-
L
t=
1
-
I
hI
.1-
j
t-
I
t1
J
--
fL~r>J
j
L- I-
fL-
ro---
11
OAI
Issue Drilling Permit
reoces. EIA/EIS - Drilling
I
Process EIA/EIS, Lease LandIssue SYC Drilling Permit
CertiCy Plant and Site, Issue Pe .... its
1986
3
Issue Prospecting/Exploration Permits
Issue DrillIng Permlto
Certify Plnnt- and Site - I.sue Permits
Proce.s Environmental Reports - Drilling,
Plant Construction, Transmission Lines
Exrtoration and Reservoir Evaluation
Commit to Development
Prepare Master Development Plan
Development Drilling
...
.
Commit to Development
Prepare Environmental Data Statement
and Haster Development Plan
Construct Plant, Install Transmission Lines
Pov"r on Line
1985
L
I-
Process Envlromnentni Report, Lease Land
Pevelor"r
1984
-
-
"-
L--
J
I
Process EIA/EIS, Lease Land·
Issue src Drilling Permit
FIGURE 28-2
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR ALL PLANTS: STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, NEVADA
.L...-..,.
,I
t
KEPliNGER 4nUHPcialo, inc,
O\'EI\A'r lIIC
1988
ACTIVITY
E1ITt-rtf.S
Ovncr
LeaSe! Land. Issue ProsrecUns Permit
County
Proe~9s
-.
Environmentft\ Ilcpo:"
1989
1990
19\11
1991
=
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
- Pre-Icl1se
laDue Land Use Permit
ProccBD Environmental Ileport - Drilling
-
St:lto
Process Environmental Ilcport, LeDse Land
Issue ProspectIng/Exploration Permlta
I •• ue DrillIng PermIts
Certify Plnnt nnd SIte - Issue Permits
Process Envlronmt!ntal Ileporta - Dr1111ng,
PI~nt ConstructIon. Tran.~lsslon LInDa
-.novelorer
Explor3tlon and ll<!sc<Yolr EvaluAtion
CommIt to Dr.vclopmcnt
Prepare H~ster Development Plan
Develorment DrIlling
x
X
<
,
:-..
UtiI1ty
3
Co_it to Development
Environmcntal Dfttn Statcaent
Dnd Hoster Development plan
Prep~re
VI
.J
Construct Plant, Install Transmfsofon Lines
Power on Line
OOr/U5C3
._-.
__
.
IRsue Driliins PermIt
Process EIA/tIS - Drfiline
Dill/OUt
Proccss E1A/£IS, Leaoe Land
Issue STC Drilling Permit
Ccrttfy Plnnt and Site, IsSue Peralta
IlOt/IISI'S
Proc~s.
soA
100Al
~-
-
EIA/EIS, Lease Land
Issue STC Dr11l1n8 Perm1t
FIGURE 28-2 (CONCLUDED)
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, continued.
therefore be relatively inexpensive.
The major current problem is
the uncertainty of the resource, i.e., whether or not there is a
reservoir adequate to support power production.
There are indications that excessive calcite deposition has
occurred in early production wells.
This is a geochemical condition
identified at other Nevada/Utah geothermal power prospects.
test wells have shown evidence of a
moderate-t~-rapid
Some
'decline in
flow, related to a pressure drop at the bottom of the well plus
possible fouling of the well.
...:
.:
'"
~
.~
~
"*
;
!
~
au
Prior related operational experience,
especially with geochemistry, may be expected from the 1983 plants at
Heber, Brady, Roosevelt Hot Springs, Valles Caldera, and Beowawe.
However. tbese plants will not be in service early enougb to influence the design of Steamboat Springs plant 1.
Economic Analysis.
The projected economics of electrical
~
generation at the Steamboat Springs geothermal power prospect are
pcesented in Table 28-1.
The levelized busbar cost of electricityl
from a flash conversion system at this site is estimated to be 23.9
mills/kWh using currently available technology.
Taking into account
anticipated cost .reductions from the RD&D program, the first commercialscale plant at this site, postulated to come on line in 1985, is
expected to have a levelized busbar energy cost of 22.3 mills/kWh.
lSee Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the computer print-out
and the assumptions and data used in this analysis~
XXVII 1-6
/'
I
1
TABLE2s-r
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: STEAMBOAT SPRINGS. NEVADA
FLaSH SISTtft • 50 ftW BLECtRIC PLANT
FIRST FLANT O' lI8B DaTB : 1985
TBnpERATURE II CENTIGRIDB ~!GRl!S (BEST EStlnlTE,
210
WELL DEPTH II JBtlSS :
800
ERINE saLIHItr :
101
OYEBLrlNG ROCK TtfE : !EDID! BA~t
THE WELL FLOW RATE IS NOT SpECIfIBD : THE DEFIULT FLOW RAtE USED (KGn./HR., = 212q91
THE COST PER PBorueTION IELL IS NOT SPECIFIED: fHE DEFAULT COST PER PRODUCTIOR IELL (') a 32eOe~.0
THl COST PER INJECTION IELL IS NOT SPECIFIlD : THE DEFIULT COST PER INJECTION WELL (S) • ]280eQ.0
PRODUCER fINANCIAL DATA
)<'
X
<:
I
.......
