Impact of R&D on Cost of Geothermal Power

8/10/2019 Impact of R&D on Cost of Geothermal Power

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/impact-of-rd-on-cost-of-geothermal-power 1/164

SAND87

-

0 18

Un l im ited Re leas e

UC-66

Impact of R & D on Cost

of

Geothermal Power

Documentation of Model Version

2.09

Susan Petty

The Mesquite Group

PO Box 1283

136 W. Whiting Ave

Fullerton, CA 92632

Dan Entingh

Meridian Corporation

4300 King St, Suite 400

Falls Church,

VA

22302

B.

J. Livesay

Livesay Consultants

2616 Angel1 Ave

San Diego, CA 92122

Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 185

and Livermore, California 94550 for the United States Department

of

Energy

under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789

Pr in ted Feb rua ry 1988



I

+

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States

Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation.

NOTICE Thi s report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United Sta tes Government. Neither the United Sta tes Govern-

ment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any

of

their

contractors, subcontractors,

or

their employees, makes any warranty, express

or implied, or assumes any legal liability

or

responsibility for the accuracy,

completeness, or usefulness of any information, ap paratus , product, or pro-

cess disclosed, or represents t hat

its

use would not infringe privately owned

rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or

service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer,

or

otherwise, does not

necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring

by the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their

contractors

or

subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do

not necessarily state

or

reflect those

of

the United States Government, any

agency thereof

or

any of their contractors

or

subcontractors.

Printed in the United States of America

Available from

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Departm ent of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

NTIS price codes

Printed copy: A03

Microfiche copy : A01



DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by anagency of the United States Government. Neither the United StatesGovernment nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legalliability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, orusefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or processdisclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privatelyowned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or anyagency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed hereindo not necessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.



DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible inelectronic image products. Images are producedfrom the best available original document.



D

S

C

M

E

t

L

o

\

T

s

e

w

a

p

e

e

a

a

a

o

w

o

k

s

p

o

e

b

a

a

o

h

U

n

e

S

a

e

G

o

n

m

e

N

e

h

h

U

n

e

S

a

e

G

o

n

m

e

n

a

a

h

e

n

a

o

h

e

m

p

o

m

a

a

w

a

a

y

e

e

r

m

p

e

r

a

u

m

e

a

e

a

y

o

e

p

b

y

o

h

a

a

c

m

p

e

e

o

u

u

n

o

a

n

o

m

a

o

a

a

u

p

o

r

p

o

d

s

o

o

e

e

s

h

s

u

w

o

d

n

n

n

p

v

e

y

o

w

n

g

s

R

e

e

e

h

e

n

o

a

s

p

c

c

m

m

e

c

a

p

o

p

o

o

s

v

c

b

a

n

m

e

a

m

a

k

m

a

a

u

e

r

o

h

w

i

s

d

n

n

y

c

u

e

o

m

p

y

s

e

m

e

e

m

-

m

e

o

o

a

n

b

h

U

n

e

S

a

e

G

o

n

m

e

r

a

a

h

e

T

v

e

w

s

a

o

n

o

o

a

h

e

e

h

e

n

d

n

n

y

s

a

e

r

r

e

e

h

o

h

U

n

e

S

a

e

G

o

n

m

e

r

a

a

h

e



ABSTRACT

IM-GEO is an analysis used t o estimate th e impact of techno-

logy improvements on the relative cost of hydrothermal power.

Th e analysis is available in a tutorial program for use on

personal computers. It is designed for use by R & D program

managers to evaluate R & D options. Only th e potential impact of

technologie s is considered with all economic factors being held

constant. This analysis has one unique feature. The economic

impact of reducing risk by improving reservoir characteri zation

is included using a strategy currently employed by financial

institutions.

This report describes th e basis of the calculations,

documents the code, and describes t h e operational procedures.

Application of the

code

to

s t u d y

potential cost reductions due to

R &

D

success will be don e by R

& D

managers to evalu ate and

direct their own programs.

ii



I MPACT

OF R

&

D

ON GEOTHERMAL POWER

OUTLI NE

Page

1

. 0

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY

1. 1 Pur pose and Scope

1 2

Gener al Capabi l i t i es

of

Model

1 3 Power

Pl ant Per f ormance and Cost s

1

2

3

2 0 PURPOSE, BACKGROUND, AND SCOPE

3

2. 1 Pur pose

2 2

Scope

-,

8

. 0

THE GEOTHERMAL TECHNCl LOGY BASELI NE

3 1

Maj or

Cost I t ems and t hei r I nt er act i ons

3 2 Reservoi r Basel i ne Dat a

10

3 2 1

Regi ons Sel ected

3 2 2

Ener gy

3 2 3 Temperat ure

3 2 4

Chem st r y

3 2 5

Dept h

3 2 6

Fl ow r at e

10

11

1 1

12

13

13

3 . 3 Reser voi r I dent i f i cat i on

14

3.3.1 I ndust r y Pr act i ce vs.

3 3 2

Expl or at i on St r at egy

3 3 3

Cost i ng Al gor i t hm

Cur r ent Technol ogy

Assumed fo r t hi s Model

14

15

16

3 4

Reser voi r Conf i r mat i on

17

3 4 1 I ndust r y pr acti ce vs .

3 4 2 Conf i r mat i on St r at egy


Assumed f or t hi s Model

17

17

19

. 5

Reser voi r Management

3 5 1

Reser voi r Pressur e Decl i ne

3 5 2

Wel l Wor kover

3 5 3

Pumps and Pumpi ng Cost

19

2

2

21

6 Dr i l l i ng and Compl et i on

3.6.1

Cur r ent pract i ce v s .

3 6 2 Wel l Base Cost


-

Geother mal

v s .

Oi l

&

Gas

21

23

i i i



3 6 2 1

I ni t i at i on

3 6 2 2

I nt erval

1

t hr ough

N

3 6 2 3

Compl et i on

Page

25

25

27

3 6 3

Add- on Cost s

27

3 6 3 1

Lost Ci r cul at i on

3 6 3 2 Dept h Ri sk

3 6 3 3 Cement i ng Probl emE

3 6 3 4

Ot her Probl ems

27

27

21

28

3 7 Power Pl ant Sel ect i on and Desi gn Pract i ce

29

3 7 1 Power Pl ant Excl usi ve of Br i ne

St abi l i zat i on and Envi r onment al Cont r ol s

29

3 7 2

Fi el d Pi pi ng Cost

29

3 7 3 Br i ne St abi l i zat i on and

Envi r onment al Cont r ol s

30

3 8

Econom c Anal ysi s

30

4. 0 HOW THE MODEL WORKS 31

4 1

Dat a el ement s

31

4. 2 General Fl ow

of

Comput at i on, One Proj ect

32

4 3 A

Few General Mat t ers

35

4 3 1 Power - On- Li ne ( POL) Temporal

4 3 2

Wei ght s f or Cost

of

Power Tot al s

4 3 3 Non- Li near i t i es i n Resul t s

4 3 4

Mer gi ng Mul t i pl e Set s

of R

&

D

4 3 5

Er r or Messages

Rel a t i onshi ps

Achi evement s

35

35

36

37

37

5 0

EXAMPLES

OF

ANALYSES

38

5. 1 I mprovement s i n

Wel l s

5. 2

I mprovement s i n Down Hol e Pumps

5 3 I mpr ovement s i n Reservoi r

Identification/Engineering

5 4

I mpr ovement s i n Power Pl ant s

5 5 Above Four Achi evements Combi ned

5 6

Combi ned Achi evement s, at Lower Level s

39

40

41

42

43

44

6.0

RECOMMENDATI ONS

45

6. 1

Resour ce Avai l abi l i t y

6. 2

Ext end Level

of

Det ai l

6 3

Ext end Model

t o

I ncl ude

6 4 Case St udi es

Non- Hydr ot her mal Resour ces

45

45

46 .'

47

i v



A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

APPENDICES

TECHNOLOGY BASELINES

MODEL GENERAL OPTIONS AND MENUS

DETAILS OF MODEL REPORTING OPTIONS

IM-GEO DATA FILES

MODEL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURE

LISTING OF MODEL CODE

PROGRAMMER NOTES

PREVIOUS STUDIES

V





I MPACT OF R &

D

COST OF GEOTHERMAL

POWER

1. 0

Execut i ve Summar y

A menu dr i ven pr ogr am f or

IBM- P C

compat i bl e mcr ocomput ers

has been devel oped f or use by progr am managers as one t ool t C J

- eval uat e t he i mpact of var i ous t echnol ogy devel opment s on t he

I

cost of hydr ot her mal power . Thi s pr ogr am consi der s t he i mpact

of

gener al ar eas

of

t echnol ogy i mpr ovement . Al l economc var i abl es

ar e f i xed si nce onl y t echnol ogy i ssues ar e consi der ed.

Hydr ot her mal r esour ces ar e di vi ded i nt o geol ogi c r egi ons

because t he geol ogy det erm nes t he cost s i n many

of

t he ar eas of

possi bl e t echnol ogy i mpr ovement . These r egi ons ar e consi st ent

wi t h t he USGS def i ned r esour ce ar eas. I ndi vi dual hydr ot her mal

r esour ces wer e t hen consi der ed wi t hi n t hese r egi ons on t he basi s

of t he possi bi l i t y of near

term

( wi t hi n t en year s) econom c

devel opment . Thus onl y moderate t o hi gh t emperature r esour ces

wer e i ncl uded i n t hi s st udy.

Possi bl e ar eas

of

t echnol ogy i mprovement wer e r el ated t o GTD

pr ogr ams. The i mpact of t he f ol l owi ng pr ogr am ar eas was

consi der ed:

Reser voi r Engi neer i ng ( Reser voi r I dent i f i cat i on,

Reser voi r Conf i r mat i on, Reser voi r Management

i n model . )

Har d Rock Penet r at i on ( Dr i l l i ng i n model )

Conver si on Technol ogy ( P o w e r Pl ant i n model )

Each GTD progr amel ement

or

pr oj ect can be eval uat ed usi ng

t hi s pr ogr am f or pot ent i al i mpact on t he rel at i ve cost of

geot her mal power.

A uni que f eat ur e of t hi s model i s t he i ncl usi on of r eser voi r

r i sk i n t he anal ysi s as a quant i f i abl e

c o s t

el ement . Previ ous

st udi es have had di f f i cul t y eval uat i ng t he i mpact of t echnol ogy

i mpr ovement s i n t he ar ea of r esour ce def i ni t i on, descr i pt i on and

l ong t er m behavi or pr edi ct i on. I t i s cl ear that such acti vi t i es

as wel l t est i ng, numer i cal si mul at i on and geochem cal model i ng

shoul d have an i mpact on t he rel at i ve

cost

of power . I mpr ovi ng

our under st andi ng of geother mal syst ems shoul d i n t he l ong r un

l ower devel opment cost s. However , t hi s has been di f f i cul t t o

quant i f y i n

a

si mpl e, easy t o eval uat e way. Thi s pr ogr am cal cu-

l at es t he cost of

a

devel opment usi ng best and worst case

est i mat es

for

r el evant physi cal f act or s. The di f f er ence bet ween

t hese cost s i s consi der ed t he cost of t he r i sk associ at ed

w i t h

t he pr oj ect . Technol ogy i mpr ovement s whi ch r educe t he di f f erence

bet ween t he best and wor st cases r educe t he r i sk and thus r educe

t he r el at i ve cost of power .

-

v

1. 1

Scope of Wor k

Thi s r epor t and t he model i ncl ude t he f ol l owi ng:

1



a) Descri pt i on

of

t he model and document at i on

of

i t s gen-

er al st r at egy and al gor i t hms.

b) Document at i on of t he basel i ne cost est i mat es used on t he

model . These ar e f or el ect r i ci t y pr oduct i on

syst ems.

at a number

of pr om si ng hydr ot her mal r egi ons i n the

U. S.

c)

Descri pt i ons

of

many aspect s of cur r ent

U. S.

geot hermal

devel opment pr act i ce, and expl anat i ons of how t hese ar e account ed

f or i n t he model .

d) Exampl es of how a f eu hypot het i cal R & D achi evement s

coul d be ent ered

as

dat a t o t he model t o est i mat e t he i mpact s

of

t hose achi evement s on t he cost of geot hermal power .

The model and r epor t do not pr ovi de est i mates of :

a) The degree t o whi ch t he model ed geot her mal energy

pr oduct i on and conver si on subsyst ems appear t o be suscept i bl e t o

i mprovement t hrough cont i nued

R

& D.

b) The si ze

of

ant i ci pated r esear ch achi evement s ( magni t ude

of

t echnol ogy i mpr ovement ) expect ed f r omt he geot hermal R & D

pr ogr am of t he

U. S.

Depar t ment of Energy.

c)

H o w cost r educt i ons f ost er ed t hr ough R

&

D woul d af f ect

r esour ce avai l abi l i t y

or

mar ket penet r at i on.

d) Any aspect s of power pr oduct i on t echnol ogy cost s

f rom

geopr essured, hot dr y r ock, or magma energy r esour ces.

I t i s possi bl e t o use t he model t o accompl i sh a. and

b .

usi ng i nput f r omt he geot her mal communi t y, R &

I>

manager s and

f ur t her ef f or t by t he pr esent t eam Addi t i onal wor k on t he

model woul d be necessary t o accompl i sh c. and d .

1. 2

Gener al Capabi l i t i es

of

Model

The model est i mat es t he cost of geot her mal el ect r i c ener gy

by est i mat i ng t he cost s of maj or subsyst ems. Subsyst em cost s ar e

based on and ar e sensi t i ve t o: a) t he physi cal char act er i st i cs of

speci f i c geot her mal r eser voi r s and b ) t he per f ormance and cost s

of

t he engi neer i ng and t echnol ogy needed t o conver t geot hermal

f l ui d t o el ect r i ci t y.

The model al l ows R & D manager s t o ent er al t er nat i ve numer i -

cal est i mates f or component cost s

or f o r

r eser voi r par amet er s.

Such al t ernat i ve est i mat es ar e assumed t o r ef l ect i mpr ovement s i n

t he t echnol ogy t hat coul d r esul t f r om

R

&

D

on t he technol ogy.

The model t hen cal cul at es t he r el at i ve

c o s t

of geot her mal power

f or i mpr ovement s. The est i mat i on of t he ant i ci pat ed si ze of

such

R &

D Achi evement s i s expect ed t o be done by

R &

D managers,

who ar e f am l i ar wi t h t he t echnol ogy and wi t h t he t echni cal

di r ect i ons and i nt ensi t y of

DOE

and ot her

R &

D pr ogr ams f or

geot hermal energy t echnol ogy i mprovement .

An i mpor t ant and

novel f eat ur e of t he model i s t hat i t

est i mat es cost s r el at ed t o f i nanci al r i sks due t o

maj or uncer -



t ai nt i es of pr edi ct ed r eser voi r per f or mance. Thi s

r i s k

anal ysi s f eat ur e m m cs t he way t hat a commer ci al banker eval -

uat es such r i sks.

The i mpor t ance of t he r i sk anal ysi s f eat ur e i s t hat i t

provi des a means by whi ch R & D managers can est i mat e t he i mpact s

of i mpr ovement i n r eser voi r t est i ng, anal ysi s and pr edi ct i on

t echni ques upon t he cost of geother mal power. Thi s f eat ur e

appear s not t o have been i ncor por at ed i nt o ear l i er ef f or t s t o

est i mate t he i mpact s of

R & I)

on t he cost of U. S. geot her mal

el ect r i ci t y.

1. 3 Power Pl ant Per f or mance and Cost s

The est i mates of geot her mal power pl ant per f ormance and c o s t

used i n t hi s model ar e r el at i vel y cr ude appr oxi mat i ons.

Lat e i n t he pr oj ect , i t was det er m ned that power pl ant dat a

t hat had been i ni t i al l y sel ect ed f or use i n t he model wer e based

on a r ange of pl ant i nl et condi t i ons t oo nar r ow t o accomodat e t he

r ange of condi t i ons encount er ed i n some

of

t he hi gh r i sk s i t e

char act er i st i cs. Accor di ngl y a br i ef sur vey was made of a number

of

ear l i er r epor t s of pl ant per f or mance and cost . The cost s t hen

used i n t he model wer e dr awn f r omwhat appeared t o be some

dom nant t r ends i n t hose dat a, as descr i bed i n Sect i ons 13 and

14

of Appendi x

A .

However , t her e was a consi derabl e degr ee of scat t er i n t he

dat a t hat wer e avai l abl e. Thus we bel i eve t hat t he est i mat es of

power

pl ant per f or mance and c o s t ar e l i kel y t o i ncl ude

uncer t ai nt i es on t he or der

of

225%. The est i mates of pl ant

per f ormance and cost and t he way i n whi ch t hose ar e opt i m zed

r el at i ve t o t he cost of t he geot her mal f l ui d suppl y shoul d

be r evi ewed and i mpr oved i n f ut ur e updates of t hi s model .

2. 0

BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND SCOPE

I n eval uat i ng t he i mpact of

R &

D on t he cost of power

produced by convent i onal met hods and on newer r enewabl e

t echnol ogi es such as sol ar or w nd power gener at i on t here i s an

obvi ous cause and ef f ect r el at i onshi p bet ween i mpr ovement i n

t echnol ogy and r educt i on

of

cost . I f a l ess expensi ve process

f or pr oduci ng phot ovol t ai c cel l s, f or i nst ance, i s devel oped, t he

cost of pr oduci ng power wi t h t hose cel l s i s r educed. I f a mor e

r el i abl e bear i ng

f o r a

w nd gener at or i s desi gned, el ec. t r i ci t y

pr oduced by w nd wi l l be l ess expensi ve. I n geother mal ener gy

product i on, however , much

of

t he cost

of

power pr oduct i on i s

r el at ed t o t he behavi or of a nat ur al r esour ce over t i me.

I t i s r el at i vel y easy t o cal cul at e t he r educti on i n cost of

geot hermal power f r om t he devel opment of

a

mor e ef f i ci ent bi nar y

power pl ant , or i mpr oved dr i l l i ng t echnol ogi es. I mpact s of

t echnol ogi cal i mpr ovement s i n t hese ar eas

are

i ncl uded i n

t h i s

anal ysi s under R & D achi evement s f or wel l s and f or pl ant s.

However i t i s not so obvi ous how t he cost of power i s r educed

when an i mprovement i n pr essure or f l owr at e measurement equi pment

i s made

or

a bet t er met hod f or model i ng t he l ong t er m behavi or

of

3



a reservoir is found. Th e cost of well testing or reservoir

modeling may in fact

go

up if the se new methods are used, making

th e apparent cost of power higher.

Reservoir engin eerin g is aimed at using information about

th e geothermal reservoir collected prior to production to

descri be the field for plant design and predict the

long

term

behavior of the field. It is clear that improved reservoir

engineering techniques should provide a more accurate estimate

of

th e conditions to

be

expected at th e time of initial start up

of

th e power plant and predict better th e conditions for operation

of th e plant at

10

t o

30

years. This should in turn affect the

calculation of the price per kilowatt needed to make development

of

th e resource economic and th e investors and lenders estimates

of t he financial risks involved i n development

of

the resource.

Since reservoir engineering 1s not an exact scienc e, the

reservoir engineer usually develops a most reas onable case

scenar io to describe th e reservoir and looks at what th e worst

cas e for the reservoir would be. In predicting th e long term

behavior of th e field th e sa me principal is used. Th e engineers

designing th e wellfield and the power plant generally design

for

the worst

case

conditions.

If

th e first six wells have

temperatures ranging from 450 degrees

F

to

475

degrees

F ,

the

engineers may estimate th e fluid requirements for

t h e

power plant

based on the lower temper ature even though it is most probable

that the fluid temper ature from all wells in th e field may

average out to

465

degrees

F.

Technology improvements in reservoir engineering should

result in less discrepancy between th e most reasonable case and

th e worst case estimates for the field. These technology

improvements reduce th e risk associated with production of geo-

thermal power. Risk must have a cost , but how that cost should

be

calculated is not obvious.

Bankers and insurers of geothermal projects have had to

grappl e with this issue. On e major bank solved the problem

by

requiring geothermal operat ors to borrow th e difference between

th e cost of a geothermal power project based on the most likely

estima te of reservoir parameters and long term behavior and th e

worst case estimate. Using this approach allows assignment of a

cost to reservoir risk. Improvements in reservoir technology

reduce the difference between the most likely case and the worst

case estimates and thus reduce the cost

of

risk associated with

geothermal power projects. Potential impacts of improved

reservoir engineering are included under

R

&

D

Achievements,

Reservoir and Ris ks, Reservoir.

2.1

Purpose

Other

DOE

efforts have been directed toward analyzing the

relative improvement in the cost of geothermal power due to

research efforts.

A

list of thes e previous studies is included

in Appendix

H.

This effort draws from these previous studies. Since

technology

has

improved since th e completion of these previous



studies , costs and practices have needed to be updated to make

this effort current.

Th e Meridian Corporation models GEO.BAS and BUSBAR, which

give th e engineering costs and busbar costs for flash or binary

systems, seemed th e best starting point for th e calculation of

th e improvement in geothermal power cost. The models were

updated using current exploration, testing and drilling practice

B

and recent power plant cost.