DEET fRACTION:
ARNUAL- I"TEHEST RATf ON DE51 (f&ICTION, :
REQUIREt HATE Of RETURN OR BQVIll (FBICTIOI,
PBOpERTr TAl RATB (fRACTleR) :
REVEIIUE TAl RATE OR ROULTl (PUeTION, :
EFFECTIVE TOTAL tNconE TAl RATE (FBACTIOI,
EFfECTIVE INVES'!:IIEN'!: TAX CBtDn !lBllCtICII)
ESCIIATIOII 'ACTOR fCB 0&11 ~OSts :
ESCALATION FACTOB fOR ENERGl CeSTS :
ESCALATION FACTO~ rOR CAfllli CQSTS :
LIFE SPAN OF PRODUCTIOII WELLS (YEABS)
LIFE SPAN OF INJECTION IIELlS (rEUS) :
LIfE SPAN OF PBOCUCER PLIIII (llABS) :
START Uf COST BUlTIELIE& :
UTILITr FINANCIAL DATA
0.30
0.08
0.20
0.01
0.10
0.50
0.011
0.05
0.05
DIBT fRACTION :
ANNUAL INTE5ES7 BATE
tEEt (fRAC7IC~) :
REQUIRBD RATE OF BETURN ON E'OITf (FRACTION)
PROPERTt TAl RATE (PRACTION) :
REVENUE TU RATE OR IiOlAny (FI!AC'IlOHI :
EFFECTI'E TOTAL INCOnE TAX RATE (FRAClICN)
EFFECTIYE INVEST!!BNT TAl CREDIT ,FRACTION'
ESCAtATICN FACTOR FOR 0&11 COSTS :
BSCAIATION fACTOR FOB BNERGr CostS:
ESCALATION FACrOR FCR CAFITAL COSTS :
LIFE SPAN Of UTILITI PLINl (fEARS) :
ULTIIIATE elPICITr FICrOB
START UP COST IIULTIPLIER :
0"
O.OS
10.00
10.00
20.00
1.081
0.50
0.08
0.12
0.01
<1.0
0.50
0.011
0.05
0.05
U.OS
30.00.
0.80
1.038
• HUBBER Qf HELLS, CIEIT&L COST8ASIS A'D 0&11 COSTS, &ID REVENDE RBQUIBEftENTS UITHODT ANI R&D InPACTS •
CAPITAL COST81SIS (1971 Sal
16 JRCDUCTIOW WELLS :
7 INJECTION NELLS :
PRODUCER PLABT EXCLUDING IBLLS
BEPLlC!nENT PRODUCTION HELLS :
REPLACEnENT INJEctION VELLS :
REPLACEIIENT FLINT :
TOTIL fOR PReDUCTIO! FIELD :
GEHE&ITIRG PLART :
rOUI :
0&11 COSTS (1977 'II/Ia.,'
6.]19
2.7611
6.600
5.]96
2.361
2.912
26.352
26.331
52.683
PBODUCEJI
GENERAL :
IIELL :
DEEP WELL fUIIp :
SPERT BBIBE tREATII!"2' :
CHEnICIL 6 IIBCHAIICAL CLEAIIIG
TOTAL :
OTILItr
GEliEliIL
CHEIIICA£ 6 IIBCH&RIC&L CLBaNIIG :
tOTAL :
0.271
11.075
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3117
0.768
~
0.0
0.768
~
:;
•• RifEIUB REQUIBEIIEI1S ••
PRODUCER
•
onLIn
TOTAL
16.272 IIILLS/kYKR
7.662 IIILLS/KIIH&
23.934 IIILLS/KIHB
"
Y-
•
"
(
KEPLINGER 4,.j-=,-~~oci4Io. inc.-
TABLE 28-1 (CONTINUED)
• fiSC IftPACTS FOR PLANT NO. 1 _. O' LINB DAIF : 1985 •
RU COftPON!!!T
ANTICIPATED CHANGE
,I)
CAPItAL COST PrB ~60DUCTIC. Nllt
CAPItAL COST PER IMJFCtIOR NELL
-S.OO
-S.OO
CHANGE IN 5EVENUB
REOUIR£ftENTS ,ftILLS/KWHR)
-0.3623
-0.15&5
•• REVEROl REQUIREft!RTS WITH ALL THE R&D IftPACTS INCLUDED •••
•
PRODUCER
UTILITY
TOUL
1q.680 ftILLS/KNHR
7.662 RILLS/KNUR
22.3Q2 ftILLS/KKUR
•
• SE'SIII'IT! OF ~OST OF ELECTRICITr eFROR PLANT NO.1. R&D IftPACtS INCLUDED) •
x
X
<:
I
00
BFSOURC! & OPERATIRG PAR.RETERS
HIGH RESOORCE 7EftP16ATORE ISTI!A!E ,250 DIGREES CENTIGRADE)
LCK RESOURCE TlftPERATURB ESTIBAt£ ,180 DEGREES CENTIGRADB)
HIGH CAPACITY FACTOR 'ALUE: C.8S
LON CAPACITY FACT08 VALUE
0.60
EXPENSING OF INTANGIBLB DR~LLIRG COSTS ( 70.0. OF KEIL COSTS BIPENSBD)
DEPLETICN ALLOWANCE , 22.0. Cf G60SS INCOftE)
INVESTBENT TAl CREDIT , 26.2. G&OSS~ 15.0. EFfECTIVE)
• R&C IBPACTS FOB PLANT NO.