A

team of individuals familiar with

the day

to

day workings of th e geothermal business collected

costs and reviewed basic procedures used for geothermal develop-

ment.

z

Th e study relied thoroughly o n interviews of industry

experts. There are too few operating geothermal plants outside

th e Geysers for statistics collected on geothermal projects to be

meaning ful. Determining industry practic e must ther efor e be and

was do ne by consulting with thos e practicing in the geothermal

industry. For t his r eason th e numbers used to represent a

generic well cost or th e description of a representative reser-

voir in a region may not be th e average reservoir or well in that

region, but should be close to what experienced geothermal field

develope rs would view

as typical and economic.

The purpose

of

this report is to describe the function

of

th e model and give examples of its use to estimate the impact

of

R

&

D technology on th e cost of geothermal power. The model is

menu driv en and allows input of baseline and improved costs and

best estimate and worst ca se reservoir parameters by th e user.

These inputs correspond to improvements in reservoir and power

plant technology resulting from research and development. The

resulting output sh ows the percentage change in th e cost of power

resulting from either reducing th e reservoir risk or reducing the

cost

of

some aspect of th e power production cycle.

R

&

D

in geothermal

is

aimed at improv ing techno logy by

reducing th e cost, increasing the efficiency, or reducing the

risk of a contributing factor in th e cost of power production.

For instance , research could develop a new drill bit which would

increase the rate of penetration during drilling

of geothermal

wells thus reducing t he cost of well completion. Using an

algorithm which calculates t he cost of geothermal wells from so me

key input factors such as depth, penetration rate and amount of

lost circulation and t he tim e it takes to deal with lost circula-

tion , the improvement in cost expected from the new drill bit can

be used t o calculate th e expected reduction in well cost. The

model then proceeds to calculat e a change in cost of power

associated with thi s technology enhancement.

Th e model is intended for us e by R &

D

managers who define

th e goals of their research projects and understand the areas of

impact of improvements in technology.

. 2.2

Scope

The model targets five areas with present day potential for

hydrothermal power production. Only areas where economic power

from hydrothermal sources can be expected in the near future were

5



used

magma

using

U.S.G

for this study. Hot dry roc k, geopressured geothermal and

energy were not addressed. The five areas were determined

data from th e U.S. Geological Survey and correspond to the

.S. geothermal reg ions a s follows:

Basin and Range Basin and Range

Cascades Cascades

Geysers

Young Volcanics

Pacific Border (Not included

Alaska, Hawaii, Valles Caldera

in this study.)

Sierra Nevada ( C o s o , Long

Valley

The regions were chosen for their similarity in overall

geology and resource characteristics. One of t he areas of

variability which determines th e cost of a geothermal project is

difference in geology between different reservoirs. Dividing the

possible areas of geothermal development i n the U.S. into regions

with roughly the same geology allows for variation in exploration

and resource development strategy of basic drilling cost without

increasing t he complexity

of

the program input data.

For each of thes e regions two generic projects were defined,

a binary and a flash plant project. Data from existing

development and selected potential developments in each region

were used to determine t he characteristics of the generic

project. Criteria for the inclusion of a project in this study

were: 1) th e potential for economic geothermal electric

development over th e next ten years and

2)

the likelihood of

reduct ion of project cost by new technologies which are probable

within th e next ten years. The Geysers was removed from this

study since this dry steam resource is unique and has been

commercially exploited f or many years.

Baseline data for the se generic projects were determined

from an actual project deemed "typical" for th e region. Other

U.S.G.S. regions were reserved for a later phase of study as

being unlikely to yield economic quantities of electric power in

th e near future. The Young Volcanics category is a hold-all for

resources in various U.S.G.S. regions other than th e Cascades

which ar e associated with recent volcanic features and can

be

expected t o produce at very high temperatures.

Major cost accounts were then identified which contribute to

th e end cost of geothermal power. Current costs for actual

projects were investigated to update earlier work on the cost of

geothermal power. The major cost accounts were then broken down

into sub-accounts for th e purpose of determining present costs.

Thes e sub-accounts also reflect potential areas of possible R

&

D.

Zn existing model for calculating th e cost of geothermal

6



power was t hen sel ect ed. Thi s model i ncl uded al gor i t hms for

cal cul at i ng t he

cost of power

pl ant s and pr oduct i on Syst ems gi ven

i nf or mat i on

on

t he nat ur e of t he r esour ce. The model was updated

t o

t ake i nt o account t he changes i n t he dr i l l i ng i ndust r y and i n

ot her areas whi ch have occur r ed. An al gor i t hm

f o r

cal cul at i ng

t he cost

of

geot her mal wel l s gi ven cer t ai n char act er i st i cs of t h e

r eservoi r was t hen devel oped and used t o cal cul ate t he basel i ne

wel l cost s. Add- on cost s f or t he possi bi l i t y

of

t r oubl e dur i ng

dr i l l i ng i n t he area

of

l ost ci r cul at i on, cement i ng and

o t h e r

t r oubl es r el at ed t o t he nat ur e

of

t he geot hermal r esour ce were

i ncl uded. A met hod

f o r

t aki ng i nt o account l ong t erm f i el d

behavi or wi t h r espect t o pr oduct i on decl i ne was added. The

cur r ent ver si on

of

t he model does not , however , t ake heat depl e-

t i on of t he r eser voi r i nt o account . Compl ex model i ng of pr oduc-

t i on and i nj ect i on pr act i ces woul d be necessar y t o det er m ne heat

sweep accur at el y. A si mpl e t emper at ur e decl i ne model f r om act ual

and pr oj ected dat a woul d be possi bl e al t hough of dubi ous

accur acy, but t i me was not avai l abl e t o add t hi s t o t he model f or

t hi s ver si on.

Model updat es t ake i nt o account cur r ent expl or at i on, r eser -

voi r t est i ng, dr i l l i ng and power pl ant desi gn cost s and pr act i ce

as of J anuar y,

1986.

Cost s used i n t hi s anal ysi s t hus r ef l ect

t he cur r ent s t at us of t he dr i l l i ng and servi ce compani es due t c ~

t he downt ur n i n t he oi l and gas i ndust r i es.

Thr oughout t he t ask of val i dat i ng t he model by assessi ng

cur r ent cost s and i n devel opi ng t he cost i ng st r at egi es t he st udy

r el i ed t hor oughl y on i nt er vi ew

of

i ndust r y exper t s. Ther e ar e

not enough geothermal power generat i on pr oj ect s operat i onal ot her

t han t hose i n t he Geyser s t o use a st at i st i cal appr oach

t o d e t e r

m ni ng cost s and devel opment s t r at egi es. Ther ef or e, peopl e

f am l i ar wi t h geot hermal devel opment were chosen t o eval uat e and

updat e t he model and benchmark t he cost s. These expert s

used

t hei r

own

knowl edge of geot her mal ' devel opment and r el i ed on t hei r

cont act s i n t he busi ness f or backup and fo r i nf or mat i on not

avai l abl e t o t hem

The model

i s

demonst r at ed usi ng

some

hypot het i cal

R & D

achi evement s i ncl udi ng: 1 ) i mpr ovement i n wel l s,

2 )

i mpr ovement

i n down hol e pumps,

3

i mpr ovement i n r eser voi r i dent i f i cat i on/ -

engi neer i ng,

4 )

mprovement s i n power pl ant s,

5)

t he above f our

achi evement s combi ned, and 6) combi ned achi evement s at l ower

l evel s

of

achi evement

( see

Sect i on 5 . 0 ) .

Usi ng t he model t he i mpact of cur r ent DOE

R & D

programs

on

t he cost

of

power produced usi ng geother mal ener gy can

be

est i mat ed. Such est i mat es ar e not i ncl uded i n t hi s r epor t . I n

or der t o make t hese est i mat es, i nput f r om

R &

D

manager s

of

ongoi ng

DOE

r esear ch pr oj ect s i s needed. Usi ng t hi s i nput ,

t h e

pr oj ect t eam can det er m ne t he possi bl e i mpr ovement i n r i sk or

cost . The model can t hen be used t o cal cul at e r el at i ve

i mprovement i n

cost

of power .

Reduci ng t he cost

of

geot hermal power pr oduct i on i s onl y

one

goal of

R

& I). Maki ng cur r ent l y uneconom c r esour ces avai l abl e

f o r devel opment i s equal l y i mport ant . Al t hough t hi s model can be

modi f i ed t o det er m ne how much power can

be

made avai l abl e by

7



cost reductions resulting from R & D, this study does not

undertake that task.

In addition, large quantities of energy are now untapped

from hot dry rock, geopressured geothermal and magma energy

sources. The reservoir assessment, drilling and power conver-

sio n technologies for these sources are sufficiently different

from that used for hydrothermal sources that considerable progra-

mming would be needed to change the model to accomodate these

resources. However, this could be accomplished using the basic

strategies of the model.

3.0 GEOTHERMAL

TECHNOLOGY BASELINE

This section describes th e major cost items included in the

model. Also defined here ar e the reservoir baseline data used to

define th e five regions used for the study.

It

is

important to understand how current industry practice

relates to current technology. A problem important to the

indu stry may have been solved by rese arch , but indu stry may not

be using th e latest technology in actual practice. This study

uses current industry practice th e as basis for cost estimates

and costing algorithms. Current practice used to defin e costs

will therefore be described in this section. However, current

technology which could improve practice will be mentioned where

it exists and th e method used to estimate the risk reduction

resulting from it s us e will be described if possible.

The cost of power production in a typical geoth ermal

electrical development project can be divided into

5

sub-system:

1 )

2 )

3)

4)

5 )

3.1

T h e

Reservoir Identification

-

Project selection activities

including geophysics, geochem istry, geologic mapping and

analysis, gradient well drill ing, stratigraphic. test

well drilling and drilling of wildcat wells.

Reservoir Confirmation - Drilling of confirmation wells,

well testi ng, geophysical logging, production logging,

reservoir analysis and prediction of reservoir behavior

through modeling.

Reservoir management - Strategies for management of th e

resource including pumping, injection, well workovers,

redrilling of wells, adding supplemental wells and well

spacing.

Well Drilling

-

Drilling and completion

of

production

and injectio n wells.

Power plant and gathering system - Piping, separators,

fluid treatment, environmental

protection equipment,

turbine generators, pumps, binary c ycle equipment.

Major Cost Items and Their Interact ions

costs of each of these subsystems are interrelated in

8





true

at

once is extremely unlikely. However, the power plant and

well field designer must plan and design for the contingency that

they may. The financial planner for the project must raise

enough money to cover all of these contingencies along with the

usual construction contingency included as part of standard

engineering practice.

The other side of th e premium added to the project for th e

effect

of

reservoir risk is the possibility that the field will

be

better than th e most reasonable estimate. Fewer wells may be

needed; the average temperature of th e fluid may

be

hotter. Yet

th e field developer can not count on this possibility. He must

still borrow or in so me other way com e up with enough money to

finance the worst cas e scenario. He may end up with a power

plant that is overdesigned and more costly than he actually

needs. Thus if technology could be improved and th e spread

between th e worst c ase and the most reasonable estimate improved,

the cost of the projects would go down.

It is assumed for this model that no project can have

100%

certainty 0 5 success. The worst case estimate therefore only

gets us to a 95% confidence. The remaining 5% chance of failure

is insured against by th e purchase

of

reservoir insurance. The

cost of this insurance is included in th e total power price.

There is a possibility t hat th e interaction of the various

cost parameters and their associated risks can multiply costs

beyond what would be reasonable due to multiple interactions.

Where possible this has been avoided in the coding

of

the model.

However, th e interactions

of

th e elements are not always obvious.

For this reason, actual plant, well and field costs were

estimated using rea l project data and information from

developers. These estimates were used as a basis for comparison

to prevent the model from producing unrealistic answers.

3.2

Reservoir Baselin e Data

Reservoir baseline data provides a description of t he reser-

voir at the time of plant start up. The values are th e most

probable estimates of such characteristics as flow rate from each

well, reservoir fluid temperature, wellhead pressure, fluid

chemistry and

so

forth.

3.2.1 Regions Selected

For each region a typical project was determined with what

is assumed to be average characteristics. For instance, in the

Imperial Valley region the project is assumed to be somewhere

near the Salton Sea , but the wells are deeper than the average

well in current Salton Sea projects and the brine

is

more

concentrated to account for th e characteristics of the resources

at

Brawley and Westmorland. Thus it should not be assumed that

th e reservoir parameters used for thi s study represent any actual

project. They are thos e which might represent th e average

project in th e region.

For

the young volcanic region, many of the projects in this

region may be in remot e areas such as Alaska or Hawaii where

10



ser vi ces and equi pment can onl y be obt ai ned at pr em um Ot her

proj ect s wi l l be I n t he mai nl and

U. S.

To accomodat e t he

l ar ge

di f f er ence i n cost bet ween t hese i sol at ed pr oj ect s and t hei r

count er par t s i n mor e accessi bl e ar eas, t wo t ypi cal hi gh

t emperatur e young vol cani c pr oj ect s wer e used, one i n

a

r emot e

l ocat i on such as Hawai i and t he ot her i n t he mor e accessi bl e

Coso, Cal i f or ni a ar ea.

The basel i ne dat a assumed f or each r egi on i s l i st ed i n

Appendi x D. Thi s dat a was obt ai ned f r om USGS Ci rcul ar

790,

t he

BPA s t udy of geot her mal pot ent i al i n t he Cascades, mat er i al

publ i shed i n t he

GRC

Bul l et i n and i n t he t r ansact i ons

of

t he

GRC

and by per sonal communi cat i on wi t h devel opers. Wher e dat a was

r ecei ved by personal communi cat i on, i t has been averaged i n w i t h

publ i cl y avai l abl e dat a t o pr eser ve t he conf i dent i al i t y of t h e

sour ces.

3.2.2 Energy

The t ot al ent hal py i n t he r egi on i s used

by

t he model t o

wei ght t he average power pr i ce. Thus a r egi on cont ai ni ng a

l arger amount

of

potent i al energy woul d wei gh more heavi l y i n t he

average power pr i ce. The val ues were t aken f r omUSGS Ci r cul ar

790 except f or t he Cascades val ues. At t he t i me t hat dat a f or

Ci rcul ar 790 was compl i ed. l i t t l e expl or at i on had been done i n

t he Cascades. Tot al ent hal py i n a r eser voi r f or Ci r cul ar 790 was

l ar gel y based on sur f ace mani f est at i ons.

Peep

col d gr ound wat er

ci r cul at i on caused by hi gh r ai nf al l i n t he Cascades obscur es most

pot ent i al sur f ace mani f est at i ons. Cascades val ues wer e t her ef or e

t aken f r om t he BPA st udy whi ch used ot her cr i t er i a f or est i mat i ng

t ot al ener gy i n a r eser voi r .

Onl y r eser voi r s wi t h possi bl e t emper at ur es above

125

degr ees

C were consi der ed si nce l ower t emperat ur e r esour ces ar e not

st udy of power avai l abi l i t y shoul d be done t o t ake t hese and

ot her r esour ces not used f or t hi s st udy i nt o account ) . Si nce

Ci r cul ar

790

does not br eak down

t he

r esour ces i t l i st s by

physi ogr aphi c pr ovi nce, geot her mal

areas

l i sted

wer e

assi gned

t o

one of t he r egi ons used f or t hi s st udy on t he basi s of geol ogy.

Some r esour ces di d not f i t i nt o any

of

t he r egi ons and have been

l ef t out of t hi s st udy. Most of t hese, however , wer e of ver y

l ow

t emper at ur e and woul d not have f i t t he st udy cr i t er i a.

l i kel y t o be econom c

f or

power generat i on

f or

some

t i me.

( A

The expl orat i on st r at egy assumes that an area of some si ze

char act er i st i c of each r egi on i s expl or ed as

a

uni t . Thi s

st r at egy wi l l be descr i bed i n mor e det ai l i n sect i on 3. 4.

Th e

var i abl e t i t l ed Ener gy i n SubAr ea i n Appendi x

D,

page

D - 3 ,

al l ows al t er at i on of t hi s modul ar expl or at i on area. I ncreasi ng

t he ener gy i n t he expl orat i on uni t woul d mean t hat expl or at i on

costs

a r e

shared by

a

l arger number

of

power pl ant s

so

t hat t he

t ot al cost of expl or at i on al l ocat ed t o a i ndi vi dual pl ant woul d

be smal l er .

3.2.3 Temper at ure

Reser voi r t emper at ur es f or t hi s st udy ar e t aken f r om t ypi cal

pr oj ect s al r eady devel oped i n t he r egi ons used. Thus t he

11



temperature

not

meant to be the average or mean temperature for all possible high

temperature resources in th e Imperial Valley, but a "typical"

temperature representative of projects either currently under

development or abandoned. A typical tempera ture was selected

because in many ca ses a rang e of temperatures may be present in a

given resource area , but some high tem perature f luids may be too

high in dissolved solids or may present other problems for

exploitation. For exam ple, it is highly likely that 700 degrees

F fluids exist in th e Kilauea East Rift Zone in Hawaii. However,

it

is

not likely that thes e will b e exploited without mixing with

cooler fluids from reservoirs above due to the difficulty in

controlling such high temper ature, high pressure fluids.

of 47S°F used f or th e Imperi al Valley region is

Although the reservoir temperature is important to the

design of th e power plant, it is th e enthalpy of the fluid

delivered at the wellhead that determines th e amount

of

power the

plant will produce. Very litt le data on produced enthalpy is

currently available. A s a resul t, som e other way of determining

the fluid requirement

for

th e power plant was needed. In

addition, the drawdown associated with flow of th e fluid in the

reservoir determines th e wellhead pressure. Even a very high

temperature fluid with a high enthalpy may have to

be

produced at

a

low

wellhead pressure due to low permeability

of

the reservoir.

Lou

wellhead pressure will requ ire a lower pressur e, larger

turbine. This is the case in Hawaii. For this reason t he fluid

requirement

for

flash power plants was tied to the wellhead

temperature. Future versions

of

th e model may use both reservoir

requirements.

The values for reservoi r temperat ure were taken from both

reservoirs with operating power plants and those which are still

in the exploration

or

confirmation phase. Proprietary data was

provide s by seve ral oper ator s for both reservoir and wellhead

temperature. Where no test data was available, such as for the

large number of resources in th e Cascades, data from the USGS and

from estimates made by those exploring t he Cascades were used.

3.2.4 Chemistry

Fluid chemistry is a important factor in determining the

cost of geotherm al power conversi on. Proprietary data from

operating plants and

from

resource s being tested was used to

determine a representative range of values for several important

aspects of fluid chemistry including: total dissolved solids,

total non-condensible g ases, hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide.

:.-, All of this data is currently estimated and available as

input for each region. However, only total dissolved solids and

hydrogen sulfide are currently tied to power conversion costs.

Total dissolved solids ar e used to determine th e need for brine

stabilization equipment, in th e drilling cost estimates and for

th e cost of testing. Hydrogen sulfide is used to determine the

need

for H2S

abatement.

There are other aspects of the cost of power conversion

which are tied to chemical factors. Th e cost of plant and field

maintenance is linked to th e corrosive effects of the fluid. In

12



a general way, corrosiveness can be determined from th e levels of

dissolved solids, H S, and

CO

. Well workovers a re more costly

if high levels of ca?cium carbosa te are present as is t he case in

much of th e Basin and Range.

H S

corrosion requires th e use of

more expensive metals for well casing and production piping.

Pumps may need special maintenance if the fluid is corrosive. At

present thes e factor s ar e accounted for by inputing higher

workover cost values where corrosi on or scale are expected.

2

3.2.5

Depth

The average depth of wells drilled in an area clearly

impacts th e cost of wells drilled in th e area and th e cost of

maintenance of those wells. Well depths are a factor of geology

and can vary greatly from reservoir to reservoir in a region.

Depths were therefore selected for each region based largely on

data from existing field developments unless thes e developments

did not seem to represent th e majority of future developments

anticipated in th e region. Such is th e case in the Cascades

where exploration for binary resources has been to fairly shallow

depths although it is not anticipated that future resources will

occur at less that

3000

feet.

The depth to the resource

is

used t o calculate the well cost

and th e pump set depth for calculation of pumping cost. Howe ver,

well base costs ar e calculated outside this program using a

detailed algorithm described in Section

3.6.2

and used as inputs

to the model. Pump set depth is calculated as a step function

with wells deeper that

1000

which ar e pumped using a pump

set

depth of

1000

feet. This is due to the current use

of

line shaft

pumps exclusively in th e industry. Changing the resource depth

without changing th e well cost and pumping cost will not effect

th e total power cost.

3.2.6 Flow Rate

Flow rate is

one

of the factors difficult to estimate;

particularly for reservoirs which have not yet been developed.

Yet flow ra te is tied to many

cost

factors including: production

piping diameter, number

of

wells, pumping costs and power plant

sizing. It was therefo re necessary to project data from fields

already produced or tested onto future developments. Th e highest

values for flow rate for

a

region were not used. Very high rate

wells have been drilled in the Imperial Valley for instance, but

many reservoirs have been tested with more moderate rates.

It was decided that for this modeling effort average rate

wells would

be

assumed to dominate future developments to make

estimates more conservative, even though high rate wells are

likely to be drilled at many prospects. In fact, at on e resource

in the Salton Sea, th e developer estimated th e average flow rate

for th e wells conservatively, but t he bank experts made even mor e

conservative estimates. Th e Wells produced at much higher rates

than either estimate requiring fewer wells and an overall lower

plant cost. Unfortunately, without more knowledge it

is

not

possible to project flow rate accurately. This must of necessity

increase the cost of geothermal development. Th e cost of this

lack

of

information is reflected in th e model in t he size of the

13



risk value associated with flow rate estimates.