15.375
39.5QS
21.02e
29.789
20.737
19.Q5e
21.083
2 -.ON LINB DATE: 1988 •
,.)
R&D COftPORBIiT
ANTICIPATED CHANGE
ROBBER OP PBODUCTICI WELLS
CAPITAL COST PER PRODUCTION WEll
CAPItAL COST PER INJECTION WELl
CAfITAI COST OF GATHERING SYSTE!
CAPITAL COST OF DISTBIeUTION SISTE!
CAPITAL COST OF TORBINE GENE5AtOB
CAPITAL COST OF PROCESS ftE~HARICAL (UTILItl)
LIFE SFAI OF PRorUCTIOB WELlS
LIfE SPAR Of INJECTION NEILS
START Of COST BUITIFIIERS
-3.0U
-12.00
-12.00
-10.00
-10.00
-3.00
-10_00
20.00
100.00
(PRODUCER: -Q.16 • UTILITI: -2.121
•• R£VEROB R!OOIRB!!ITS WITH ALL THE B&D IftfACIS INCLUDED. ••
fBODOCfB
DTILITJ
•
TOTAL
CHANGE IN SEVENUE
BBQOIBEnBNTS ,BILLS/KWRR)
0.0
-0.8b9Q
13.22Q ftILLS/KWHR
7.390 ftILLS/KWHR
20.61Q "ILLS/KWHR
•
~O.3801j
0813
-0.0383
-O.oe33
-0.0282
-0.53911
-0.7150
-0.8391
~O.
z
<
KEPLINGER
4~Jt>ci4ItJ.
;HC.-
TABLE 28-1 (CONCLUDED)
• Itt IIlPaCTS POB PLaNT NO.
3 - OK LIKE DATE : 1990 •
ANTICIPATED CHaNG!
1&0 COIIFOII1!NT
(")
NulIBER or PRCDuCTIC. WELlS
CAPItAL COST PER FRODuCTI08 8ELL
CAPItAL COST PER I'JECTICN VEIL
CAPItAL COST OF GATHERItG SJSTI~
CAPITAL COST Of DlSTRlBUTlO~ SISTEB
CAPITAL CaSTor TUReINE GENERATOR
CAPITAL,COST OF PROCESS "ECHABICAL (UTILIty)
LIFE spaN OF PBOCUCTION WELLS
LIfE spaN OF INJECTION WELLS
START UP COST 1I0lTIFlIERS
-3.00
-20.00
-20.00
-10.00
-10.00
-3.00
-10.00
2U.00
100.00
(PRODOCER: -q.16 • OTILIT!: -2.12)
•• REVEROE REQOIREIIEltS IITB ILL TBE R&D IIIFICTS INCLODED • ••
)C
x
<
I
.0
PBODUCtB
OTILIT! :
•
TOUL
CHUGE III RUEIIOE
IEQOIREnENTS (lIllLS/KWHR)
0.0
-1.QIl90
-0.63110
-0. OB 13
12.522 IIILLS/~8HR
7.390 IIILLS/Kwni
19.912 IIlLLS/~WHI
•
-0.0383
-0.U833
-0.021i2
-0.539Q
-0.7150
-0.8397
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, continued.