Flow rate changes with time represent a large uncertainty

for both th e developer and th e financing agency. Reservoirs are

generally operated at a constant pressure and flow rate is

allowed t o decrease duri ng th e drawdown, both around th e well and

in th e reservoir as a whole. In order to represent the decrease

in flow rat e in a producing reservoir, a simple exponential

declin e was assumed. Although data does not exist (except at

Lardarello and the Geysers), to determine the shape of long term

declin e curves, an exponential decli ne is logical. This type of

declin e represents the drainage of a reservoir of limited extent.

It is clearly a conservative approach to estimating flow rate

behavior with time. A very limited resource can be represented

by

a

rapid decline rate while resource with some or a large

amount of recharge can be represented by a smaller rate

of

decline. This does not account for th e possibility of catastro-

phic reservoir failure. Such a possibility is assumed to

be

small for the purpose of this model, no greater than 5%, and is

insured against by requiring th e cost of reservoir insurance to

be

added to t he field cost.

The shape of the curve determines the points during

exploitation that replacement wells will be needed and therefore

has an effect on the cost of power. It is possible in the future

to link this model with numerical models which predict more

complex long-term behavior of flow rate with time in the reser-

voir. However, this is a more complex programming effort and

was

not justified for this version of the model.

3.3 Reservoir Identification

The exploration of resources varies widely from on e geologic

setting to another and from one developer to another. Geothermal

resources can sometimes be easily identified by surfac e

manifestations such as hot springs and fumeroles. If no surface

expression is obvious, exploration methods such as geologic

mappin g, geophysics, remote sensi ng, fluid and soil chemistry and

temper ature gradient measurement have been used with varying

degree s of success to locate resources at depth.

An "expert interview" appro ach was used to develop the

strategy for identifying an economic reservoir. Geologists and

reservoir engineers working in the regions defined for this model

were consulted to determ ine how they would explor e an area and

what probability of succes s their strategy would have. The

numbers used for calculating exploration costs may not be the

numerical average of all exploration costs, but com e close to

actual amounts spent.

3.3.1 Industry practice vs. current technology

Geothermal energy exploration is in the same state that

petroleum exploration was when developers started to explor e

beyond areas with oil seeps and obvious domes. The Cascades are

a

good examp le of this situat ion. Heat is clearly present in the

Cascad es, an area of active volcanism. However, the high rain

fall and igneous roc ks mak e many commonly used methods of

14



geot her mal expl or at i on i nappr opr i at e. I n t hi s ar ea, i t may be

necessary

t o

dr i l l many st r at i gr aphi c, deep t est hal es t o f i nd

r eser voi r s whi ch wi l l be econom c t o pr oduce.

Because geot her mal expl or at i on i s i n i t s ear l y st ages,

devel opers use t hei r own st yl e of expl orat i on whi ch may or may

not t ake advant age of t he most cur r ent t echnol ogy. Cur r ent

pr acti ce

w a s

used f or t he pur pose of est i mat i ng t he cost

of

expl orat i on' . I t can be ar gued t hat t her e ar e bet t er expl or at i on

st r at egi es or t hat more expl or at i on woul d yi el d bet t er dat a and

ensure more

successes. However , r eal expl or at i on success r at i os

are

l i nked wi t h t hese expl or at i on cost s,

so

i t

seems

r easonabl e

t o

use

act ual expl orat i on met hods.

I n or der t o det er m ne t he cost of expl or at i on, devel oper s

act i vel y expl or i ng i n each ar ea wer e asked about t hei r

expl orat i on pr ogr ams. Thi s i nf or mat i on was gener al i zed i nt o

t hr ee cat egor i es of expendi t ur e: geol ogy and geophysi cal survey

wor k, t emper at ur e gr adi ent hol e dr i l l i ng, and dr i l l i ng of one

expl or at i on wel l of pr oduct i on si ze. I n each cat egor y, wher e

t here was a conf l i ct bet ween st r at egi es devel oped as par t

of DOE

st udi es and i ndust r y pr act i ce, t he cost f or expl or at i on usi ng

st andar d i ndust r y methods was used. For exampl e, al t hough

l ar ger number s of expl or at i on wel l s are needed t o def i ne

a

moderate t emper at ur e r esour ce, l ower pr of i t mar gi ns on such

r esour ces have dr i ven devel oper s t o cut cost s on expl or at i on.

Thi s i s r ef l ect ed i n an i ncr eased spread bet ween best and worst

case val ues f or t hese r esour ces due t o t he i ncr eased r i sk and

shows up i n t he cal cul at i on on r i sk.

An exampl e of t he net ef f ect of t hi s model i ng deci si on i s

t hat i t show t he Cascades pl ant s as: a) pr oduci ng r el at i vel y

expensi ve power at hi gh r i sk, but b ) bei ng most amenabl e t o

r educt i on of r i sk t hr ough i mpr ovement s

of

reservoi r i dent i f i c. a-

t i on and conf i r mat i on t echnol ogy.

3. 3. 2

Expl orat i on st r at egy assumed f or t hi s model

Previ ous st udi es have shown var i ous success r at es f o r t he

dr i l l i ng of geot her mal wi l dcat wel l s, def i ned as wel l s dr i l l ed

f ar f r om ot her successf ul geot her mal wel l s. One such study

showed t hat between

1

and 2 geother mal wel l s out of 10 dr i l l ed as

a t ot al wi l dcat i s successf ul . W l dcat success shoul d be

af f ect ed by t he ef f i cacy of t he expl or at i on st r at egy empl oyed.

Thus r esear ch coul d change t he success of wi l dcat dr i l l i ng.

For t hi s r eason t he wi l dcat success r at i o i s an i nput var i abl e.

The basel i ne and r i sk val ues f or wi l dcat success ar e shown i n

Appendi x

D.

The over al l r egi ons wer e di vi ded i nt o expl or at i on uni t s of

a

si ze r el at ed t o t he geol ogy

of

t he r egi on and used as an i nput

var i abl e. Thus i f 10.000 MWe of power coul d be devel oped f r oma

r egi on and an aver age expl or at i on uni t woul d i dent i f y 500 MWe of

power

t hen 20 uni t s coul d

be

devel oped i n t h a t r egi on wi t h

pot ent i al l y t en

50

MWe power pl ant s on each uni t . Each

expl orat i on uni t i n a regi on woul d have the same amount of money

spent t o i dent i f y i t as econom c. Thus t he expl or at i on budget

f or each uni t woul d be shar ed by t he t otal number of power pl ant s

15



const r ucted i n t he uni t .

The code al l ows t he expl orat i on budget

t o be

expended

f o r

each uni t up t o t he compl et i on of a deep pr oduct i on di ameter t est

wel l , a wi l dcat wel l . Of t hese wi l dcat s onl y a f r act i on w l l

be

successf ul

so

t he cost of expl or i ng t he unsuccessf ul uni t i s al so

spread out among t he power pl ant s const r uct ed on t he successf ul l y

expl or ed uni t . I t was assumed t hat geol ogy f or each l arge r egi on

was si m l ar enough f or expl or at i on st r at egi es t o be t he same

t hr oughout t he r egi on, keepi ng t he aver age cost t o expl or e

e a c h

uni t const ant over t he r egi on. Cost of expl or at i on var i ed onl y

f r om r egi on t o r egi on. The model appl i es t he ent i r e cost of

expl or at i on

for

each f ai l ed expl or at i on at t empt .

No

possi bi l i t y

of par t i al expendi t ur e f or expl or at i on was i ncl uded. The t i me

al l owance f or t he expl or at i on of each uni t was 6 mont hs.

A successf ul wi l dcat wel l does not guar ant ee a successf ul

power pl ant . Some areas w l l have t he expl orat i on budget

expended on t hem and t hen

go

on t hr ough t he conf i r mat i on phase

onl y t o f ai l .

The

model adds i n t he cost of expl or i ng t hese

ar eas wi t h successf ul wi l dcat s whi ch do not have a conf i r med

r eser voi r t o t he t ot al expl or at i on cost .

3. 3. 3. Cost i ng al gor i t hm

Expl orat i on cost s i ncl ude over head usi ng an average

mul t i pl i er of

2. 25

on manpower. Cost s f or expl or i ng i n t he

var i ous r egi ons wer e est i mat ed usi ng dat a f r om devel oper s

act i vel y wor ki ng i n each r egi on. However , t her e was a l ar ge

di f f er ence i n t he st r ategi es empl oyed even i n t he same r egi on by

di f f er ent devel oper s. For i nst ance one devel oper i n t he Basi n

and Range r egi on f el t t hat dri l l i ng of t emperatur e gr adi ent hol es

yi el ded t he most i nf or mat i on whi l e anot her r el i ed heavi l y on

geochem st r y f r om hot spr i ngs. However , t he average budget f or

expl or at i on di d not di f f er gr eat l y f r om devel oper t o devel oper

f or r esour ces of si m l ar t emper at ur e. Ther e was a cut - of f f or

moderate t emperat ur e r esour ces at shal l ower dept hs. For t hi s

t ype

of

r esour ce t he devel opers expended f ar l ess on gr adi ent

hol es and r el i ed more on exi st i ng dat a, expendi ng

much

l ess

over al l on t hese pr oj ect s t han was spent on deeper , hot t er

r esour ces. For t hi s r eason dept h was made a var i abl e f or

expl or at i on cost . For deep r esour ces, i . e. t hose gr eat er t han

3000

f eet a deep geol ogy sur charge was added. Thi s coul d i ncl ude

t he cost of doi ng geophysi cal surveys

or

dr i l l i ng a st r at i graphi c

cor e hol e.

I n or der t o cal cul at e an aver age expl or at i on cost f or each

r egi on, data on st r at egi es and budget s

was

exam ned and broken

down i nt o t he t hr ee cat egor i es ment i oned above:

1.

Geol ogy,

geophysi cal and geochem cal survey wor k, 2. Temper at ure gr adi ent

hol es, and 3. Expl or at i on wel l s. I ncl uded i n t he

f i r s t

cat egory

ar e al l act i vi t i es not rel at ed t o wel l dr i l l i ng i ncl udi ng

l i t er at ur e sear ches, chem cal sampl i ng of spr i ngs and wel l s,

mappi ng, st udy of aer i al phot os, i nt er pr et at i on of exi st i ng dat a,

geophysi cal dat a col l ect i on and i nt er pr et at i on and soi l

chem st r y. Appendi x D gi ves a l i s t i ng

of

t he i nput dat a f i nal l y

assumed by r egi on. Det ai l ed expl or at i on st r at egi es ar e not

i ncl uded here si nce budget s

seemed

more const ant t han st r at egy.

16



3.4 RESERVOIR CONFIRMATION

After th e drilling of a successful wildcat well it is

assumed that steps ar e take n to confirm whether an economic

reservoir is present. This confirmation phase includes th e

drilling of further production diameter wells

of

which some

fraction will be succes sful, testing of the wells during drilling

and production testin g and interpretation of the data collected

during tests including geolog y, geochem istry, geophysics and

reservoir engineering.

3.4.1

Industry practice vs. current technology

During the confirmation phase, as during exploration,

industry practice may differ from what current research has shown

to be most effect ive in confirming

a

reservoir. Although

l o n g

term testing of wells with careful sampling of fluid and non-

condensible gases is recommended

by

many DOE studies, not all

developers test wells for longer than a feu days and few make

rigorous measurements of fluid chemistry. Where a conflict arose

between industry practice and current technology, again th e cost

of actual practice was used.

Th e largest area of variability in practice seems to b e in

us e of numerical simula tion for data interpretation. Although

it

seems

reasonable to use numerical simulation techniques

to

predict th e long term behavior of a resource, many developers do

not do

so,

particularly for smaller projects and moderate

temper ature resources. In many cases numerical simulation is

under taken not by th e dev elop er, but as resea rch by a university

or

national laboratory funded by

D O E .

Although som e developers

routinely use numerical simulation others never do. In this

case , unlike all other ca ses of conflict between industry

practice and current technol ogy, it was decided to include some

cost for numerical simula tion in th e confirmation phase even

though this may not be standard practice. The model uses a

system of multipliers for determining th e change in cost

for

various aspects of power production. If a zero cost for simula-

tion is used then no multiplier can increase this cost to

s h o w

improvement in technology.

3.4.2

Confirm ation strategy assumed for this model

Included in th e cost of confirming a reservoir are not only

th e cost of drilling wells and testing them , but the cost

of

those wells which fail t o produce economic amounts

of

energy.

To

account for this cost a fraction of the wells drilled during the

confirmation phase were assumed to be dry holes.

Of

these dry

holes

a

certain number can be used as injection wells, while some

are totally useless. For thi s model an "expert interview"

approac h was again used

to

determine th e confirmation strategy.

By examining both succes sful and failed projects and talking

to

reservoir engineers practicing in geothermal now, it was decided

that during confirmation four good producers are drilled with

1.5

injectors and

. 5

dry holes. After th e drilling and testing of

these six wells t he developer is ready to go to th e bank

or

other

financial source for further financing for the construction of

a

17



power plant. This is not stat istic ally accura te dat a, but

probably comes clos e t o actual statistical probabilities of

success and failure.

No

amount of testing and well drilling can guarantee that

the resource will be economic to operate for the

30

year life of

most power plants. Thi s model assumes that the best that can be

done is a 95% certainty. Th e cost of reservoir insurance is

included in th e field cost. This in part insures against

a

catastrophic reservoir failure that could not

be

foreseen using

testing methods. Th e remaining risks are accounted for in th e

add-on cost

of

additional well s, testing

and so

forth whic h would

be required to bring the confidence up to this

95%

level as seen

by a typical lending institution.

In addition to dry holes and injection wells an allowance

for redrilling

a

fraction

of

th e production wells was made.

Since most geothermal reservoirs are drilled into fractured roc k,

redrilling non-productive wells by sid e tracking can often yield

results. The redrill fractio n is input as a variable. A simple

equation also calculates the number of spare producers as a

fraction of th e total number of production wells. Th e number of

spares is always one

or

more.

Some sites

will

be identified and o

t h r o u g h t h e

confirmation process only to turn out to be uneconomic at t he end

of this phase. Th e probability

of

successful confirmation is

input as a variable and can

be

changed to reflect improvements

in

exploration technology. Th e baseline success ratio was set at

sites in

all

of th e regions and was determined by discussion with

developers and from personal knowledge. Actual statistics were

not used since early demonstration projects and projects started

and stopped for reasons oth er than th e economics

of

that

particular project bias th e small sample available. The Geysers

would tend t o dominate any overview

of

the success

of

identified

geothermal resources.

Another aspect

of

reservoir confirmation is the success r ate

of drilling after

a

reservo ir has been identified. The success

of drilling is not only higher after initial identification of

the resource, but differs from area to area depending on th e

geology. For this reason, the success rate for confirmation

drilling was input as

a

variabl e for each region. Appendix

D

shows th e values used. Thes e were again determined using expert

knowledge from thos e involved in drilling in each region.

In

areas where little exploration has so far been done such

as

the

Cascades , opinion can only be conjecture and will need updating

as

more

information is available.

Geothermal

wells

can be dry holes by virtue of either low

tempera ture or flow rate. Neither problem precludes their use as

injectors. For this reason

a

fraction of the dry holes are

passed on as injectors and are not totally written off. If there

ar e insufficient injectors from the dry holes, separate injectors

are then costed. Geother mal injectors must generally be drilled

to the sa me depth

as

producers or sometimes deeper and a re there-

fore at least as costly as producers. The retaining

of

som e dry

holes as injectors is current practice and reflects a realistic

18



econom c appr oach.

Some producer s may show prom se, but be j ust under t he f l ow

or t emper at ur e needed f or econom c pr oduct i on. Ot her pr oducer s

exper i ence downhol e probl ems. I n each case t he devel oper may

need t o r edr i l l a f r act i on of t he pr oducer s compl et ed. A r edr i l l

f r act i on was est i mat ed f or al l r egi ons and an add on r edr i l l cost

devel oped. Thi s i s di scussed i n mor e det ai l i n t he dr i l l i ng

sect i on.

3. 5 Reser voi r Management

Fol l owi ng conf i r mat i on of t he r eser voi r i t i s assumed t hat

f i nanci ng i s obt ai ned and t he r emai ni ng necessary pr oduct i on

wel l s dr i l l ed. As soon as t hi s phase i s ent er ed i t i s necessar y

t o begi n managi ng t he use

of

t he r esource. Reservoi r management

i nvol ves det er m ni ng t he spaci ng of wel l s and whet her t hey wi l l

be pumped or al l owed t o f r eef l ow. Some est i mat es of t he r at e

t hat new wel l s wi l l need t o be dr i l l ed i s made and t he cost of

mai nt ai ni ng t he wel l s and t he wel l f i el d i s est i mat ed. Fl ui d

i nj ect i on may present speci al pr obl ems such as t he need

fo r

wel l

cl eanout or chem cal f l ui d t r eat ment . These ar e al l r eser voi r

management deci si ons and t hey have a l ar ge i mpact on t he cost and

oper at i on of t he power pl ant .

3. 5. 1 Reser voi r pr essur e decl i ne

One of t he gr eat est areas of uncer t ai nt y i s t he r at e of

pr essur e decl i ne of t he wel l f i el d. As f l ui d i s pr oduced f or

power gener at i on t he pr essur e i n t he f i el d wi l l decl i ne. The

r at e at whi ch t hi s occur s depends on whet her t here i s a sour ce of

hot f l ui d t o r echar ge t he r eser voi r , on how f ast t hi s r echar ge

f l ui d can r each t he produced zone and on how much f l ui d was

stored i n t he reservoi r i ni t i al l y.

The pet r ol eum i ndustr y uses dat a f r om f i el ds si m l ar t o

a

new f i el d t o det er m ne t he decl i ne r at e, of t en by t he use

of

decl i ne cur ves or by numer i cal si mul at i on of t he f i el d. Decl i ne

c u r v e s and

mat er i al

bal ances

ar e

si mpl e met hods w h i c h r e l y

on

knowl edge of t he l ong t er m behavi or of exi st i ng pr oduced f i el ds

t o pr ove t hei r val i di t y. Ther e ar e t oo f ew geot her mal f i el ds

whi ch have been produced f or a l ong peri od of t i me and none whi ch

have been depl eted. We don' t know how geot her mal r eservoi r s

wi l l behave i n t he

l o n g

r un. Numer i cal si mul at i on of exi st i ng

f i el ds can be mat ched agai nst what l i t t l e pr oduct i on dat a i s

avai l abl e, but t here can be no way t o pr ove whet her t he si mul a-

t i on i s a val i d model

of

t he f i el d unt i l t he f i el d appr oaches

depl et i on.

Because of t hi s enormous uncer t ai nty, any appr oach used t o

pr oj ect f i el d pr essur e behavi or i s i n t he r eal m of conj ect ur e.

Decl i ne cur ves al l ow f or a gr eat deal of f l exi bi l i t y wi t h a

r el at i vel y si mpl e comput at i onal scheme. For t hi s model an

exponent i al decl i ne was assumed because t hi s i s a conser vat i ve

shape of cur ve and f i t s t he assumpt i on t hat t her e i s a l i m t t o

t he r esour ce. Ot her cur ves may f i t some r esour ces bet t er , but at

t hi s t i me t he dat a i s not avai l abl e t o t el l

one

way or another

whi ch t ype of decl i ne cur ve f i t s whi ch r eser voi r . Dat a f r om t he

19





by t he pl ant i t sel f and t her ef ore r educes t he net power out put

of

t he pl ant .

Cur r ent l y, onl y l i neshaf t pumps ar e consi der ed r el i abl e

enough

f or

geot her mal use. The l i m t on set dept h f or l i neshaf t

pumps i s ei t her 1200

or

1000 f eet accor di ng t o who you t al k t o.

For t hi s st udy an ar bi t r ar y set dept h of 1000 f eet was used f or

al l wel l s deeper t han

1000

f eet .

For

shal l ow wel l s a set dept h

of 2/ 3 of t he wel l dept h was used. Cal cul at i on of a set dept h

woul d al l ow det er m nat i on of t he benef i t s of downhol e submer si bl e

pumps. A si mpl e modi f i cat i on woul d al l ow t hi s cal cul at i on and

shoul d be i ncl uded i n t he next ver si on of t he model .

3. 6 DRI LLI NG AND COMPLETI ON

The cost of dr i l l i ng geot her mal wel l s has l ong been

r ecogni zed t o be hi gher t han t hat f or oi l and gas. Separ at i ng

out t he r easons f or t hi s i ncr ease i n cost shoul d enabl e

us

t o

est i mat e t he cost of dr i l l i ng geot her mal wel l s i n a gi ven

geol ogi c set t i ng.

3.6.1 Cur r ent Pr act i ce v. Cur r ent Technol ogy

A

number of di f f er ences i n t he t ool s and oper at i ons i n

geother mal dr i l l i ng and compl et i on make i t more expensi ve t han

i t s oi l and

gas

cousi n. The f our maj or i t ems or t r oubl es t hat

cont r i but e t o t he i ncr eased cost of geot her mal dr i l l i ng over oi l

and gas ar e 1 ) hi gh t emper at ur e,

2 )

l ost ci r cul at i on,

3)

cor r osi on and

4 )

hard f ormat i on. Ther e ar e many t hi ngs done i n

geot her mal t o cope wi t h t hese di f f er ences whi ch i ncr ease t h e

c o s t .