It is assumed that geothermal electric plants in this region
will be competing primarily against coal-fired steam
for baseload generating capacity additions.
po~er
plants
Under assumptions of the
National Energy Plan scenario for escalation of coal prices, the
levelized busbar cost of electricity from these sources is expected
to be about 20.0 mills/kWh for plants coming on-line in 1985, rising
to 20.6 mills/kWh for plants coming on-line in 1990.
The costs of electricity (with RD&D benefits) at this prospect
therefore appear marginally competitive without the advantages of
j
further incentives.
The sensitivity analysis for Plant 1 shows that
expensing intangible drilling costs would reduce the levelized busbar
cost by about 1.6 mills/kWh, that a 22 percent depletion allowance
would reduce costs by at most 2.9 mills/kWh and that an increased
investment tax credit to 15 percent effective would reduce costs by
about 1.3 mills/kWh.
Thus, the use of at least one of these incen-
tives and certainly no more than two would appear tOo bring the cos ts
of
this plant into a position competitive with coal.
Subsequent Plants
The 50-MWe Steamboat Springs Plant 2 is projected to goon
line in 1988.
The design of this plant should benefit from opera-
ting experience at the 1983 flash conversion plants at Brady Hot
Springs, Roosevelt Hot Springs, and perhaps from Valles Caldera and
Salton Sea and Brawley (should the latter two be flash-type plants).
XXVIII-lO
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, concluded.
Incorporating advanced RD&D findings and their postulated impacts
into Plant 2 development (Table 28-1) produces an estimated cost of
electricity of 20.6 mills/kWh.
The third and final plant designated 'for development at Steamboat Springs, 100-MWe capacity in 1990, is projected to produce
electricity at a favorable busbar cost of 19.9 mills/kWh without
Federal subsidies.
XXVIII-ll
LEACH, NEVADA
Postulated Development Scenario
PLANT
NUMBER
INSTALLED CAPACITY
(MWe)
PLANT
ON-LINE DATE
1
50 .
1987
2
50
1990
SUBSEQUENT
PLANTS
TOTAL
1991-2002
1400
. to 2002
1500
Estimate of Resource Characteristics
RESOURCE CHARACTERISTIC
Subsurface Fluid
T~mperature (OC)
ESTIMATE
Range:
170-200
Best Estimate: 170
Total Dissolved Solids (PPM)
Electric Energy Potential (MWe 30 Years)
Overlying Rock
Depth to Top of Reservoir (Meters)
No data
1500
No data
No data
Land'Status
Total KGRA acres
Total Federal acres
Federal Acres leased
Total ~tate and private acres
State and private acres leased
12 t 797
12,246
12,246
551
No data
Development Status and Activity
ConSiderable surface exploration was underway by June, 1976.
Industry involvement in site development may include Sun Oil
Company and Magma Power Company.
LEACH, continued.
Major Development Problems
There are two significant problems at the Leach site:
whether
or not a viable, developable reservoir exists and whether or not the
unfavorable economics can be improved.
Postulated Development Scenario:
Status and Implications
First Commercial-Scale Plant:
50 MWe in 1987
A developer and/or plant operator has not yet been identified
for this prospect (Sun Oil and Magma Power are possibilities).
As
shown in Figure 25-1, the first plant is expected to go on line in
1987.
This requires that the existence of a commercial reservoir
must be established by 1982.
Figure 25-2 shows the scheduled activi-
ties of principal participants in the development of the two plants
postulated at the Leach prospect.
A binary conversion system
1S
likely to be preferred at this site.
Development Problems.
It is believed that no significant
technological problems will remain by.the time the final design for
the plant must be completed.
A little prior operating experience is
expected to be available to benefit the development at Leach:
Heber
1 (along ~ith Salton Sea 1 and Brawley 1, if binary), wlll just be
operational; Cove Fort-Sulphurdale and East.Mesa will be in construction; and. progress in parallel should be shared with Alvord 1,
Bruneau-Grandview 1, and Cove Fort-Sulphurda le 2. - The work in
development and testing of organic turbines may have been
XXV-2
conduct~d
KEPLINGER ttHUnccittlo, ;HC .
_
. .....
orERAHNC
ENTITIES
BLH
BLM
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
'md Utility
Producer
~
<•
w
(Developer)
and Utility
Producer
Producer
and Utility
Producer
Bnd Utility
Producer
and Utility
Utility
BLH, FPC,
State,USGS
USCS
FPC
FPC
Producer
UtHity
Utility
ACTIVITY
Pl'ocess Environmental
Reports
Lease Land·
Issue Drtlling Permits
Prel1minary Ceophysical
Exploration
Exploratory Dril11ng and
Reservoir Evaluation
Develop Utility Interest
Feasibility Study
RECIPIENTS
1977
1978
..