Temperat ure

-

Temperatur e has both a di r ect and i ndi r ect

i nf l uence on t he cost of dr i l l i ng, and compl et i on. Mud, casi ng

desi gn, cement pl acement and st r engt h, t he cement i ng pr ocedur e

used and i nst r ument at i on al l ar e mor e cost l y due

t o

hi gh t empera-

t ur e. Not onl y do t hese i t ems cost more i n or der t o wi t hst and

t he hi gher t emper at ur es, but t he f ai l ur e r at e i ncr eases

i n

t he

oper at i ons i nvol vi ng t hese i t ems due

t o

t he t emperat ur e. The

cost t o f i x f ai l ur es i s al ways hi gher t han t he cost t o pr event

t hem maki ng geot her mal even mor e expensi ve.

Lost Ci r cul at i on - I n a geot her mal r eser voi r l ost ci r cul a-

t i on i s al most essent i al . The hi gh per meabi l i t i es needed to gi ve

t he l ar ge pr oduct i on r at es necessary f or econom c geother mal

ener gy mean that geot her mal r eservoi r s ar e i n hi ghl y f r act ur ed or

ver y por ous r ocks. I n t hese r ocks dr i l l i ng f l ui d can be l ost at

a t r emendous r ate.

I f t he t emper at ur es i n t he wel l ar e not yet hi gh enough f or

a pr oducti ve wel l , t hen l ost ci r cul at i on means di f f i cul t i es. I n

t h e oi l and gas busi ness i t

i s

al ways necessar y t o st op l ost

ci r cul at i on because of t he possi bi l i t y of a hi gh pr essur e

bl owout . Hydr ot her mal r eser voi r s ar e usual l y at hydr ost at i c

o r

sub- hydr ost at i c pr essur e. Bl owout s r esul t f r om a l oss of t he

pr essur e that keeps t he hi gh t emper at ur e f l ui d f r om boi l i ng.

A s

a r esul t ,

i f

t emper at ur es ar e not yet hot enough f or t he f l ui d t o

21



f l ash i nt o st eam a bl owout i s l ess l i kel y. Cont r ol equi pment

can be used t hat wi l l r educe t he l i kel i hood i f a danger ous

bl owout . Ther ef or e i f l ost ci r cul at i on can not be st opped

by

or di nar y met hods t he wel l can be dr i l l ed ahead bl i nd unt i l a

casi ng poi nt can be r eached and t he l oss zone permanent l y shut

of f . However , l ost ci r cul at i on cont r ol al ways t akes t i me, and

t i me t akes money.

Lost ci r cul at i on combi ned wi t h cor r osi ve f l ui ds and hi gh

t emper at ur es can r esul t i n mor e di f f i cul t compl et i ons and i n

casi ng f ai l ur es. Lost ci r cul at i on pl ays a ver y i mpor t ant r ol e i n

pr event i ng compl et e cement j obs. Of t en t he l oss zone must b e

pl ugged bef ore cement i ng t o pr event unsuppor t ed casi ng or f l ui d

get t i ng t r apped behi nd t he casi ng. Cor r osi ve f l ui ds t r apped

behi nd t he casi ng can r educe t he casi ng l i f e. Expansi on of

t r apped f l ui ds as t hey ar e heat ed dur i ng wel l f l ow can cause

casi ng col l apse.

Cor r osi on

-

Cor r osi ve f l ui ds cause anot her set of pr obl ems

whi ch can i ncr ease t he cost of geot her mal wel l s. Cor r osi on i n

oi l and gas wel l s can be a pr obl em but t he hi gh t emper at ur es and

compl ex chem st r y of geot her mal f l ui ds vast l y i ncr ease t he cost

of

t he sol ut i on t o t he cor r osi on pr obl em i n geot her mal wel l s.

Four el ement s al l pr esent i n geot her mal cont r i but e t o t he degr ee

of

cor r osi on pr obl ems: cor r osi ve mat er i al s, oxygen, moi st ur e and

hi gh t emper at ur e. More expensi ve casi ng and dr i l l st r i ng

mat er i al s, oxygen scavengers, H S abatement equi pment and f l ui d

di sposal pr obl ems dur i ng dr i l l i ng ar e al l r el at ed t o cor r os i on.

Al l cont r i but e t o t he i ncreased cost of geot her mal wel l s.

2

Har d r ock penet r at i on - A si zabl e por t i on of geot her mal

wel l s ar e dr i l l ed i n met amor phi c and i gneous r ocks. These r ocks

t end t o be harder and mor e abr asi ve t han t he sedi ment ary r ocks

encount er ed i n oi l and gas dr i l l i ng. Rat e of penet r at i on i s

l ower and bi t l i f e i s shor t er , l eadi ng t o i ncr eased dr i l l i ng

t i me. Because l i t t l e oi l and

gas

dr i l l i ng i s done i n ver y har d

r ock, t her e i s l i t t l e equi pment avai l abl e f r om i ndustr y t o

i mpr ove t he si t uat i on and l i t t l e i ncent i ve f or i ndust r y

t o

devel op equi pment whi ch woul d sol ve t he pr obl em

I n addi t i on t o sl owi ng dr i l l i ng t i me har d rocks make

di r ecti onal dr i l l i ng mor e di f f i cul t . Tur ni ng t he hol e and

cont r ol l i ng di r ect i on i n hi ghl y f r act ur ed har d r ock t ake mor e

t i me and t her ef or e mor e money.

The r egi ons sel ect ed f or t hi s st udy wer e gr ouped t o have

common geol ogi c pr oper t i es. Thi s f aci l i t at es desi gn of a

gener i c geother mal wel l

for

each r egi on f or t he bi nar y and

f l ash syst ems whi ch wi l l have si m l ar pr oper t i es wi t h r espect t o

t he t r oubl e ar eas di scussed above.

A pr evi ous unpubl i shed st udy by Sandi a anal yzed i n some

det ai l t he oper at i ons, t i me and cost s f or dr i l l i ng of such

gener i c geot her mal wel l s. The wel l s anal yzed wer e t r oubl e f r ee.

The cost of var i ous t r oubl es was added separ at el y t o t hi s base

wel l cost . The desi gn of t he wel l coul d t hen be opt i m zed

t o

r educe cost by changi ng t he r ate of penet r at i on or other t i me

f actor s i n t he cost of t he wel l .

22



For

t he pr esent st udy t he wel l cost s ar e handl ed i n t he same

way. The wel l s ar e meant t o be r epr esent at i ve wel l s f or t he

power pl ant i n a gi ven r egi on. But t he cost may not appl y t o any

par t i cul ar wel l actual l y dr i l l ed i n t hat r egi on. The wel l cost

can be changed t o r ef l ect i mprovement s i n t echnol ogy by changes

i n t he cost t abl e and per f or mance t abl es used t o cal cul at e t he

base and add on cost s. The new wel l cost can t hen be ent ered

i nt o t he pr ogr am as a var i abl e.

3. 6. 2

Base wel l cost

The wel l cost s wer e cal cul at ed i n t wo st eps i ndependent l y

of

t he model code. The f i r st st ep was t o det er m ne what a t ypi cal

wel l m ght cost i n each of t he r egi ons wi t hout t he cost

of

t r oubl es such as l ost ci r cul at i on, cement i ng pr obl ems, et c. Ti me

consumed i n dr i l l i ng t hr ough har d r ock i s account ed

for

usi ng

r at es of penet r at i on est i mat ed f or di f f er ent rock t ypes. Rapi d

bi t wear due

t o

har d, abr asi ve f or mat i ons i s i ncl uded t hr ough use

of expect ed bi t l i f e f or t he envi r onment ant i ci pat ed f or t he

r egi on.

For t he pur pose of t hi s st udy dr i l l i ng was consi der ed

f i ni shed when t he t ot al dept h had been reached, t he l ast l i ner or

casi ng st r i ng cement ed and t he wel l head i n pl ace. Tubi ng needed

f or pumpi ng was consi der ed t o be r un wi t h a workover r i g and was

i ncl uded i n t he pump cost .

The appr oach t o cal cul at i ng t he wel l cost i nvol ver i nput

f r om t he geol ogi st , t he pr oducti on pl an and t he dr i l l i ng

engi neer . The st eps i n t he cal cul at i on ar e:

1) Det er m ne t he t emper at ur e pr of i l e.

From t he geol ogi c i nf or mat i on a gener al i zed t emper at ur e

pr of i l e i s est i mat ed whi ch i s r epr esent at i ve of t he r egi on.

Hi gher t emper at ur e resul t s i n i ncr eases i n t he mud cost , pr obl ems

i n cement i ng, l oggi ng cost and ot her i ncr eases. The pr of i l e

i s

t hen r ef er r ed

t o

f or est i mat i ng cost s whi ch ar e af f ect ed

by

t emper at ur e.

2 )

Make a t abl e of t he ROP/ bi t l i f e.

The cl assi f i cat i on of r at e of penet r at i on and bi t l i f e r ange

f rom

1

t o

10

wi t h 1 bei ng t he easi est t o dr i l l and 10 bei ng t he

har dest . The val ues ar e an i nt egr at i on of di scussi ons wi t h

geot her mal oper at ors, geol ogi st s, bi t user s and r evi ew of wel l

r ecor ds. Al t hough har dness i s not al ways cor r el at ed di r ect l y

wi t h bi t l i f e, har dness i s a good appr oxi mat i on of abr asi veness

whi ch det er m nes bi t l i f e.

3 Det er m ne t he ROP map f or t he wel l .

The geol ogi st and t he dr i l l i ng engi neer make a dr i l l i ng

cl assi f i cat i on pr of i l e f or each wel l usi ng t he t abl e of

ROP

and

bi t l i f e. Thi s map i s assumed t o be consi st ent wi t h t he geol ogy

and dr i l l i ng condi t i ons ant i ci pat ed on aver age over t he ent i r e

r egi on. The bi t l i f e i s si mpl i f i ed and i s consi der ed t o onl y

23



depend o n hardness, not temperature or abrasiveness.

4 ) Select t he standard and oversize casing program.

Past casing design used the size series 20 - 13

3/8

-

9

5/8 - 7 . current practice has in a number of cases gone to use

of

22 - 16"

-

11 3/4

-

8

5/8 and 6 . In a four element casing

string th e larger program can handle a

30%

increase in flow. For

this model both designs were used. If the production expected

from a typical well is 500,000 lb/hr or below the 20 program is

used. If the flow rate is above 500,000 lb/hr the 22 design is

used.

Casing set points and th e us e of liner strings are decided

from th e temperature profile, lost circulation map, a borehole

stability map and information on possible water inflow as well as

by consulting standard practice for existing wells.

5)

Determine th e cost of casing and transportation.

The cost for th e casing is determined from price sheet s from

commonly used suppliers of new casing. Transportation is

calculated from the mill t o the west coast. No attempt was made

to

optimize transportation cost by assuming delivery directly

from Japan to a place like Hawaii, for instance.

The cost

of

downhole casing equipment such as the casing

shoe , is costed as 200 extra feet

of

casing of that size. Where

a liner hanger or polished bore is used, th e cost is estimated a=

300 extra feet

of

that si ze casing.

This step results in a ta ble of casing costs for each well.

6 ) ake a table of t he running times

for

casing.

A table of running times for the common casing sizes was

determined

from

interviews

of

drilling engineers. The estimate

is in hours per 1000 feet of casing to be run.

7 ) Make a table of running times for

logs.

Using the estimates from th e Sandia generic wells stud y,

times for running l o g s were calculated from the casing program.

The estimate included time to condition mud, rig up f o r logging,

log and rig down th e equipment. The cost f o r logging paid t o th e

service company is included in t he well confirmation cost.

A t the end of each interval that logs will be run , th e time

estimate and day rate are used to determine the cost to set up

and run the

log.

This cost i s included in the well cost.

8 ) Make a table

of

th e cost of cementing.

Again from th e Sandia generic well work and current prac-

tice, an estimate of th e time to cement the casing and liner is

made. Added to this are the cost of the cement and t he cementing

service charge. The cement cost is calculated for th e different

siz e casings which need cementing, for the type of cement needed

24



f or t he appr opr i ate t emperat ur e and f or t he dept h

The t i me est i mat e

for

cement i ng i ncl udes r i g up and r i g

down, t he cement i ng t i me and t i me wai t i ng f or cement t o set .

The wel l cost s are est i mat ed over t hr ee phases: i ni t i at i on,

i nt er val s

1

t hr ough

N

and compl et i on. Tot al cost f or each phase

i s cal cul at ed usi ng i nf or mat i on f r om t he above tabl es wher e

appl i cabl e and t hen t he t ot al cost i s added up.

3.6.2.1

I ni t i at i on

Si t e cost - The si t e cost i s det er m ned f r om past exper i ence

i n si t e const r uct i on. The si t e expenses at t empt t o t ake i nt o

account t he possi bl e wel l l ocat i on and t ype of t er r ai n t hat can

be expect ed.

Geot her mal l ocat i ons are of t en i n r emot e ar eas or

di f f i cul t t er r ai n. The s i ze of t he l ocat i on may depend on t he

avai l abi l i t y of l and, t he wel l spaci ng and t he f l ui d pr oduct i on

r at e expected f r om each wel l . I f a ver y l ar ge f l ui d f l ow

i s

expect ed, a l ar ger si t e may be needed t o const r uct pi t s f or f l ui d

st or age dur i ng t est i ng. Concer n f or l ost ci r cul at i on al one

j ust i f i es t he use

of

l ar ger r eser ve pi t s. I n many f i el ds t he

desi r e t o r educe pi pi ng cost has r esul t ed i n dr i l l i ng of

cl ust er ed wel l s f r om pads. Thi s l evel of det ai l was not i ncl uded

i n t hi s ver si on of t he model .

Cel l ar

-

The cel l ar i s est i mat ed t o cost $10, 000 f or al l

si t es.

Conduct or - A t abl e was const r uct ed t o est i mat e t he cor r ect

cost f or t he conduct or pi pe. The cost depends on dept h, di ameter

of t he conduct or and t he har dness of t he s o i l . The cost var i es

f rom

$20, 000

t o

$55, 000.

Mobilization/Demobilization

- The mobi l i zat i on cost i s t he

move on/ move of f expense t hat i s a part

of

t he cont r act wi t h

t h e

dr i l l i ng r i g . Thi s amount var i es wi t h t he di st ance of t he l oca-

t i on f rom avai l abl e r i gs , t he avai l abi l i t y of r i gs and s i ze of

t he r i g. For t hi s st udy t he mobi l i zat i on cost was set at 10

t i mes t he r i g day r at e. Thi s i s i n gener al a f ai r appr oxi mat i on

of t he mobi l i zat i on char ge over var i abl e condi t i ons.

3.6.2.2

I nt er val

1

t hr ough

N

I nt er val cost s wer e cal cul at ed f or each casi ng i nt er val .

The cost s ar e comput ed f r om t he t i me of dr i l l i ng out

of

t he

s h o e

t o t he next st r i ng

of

casi ng

or

l i ner has been r un and f i xed i nt o

pl ace. The f ol l owi ng gr i d shows t he number s t o be cal cul at ed f or

each i nt er val t hat

i s

dr i l l ed. I t ems i ncl uded i n t he i nt er val

cost ar e 1 ) bi t s and t ool s, 2 ) l oggi ng t i me, 3) casi ng, 4

cement i ng and

5 )

mud cost . The f ol l owi ng char t shows t he cost s

t o be cal cul at ed f or each i nt er val dr i l l ed.

25





11

1

12

and

The cement i ng var i abl e cost i s comput ed f r om

t i me and t he hour l y r i g expense.

The di r ect cost f or cement i ng i s t aken f r om

t abl e.

3. 6. 2. 3

Compl et i on

t he cement i ng

t he cement i ng

Compl et i on cost s ar e est i mat ed

f r om t he cost

of

t he wel l head

t he t i me

f o r

t he oper at i ons.

The compl et i on t i me f or t he

dr i l l i ng r i g i s est i mat ed at

3

days.

Compl et i on acti vi t i es i ncl ude wel l c l eanout , i nst al l at i on

of

t he wel l head, t est acti vi t i es wi t h t he r i g

on

t he hol e and ot her

act i vi t i es r el at ed t o pr epar at i on of t he wel l f or pr oduct i on

whi ch r equi r e t he r i g.

Af t er each component cost i s cal cul at ed t he t ot al wel l cost

i s det erm ned by summ ng t he el ement s.

3.6.3 Ad d

on cost s

Thr ee maj or cost cent er s f or di f f i cul t i es whi ch add cost t o

geot hermal wel l s wer e est abl i shed by t he Sandi a gener i c wel l

st udy:

1)

l ost ci r c ul at i on,

2)

dept h r i sk; and

3 i

cement i ng

pr obl ems. Al l ot her possi bl e di f f i cul t i es wer e gr ouped t oget her

as ot her pr obl ems.

3.6.3.1

Lost Ci r cul at i on

Lost ci r cul at i on expense

was

cal cul at ed i n t wo st eps:

1) Make a t abl e of t he l ost c i r cul at i on sever i t y.

Lost ci r cul at i on cl asses ar e est i mat ed r angi ng f r om

1

t e

7

based on both t he t i me l ost and t he amount of money spent t o

Sol ve t he pr obl em The cl asses were def i ned wi t h smal l enough

di f f erences bet ween cl asses t o pr event enor mous changes i n wel l

cost

when appl i ed

over

t he ent i r e l engt h

of an i nt er val .

2)

Det er m ne t he l ost ci r cul at i on map f or t he wel l .

A l os t ci r cul at i on cl assi f i cat i on

f or

each

1000

f eet was

t hen assi gned. On aver age one such cl ass event wi l l occur f or

t hat

1000

f eet

of

hol e. Wher e l e55 t han a f ul l

1000

f oot secti on

is

dr i l l ed a f r act i onal por t i on of expense and t i me

w a s

cal cul at ed.

The r easonabl eness of t hi s r esul t was t hen t est ed agai nst

some known exper i ences. The

t i me

and money spent

on

l ost

ci r cul at i on f or act ual wel l s was f ound t o agr ee wel l wi t h t he

r egi onal wel l s used f or t hi s st udy.

3.6.3.2 Dept h

Ri sk

I n t he dr i l l i ng of any wel l f or t he pr oducti on of oi l , gas

or

geot hermal t her e i s an uncer t ai nt y about t he dept h at whi ch

t he pr oduct i on i s t o be f ound. Fai l ur e t o f i nd pr oduct i on at t he

27



expect ed dept h wi l l r esul t i n one

of

t hr ee deci si ons: 1 ) abandon

t he wel l and move on t o anot her l ocat i on,

2)

deepen t he wel l , and

3 pl ug back and si de t r ack.

The possi bi l i t y of abandonment i s cover ed by t he dr y hol e

f ract i on.

A

cer t ai n per cent age of wel l s ar e not econom c f or any

pur pose. Some can be t ur ned i nt o i nj ecti on wel l s i f t hey wi l l

r ecei ve suf f i c i ent f l ui d and t hat f l ui d wi l l not i nt er f er e wi t h

pr oduci ng wel l s.

The cost t o deepen t he wel l i s est i mat ed f r om t he dai l y cost

and t i me t o dr i l l f or deepeni ng

a

f i xed amount . A n aver age

deepeni ng of 500 f eet was sel ect ed f or t hi s st udy. Usi ng t he

knowl edge of general geol ogy f or a r egi on and i nt er vi ews wi t h

oper at or s t he f r act i on of wel l s r equi r i ng deepeni ng

was

chosen.

For t hi s ver si on

of

t he model t hese val ues ar e f i xed, but easi l y

coul d be i nput as var i abl es. Because t hese val ues ar e f i xed, t h e

onl y way t o show t he i mpact of i mpr oved near wel l bor e f r act ur e

det ect i on, f or i nst ance, woul d be t o r educe t he base wel l cost or

t he dry hol e or r edr i l l f r act i on.

The t hi r d possi bl e act i on t o be t aken when pr oduct i on i s

i nadequat e at t he dept h expect ed i s

t o

pl ug back and s i de t r ack

a

new l eg. The cost t o si de t r ack was cal cul at ed for sever al

di f f er ent wel l si t uat i ons and f ound

t o

aver age 22%of t he

b a s e

wel l cost wi t hout t r oubl e. The f r acti on of

wel l s

t o be r edr i l l ed

i s a var i abl e subj ect t o r i sk. Best and wor st case est i mat es f or

t he redr i l l f r act i on ar e i nput . I mpr ovement s i n expl or at i on

t echni ques, downhol e l oggi ng, dr i l l i ng t echnol ogy and compl et i on

t echnol ogy can be r ef l ect ed by reduci ng t he wor st case val ue f or

t he redr i l l f ract i on.

3. 6. 3. 3

Cement i ng Pr obl ems

The cost

of

cement i ng pr obl ems was est i mat ed si m l ar l y t o

t he cost of l ost c i rcul at i on.

1)

Make a t abl e of cement i ng t r oubl e sever i t y.

Thi s t abl e i s s i m l ar t o t he t abl e of l ost ci rcul at i on

sever i t y descri bed above. Fi ve cl assi f i cat i ons of cement i ng

di f f i cul t y wer e made r angi ng f r om a smal l amount

of

t i me and

money t o f i x t he pr obl em t o t he most sever e of f i ve days and

250, 000.

2) Make a map of t he cement i ng t r oubl es.