1979
.1980
1981
CEQ
I
1982
1983
I
1984
1985
1986
I 1987
ASSU ilED COMPL TED
Developer
Developer
-
:--
-
Financial Negotiations
.
SHe Selection
Commitment to Development
t-
f--
--A
Design
- I--
Prepare Master Development BLH, USGS
Plan
Prepare Environmental Data BLH, FPC,
Statement
State ,County
Certify Plant and Site,
Producer
Issue Permits
and Utility
Process EIA/ZIS (Drilling) CEQ
Process EIA/EIS (Plant)
CEQ
Process EIA/EIS
CEQ
(Transmission Line)
Development Drilling
Plant Construction
Install Transmission Line
i--
I
i
I
FIGURE 25-1
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR FIRST PLANT: LEACH, NEVADA
(FEDERAL LANDI
KEPLINGER aHUJJtJcialtJ. iHC.-
OJ'ERAl"IIIG
f.!lTlTlES
Ovn..r
LeDoe Land. Inoue Posre"Unll Penllit
•• _. __ ..... _ _ - '_0-_'
________
County
.----.
----
1971
ACTIVITY
--~
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
----
.....
rroces8 F.nvJronmcntol Rerort - Pre-lease
1984
-
Issue Lnnd Use Permit
F.nv I ronmento I Report - Drilling
1985
--
rrOCf'_89
State
Devdoper
x
X
<
Ut Ulty
•
.Co
DOl/USGS
Process Envlronmentnl Report, Lease Land
IsslIe rrosp,,"tlnIl/Exrlorotlon Pemlta
Isoue Orllllnr, rermlts
Crrl If)' rlnnt .. nd Site - lS9ue Permits
P.oc~ •• F.nvlronmental Reports -. Drilling.
Plant Construct Inn. TrRnslIlssion Lines
OOI/USFS
1
--
--
-
-
L
'-
L-.
-l
--
L
L rf:'.}
L
I--
1
~
-
l
I--
_.,.-
1
50
..L-
ProceRS EIA/EIS, Lease (.and
ls~ue SYC DrIllIng PermIt
CrrtlCy ~lnnt and Site, leeue Pemits
-
iiI
Co.,,,,lt to Devel.. pmellt
rrel'nrc F.nvlrnnmental Data Statement
aud 1I.1ste. Development rlon
Cnn~truct PI.:lnt, Install Trane"laalon Linea
ruwr.r on LIne
Issue Drllllnil I'cm.1L
- DrillIng
-.
--
I
ExplnrRtlon and Reservoir Evaillation
Co.,,,U to P"v"lopmcnt
rrr.p:ue tlJl9tC!r Developmcnt Pisn
Development Or1111,,&
ProccI' F.r~/EtS
OOI/OUI
l
1987
198!>
I
-
rrocess EIA/tIS, Lea"e Land
l~Aue STG Drilling rermit
--
FIGURE 25-2
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR ALL PLANTS: LEACH. NEVADA
-
-
IJ
-l-
1
KEPLINGER a..lj.J#cialu. iltc.-
OI'I;;II.\UIIC
O"",,r
County
L"3~"
Lnnd, IBsue rrnnpeetins Pe .... 1t
-
Developer
R~rort
rroeess EnvIronmental Rerort, Lense Land
ls.ue Prn9r"ellnr./ExpI~ratlon Permito
Is"-"" Dr L1l1n8 I'cmits
CertlCy Plant nnd Site - lasue Per~its
rroces! EnvlronmMtal ReporU - DrUling,
Plnnt Construction, TrllnslDiuion Lines
D~velol)mcnt
rr'-rarc II.1ster Development Plnn
n"velol"",,,,t Dd111nz
~
Utility
V1
COl1lld l to Devulopm ..nt
rrrpare Envlron .. ental Data StatCftlont
nnd IInster nevelorment Plan
COl1!1truct rlant. Install Transmi.810n Lines
t
f\
f--
,
~
-- -
l·o ...·r.r on tlnc
OOI/USCS
)p!'li(!'
DrHUnc Permit
l'rocc99 f.IA/EIS - Drilling
DOI/OUI
DOI/USFS
-
-
--
'L
""T
~
,-L
r--. - L-. -
.-.-
U_.
-
-
f--
1999
1997
..
f--
1996
1995
-f- - - U_
--_. U_p
---1Q.
u
-- iL -_
-
-
-<
100,,"
~
!Q..
~
I--
"roc~s5
EIA/EIS. \.ease 1.1nd
I"Rn" STC Drilling Per .. it
eertif, rlAnt lind SHo, bsu" Pendt8
LL-.
,n
1994
1993
U;
--
-
~
"-:
- -.