Usi ng t he wel l casi ng pr ogr am a map of t he wel l showi ng

number

of

i nci dent s of cement i ng t r oubl e

of

a chosen degr ee

of

sever i t y was made. The t i me f or f i xi ng t he pr obl em was t hen

mul t i pl i ed by t he dai l y r i g expense and t he cost t o f i x t he

pr obl em added f or each i nt er val . The t ot al f or t he wel l was t hen

added up.

3.6.3.4

Ot her Pr obl ems

Al l ot her pr obl ems such as t ool s l ost i n t he hol e, dr i l l

pi pe wear , devi at i on cont r ol pr obl ems and mud syst em di f f i cul t i es

20



were l umped t ogether . An over al l est i mat e was made t hat t hese

pr obl ems t ot al 3% of t he wel l cost .

3. 7 POWER PLANT SELECTI ON AND DESI GN

The

I M- GEO

model

uses

a power pl ant cost i ng appr oach

devel oped by EG&G I daho f or a previ ous cost of power st udy. I n

or der t o det er m ne i f t hi s appr oach mat ched cur r ent pl ant cost s,

cost s f or r epr esent at i ve pl ant s i n each of t he r egi ons wer e

exam ned. Wher e avai l abl e act ual pl ant cost s were used.

I n

ot her areas a set of i nput s such as t hose used by t he model were

gi ven t o a power pl ant engi neer and a f i r st cut cost est i mate was

made of t he cost of t he pl ant .

3.7.1 Power Pl ant Excl usi ve of Br i ne St abi l i zat i on and

Envi r onment al Cont r ol s

The l ar gest ar ea of var i abi l i t y i n t he cost of t he pl ant

i t sel f i s t he br i ne ef f ect i veness. Thi s i s dependent on t he

f l ui d ent hal py f or whi ch l i t t l e dat a i s avai l abl e. However ,

t emper at ur e r el at es i n a r el at i ve way t o f l ui d ent hal py and was

t her ef or e used as t he i nput f actor f or pl ant f l ui d r equi r ement .

Pl ant f l ui d r equi r ement s t hen det er m ne t he si ze of t he t ur bi ne

and condenser and dr i ve t he cost .

Ot her var i abl es such as t he avai l abi l i t y of cool i ng wat er ,

t he ambi ent t emper ature and t he degree of pl ant aut omat i on have

l ess ef f ect on t he t ot al cost of t he pl ant t han does t he br i ne

ef f ect i veness. However , t he choi ce of mat er i al s f or t he t ur bi ne

and pi pi ng may have a l ar ge i mpact on cost and ar e st r ongl y

i nf l uenced by t he f l ui d chem st r y. For t hi s ver si on

of

t he model

f l ui d chem st r y onl y af f ects t he need f or br i ne st abi l i zat i on

equi pment and f or envi r onment al cont r ol s. Ot her ar eas af f ect ed

by f l ui d chem st r y wer e negl ect ed f or t hi s phase.

For each r egi on a bi nary t echnol ogy power pl ant and a dual

f l ash power pl ant wer e cost ed. The power pl ant ef f i ci ency i s a

var i abl e and can be i nput t o show t he i mpact of power conver si on

t echnol ogy. For bi nar y pl ant s t he cost

of

t he heat exchanger was

i ncl uded as a separ at e i t em t o al l ow f or ease i n t yi ng t he f l ui d

chem st r y t o t he cost of t he bi nar y power pl ant .

3. 7. 2 Fi el d Pi pi ng Cost

For t hi s st udy t he cost of t he f i el d pi pi ng syst em was

est i mat ed as a separ at e cost . To det er m ne pi pi ng cost s, t h e

assumpt i on

was

made t hat phase separat i on woul d occur at t he

pl ant and a si ngl e pi pe woul d car r y two phase f l ui d

t o

t he pl ant .

I n some cases wel l head separat i on may be f easi bl e, but i n most

ar eas t he n@ed f or water t r eat ment and envi r onment al cont r ol s

pr ecl udes t hi s opt i on. The l engt h of pi pi ng was t hen determ ned

usi ng an i nput wel l spaci ng whi ch was agai n det er m ned usi ng

act ual dat a and exper t opi ni on. A pi pi ng l ayout based on uni f or m

br anchi ng pi pes f r om a cent r al pl ant wi t h i nj ect or s on t he o u t e r -

most r i ng was used to cal cul at e pi pe l engt h. The pi pi ng si ze was

based on t he f l ow r at e f r act i on i n each pi pe sect i on.

29



3.7.3 Brine Stabili zatio n and Environmental Controls

A large cost area for any power plant using geothermal

fluids is th e need to contend with corrosive or scaling water.

The cost

of

stabilizing brine and removing

or

neutralizing scale

and corros ion problems was c alculated a s an add o n cost based on

th e total dissolved solids content.

A

step function was used.

If

TDS

was higher than 10,000 ppm then stabilizati on was needed

and th e cost added on. It was assumed that a flash crystalizer

would be used and th e cost calculated on that basis.

The cost of environment al controls is determined in general

by th e amount of

H 2 S

in the noncondensible gases. This again was

calculated as

a

cost add on using a Stretford type abatement

system for th e base cost. Clearly other types of environmental

controls and costs may be necessary for different geothermal

fluids. Future versions of th e model could tie aspects of fluid

chemistry into th e cost o f environmental controls.

3.8

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

It would be unrealistic t o pretend that inflation , taxes and

the cost of money a re not factors in t he cost of geothermal power

plants. However, it is alway s a problem what assumptions t o make

when including thes e factors in calculating th e cost

of

geothermal power. Putting power on line takes time and that time

costs money.

A

power generation method which can get power or

line quickly has an advantage over one that is

slow.

These factors ar e included in this study using input values

show n in Appendix

A ,

on page 1-14. They can be varied t o reflect

currently accepted ide as for futu re values.

30



4.0 HOW

THE MODEL WORKS

presented in th e appendixes.

4.1

Data Elements

This section presents a brief overview of how

I M G E O

works.

Details are

The major data elements o f

IM-GEO

are as follows.

A. Data Base of Site Characteristics

Th e data file "SJTEDATO.DAT" contains data on physical and CG3t

characteristics of about 35 aspects o f eight

U S .

liquid-dominated

hydrothermal electric regions.

the computations.

associated with them. Thos e characteristics can be used in the costing

calculations as either a "Best Case" or "Worst Case" value.

About

20

of those characteristics are used

i n

About a dozen of thos e characteristics have "estimation errors"

B. Sensitivity Factors

These are entered by the user.

They are inferred to be "achievements

o f

R&D that alter technology performance or cost".

factors, "RISK factors" alter th e current values of the "estimation errors"

described imme diately above. Others, "R&D Achievements", impa ct upon selected

cost or performance te rm s in th e costing code that are are not covered by

"RISK factors".

Some o f the sensitivity

To avoid a possible confusion,

you

should note that "RISK factors" are

just as much achievemen ts of R&D as are "RLD Achievements" factors. The two

names are used in 1 M - G E O to distinguish between tw o sets of R&D achievements

that are calculated somewhat differently.

C. Parameters Embedded in Costing Code

Many technology performance and cost parameters and their values are

embedded directly in the costing code.

These cannot be changed without

rewriting and compiling the code.

D.

Financial Factors

Microecon omic factors that support translation of capital and

O&M values

to

Mills/KWh are contained in the data file "BUSFNFCT.GE0".

31



4.2 General Flow of Computation

The general flow computation i s shown i n Figure

4 - 1 .

There a re four s teps .

1. User e d i t s / a l t e r s s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o rs .

2. Computations occur.

a. A f i r s t p a s s t h r o u g h the cos t ing code es t ima tes

t h e

"Best Case"

cos t o f power.

b. The second pass estimates the "Worst Case" cost of power.

c.

The

difference between the two cases i s ass igned to " F i n a n c i a l

3. User views one or more Reports ava ila ble a f t e r computations are done.

Risk" sub-account.

B o t h

Multi-Region and Single-Region/Site reports are

a v a i l a b l e .

4 . User decides

t o

p r i n t one or more Reports.

The "Base Case",

which assumes R&D Achievements are zero, can be a l t e r e d

The control

s t r u c t u r e

o f IM -GE O,

represented

i n

Figure 4-2 ensures

t h a t

a t any t ime

t o

reflect accomplished improvements i n th e base1 ine technolo gies.

every resu l t s sc reen o r R e por t ge ne r a t e d w i l l r e f l e c t t he e f f e c t s of a l l

s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s t h a t a r e a c t i v e a t the time the repo r t i s genera ted.

The pre sen tat ions avai

1ab1

e are descr ibed

n

d e t a i l i n Appendix

C.

32



FIGURE 4 - 1

OVERVIEW OF IM-GEO CALCULATIONS

EDITED SENSITIVITY

FACTORS

1.

R&D

Achievements

2. RI'KS re Physical

characteristics o f

power project (a)

3. Regional Weights

for Multi-Site

Totals

Note (a):

Physical RISK factors

are mostly related to

uncertainties o f reservoir

characteristics.

COST NG "ENGINE '

A. Find Plant Gross Size

B.

Find Floh Eequirement

C. Find per-Well Cost

D.

Find Accounts Costs:

1.

Identify Reservoir

2.Confirm Reservoir

3.Well

s

4.

athering Equip

.

5.Downhole Pumps

6.

ower P1 ant

7.Heat Exchangers

8.Brine Stabilizing

9.

Environmental

10. nsurance

(On A.3 - A.9)

E.

Find TOTAL Cost

F .

F i n d

Financial RISK

( b )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( O f A.1.- A . l O )

Note ( b ) :

Financial

RISK

is the difference

in cost

between

t w o cost estimates for th e project, one bas ed< on

"Best Case" and the other based on "Worst Case"

estimates of the si te and technology physical or

cost characteristics.

3 3



F IGURE

4 -

2

OVERVIEW OF CONTROL STRUCTURE OF IM-GEO

I

STARTUP :

Data f a c t o r s lo ad ed

Base case ca l cul ated

I

M E N U [Z]

I

*

Help

Change the

Base Case

* Go t o Menu [ V I

* [ Q l u i t t o DOS

I

v

M E N U

[ V I

I

* 'Single-Si te runs

and Reports.

*

Mu l t i -S i t e

runs

and Reports.

*

Go

t o Menu

[Z]

I

' PROGRAM CONTROL LO G IC

* Runs calculat ion rout ines

au tomat ica l ly t o ensure

t h a t

every Repor t s re f l ec t s

*

E d i t

s e n s i t i v i t y

f a c t o r s .

/--------,--,-,,,-,--------,-,-

I

< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>

\,,-;,,--,--,,,,,,,,-----------

the cur ren t va lues

o f

I s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s .

* Stamps same Time on a l l

r e p o r t s

t h a t

emanate from

same set

of

s e n s i t i v i t i e s .

v

I

REPORTS

(Major

repor t s inc lude a l i s t o f a l l

s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s i n operat ion a t

time

o f

cal cul a t o n . )

3 4



4 . 3 A Few General Matters

4.3.1

Power-On-Line (POL) Temporal Relationships

t ime i s 3 years .

value, and depends on the Probabil i ty of Success of Identification; w i t h

a

typical value of 6 t o

7

years .

(Account 3) i s s e t a t 3

y e a r s .

The costs for Accounts

1

and 2 a re e s t i n a t ed a t e a r l y

1986

l ev e l s ,

a n d

e s c a la t e d t o t h e POL da te a t a fixe d Discount Rate. T h i s accounts

for

the

r e t e r r rsturn E=fe cts due

t o

l a g s between ex?wditures i n those phases

a n d

t - 2

F d z t e ,

b,-

a l s o r e s u l t s

i n

a

s l i g h t

o v t - ? s t i ma t i o n

o f

t h e i r e f f e c t s

on

t h e c o s t

o f

power because al l costs are es t imated at 1986 levels .

reservoir pressure and wel l

f l o w

ra te dec l ines appears i n appropriate O& M

accounts fo r Wells, G athering equipment, etc .

A l l c o s t s a r e r e f l e c t e d t o a POL date of

J a n u a r y

1,

1986.

Construction

P l a n t l i f e i s s e t a t 30 years.

The durat ion of the ident i f icat ion s tage (Account 2) i s a calculated

The

d u r a t i o n

of the confi rmat ion s tage

The costs of the supplemental field equipment needed

t o

deal w i t h

4.3.2

WEIGHTS f o r Cost

o f

Power

T o t a l s

Weights

[ I ]

"Regional Potential"

and [ L ]

"Program Relevance"

b o t h depend

on the S i t e Data var ia b le

l . ,

"Energy

i n

Region, M W * 3 0 Y " . This variable h a s

risk assoc ia ted w i t h i t , whose

i m p a c t

i s changeable a t Screen [ Y , E ] , l i n e A.

These weights, and th e general weighted sums, ar e re ca lcu lat ed a f t e r the value

of i tem [Y ,E ] , l i n e

A i s

changed.

Weight [L], "Program Relevance" depends

u p o n

the Base Case cost

o f

power

as

well

as upon the "Energy

i n

Region, MW*30Y". The dependence i s as

f 01 1ows

:

a) The weight i s the product of the "Energy

i n

Region" and a Utility

b )

i h e U t i l i t y f u n ct io n is:

fun ctio n de rive d from th e Region's Base Case co st of power.

1.

I f the cos t o f power

i s

l e s s t h a n o r equal t o

80

Mills/KWh, then

U = (Cost

o f

Power)/BO.

T h u s ,

U would be

1.0

a t

80

Mills/KWh, and

0.5

a t

40 Mills/KWh.

2. I f t h e c o s t o f power

i s

g r e a t e r

t h a n 80 Mills/KWh,

then

U

= 80/(Cost of Power). T h u s , U

would be 0.5 a t 160 Mills/KWh,

0.25

a t

160 Mills/KWh,

e t c .

T h i s

U t i l i t y f u n c t i o n

i s

intended t o re f l e c t the Program's in te res t i n

conducting RLD t h a t

will most

b en e f i t p o t e n t i a l power plants

t h a t

a r e

a t or

near the competit ive economic

margin.

35



4.3 .3 Non-Linearit ies i n Results

of R&D achievements upon t h e co s t of power are, i n general , no t l i n ea r .

impac t on the cost of power

will

be l ess

t h a n

the s u m of the impacts

o f

each

set of achievements acting alone.

e a r l i e r v e r si on

of

IM-GEO.

R&D managers w h o use t h i s model should note, above a l l , t h a t the impacts

I n general, when

t w o

s e t s of R&D achievements are combined, the result ing

For example, consider these resul ts from a s ingle p l a n t case, using an

S e n s i t i v i t y Fac tors

Cost per P l a n t

S a v i n g

i n Cost of

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Case We1 1 Ef fi ci en cy Power, Percen t

-

1.

0.7

1 .o 10.0

2 .

1

.o

1 .2 8.5

3 .

0 .7

1 .2 17 .4

1.

2 .

3 .

0.7

1 .o

1 .o 1 .2

0 .7

1 .2

10.0

8.5

17.4

I n th i s case , the combined sav ings a re l ess t h a n the sum

of

t h e "p a r t s "

because a more ef f i c ien t p l a n t requ i res fewer wel l s

t o

serve i t .

Thus t h e

savings due t o well cos t reduct ion are appl ied

t o

fewer wel ls

i n

Case 3 t h a n

i n

Case 1.

This

is

n o t

a "problem"

i n

a technical sense,

a l t h o u g h i t

can

o f t e n

seem

like a problem

i n

the "psychological" sense.

cost ing codes take

i n t o

account many o f t h e

major

ways i n which di fferent

phys ica l fac to rs and t echnology per formance co ef f i c ie n t s in te rac t t o re su l t i n

a f i n a l co s t o f power from a s p ec i f i c p ro j ec t .

I t s i m p l y means

t h e

IMGE O

T h i s effect does mean

t h a t

the bes t represen ta t ion of t h e i m p ac t s u p o n

the co st -o f power expected

t o

r e s u l t f r o m t h e e f f o r t s of the R D Program as a

- hole shou ld be entered by merging a l l an t i c i p a t ed

R&D

Achievements i n t o a

s m e e t of Ac hie vem en ts, and th en runn ing the program. See the section on

"Merging Mu1 t i p l e Se ts of R&D Achievements".

achfevement

will

be represented best against a "background"

of

the in tegra ted

set of achievements.

T h i s

means, for example t h a t t h e

impact

of the

30 %

reduct ion i n the cos t o f wel l s

i n

the example above

would

be best represented

by the va lue

17.4 - 8.5 -

8.9

percent ,

r a t h e r

t h a n

t h e

10

percent found by

ente ring the wel l co st achievement alone. Thus, f in al claims regarding the

overal l impact of s ingle

R D

programs s h o u l d be estimated by s u b t r a c t i n g those

achievements from the more global set of achievements of

t he

R D Program as a

who1 e.

I t

means t h a t t h e e s t i ma t e of the f i n a l impac t of any s i n q l e

-

3 6



4 . 3 . 4 Merging Multiple Sets of

R&D

Achievements

be merged into a common set of R&D Program Achievements, then some o f t h e i r

an t i c ipa ted

R D

Achievements are l ikely

t o

overlap,

i n

t e rms

of

IM-GEO

s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s .

i n

ma ter ia l s fo r cas ings could reduce the o ve ra l l - co s t o f th e cas ing

p o r t i o n

of the wel l costs .

f a m i l i a r w i t h th e techno logy 8,s a whole. Id ea ll y t h a t resolution should be

done by the

R D

Program managers.

technical inwts

and

assessments

from

re se a. :hers - .

; I ther analysts wi i l be

When two or more independent se t s of an ti ci pa te d R&D Achievements are t o

For example, both changes

i n

well

d r i l l i n g

procedure

a n d

Such overlaps mustAbe resolved i n reasonable ways

by

an a l y s t s who are

I t i s

t r

5e an? pioa ted however, t h a

rea.

open t o possible charges of "double counting" the impacts of selected

achievements.

- d to complete such a process .

I f such a process

i s n o t

done, then the R D Program as a whole rema

ns

4 .3 .5

Error Messages

i n

d a t a

inputs .

ci rcumstances .

m u l t i p l i e r t o

0,,

then a "Division by Zero" message will occur, and the program

wi ll ter m ina te. Your work w il t be l o s t , and yo u'l l have t u s tar t over.

The IM-GEO code i s protected from many b u t n o t a l l poss b le user e r ro rs

Divis ion

by

zero can be attempted under certain

For example i f the user se t s

a

power plant eff iciency

3 7



5.0 EXAMPLES

OF

ANALYSES

I n

t h i s s e c t i o n we p r e s e n t a fe w p r e l i m i n a r y e x am pl es o f how ch an ges i n

s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o rs a f f e c t t he c os t o f p o w e r r e s u l t s .

The examples shown i n

t h i s s e c t i o n a r e d ra wn f r o m V e r si o n 2.08 o f t h e m od el , a nd a r e n o t a c c u r a t e

f o r R8D im pa c t ana l y s i s pu rposes .

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e c u r r e n t G e o th e r ma l R8D p ro gr am , a nd t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d n o t

be

c o n s t r u e d

as

r e f l e c t i n g a n y th i ng r e al .

p r e s e n t d e t a i l e d i n p u t s a nd o u t p u t s f o r e ac h c as e.

The 'RaD Ac hievem ents" we re s el e ct e d

by

an a n a l y s t w i t h n o d ee p

The cases and r e s u l t s summ ar i zed i n t h e t a b l e b e lo w.

The

f o l l o w i n g

pages

P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s f r o m D r a f t

I M - G E O

Code

N ot f o r C i t a t i o n

or

P u b l i c a t i o n

Impact on Cost o f

Power , Percent

spe ct o f RLD Program

1.

IMPROVEMENTS I N WELLS -

7.1

2.

IMPROVEMENTS

I N DOWN

HOLE

PUMPS

-

1.5

3 . IMPROVEMENTS I N RESERVOIR

IDENT I f I CAT

I N/ ENGINEERING

- 20.2

4. IMPROVEMENTS I N

POWER

PLANTS -

7.3

5. ABOVE FOUR ACHIEVEMENTS

COMBINED

- 29.1

6.

COMBINED ACHIEVEMENTS, AT LOWER

LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT - 17.0

3 8



5.1

IMPROVEtlENTS IN WELLS

G E O T H E R M A L - C O S T OF P O W E R E S T I M A T E R U N : 02-24-1987 - 00:50:23

Mu1

ti-Region Weighted Averaged Data WEIGHTS

=

Regional Capacity

[From IMGEO Model]

TECHNOI.

% OF 1986 % COST %

OF

N E W

ACCOUNT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 *****

N E W

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM

******

&***** TECHNOLOGY CHANGE

TECH.

TOTAL

OF C OS T ELECT. COST FROM

1986 E L E C T . C OS T

- - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TOTAL

:

100.0

92.9 - 7.1

100.0

RISK FRACTION

: 27.3

25.2

-

7.8

27.1

1.

Identify Reservoir 7.1 5.7 - 19.6

6.1

2. Confirm Reservoir

7.1

6.2 -

13 . 3

6.6

3. Wells

31.3 26.7

-

14.5

28.8

5.

Gathering Equip. 8.5 8.5

-

0.0

9.2

6. Power

Plant

30.8

30.8

- 0.0 33.2

7.

Heat Exchangers

5.4 5.4

- 0.0

5 . 8

8. Brine Stabilizing

1.4 1.4

-

0 . 0

1.6

9. Environmental

2 . 0

2 . 0 - 0.0

2.1

10.

Insurance

2.9

2.7

- 6.7 2 . 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4. Downhole Pumps 3.5 3.5 - 0.0 3.7

+**************e*** RESULTS NOT VALID FOR CITATION t*****************t*t*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IM-GEO: SENSITIVITY FACTORS I N EFFECT 02-24-1987 - 00:50:23

R&D Achvmt:

TOTAL Cost, Avg. Well [Nom.=l.O]: 0.90

R&D Achvmt: Well Prblms, Lost Circul [Nom.=l.O]: 0.50

RLD

A c h v m t :

Well Prblms, Cementing [Nom.=l.O]: 0.40

R&D Achvmt:

Well Prblms, Other [Nom.=l .O]: 0.80

39



5.2 IMPROVEMENTS I N DOWN HOLE PUMPS

GEOTHERMAL COST

OF

POWER ESTIMATE RUN:

02-24-1987

-

00:52:26

M u l t i - R e g i o n W e ig h te d A v er a ge d D a t a WEIGHTS

-

R e g i o n a l C a p a c i t y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[From

IMGEO

Model)

ACCOUNT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TOTAL

:

R I S K

FRACTION :

1. Jdent

i

y R e s e r v o i r

2 . C o n f i rm R e s e r v o i r

3 .

W e l l s

4 .

Downhole Pumps

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986

TECHNOL.

% OF COST

*********

----..----

100.0

27.3

7.1

7.1

3 1 . 3

3.5

- - - - - - - - -

***** NEW TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM

******

% OF 1986 X COST X OF NEW

TECHNOLOGY CHANGE TECH. TOTAL

ELECT. COST FROM 1986 ELECT.

COST

5. Gat he r i ng E qu ip .

8.5

8.5 - 0.0 8.6

6.

Power P lan t 30.8 30.8

- 0.0

31.3

7.

Heat Exchangers

5.4 5.4

- 0 .0

5.5

8. B r i ne S t a b i l t i n g

1.4

1.4

- 0.0 1.5

9. E nv i ronm en t a l

2.0 2.0

-

0 .0

2 .0

10. I n s u r a n c e 2 .9

2.9

-

0.3

2 . 9

*******e*********** RESULTS NOT VALID FOR CITATION +++*******+****+******

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I M - G E O :

SENSIT IVI TY FACTORS I N EFFECT

02-24-1987

-

00:52:26

R&D Achvmt: Cap.Cost, Deep Wel l

Pump [Nom.=l.O]: 0 .80

R&D Achvmt:

O&M

Cost, Deep Wel l

Pump

[Nom.=l.OJ: 0.50

4 0



5.3 IMPROVEMENTS I N RESERVOIR

IDENTIFICATION/

E N G I N E E R I N G

GEOTHERMAL

COST OF POWER ESTIMATE RUN: 02-24-1987 01:10:58

Multi-Region

Weighted

Averaged

Data

WEIGHTS

=

Regional

Capacity

1986 ***** N E W

TECHNOLOGY

SYSTEM

******

[From IMGEO Model J TECHNOL. X OF 1986

%

COST X OF NEW

*********

.TECHNOLOGY CHANGE TECH. TOTAL

ACCOUNT X

OF

COST ELECT.

COST

FROM

1986

E L E C T . COST

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL : 100.0 79.8

- 20.2 100.0

RISK FRACTION :

27.3 15.6

- 42.8 19.6

I . Identify Reservoir

7.1

3.3

- 53.5 4.1

2. Confirm

Reservoir

7.1 7.1

-

0.0

8.9

3. Wells 31.3

22.5 -

22.2

2 E . 2

4. Downhole

Pumps 3.5

2.4

- 32.2 3.0

5.

Gathering

Equip.

8.5 5.9

-

30.7 7.4

6. Power Plant

30.8 28.0

- 9.0 35.1

7.

Heat Exchangers

5.4

4.9 - 10.1

6.1

8.

Brine

Stabilizing 1.4 1.4

-

0.0

1.8

9 .

Environmental

2.0 2.0

- 0.0 2.5

10. Insurance 2.9

2.3 - 19.1

2.9

- - - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*******************

RESULTS

NOT

VALID FOR CITATION

t***+*******t*t+tt+*+*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IM-GEO: SENSITIVITY FACTORS I N

EFFECT

02-24-1987 01:10:58

R8D

Achvmt:

Wildcat

Success Ratio [Nom.=l.O]:

1.50

R&D Achvmt:

Dry Holes / Producer

[Nom.=l.O]:

0.60

R&D

Achvmt: F l o w Rate, Producer [Nom.=l.O]: 1.20

RISK: Well

head Temperature, F

[Nom:=l

.O]

:. 0.60

RISK:

Prod.

Well Flow,

Klb/hr

[Nom.=l.O]

:

0.60

RISK:

Flow

for

Decline, Klb/hr [Nom.=l.O]

:

0.60

RISK:

Decline Coeff., l/Years

[Nom.-1.01

: 0.60

4 1



5.4 IMPROVEMENTS I N POWER PLANTS

GEOTHERMAL COST OF POWER ESTIMATE

RUN:

02-24-1987

-

01:13:16

M u1 i -Reg ion We igh t ed A ve raged Da t a

WEIGHTS

=

R e g i o n a l C a p a c i t y

1986 ***** NEh' TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ******

[From

IMGEO

Model

J

TECHNOL.

SC

OF 1986

X

COST

X OF

NEW

********* TECHNOLOGY CHANGE TECH. TOTAL

ACCOUNT

X

OF COST ELECT. COST FROM 1986 ELECT. COST

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - - - e . - -

- - - - - - - . - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _

TOTAL :

100.0

92.7

- 7.3

100.0

RISK FRACTION

:

27.3 23.1

- 15.3 24.9

1.

1der.t

i y R e s e r v o i r 7 . 1

6.9

5 7.5

2.

C o n f i r m R e s e r v o i r

7 . 1

7 .1

- b.0

7 .7

3 . W e l l s 31.3

26.6

-

15 .1 28 .6

4 . Downhole Pumps

3.5

2.7

-

21 .3 2 .9

5 .

G a t h e r i n g E q u i p .

a .

5 6 . 6

-

22 .0 7 .2

6. P ower P lan t

3 0 . 8 30.6

- 0.6

33 .0

7. Heat Exchangers 5.4

6.0

11 .o 6.5

8.

B r i n e S t a b i l i z i n g 1.4 1 .4

-

0.0

1 . 6

9 .

E nv i ronm en t a l

2 . 0

2 . 0

- 0 . 0 2 . 1

10.

I n s u r a n c e

2 . 9

2 . 7

-

7 .5 2 .9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c - - - - - - - - - -

- - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*+***************** RESULTS NOT VALID FOR CITATION

*****++*******t*******

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ c _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I M - G E O : SENSITIVITY FACTORS I N EFFECT

02-24-1987

-

01: 13: 16

RLD Achvmt: E f f i c i e n c y , FLASH P l a n t [Nom.=l .O

R&D Achvmt: E f f i c i e n c y , BINARY P l a n t (Nom.-1.0

RLD Achvmt: Cap. Co st , BINARY P l a n t (Nom.=l.O]:

1.05

R&D Achvmt: Cap. Co st , H e a t Exch ange (Nom.=l.O]:

1.30

RLD Achvmt:

OLM

Cost , He at tx ch an ge (Nom.=l.O]:

0 . 9 0

4 2



5.5 ABOVE FOUR

ACHIEVEMENTS

COMBINED

GEOTHERMAL

COST

OF POWER

E S T I M A T E

RUN:

02-24-1987 01:16:16

Mu1t i Region Weighted Averaged Data WEIGHTS

-

Re g io n a l Ca p a c i t y

[From I M G E O Model] TECHNOL. X OF 1986 % COST X OF N E W

ACCOUNT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986

*****

NEW

TECHNOLOGY

SYSTEM ******

********* TECHNOLOGY CHANGE TECH. T O T A L

X

OF

COST ELECT.

COST

FROM

1986

ELECT. COST

- - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL

:

100.0 70.9 - 29.1 100.0

R I S K F R A C T I O N :

27.3 13.1

- 52.0 18.5

1. I d e n t i f y R es er v oi r

7.1

2.6 - 62.5

3.7

- - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

2. C o n f i r m R e s e r v o i r

7.1 6.2

-

12.7

8.8

3. W e l l s

31.3 17.0

- 45.8 23.9

4.

Downhole Pumps 3.5

1.1

-

67.9 1.6

5. Ga th e r i n g Eq u ip .

8.5

4.8

-

43.6

6.8

6. Power P lan t

30.8 28.1 - 8.7

39.7

7. H e a t Exchangers 5.4 5.5

1.2

7.8

8. B r i n e S t a b i l i z i n g 1.4 1.4 - 0.0

2.0

9.

En v i ro n me n ta l

2.0 2.0 - 0.0

2.8

10.

I n s u r a n c e

2.9

2.1

-

26.8

3.0

******************* RESULTS

NOT V A L I D

FOR C I T A T I O N

tt+t***t****tt*****i**

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I M - G E O : S E N S I T I V I T Y F A C T O R S I N

EFFECT

02-24-1987 01:16:16

R&D

Ach vmt: W i l d ca t Su ccess Ra t i o

[Nom.=l.O]:

R&D

Achvmt: TOTAL Cost, Avg. Well

[Nom.=l.O]:

R&D

Achvmt: Dry Ho le s

/

Pro d u ce r [Nom.-1.01

:

R&D Achvmt: F low Rate, Pr oduce r [Nom.=l

.O ] :

R&D Achvmt : E f f i c i en c y , FLASH Pl an t [Nom.=l .O]:

R8D

A c h v m t :

E f f i c i e n c y , BINARY P l a n t [Nom.-1

. O ] :

RbD Achvm t: Cap. Cos t, BINARY P l a n t [Nom.=l.O]:

R&D

Achvm t: Cap.Cost, Deep We ll Pump

[Nom.-1.01:

R&D Achvmt: O&M Co st , Deep We ll Pump [Nom.=l.O]:

R&D Achvmt: Cap. Cost, Hea t Exchange [Nom.=l.O]:

R&D

Achvmt: ObM

Cost,

Heat Exchange

[Nom.-1.01:

R&D Ach vmt: We l l P rb lms , L o s t C i rc u l [Nom.-1.01:

R&D

Achvmt

:

We1

1

P r b l

ms

, Cementing

[Nom. -1.01 :

R&D

Achvmt : We l l Prb lms, Other

[Nom.-1

.O] :

1.50

0.90

0.60

1.20

1.05

1.20

1.05

0.80

0.50

1.30

0.90

0.50

0.50

0.80

R I S K : Wel lhead Tempera tu re , F [Non.=l .O]

: 0.60

R I S K :

Prod . We l l

F l o w ,

K l b / h r [Nom.-1.01

: 0.60

R I S K :

Flow

f o r D e c l i n e , K1 b / h r

[Nom.-1

.O] :

0.60

R I S K : D e c l i n e C o e f f . , l / V e a r s (Nom.=l .O]

:

0.60

4 3



5.6

the i mpac ts that might occur from an overall-lower set o f achievements.

COMBINED ACHIEVEMENTS, AT LOWER LEVELS

The achievements used in section 5.5 we re each reduced slightly, to

show

IM-GEO: SENSITIVITY FACTORS I N EFFECT 02-24-1987

-

01:20:47

R&D Achvmt: Wildcat Success Ratio

R&D


R&D

Achvmt: Dry Holes

/

Producer

R&D

Achvmt: Flow Rate, Producer

R&D

Achvmt: Efficiency, FLASH Plant

R&D Achvmt: Efficiency, B l N A R Y Plant

R&D Achvmt: Cap. Cost, BINARY Plant

R&D Achvmt: Cap.Cost, Deep Well Pump

R&D

Achvmt: O&M Cost, Deep Well Pump

R&D

Achvmt: Cap. Cost, Heat Exchange

R&D

Achvmt:

O&M

Cost, Heat Exchange

R&D Achvmt: Well Prblms, Lost Circul

R&D

Achvmt: Well Prblms, Cementing

R&D Achvmt: Well Prblms, Other

Nom.=l .O]:

Nom.=l.O]:

Nom.=l.O]:

Nom.-1 .O] :

Nom. ~ 1 . 0:

Nom.=l.O]:

Nom.=l.O]:

Nom.-1.01:

Nom.=l.O]:

Nom.=l .O]

:

Nom.=l .O] :

Nom.=l.O]:

Nom.=l.O]:

Nom.=l.O]:

1.20

0.95

0.80

1.10

1.02

1.10

1.05

0.90

0.80

1.20

0.95

0.80

0.80

0.90

RISK:

Wellhead Temperature,

F

[Nom.=l.O] :

0.80

RISK:

Prod. Well Flow, Klb/hr [Nom.=l .O] : 0.80

RISK: Flow fo r Decline, Klb/hr [Nom.=l.O]

:

0.80

RISK: Decline Coeff., l/Years [Nom.=l .O] : 0.80

4 4



6. 0

RECOMMENDATI ONS

These areas f or cont i nuat i on and i mpr ovement

of

t hi s wor k

r emai n: 1) ext end t hi s model t o al l ow cal cul at i on of i ncrease i n

r esour ce avai l abi l i t y due t o t echnol ogy i mpr ovement ,

2 )

extend

t he l evel of det ai l of t hi s model , and

3)

pr oduce si m l ar model s

f or hot dry r ock, geopr essured and magma energy sys t ems.

6. 1

Resour ce Avai l abi l i t y

The pr esent model shows t he percent age r educt i on i n cost of

power due t o t echnol ogy achi evement s f or 6 r egi ons wi t h t he

potent i al f or near t erm geot hermal power devel opment . Usi ng

updat ed i nf or mat i on f r om t he

USGS

on r esour ce si ze and t empera-

t ur e, t he model coul d be pr ogr ammed t o al so show how t hi s cost

r educt i on br i ngs more

resources

i nt o econom c avai l abi l i t y.

T h i s

woul d l ar gel y i nvol ve car ef ul i nput on r esour ce si ze and char ac-

t er i st i cs and

a

cut of f f or an econom c pr i ce

of

power , perhaps

on a r egi onal basi s.

6. 2

Ext end Level of Det ai l

At sever al poi nt s i n t he di scussi on of t he model st at ement s

are i ncl uded whi ch i ndi cat e where i nt er act i ons bet ween var i abl es

wer e negl ect ed or f i xed i nput s were used where var i abl es waul d be

more appr opr i at e. I n any pr ogr amm ng ef f or t deci si ons ar e made

about t he l evel of det ai l t o be i ncl uded whi ch are cont r ol l ed by

t he avai l abi l i t y of t i me and money. The mor e var i abl es al l owed

as i nput t he more compl ex t he t ask of oper at i ng t he model .

Fut ur e ver si ons of t he model coul d i ncr ease t he compl exi t y

of t he model and i ncr ease t he number of i nt eract i ons pr ogr ammed

i nt o t he code. The areas where t hi s woul d be of most benef i t

i ncl ude:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Extend power pl ant i nt er act i ons bet ween pl ant cost and f l ui d

chem st r y i ncl udi ng t ot al di ssol ved sol i ds, non- condensi bl e

gases and per haps speci f i c di ssol ved chem cal speci es.

I ncr ease t he detai l i n t he code deal i ng wi t h pumpi ng power

t o

i ncl ude cal cul at i on of i ncreased wel l pr oduct i vi t y f r om

i ncr eased set dept h. Thi s woul d i nvol ve pr ogr amm ng i n

pr oduct i vi t y cur ves f or t he r epr esent at i ve wel l s f or each

r egi on and woul d be f ai r l y compl ex. However , t he cur r ent

ver si on

woul d r equi r e t he user t o cal cul at e t he i ncr eased

wel l f l ow f r om i ncr easi ng t he pump set dept h and i nput a new

wel l f l ow.

The cur r ent model ver si on does not consi der r eservoi r heat

depl et i on. Thi s i s a compl ex i ssue and woul d not be easy t o

pr ogr am i n accur at el y. A si mpl i st i c model of heat depl et i on

usi ng a decl i ne cur ve appr oach coul d be used unt i l t he model

coul d be combi ned wi t h

a

r eservoi r model such as t hat devel -

oped by Paul Kr uger of St anf ord.

Li nki ng t he code wi t h

a

r eser voi r model woul d al l ow f or mare

accur at e est i mat i on

of

t he ef f ect of f l ui d depl et i on and

pr essure dr awdown i n t he r eservoi r .

45



5. At pr esent t he model uses a si mpl e al gor i t hm t o cal cul at e

t est i ng cost s f or each wel l dur i ng each phase of

devel opment . I t woul d be f ai r l y easy t o make some of t he

i nput s t o t hi s t est i ng al gor i t hm i nput var i abl es so t hat

t he

ef f ect of l onger t est i ng or mor e cost l y t est i ng on t he cost

of power coul d be cal cul at ed. Si nce wel l t est i ng i s an ar ea

whi ch i s l i kel y t o r educe r eser voi r r i sk, t hi s woul d make

t he model r ef l ect cost i ncreases associ at ed w t h t hat r i sk

r educt i on mor e easi l y. Thi s i s al so t r ue of t he cost

of

wel l l oggi ng whi ch i s pr ogr ammed i n as a f unct i on dependent

on dept h and t emper ature. The onl y way t o change t he cost

i n t he cur r ent ver si on of t he model i s t o change t hi s

f unct i on. Thi s i mpr ovement woul d al l ow t he cal cul at i on of

t he i mpact of speci f i c t echnol ogy i mpr ovement s i n t he ar ea

of r eservoi r t est i ng and i nst r ument at i on. Because we know

t he amount of measur ement er r or r esul t i ng f r om use

of

i naccur at e t est procedur es and i nst r ument at i on, i t i s easy

t o det er m ne t he r i sk r educt i on f r om i mpr ovement s of t hi s

t ype

6.

The model does not account

for

l ong t er m changes i n

r eser voi r chem st r y. Thi s i s a compl ex pr obl em f or whi ch no

si mpl e sol ut i on seems adequate. However , r ecent

work

i n

thi s area h a s i ndi cat ed t hat CO, i n t he r eser voi r may

decr ease wi t h t i me. Wel l s i n Haeai i have i ncr eased i n

sal i ni t y wi t h cont i nued pr oduct i on. Consi der at i on of t hese

r esul t s may l ead t o t he possi bi l i t y

of

model i ng t hese

ef f ect s . ~

I

7. I ncl ude t he wel l cost i ng al gor i t hm as par t

of

t he model .

Thi s woul d al l ow cal cul at i on of changes i n t he wel l cost

wi t hi n t he model and woul d enabl e t he

R

& D manager t o see

t he i mpact of ver y det ai l ed t echnol ogy i mpr ovement s i n t he

area

of

Har d Rock Penet r at i on.

6. 3

Extend Model t o I ncl ude Non- Hydr ot her mal Resour ces

I n or der t o ext end t hi s wor k t o i ncl ude t hese r esour ces,

subst ant i al modi f i cat i on woul d need t o be made t o t he code.

Each

of t hese ener gy sour ces uses some modi f i cat i on of a st andard

power conver si on cycl e t o expl oi t t he heat of a f l ui d. However ,

t he wel l cost , expl orat i on cost and r eservoi r management

t echni ques woul d be ver y di f f erent . Each energy t ype woul d have

t o be consi der ed separatel y usi ng a syst ems anal ysi s appr oach t o

det er m ne t he cost of devel opment .

There have been ef f or t s t o model t he cost of Hot Dr y Rock

geother mal ener gy. Cer t ai nl y f or t he power conver si on t echnol ogy

t hese w l l f or m a good basi s. For ot her aspect s of t he Hot Dr y

Rock conver si on pr ocess , such as wel l cost and r eser voi r

management , new approaches t o t hese sect i ons woul d have t o

be

made. Pr ogr ess on t he Hot

Dry

Rock Pr oj ect i ndi cat es t hat t he

f r act ur es pr oduced at dept h f or heat exchange w t h t he r eservoi r

ar e di f f er ent f r om t hose ant i ci pat ed. New i deas f or wel l

compl et i on st r at egi es are bei ng gener at ed.

A

user sel ect ed

mul t i pl e scenar i o appr oach t o wel l const r uct i on m ght be usef ul .

46



Wel l cost and power gener at i on f r om f l ui d heat

for

geopr essur ed geothermal coul d pr obabl y be cal cul at ed usi ng t he

exi st i ng code. However , ot her aspect s of ener gy conver si on. such

as

use of f l ui d mechani cal energy and separ at i on and sal e of

pet r ol eum f l ui ds woul d have t o be added. Agai n a mul t i pl e

scenar i o appr oach coul d be used here.

For magma energy ext r act i on use of mul t i pl e scenar i os

f o r

t he wel l compl et i on m ght be essent i al . Si nce a syst em anal ysi s

has been done at l east i n par t by Sandi a, t hi s i nf or mat i on coul d

be i ncor por at ed i nt o t he model reduci ng t he t i me and ef f or t

needed f or codi ng. Expl or at i on and r eser voi r conf i r mat i on

st r at egi es woul d need t o be determ ned and new sect i ons coded f or

t he model .

The l ar ge pot ent i al

of

t hese three energy conver si on t eChnG-

l ogi es more t han mer i t s t he ef f or t t hat woul d be r equi r ed t o

i ncl ude t hen i n t he cost of power model S O t hat t he i mpact of R

1c

D coul d be cal cul at ed.