-
5"
-L--
50,,"
~-
'-
L-
.- -
1992
1991
-
L
Exploration nnd Reservoir Evaluatien
<:or.mlt to
<I
-
- Drlllln8
1990
---
~
Issue Lond Use P"rmlt
State
1989
- r- - - -
-
rroC!(!ss EnvJrollmcnt:ll Report - Pre-lease
rroces9 Envlronuumta.l
.
1988
ACTIVITY
ElITJTI f.5
---
-
r---,--
;;;-
L
12--
-
~
.~
~O
r--
12.-
...
.
U.
-
l.L-
-.--
'It!
~
10
..
!
.
Il-
r-..
,..
--
r--
..
II
•tL
--
,..l0.
10DA
10o.A.5
100,,"
100 A
100""
100,,"
looAIO
:--
--
r--
--
f---U!..
-
!L
-
In
5
ProreSR F.IA/EIS, l.eAse Land
lasut! STC "rllIJnr. r~ .... it
. FIGURE 25-Z (CONTINUED)
0
.ll..-
KEPLINGER aHUJJocial,J, iHC.-
OPF.I:A'flHG
F.HTtTTJ!S
ACTIVITY
Owner
T.e88" Lanrl, Issue Prospec ting P.. rmit
county
Process Envlronmentsl Report - Pre-lease
1999
2000
2001
2002
Issue Land Uae Permit
rrocess Environmental Report - Drilling
State
Process Environmental Report, Lease Land
Issue Prospecting/Exploration Permits
Issne DrUling Permit ..
Certlry Plant and Site - Issu .. Permits
Proce.s Environmental Report. - Drilling,
Plant Construction, Transllliasion Linea
"eveloper
Exploration and Reoervoir Evaluation
to Development
Prepare Haster Development Plan
Development Drilling
Co~it
Utility
11
C01llMit to Developlllent
Prepare EnvIronmental Data Statement
anc! !laster Development Plan
Con9truct Plnnt, Install Trana.l.alon Linea ~~~1=3==~==~__~~~
Power on Line
10~
100A
~()OM3
~------~~----------------------~
IlOl/USGS
Issue Dr1111ng Permit
Process EIA/lIS - Drilling
Process EIA/EIS, Lease Land IaBue src DrIlling Permit
1________.j-c_e_r_t_i_fy:..-..p_l_a_n_t_a_n_c!_S_t_t_e_,_I_a_Su_e_p_.._....._i_t..;"_ _ _1~ ___ _
-IlOI/OLH
IlOl/USFS
Process EIh/ElS, Lease Land
Issue src Dri111nl Permit
FIGURE 2S-2ICONCLUDED)
200)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
LEACH, continued.
~--
in the lO-MWe pilot plant at Niland.
One year prior to design freeze
on the Leach plant, deep-well pumps of improved reliability and
durability are expected to be available (l.5-year expected life
versus the current
less-than-6~month
Economic Analysis.
life).
The projected economics of electrical genera-
tion at the Leach, Nevada, geothermal power prospect are presented in
Table 25-1.
The levelized busbar cost of electricityl by binary
conversion from this site is estimated to be 109 mills/kWh using
currently available (baseline) technology.
Taking into account
anticipated cost reductions from the RD&D program, the first commercia1scale plant at this site, postulated to come on line in 1987, is
expec-ted to have a levelized busbar energy cost of 75 mills/kWh.
,
It is-assumed that geothermal et"ectric plants in this region
will be competing primarily against coal-fueled steam plants for
base load generating capacity addition.
Under assumptions of the
National Energy Plan scenario for escalation of coal prices, the
levelized busbar cost of electricity from these sources is expected
to be about 20.0 mills/kWh for plants coming on-line 1n 1985, rising
to 20.6 mills/kWh for plants coming on-line in 1990.
The cost" of electricity (with RD&D benefits) at this prospect is
therefore definitely not competitive without the advantage of further
1
See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the computer print-out
and the assumptions and data used in this analysis.
XXV-7
KEPLINGER
a,u~/HcciattJ, ;HC.