6. 4 Case St udi es

Two case st udi es woul d make t he use of t hi s model cl ear er

t o

t he R&D manager s f o r whom i t i s i nt ended. The f i r st wcl ul d s h ow

t he i mpact of usi ng cur r ent l y avai l abl e t echnol ogy i n al l ar eas

of geot hermal devel opment t hat pr esent l y do not t ake advant age of

t hese t echnol ogi es. The second woul d show t he maxi mum possi bl e

i mpr ovement i n t echnol ogy and reduct i on i n r i sk.

Thi s ver si on of t he model has been benchmarked usi ng cost s

det er m ned f r om st andar d i ndust r y pr act i ce. Some t echnol ogy

i mprovement s ar e not t aken advant age of by i ndust r y

f o r

may

r easons. A s an exampl e of how t he ml del can be used and t o

s h o w

t he benef i t of t echnol ogy t r ansf er , a case st udy of t he c o s t

i mpr ovement possi bl e by usi ng cur r ent l y avai l abl e t echnol ogi es

coul d be done.

Because t hi s model does not have al l t he possi bl e

i nt er act i ons bet ween r eser voi r f act or s and thei r associ at ed c o s t s

di r ect l y pr ogr ammed i nt o t he code,

a

case st udy showi ng t he

maxi mum r easonabl e i mpr ovement i n t echnol ogy and i t s associ ated

r i sk r educt i on woul d pr event unr easonabl e expect at i ons

for

cost

dr i l l i ng, expl or at i on, power conver si on t echnol ogy and ot her

aspect s

of

geot hermal devel opment coul d be consul t ed t o pr ovi de

i nput f or t hi s case st udy. A cost r educt i on f or best possi bl e

achi evabl e r esear ch goal s woul d al so show up any di f f i cul t i es i n

t he model and poi nt out areas of i mpr ovement .

47





A P P E N D I X A

T E C H N O L O G Y B A S E LI N E S

A -



TECHNOLOGY BASELINES

A . 1 General Note on Technical Factors

This appendix is a guide to many of the major technical and

costing relationships that are built into the computer code of

th is model. We intend these comments to be instructive rather

than definitive.

Th e definitive description of any and all of thes e factors i

th e listing of the IM-GEO code. The code includes lengthy

documentation to ensur e that interested technical reviewers will

have little difficulty in determining what was done where.

The project team had t o make many decisions about which

facto rs were most important for depicting current practice in

U . S .

geothermal development projects. These decisions are not

sacred. We hope that as review occurs a body o f suggestions and

contributions will allow for further improvement of the model.

As guidelines for th ese suggestions two comments follow:

* The baseli ne technologies represented should reflect

U.S.

industry practice as

of

January, 1986.

The anticipated improvements in technology should

represent those that seem achievable by modest

investments in R & D (shar ed by D.O.E. and indu stry )

within th e next

5

to

10

years.

A . 2

Costing Basis

All cost estimates reflect our best understandings of

industry practices and costs as of January

1 ,

1986. All

elementary costs ar e loaded with relevant supervisory and

overhead costs.

A . 3 Power Plant and Field Desi gn

This

is

th e critical relationship in every design

for

a .

geothermal power development project. The brine flow requirement

of th e plant, divided by th e anticipated flow from the average

production well, determines how many wells are required at plant

start up.

Ideally, th e plant brine flow requirement s hould be a

continuous function of th e brine flow required by th e plant,

sensitive to th e work available from th e brine (at estimated

temperature, pressure, dissolved solids, and non-condensible

gases), and th e average flow per production well. We have not

achieved much clarity here and ther e is room for impr ovement.

The data available to us within the schedule and budget for

th e project allowed us to get up t he following relationships:

Flash Plants:

11 The flow into and

from th e plant is taken from point

estimates i n the si te data base.

These flows are

A - 2



subj ect t o some smal l adj ust ment s i n t he code.

2)

The power pl ant cost i s a si mpl e f unct i on of t he t emp-

er at ur e of t he br i ne at t he wel l head.

Bi nar y Pl ant s:

1 )

Fl ow r equi r ement s ar e est i mated f r om

a

si mpl e model of

t he net br i ne ef f ect i veness at t he wel l head t emper at ur e.

The pl ant f l ow r equi r ement s i n t he si t e dat a base are

not used.

2 The power pl ant cost i s model ed as r el at ed most di r ect l y

t o t he r at e of br i ne f l ow t hr ough t he pl ant . Br i ne

t emperat ur e has a modest ef f ect on t hi s cost rel at i on-

shi p.

A 4

Br i ne stabi l i zat i on

The need f or br i ne st abi l i zat i on equi pment depends on

t he t ot al di ssol ved sol i ds cont ai ned i n t he f l ui d. Thi s i s

pr ogr ammed i nt o t he code as a st ep f unct i on. Fl ui ds wi t h

gr eat er t han 10, 000ppm ar e assumed t o r equi r e st abi l i zat i on

whi l e t hose wi t h l ess do not . The cost assumed i s t hat of a

f l ash crystal i zer system

A . 5 Envi r onment al Cont r ol

The onl y envi r onment al cont r ol pr ogr ammed i nt o t hi s

ver si on of t he model i s

H 2 S

abat ement . The cost of

a

St r et f or d t ype abat ement i s added t o t he base pl ant cost

when t he H 2 s cont ent of t he f l ui d i s above 50 ppm f or f l ash

t ype pl ant s. For bi nar y pl ant s t he

H 2 s

l evel i s not

consi der ed. I n addi t i on t o addi ng t o t he pl ant capi t al

cost , hi gh

H 2 s

al so adds t o t he 0 &

M

cost . Bot h cost add-

on6

ar e scal ed t o t he amount

of H 2 s

i n t he f l ui d as

a

mul t i pl i er of t he pl ant capi t al cost f or t he base

0

& M

cost .

A . 6 Wel l C o s t s

Wel l cost s ar e cal cul at ed ear l y i n t he model because wel l s

ar e an essent i al par t of I dent i f i cat i on, Conf i r mat i on, and

Reser voi r Management oper at i ons. Wel l cost s are di vi ded i nt o

base cost s and add- on cost s as descr i bed i n sect i on 3. 7.

The act ual cost of t he wel l s i s cal cul at ed usi ng a ser i es oft abl es and maps di scussed i n sect i on

3. 7.

Thi s i s done

exter nal l y t o t he model . Thus i mpact s of t echnol ogy on t he cost

of t he wel l ar e shown by t he cost mul t i pl i er . Thi s mul t i pl i er

af f ects t he ent i r e wel l cost i ncl udi ng add- ons.

A - 3



A . 7

Extension, Redrill, and Dry Hole Relationships

Th e relationships among these cost add-ons to th e base well

cost are roughly as follows:

Extension i s

done and

f a i l s .

Redrill must

be done.

Well - ???

Redr

done

succ

We1 1

-----

A

I

I

E

V

11

i s

and

eds.

= Producer

Redrill

i s

done

an d

f a i l s .

Well

-

DRY

. - - - - - - - - - - - _ -

A ,

B,

D,

and

E

are entered or coded values.

C

is calculated.

A = 0.25 X Dry Hole Fraction B = 0.20, fixed value

C - 1 - A - B - D D = Redrill Fraction

E

=

0.75 X

Dry Hole Fraction

A.8 Well

Flow

Testing Costs

Testing Co sts ar e estimated based o n 3-day, 10-day or 21-day

flow tests. Testing costs are then added to well costs to

form

a

final cost for each of four categories of wells:

- Wildcat Wells

-

Wells drilled during th e reservoir confirmation phase

-

Production wells drilled during field development phase

-

Injection and Dry Holes

T h e cost of logging is included here and is calculated from

an equation using depth and temperature a8 variables.

A . 9

Identification Operations

Geological, geophysical and geochemical aspects of explora-

tion are calculated for the region as a whole. Th e cost

of

exploration

is

dependent on t he anticipated depth

of

the

A - 4



resource. A premium cost is added for wells deeper than 3000

feet. This could include th e cost of geophysical exploration

suc h as seismology or a cored small diameter test hole. It was

found from the cost estimates that the cost of whatever was done

to explore for deeper resources was about

$100,000.

Th e cost of gradient wells was emphasized by several

developers as one of the most important cost aspects of

exploration. This cost was apportioned for every wildcat well

drilled and is there fore affected by th e sensitivity parameter

"Wildcat Su ccess Ratio" s inc e this will increase or decrease the

number of wildcat wells drilled.

Wildcat wells are assumed to cost the same a5 any other

production well. Successful wells are included in th e pool of

available producers.

The amount of developable electrical power in each region is

an input variable and can be found in the table of input data.

Each region i s divided into areas of a s ize which can be affected

by an input variable. These areas are further divided into

50

MW

units.

Th e sensitivity parameter "Probability of Success of

Confirmation" affects the costs accumulated here in th e following

manner"

A

fraction of th e reservoirs that appear to be "iden-

tified" will fail to support power production after a "confirma-

tion" attempt has ensued. Therefore, th e "Identification" cost

for each reservoir that successfully supports power production is

calculated to include additional identification costs in

proportion to th e probability of failure of the unit "Confirma-

tion" effort.

A . 1 0

Confirmation Operations

Confirmation activity is assumed to take three years to

drill and test six wells. Of these it is assumed that four will

be good p r o d u c e r s , 1.5 will make good injectors and . 5 will be

dry holes not useful for anything. At conclusion

of

the

confirmation phase t he developer is assumed ready to seek project

financing. For a field developer who anticipates someone else,

perhaps a utility, will build th e power plant, he is ready

to

seek t he builder of t he plant.

It is assumed that th e developer has a .9S certainty of

achieving 30 years of power production if the full cost of

developing th e si te is available. The additional

-05

of

uncertainty

is

covered by th e cost of reservoir insurance. The

risk of failure does not change from on e site to another, only

th e cost of the development. Thus a site with a very high risk

at th e end of drilling and testing six wells will cost a great

deal, perhaps a prohibitively large amount. This should be

remembered when risk reduction factors are chosen.

Testing cost for wells drilled during confirmation and

identification phases are more expensive than those for infill

drilling.

A - 5



The probability of success of confirmation affects costs

that show up in both th e confirmation and identification phases.

Th e reason is that any failed confirmation effort implies that

so me amount of exploration had been incurred to achieve a "go"

status on the attempt to confirm. Both of these efforts move

into th e "sunk cost" column when th e confirmation effort fails ,

yet are reflected i n the relevant accounts for the cost of power

at a successful project. In IM-CEO th e "identification" c o s t s

occasioned by th e confirmation failure are added to the

Identification accou nt, while th e direct costs of th e failed

confirmation effort are added into th e Confirmation account.

A . 1 1 Field Decline Factors

The effect of pressure decline in the reservoir is modeled

explicitly to find th e number and temporal pattern of

supplemental production wells needed. Annual payments to cover

th e capital and 0 & M costs of th e supplemental wells and their

piping are added to th e Well and Gathering

0

& M accounts.

The estimated decline coefficient for each site includes

provision for th e drawdown effect s of production from multiple

plants on each reservoir. However, it should be remembered that

th e decline coefficients are estimated using t h e m o s t elementary

of methods and may

not

apply to any actual reservoi r. An

exponential decline is used although other equations might model

an individual reservoir better.

Because of the curve fitting technique used t o estimate the

decline coefficient and define the exponential curve, there are

two initial flow rates used as input data. One is the average

initial flow rate per well used for purposes of estimating the

number of wells in th e field. The other is the initial flow for

th e purpose of the decline curve. If the risk for one of these

values adjusted to show a technology improvement than the other

must be adjusted by a n equal percentage.

A . 1 2 Well Life Due t o Plugging

or

Corrosion

Many geothermal R

&

D impact models have set a singl e value

for th e life of a production well that incorporated both drawdown

and other well loss effects. Th e current model breaks these two

effect s apart. Th e drawdown effect is modeled explicitly by the

decline curve, while th e other problems which limit well life are

handled by estimating th e tim e between mechanical workovers on

th e well and th e average amount of a typical workover. These

factors ar e both influenced by th e fluid chemistry

so

that

changes in th e risk values for fluid chemistry factors should

effect the well life and cost of workovers. These interactions

are not programmed into th e model.

There is no simple well life parameter in this program. The

need for added wells as th e pressure in th e field decreases and

the need for replacing wells du e to mechanical failure

is

handled

separately.

A - 6



A . 1 3

Fie ld

P i p i n g

r e c t i l i n e a r a r r a y w i t h t h e plan t i n the cen ter .

There i s a f u l l r u n of pipe

from each production well t o th e plant.

number,

[ n ] ,

i n

each square showing the number of "separation" units between

the wel l and the plant :

The gath erin g system f o r producer wel ls

i s

modeled as a diamond-shaped

The

p a t t e rn

i s a fol lows,

w i t h

the

(31

I

[31--[21 I31

I I

[31--[21--[11 121 131

I l l

131 PI [11--[21--[31

131 [21--[31

131

[3] - [2] -

[

1 1

- P ) - -

[

1 1 -

[2]

-

[3]

I l l

I I

I

This

p a t t e r n

i s

a reasonable compromise between the case where the field

i s

narrower

i n

one dimension than the other, and a case where pads and

mul t iwell mani fo lds a re used t o reduce ce r ta in

d r i l l i n g

and

p i p i n g

co s t s .

This pa t te rn moreover has th e qu i te useful computat ional property o f

requ i r ing a to ta l p ipe

length

t h a t s c a l e s i n a fractal manner

w i t h

t h e

t o t a l

number of producer wells required.

The fractal dimension

i s

roughly 1.5.

This i s espec ia l ly usefu l

i n comput ing the addi t ional pipe required for

supplemental production wells.

In j ec t i o n p i p i n g costs assume

t h a t

i n j ec t i o n w e l l s a r e l o ca t ed o u t s i d e

o f

t h e p ro d u c t i o n f i e l d ,

a t 6 separa t ion u n i t s from the

p l a n t .

The

p i p i n g

c o s t s

assume t h a t groups of

4

i n j ec t i o n w e l l s

are

fed from t h e same pipe.

T h u s

in jec t ion wel l s a re modeled as l y i n g t o one or t w o sides o f t h e f i e l d ,

r a t h e r

than being arrayed

i n

a c i r c u l a r r a d i a l p a t t e r n .

A .14 Supplemental Production Wells

t h e e s t i m a t e o f t h e pressure d ec l i n e

i n

t h e r e s e rv o i r . This i s modeled

ex p l i c i t l y a s an exp on en ti al f l o w - ra t e d ec l i n e c o e f f i c i en t ap p li ed t o t h e

i n i t i a l p ro d u c t i o n

wells

and any required supplemental wells.

The requirement f o r supplemental product ion w el l s

i s

d r iv e n e n t i r e l y by

There

i s no provis ion ( i n Version 3.00 an d ea r l i e r ) fo r t emp era t u re

d ec l i n e i n

the

r e s e r v o i r d u r i n g t h e r e s e r v o i r l i f e . T h u s ,

the

model

is

s i m i l a r t o a t e a k e t t l e w hose b ottom

i s k e p t

at a constant temperature and

t o

w h i c h no f l u i d i s added as t he i n i t i a l f l u i d co nv ec ts out o f t h e . s p o u t .

There i s no prov i sion f o r supplemental in j ec t io n wel l s .

T h e

costs f o r d r i l l i n g

a n d O&M

o f supplemental production w ell s a re added

t o t h e O&M accounts f o r product ion and in je ct io n wel ls . Costs assoc iated w i t h

A - 7



the g ather ing pipes f o r supplemental production w ells a re added to

t h e

O &M

accounts f o r the gathe r ing system. These accumulat ion ar e per previous

p r a c t i c e i n similar models .

i l l u m i n a t i n g i f such costs were s h o w n i n a separate account . )

( future modellers take note :

I t would be more

A .

15 Down

Hole

Pumps

objec t ive i s

t o

prevent f la sh ing i n t h e wellbore. A secondary objec t ive i s t o

inc rease the f lowra te f rom low- tempera ture we l ls . Ne i ther of these requi re -

ments / re la t ionships i s

modeled

e x p l i c i t l y .

Down hole pumps are assumed only for

b i n a r y

power pl an ts . The pr imary

The power required per pump va r i e s

w i t h

t he we l l de p th ( se t t i ng d e p t h ) .

The model could be enhanced

i f

the relationshiin between

pumping

power

and

resaurce tempL -ture shown i n Figure 8.1& o f tne "Sourcebook" were

u p d a t e d a n d

incorporated in to the code.

The cos ts for

pumps

a r e

for

contemporary l ine

s h a f t

pumps. Comparable

cos ts fo r e l e c t r i c downhole pumps, should these ensue from R&D,

can be entered

qu ite di rec t ly . However, advantages t h a t m i g h t accrue f rom electr ic downhole

pumps

w i t h

respec t t o be ing able

t o

se t those deeper

t h a n

line shaft pumps

( c u r r e n t ly l im i t e d to a bou t

1000

f e e t ) would have t o be analyzed

q u i t e

c a r e f u l l y

for

r e l e v a n t s e n s i t i v i t y e n t r y p o i n t s i n t o IMGEO, es p ec ia ll y w i t h

respect t o average flow per production well , and

t h e

re la t io nsh ip between

reservoir and well head f luid enthalpy.

A . 1 6 Flash Plant flow and Costs

Flash plant br ine f l o w requi rement ra tes

vary

g r e a t l y w i t h t he s a t u r a t i o n

The

q u a l i t y

f a c t o r

fo r

Flow ra tes for f la sh p lan ts

condit ions ("steam q u a l i t y " ) of the well head brine.

e a c h s i t e

i s

i m p l i c i t

i n

t he S i t e da t a base,

by

comparison of factors

"Required Flow into Plant" and

"Flow

from Plant" .

are based expl ic i t ly on those va lues i n t he S i t e da t a base.

were 1 nked m or e e xp l i c i t l y t o measurable charac te r i s t ic s of the rese rvoi r .

t h a t break

a t

390 degrees F. The equations were derived from a review o f

previous s tud ie s and the costs provided by

S. U n i t t

i n December

1986.

r e s u l t s

o f

t he e qua t ions a r e qu i t e c ons i s t e n t a c r oss the f o l lowing s tud ie s ,

when stated

costs were

esca la ted to January

1986 u s i n g

t h e GNP

I m p l i c i t

Price

Deflator: T h e

GELCOM model

from

t h e MITRE Corp,

1976;

The

BPA

P a c i f i c

Northwest

Geothermal

Study,

1984;

and

S.

Unit t ' s cos ts ,

1986.

Flash

p l a n t

cost values from

the INEL/Technecon studies, estimated

i n 1979

-

1980

were

signif icantly higher than those aforementioned.

T h e overa l l pa t te rn sugges ts

t h a t f l a s h p l a n t c o s t s

h a v e

not changed much i n a decade.

Future ve r s ions o f

this

model would b e n e f i t g r e a t l y i f this r e l a t i o n s h i p

The capi ta l cos t of f la sh p lan ts i s estimated from two l inea r equa t ions

The

A . 17 Binary Plant Flow and Costs

.

T h e estimated br ine f l o w requirement f o r binary pl an ts was found t o vary

considerably across the

small

number of st u d ie s av ai la bl e. The problem

A- 8



a pp ea rs t o a r i s e from the very ac t ive R&D in to the p roper t i es o f w ork ing

f l u i d s

d u r i n g

t h e l a s t d ecade ,

w i t h

r e l a t i v e l y f ew s t u d i e s o f f e r i n g ex p l i c i t l y

de ta il ed assumptions. The problem

i s

compounded i n

t h a t

some s tudies report

ne t o r g ross b r ine e f fec t iveness va lues t h a t only somet imes include expl ici t

provision

for

powering deep well

pumps t h a t f eed t h e p l a n t .

S undry

d a t a p o i n t s from the BPA Pacific Northwest Geothermal S t u d y ,

S.

Unitt's d a t a ,

t h e I N E L / Technecon studies,

and

the

E P R I

well -head generator

s t u d i e s (1984-86) were compare graphically.

brine effect iveness across a wide temperature range were apparent ,

and

adopted. Various adju stm ents , as documented i n the code,

t o

account for the

net

power requirement

i n

t h e f i e l d f o r

down

hole

p u mp s .

for flow requirements.

because two of the s i t e s use re la t iv e ly coo l b r ines , espe c ia l ly i n the

"risked" condi t ions .

well

w i t h

the brine f low requirement , provided

t h a t a

minor secondary

adjustment i s made for temperature beyond

t h a t

i m p l i c i t i n the f low

requirement dependence on temperature.

a s

t/- 30

percen t , espec ia l ly

a t

th e lower temperatures . Addi tional

u n ce r t a i n t y p rev a i l s w i t h r e s p e c t t o

p l a n t

co st est im ate s. The sponsors o f

th is s tudy have been not i f ied oral ly of t h i s s t a t e o f u n ce r t a in t y .