TABLE2H
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: LEACH, NEVADA
BINARY 51ST!! • 50 ftW ELECTRIC PLIIT
FIRSt PLANT OR LIN! DITE : 1987
TEIIP!RATU&E 1M CEIIIGRADE DEGREES (BEST EStIBIIE) : 170
MELL DEPTH II BETERS :
2500
ERINE SALINITY :
LOB
OVERLYING ROCK TYFE : BEDIUn ftAfC
"
THE WELL FLOW RATE IS Ror SPECIFIED : THE DEFAULT FLCW RITE USED (KGB./HR.) • 268208
THE COST PER P80DOCTION WELL IS ROT SPECIFIED
THE DEFAULT COST PER PRODUCTIOR WELL (S) D2138286.0
THE COST PER INJECTION IIELL IS 1I0T SPf;CIFl!D : THE DEfAULT COST .liIlR 'INJECTION IIELL (S) =111255211.0
PRODOCER FINANCIAL DlTI
~
<:
,
00
UTILITY PINi"CIll DAtA
DEBT FRACTION:
ANNUAL INTEREST RATE ON DEET (tRACTION)
REQUIRED RATE OF RETURN OR EQOIt! (FRlCTIOR,
PFOPERIY TAX RATE (UACTICN, :
REVENUE TA! RATE OR ROIALTl (FUCTIOIII :
EFFECTIVE TOTAL INconE TAX Rltl (FRACTIOI)
"EFFECTIVE IRVESTIIEIIT TAX CnEDn (lIUCTION)
ESCALATION FlCTOR FOR O&ft COstS :
ESCALATION FACTOR FCR ENERGI ceSTS :
ESCALATICN FACIOR fCR ClfIIAI CCSTS :
LIFE SPAN OF PBOCUCTION WELLS (IEA~S,
LIfE SP~N OF INJECTlbN WELLS (YfABS, :
LIfE SPAN OF PRODUCES PL1Nl (lfARS, :
SIARI UP COST nUITIFlIER :
0.30
0.08
0.20
0.01
0.10
0.50
0.011
0.05
0.05
0.05
10.00
10.00
20.00
1.036
DEBT FRACTION :
ANNUAL INTEREST RATE ON DIPT (FRACTION)
REQUIBED RATE OF RETURN C. ECUITI (FRACTION,
PROPERTY TAX RATE (FRACTleR, :
REVENUE TAl R~TE OR BOYALlY (FR~CTIOH) :
EFfECTIVE TOTAL INCOftE TAX RATE (fRACtION, •
EFFECTIVE INYESTftFNT rAX CREDIT (fRACTION,
ESCALATION fACTOR FOB 0&8 COSTS :
ESCALATION FACTOR FOR ENEBG! COSTS:
ESCALATION fACTOR FCR CAEITAL COSTS:
LIFE S FAN Of UTILIty PLANl (IEABS, :
ULTIMATE CAPACIlI FACTOR
START UP COST ftULTIPLIER :
0.50
O.OB
0.12
0.01
0.0
0.5C1
0.011
0.05
0.05
0.05
30.00
O.EsU
1.016
• NUHBEB Of IELLS • CAFITIL COSTBASIS IRD Ogft COSTS. lID REVENUE Rf;QUIREftENTS IIItHOUT IN! R&D IftPACTS •
CAPITAL COSTBASIS (1971 Sft,
24 PRODUCTION WELLS :
10 INJECTION WELLS :
PRODUCER PLANT EJCLUDIIG IEL1S
BEPLACERENT PRODUCTION NEILS :
REPLACEftENT INJECtION IIELLS :
BEPLACEftENT PLANT :
TOtAL feR PRODUCTIOI FIELD :
GENERATIIG PlANT :
TOTAL :
"
0&8
61.l711
17.159
9.501
52.756
14.655
4.192
160.0l8
36.6711
196.112
PRODUCER
GENERAL :
NBLL :
DEEP IELL PURr :
SPENT B8INE T8EAT!!RT
eHEftICAL t HFeHANICAl CL£~NING
TOTU :
UIlLIt!
G£HEIIlL
CRERICAL & BEeHAlleAI CL£ANING
TOTAL :
•• REVEIU! 8EQUIRBft!RtS •• "
PRODUCER
UTILI'll
•
TOtAL
COSTS (1977 $R/18.1
97.612 ftILLS/KURR
11.167 ftILLS/KUH5
108.779 HILLS/KWHR
•
1.1185
0.656
0.850
0.0
0.0
2.991
1.319
0.0
1.319
-
----~
---------
KEPLINGER anUuodaieJ, ;n.:.-
TABLE 2S-1 (CONTINUED)
• R~D IBPACfS POR PLIIT 10. 1 - 01 LII! DITB : 1987 •
as. t
COIIPCIEIIT
IlfICIPAT!D CHAIG!
(lI)
IUBBIR OF PRODUCtION 8ELLS
-22.00·
CIPITAL COST PER rRCDUCTIOH lEI 1
-12.00
CAPIIAL COST P!B INJECTION iELl
-12.00
CUIUl COST OF GAlHElIlNG SISnft
-10.00
CAPITAL COST OF DISTRIBUTION SISTEft
-10.00
CAPITIL COST OF ~80CtSS "tCHIBIcaL (U7ILI71,
-50.00
CAPITIL COST OP CONDENSER ~ HIlT BEJECTIOI IQUIPBENT
-20.00
PRODUCER DEE~ WELL puep osn CCST F1CTCR (EIIARI SIST!B • TBftP <260 C)
-67.00
LIF! SPAR OF P&CCUCTIOR WELlS
20.00
LIFE SPAll. OF IIIJ!C'lIOI IIEL .. 5
100.00
CHIIGE III RErERUE
REQUIREHEHTS (ftILLS/KISS,
•• RE'IIUE RtQUIREftE.TS 11TH ALL THE RSD IftPACTS INCLUDED •••
PBO DIJC lIB
OULItI
•
TOTAL
• SBISI'IlVITY
65.~32
BILLS/1188
9.859 BILLS/1188
75.291 ftILLS/lW8R
•
or COST c·p BLECTRICITY (FRO II PUNT NO.1. RtD IIIPICTS INCLODBD) •
RESOORCE 6 OPlR1TI.G P1BIftETE8S
SIGH RESOURCE TEftPI5ATURB lSII"ATl (200 DIGBElS CERTIGSADE,
LOW RESOURCE TEBPIRATOBE ESTIftAT! (lQO DlGBEIS C!ITIGRID!)
SIGH CAPACITI flCT08 'ALUB: C.85 .
LOI CIPACITI F1CT05 ,alUE
0.6U
EXPERSIRG OF IRTARGIBLE DR!LLIIG COS7S ( 10~0~ or WBLL COSTS EIPEISED)
OEPLFTICN ILLOIA8C( ( 22.0_ Cf G5CSS INCOftE,
IRVEST"!RT TAl CREDIT ( 26.2. GROSS. 15.0ll EFfECtl'I,
ftItLS/UHB
~6.q26
151.133
70.862
100.388
611.99"1
62.Q3e
71.103
-1~.1Q23
-8.11159
-2.2628
-0.09119
-0.0965
-0.611116
-0.6b3U
-1.8711
-5.05113
-11.2531
TABLE lS-I (CONCLUDED)
• R&C rAPACTS FOR PLAIT 10.
•
2 - 01 LIRE DATE : 1990 •
II&D COIIPOllERT
AITICIPATED CHARGE
NUIISER OF PROCUCTIOR WELts
CAPItAL COST PER PROD OCT lOR WELL
CAFITAL COST PER INJECT[CN WELL
CAPItAL COST Of GATHERING SYStlB
CAPITAL COST OF DISTRIBUTIuN SISTIII
CAFITAL COST Of FROCESS IIECHANICAL (UTILItl)
CAPITAL COST.Of CONDENSER ~ HfAI REJECtION ECUIPIIEHt
PBODUClR DEEP WELL FUIIP 0&11 ceST FACTeR (EINARI SISIEII • TEBP <260 C)
LIfE SPAN OF PROCUCtION HE~LS
LIFE SPAN OF INJECTICN WELLS
(lIl
-22.00
-20.00
-20.00
-10.00
-10.00
-50.00
-20.00
-67.00
20.00
100.00
•• REVENOE REQOIREIIENTS WITH ALL THE R&D IIIPACTS INCLUDED • ••
x
~
I
o
PROCUCER
UTILI'U
•
TOUL
60.285 BILLS/IWHR
9.859 KILLS/IWHR
70.1~/I
BILLS/IYHR
•
CHANGE IN i!VENU!
iEQUIBEIIENtS (IIILLS/lMHB)
-111.'"23
-13.5766
-3.7713
-0.09119
-0.0965
-0.611/16
-0.6630
-1.8711
-5.05113
-11.2531
LEACH, concluded.
incentives.
The sensitivity analysis for Plant 1 shows .that expensing
intangible drilling costs would reduce the leve1ized bus bar cost by
about 10.3
mills/k~~,
that a 22 percent depletion allowance would
reduce costs by at most 12.9 mills/kWh and that an increased investment tax credit to 15 percent effective would reduce costs by about
4.2 mills/kWh.
Thus, the use of all three plus further incentives
would be required to render this plant roughly competitive on the
basis of cost.
Within limits, changes in the levels of the depletion
allowance or tax credit would produce proportional cost changes and
such changes could be made to achieve a desired level of Federal
incentive.
However, very large incentives would be required to make
this site cost-competitive.
Subsequent Plants
Plant 2 at the Leach site, an additional 50-MWe capacity, is
scheduled to come on line in 1990.
At that
la~
date, RD&D-related
technological improvements available in 1987 should bri~g the economics
down to 70 mills/kWh, still highly noncompetitive with power from
coal-fueled plants.
I'
I
XXV-II