Crude funct ions for net and g r o s s

Binary power p l a n t co s t - e s t i ma t e d a t a were even more

sparse t h a n

those

This problem i s exacerbated i n the cur ren t

s t u d y

I t was noted t h a t av a i l ab l e co s t s t e n d t o s c a le f a i r l y

Thus user s of t h i s model a re cautioned

t h a t

f low ra tes may be off as

m u c h

A - 9



A . 18 Microeconomics and Financial Assumpt ions

B us ba r c o s t s a re c a l c u l a t e d o n a r ev en ue re q u i r e m e n t s b a s i s , f o l l o w i n g

t h e re co mm en da ti on s o f t h e

E P R I

Tec hnic al Assessment Guides o f 1978

( a l g o r i t h m s ) a nd 198 2 ( c e r t a i n c o s t i n g f a ct o rs ) . Tax r e q u i re m e n t s r e f l e c t t h e

F e d e ral Ta x a c t o f 1 98 6 p ro v i s i o n s f o r ge o th e rm a l e n erg y p ro j e c t s , w i t h a 10

p e r c e n t s p e c i a l i nves tmen t t a x c r e d i t assumed; t hese assumpt ions shou ld be

a d e q u a t e f o r p l a n t s t h a t go o n l i n e i n l a t e 1987 t h r o u g h 1 989.

b e t h e same, t o k ee p m a t t e r s r e l a t i v e l y s i rrDl e.

d o l l a r s , w i t h v a lu e s g i v e n as m i l l s p e r k i l o w a t t hour. T ha t v a lu e i s c l o s e t o

t h ? f i r s t y e a r c o s t a t t h a t da te , and shoul:’ be m u l t i p l i e d by t h e e f f e c t

o f

g e: .c ra l i n f l a t i o n (assumed t o be 4 p e rc e nt p e r y e a r) t o f i n d t h e c o st v a lu e i n

f o l l o w i n g y e a r s .

embodied

i n

t h e t he f i l e

BUSFNFCTAEO,

used by

I M - G E O .

The assumpt ions behind

t h o s e f a c t o r s a r e a s f o l l o w s :

F i e l d and p l a n t c o s t

o f

c a p i t a l ( r e q u ir e d r a t e s o f r e t u r n ) a r e assumed

t o

The f i n a l r e s u l t s a r e ex pr es se d as l e k i l i z e d i n J an ua ry 1986 co n s ta n t

V a r io u s f a c t o r s f ro m t h e E P R I - T A G methodology f o r b u s b a r c o s t i n g a re

SOURCE: MERIDIAN C o rp o ra t i o n , F a i r f a x ,

VA

V E R S I O N : BUSIMGEO.BAS Program

RUN DATE: 03- 12- 19 87 11:20 a.m.

POL DATE: 1986 A l l V al ue s i n C u r re n t D o l l a r s : 1986

ASSUMPTIONS :

AFDC: No t i nc l u de d i n c a p i t a l cos t es t ima tes .

C a p i t a l a n d O&M Cost Ba si s Year: 1986.0

Y ea rs t o C o n s t ru c t : 3

G en eral I n f l a t i o n R at e: 0 .0 4 F u el I n f l a t i o n R at e: 0 .0 4

Book L i f e : 30 Tax L i f e : 5

D e b t F ra c t i o n :

0.50

Debt Rate : 0.11

Common Fraction:

0.50

Common Rate: 0.15

Der i ved D i scoun t Ra te : 0.13

CASE: SET

I M - G E O

FACTORS, AS-BUILT, NO AFDC

- - - -

Income ?ax (0.34 + 0.02): 0.36

I nves tmen t Tax Cred i t: 0.10 ‘Geothermal P ro pe rt y

Proper ty Tax

il

Insurance: 0 .02

Account i g Met hod:

Acce le ra ted Depre c ia t i on : Doub le De c l i n i ng Ba lance

Capaci ty ,

N e t

MWe: 50

Average Capaci ty Factor :

.85

Av era ge Ann ual Ene rgy, kWh: 372,300,000.

(Report i s con t i nued on t he nex t page . )

F1ow Through

A-1

0



- - - - - - - LEVELIZED A N N U A L FIXED CHARGE R AT E S , P e r c e n t - - - - - - - -

Weighted Cos t of Capi ta l

13 .00

* Si nk i ng Fund Depr ec i a t i on 0.34

* Ret i r em en t Di s pe r s i on Al l owance 0 .56

* Income Tax (Federa l and Sta te ) 3.43

* Accelerated D e p r e c i a t i o n - 3 . 4 0

*

I n v e s t m e n t l a x

Credit

- 1 .84

* P r o p e r t y l a x an d I n s u r a n c e

2.00

Tot a1 14.09

- - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LEVELIZED

BUSBAR

COSTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Char ge and Un i t s Va l ue Level i t i n g

BUSBAR

C OS T

F ac to r mi 11

s/kWh

C a p i t a l C o s t ,

SlOOOs

106150.8 0.14087 40.2

V a r i a b l e O&M, mills /kWh 10 1.413805

14 1

Fixed OLM,

S/kW

p e r y e a r

10 1 .413805 1 .9

Fuel, mi 11

s/kWh

10 1 .413805 14 . 1

- - - - -

Tot a l

:

7 0 . 3

A t c e r t a i n p l a c e s

i n

t h e c o s t i n g c o de t h e term " u n a c o s t " o c c u r s . T h i s

i s

a t e c h n i c a l t e r m t o d e s c r i b e a n an n u al p ay me nt r e q u i r e d t o a m o r t i z e a l u m p sum

p r e s e n t v a l u e o v e r

N

y e a r s , where N i s u s u a l l y ( b u t n o t a l w a y s ) t h e book l i f e

o f t h e power p l a n t . T h i s term

i s

used i n c o de l i n e s wh e re u nu s ua l s t r e a m s o f

p a ym e n ts , e .g . f o r s u p p l e m e n t a l p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s , n ee d t o b e c o n v e r t e d t o a n

e q u i v a l e n t l e v e l O&M c h a rg e d u r i n g ea ch y e a r of t h e p l a n t l i f e .

A - 1 1





APPENDIX

B

MODEL G E N E R A L OPTIONS AND MENUS

B -



MODEL GENERAL OPTIONS AND MENUS

This section describes the maj or messages and menus that you will see on

the screen.

screen, are described elsewhere.

Reports (results of calculations), which also appear on the

1.0 Start Up Messages

IM- GEO loads so me dat a files and calculates the Base Case results for the

eight regions wh en it begins operation. Messa ges about the progress of t h o s e

operations appear s on th e screen:

WELCOME

TO

IM-GEO.

(

Setting up Base Case )

WAIT: LOADING PHYSICAL DATA FOR REGIONS

WAIT: ADJUSTING WOR ST CASE DATA

WAIT: LOADI NG BASE CASE VALUES

WAIT: CALCULATING 8 REGIONS:

W A I T :

FILLING B A S E C A S E V A L U E S

( A

count message appears as Region is calculated

Once th e Base Case i s initialized, the IM -G EO identification sc reen

appears, showin g the source, Version number, and date of the program:

IM-GEO

VERSION

3.00

[

IMGE03001

16

Mar.

1987

IMPACTS OF R&D ON COST OF GEOTHERMAL POWER

Prepared By Meridian Corporation

Falls Church, Virginia

- - Under Contract t o Sandia Corporation

A1

buquerque, New Mexico

Contract N o . 02-1947

Project Team:

Dan Entingh,

Bill

Livesay, Susan Petty,

Richard Traeger, Stanley Unitt

PRESS

A N Y K E Y

TO START OPERATION

-=====>

A beep sounds after this display appears on the screen.

Press any key,

and you will

see the "Start-up and Quit" Menu.

B - 2



2.0

Menu [Z], "START-UP and

Q U I T "

f . SET: BASE CASE t o C u r re n t D ata

G. RESET: BASE CASE

t o O r i g i n a l D ef au lt s

A t a l l menus t h a t l o o k l i k e t h i s , boxed w i t h a n ENTER S E L E C T I O N ==>

p ro mp t, j u s t p r es s t h e l e t t e r y ou w ant , and t h e i n d i c a t e d a c t i o n

w i l l

occu r .

You c an u se e i t h e r u pp er o r l o w e r c as e e n t r i e s .

I f

y o u g e t y o u r w o r k i n g p a r a m e t e r s a l l fo u l ed up, come back t o t h i s

menu

and press

[GI.

Tha t w i l l s e t e v e r y th i n g back t o t h e o r i g i n a l s t a r t u p

v a l u e s .

O p t i o n [ F ] h e r e l e t s y ou s e t u p an a l t e r n a t i v e B ase Case.

To

do tha t ,

y o u w o u l d e d i t

R&D

Achievements from Menu

[ Y ]

t o e s t ab l i sh d i f f e r e n t

geo the rma l

techno logy pa rame te rs than those i n the D e f au l t Base Case. Then

come back t o t h i s menu and se le c t [F].' That

w i l l

e s t a b l i s h t h e c o s t s of power

r e s u l t i n g f r o m y o u r t e c h n o l o g y s e l e c t i o n s a s t h e B ase Case

f o r

a l l f u r t h e r

r e p o r ts , u n t i l you s e l e c t [Z,G] here .

Opt.ion [ R ] l e t s y ou d i v e r t " p r i n t ed " R ep or ts t o a d i s k f i l e .

You

can

i n t eg r a te r e s u l t s i n t h a t f i l e i n t o p ub l i sh ab le re po r t s.

o u t p u t c ha nn el i s a c t i v e ,

t h e menu s e ct i o n l o ok s l i k e t h i s :

When t h e f i l e

_ c

R.

CHANGE:

Where REPORTS a r e s e n t :

NOW -

F i l e :

fMGEOUT.TXT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The conten ts o f t h e f i l e 1HGEOUT.TXT ar e empt ied each t i m e th e p rogram

is

r e s ta r t ed o r i f O p t i o n [GI i s s el ec te d.

You c a n e x i t I M - G E O o n l y f r o m o p t i o n [QJ a t t h i s menu.

P r e s s i n g [ V I a t t h e [Z] menu sends you t o t h e OPERATIONS Menu. I t i s

f r o m t h e OPERATIONS menu t h a t you w i l l do a lm os t a l l

o f

y o u r w o r k w i t h I M G E O .

B - 3



3.0 Menu [ Y ] , OPERATIONS

IM-GEO- Y ] OPERATIONS MENU

A. HELP: Editing Options

B. EDIT: R&D Achvmnts, RESERVOIR L. SHOW: R&D Achievements

C. EDIT: R&D Achvmnts, WELLS M. SHOW: I-S ite Current Costs

D. EDIT: R&D Achvmnts, PLANTS N. SHOW: 1-Site Base Case Costs

0. PRINT 1-S ite Technical Details

p. ****

.

EDIT:

RISKs, RESERVOIR

F .

EDIT:

RISKs, WELLS

&

FLOW

G. EDIT:

RISKs, UNIT COSTS Q. SHOW: Multi-Reg., Costs

X

Region

R.

PRINT Multi-Reg., F I N E GRAIN Rpt

s. ****

. EDIT: Regional WEIGHTS

I * ****

J .

EDIT: Financial Factors

T .

EJECT Page (After cPrt.Scr>)

. - _ _ - - - - - - - - _- - _ __ - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -

K . HELP: Report Options

. - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U. SELECT: Single Analysis Site, NOW

=

1

V . RUN:

W . R U N : Mu1 ti-Region Analysis, (ACCOUNTS X PERCENT Report)

Single-Si te Cost of Power Analysis

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. GO TO: START-UP

/

QUIT MENU

This is the menu where you will spend most of your time.

0

Edit Sensitivity Data, via Options [B] through

[J].

It allows you

to:

0

Vie w and print a list of all of those factors whose current value

differs from

1.0,

via Option

[L].

0 Alter the weights that each Region carries in the Multi-Region

result weighted -average totals; Option

[ H I .

Option [HI contains

an option to print the resulting weights.

0 View (SHOW to console screen) and print reports from the various

calculations;

[ M I

- [R]

0

Eject page from printer

[ T I .

This is for when you m ay have performed

a DOS <Shift-Prt Scr> to print the console results. For example,

you might want to do that when one or more of the editing screens

[ e ]

through

[GI,

or

[I]

is active.

o

Perform multi-site or single site calculations; [VI

[wj.

The m ost important thing for you t o note here is that the results that

IM-GEO shows to screen or paper always reflect accurately the current

8-4



settings of th e Base Case cost

of

power, the R&D Achievements, Risk Impacts,

and Regional Weights. The computer program contains logical interlocks

which ensure that

no

results are presented to you until t he appropriate

recalculations, based on the current settings of R&D achievements, occur.

by the presentation

of

tho se results on th e screen.

usually given an option [P] to send t he results to your printer.

In general, eac h request for a calculation or a report will be followed

At that point, you are

Details o f

R&D

Achievem ent Editing Options are given in section

3.6.

Details

of

the Regional Weight Option are described in section

3.5.

Details of th e Reports a re described in Appendix

C.

4.0 [ Y , U ] ,

Select S ite f or Singl e-Sit e Reports

which calculations are mad e in Single-Site modes:

Option

[U]

at t he Y-OPERATIONS menu lets you change the "Single Site" f o r

SELECT SINGLE SITE FROM ONE

OF

TH E FOLLOWING:

1. Imperial Valley - Flash

2.

Imperial Valley

-

Binary

3.

Basin & Range - Flash

4.

Basin & Range

-

Binary

5. Cascades

-

Flash

6.

Cascades

-

Binary

7.

Young Volcanics

-

Flash

1

8. Young Volcanics - Flash 2

CURRENT SITE # IS:

1

SELECT SITE NUMBER [ l

-

81, <Enter>

:

1

Here you will have

to

press the <Enter> key after you type the number o f

the site you wish to have active as the "Single Site".

8 - 5



5.0 [Y,H] E D I T Regiona l Weigh ts

A l l

Mu l t i -R eg i on co s t o f power es t ima tes a re based on we igh ted ave rages

F o u r d i f f e r e n t w e i g h t i n gf c o st s e s t i m a te d f o r e i g h t

(8)

separa te reg ions .

methods have been programmed.

i f you p ress [ H I a t Menu [ V I :

The W e i g ht s i n f o r c e a r e s e l e c t e d f r o m t h e f o l l o w i n g menu, w h i c h ap pe ar s

I M - G E O - [ Y , H ]

R e- we ig ht ed r e s u l t s a pp ea r q u i c k l y , s i n c e i n d i v i d u a l

reg ion a l power co s t s do no t have t o be recompu ted.

S e l e c t R e g i on a l W ei gh ts f o r T o t a l s

-_------------------____c_______________--------------

A. HELP: What You Can / Should Do Here

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CURRENT SELECTION: Regional Capacity

_ c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.

Weight - Reg iona l Capac i t y [ - D E F A U L T

]

3.

Weight

=

E qua l f o r a l l R egio ns

K. Weight - User ’s Numer ica l

Values

L.

Weight

=

R el ev an ce t o R&D Program

S. SHOW/PRINT

Z. CONTINUE

Va lue o f Cu r ren t We igh ts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[ K ] b r i n g s u p

a

s c r e e n t h a t h e l p s you

you

en te r any we igh ts you wish .

See t h e t e c h n i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n s o f t h i s m anual f o r e x pl a n t io n s o f

t h e m ea njng s o f o p t i o n s

[I]

nd [L] here.

8 - 6



6.0

th e anticipated Achi evements of the Research and Development Program.

describe the actions of th e following subset

o f

the OPERATIONS menu:

[Y,B-J], Edit R&D Achievements and Risks

Options [B] - [GI and [I] - [J] of the [Y]-OPERATIONS M enu let you enter

H er e we

So me R&D Achievements are in the form of improvem ents in equipment

cost

Other R&D Achievements are in the form of reduction of reservoir and

[J] allo ws access to a few mino r financial factors.

Each of these options brings up an "Editing Screen". The specific

Each editing screen presents a list of factors, each keyed to a letter.

or efficiency, [B], [C], [D].

drilling uncertainties, [E],

[F],

[GI.

screens are sho wn below.

You

are prompted to

press

t h e letter for

the

factor you

w a n t

to

edit.

you are further prompted to enter the new value for the factor.

Then

Y o u can continue t o select and c hange factors in this m anner, until

you

press [Z]. Pressing [Z] returns you to Menu [Y].

Th e follow ing subsections present the editing screens, cu rrent as o f

IMG EO Version 2.08 of

20

February 1987.

These screens may be somew hat

different i n later versions.

B - 7





6.3

[Y,D],

E d i t

R&D

Achievements f o r PLANTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EDITING: R&D Achieveme nts f o r PLANTS:

A.

R&D

Achvmt: Years Between P la nt s

[Nom.=l.O]

/

NOW

=

1

B .

R&D

Achvmt: Ef f i c i en cy , FLASH Pl an t

[ N o m . = l . O ]

/ NOW = 1

C.

R&D Achvmt: Cap. Cos t, FLASH P l a n t [Nom.=l.O] / NOW =

1

0.

R&D Achvmt:

O&M

Cost, FLASH P la nt

[ N o m . = l . O ]

/ NOW =

1

E. R&D Achvmt: Ef f ic iency , BINARY Plan t [Nom.=l.O] /

NOW

=

1

F. R&D Achvmt: Cap. Co st, BINARY P l a n t [Nom.=l.O] / NOW

=

1

G. R&D Achvmt: O&M Cost, BINARY P la nt [Nom.= .O ] / NOW

=

1

H. R K I Achvmt: Cap. C ost , H eat Exchange [ N o m . = ] -21 / I:3W = 1

I . R8D Achvmt: O&M C os t , l ' = a t Exchange [ N O R . = ' ':I / ~. i 1

2. R8D Achvmt: Cap. C o s t , I ? n e S t a b i l .

NO:^.:.

.,I / 1:

=

1

K.

R&D

Achvmt: OSb Cost , E . -ne S ta b i l .

f t : ~ ~ . = : . O ]

/ L n 1

L.

R6D Achvmt : Cap. Cos t,

h2S

l r e a t m e n t itiorn.=l.O]

/

NOW

=

1

M.

R&D

Achvmt: O&M Cost, H2S Treatment [ N o m . = l . O ]

/ NOW

=

1

ENTER x

o f D a t a

I t e m

t o Change, or Z t o C O N T I N U € :

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note,

f o r e d i t i n g s cr ee n "[Y,D], E d i t

R&D

Achievements for PLANTS" ,that

t h e B i n a r y P l a n t f a c t o r s [ E ] and

[ F ] :

F . R&D Achvmt:

Cap. Cost,

B I N A R Y

P l a n t

G.

R&D Achvmt:

O&M

Cost, B I N A R Y P l a n t .

o p e r a t e c om p l e t e ly i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f f a c t o r s :

H. R&D Achvmt: Cap. Cost, Heat Exchange

1.

R&D Achvmt:

O&M

Cost, Heat Exchange

Th is independence was se t in to

I M G E O

so t h a t e f f e c t s e x p e c t e d f r o m r a d i c a l l y

d i f f e r e n t heat e xc ha ng er c o n ce pt s c o u l d be e n te r ed f a i r l y e x p l i c i t l y .

I f you w ant t o a l t e r B i n ar y p l a n t c o s ts

i n

s i m l e ways, you shou ld en te r

th e same-Cap i ta l co s t Achievement le v e l f o r fact=%] and [ H I .

S i m i l a r l y ,

if ou change the Binary O&M cos t fac to rs , en te r the same cos t Ach ievement

l e v e l f o r f a c t o r s [GI and [ I ] .

The ca se f o r F l a s h p l a n t s i s s i m i l a r . F o r s i m p l e changes, e n t e r t h e same

C.

RbD

Achvmt: Cap. Co st , FLASH P l a n t

3. RLD Achvmt: Cap. Cost,

B r i n e S t a b i l .

1. R&D Achvmt:

Cap. Cost,

H2S Treatment

D.

R&D Achvmt: OaM Cost, FLASH P la n t

K. RLD Achvmt:

ObM

C os t, B r i n e S t a b i l .

M. RLD Achvmt:

ObM

Cost, H2S Treatment

a ch ie ve me nt l e v e l s f o r e ach f a c t o r

i n

t h e f o l l o w i ng t r i p l e t s :

B - 9



6.4

[ Y , E ] , E d i t

RISK Factors for

R E S E R V O I R

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - -

EDITING: Est im at io n Erro r s f o r RESERVOIR:

A .

RISK: Energy i n Region, MW*30Y [Nom.=l.O]

/ NOW =

1

B . 0

c .

0

D. 0

E.

RISK: Reservior Satur. Temp,

F [ N o m . = l . O ] / NOW = 1

F . 0

G.

RISK: Wellhead Temperature, F

[Nom.=l.O] / NOW = 1

H.

0

I .

0

3.

0

K . RISK: HZS,

PPM

[ N o m . = l . O ]

/

N O W = 1

L.

RISK: Tot.

Dis.

So l i d s , PPK (Nom.=l.O]

/

NOW

= 1

E d i t i n

"RISKS":

T h e comments

here a p p l y t o t h i s e d i t i n g

screen

as well

a s t o+ose

f m F ] ,

E d i t

RISK

Factors

for WELLS & FLOW",

and

" [ Y , G ] ,

E d i t

RISK

Factors for UNIT

COSTS".

Some of the Si te

Data

factors have "Bad Case" offset values associated

w i t h them.

have an o f fse t o f -30 degrees F.

The

450

degree value

is

t h e e s t i m a t e

o f t h e

most l ike ly wel l

head

temperature for the modeled prospect

i n

the Region.

T h e

value 450

-

30 = 420

degrees

F. represen ts a typical worst case value

for

the

temperature.

T h a t is,

the reservo i r eng ineer has

s a i d , " I t h i n k i t

will be

450

degrees , b u t

I

don't want

t o

promise you

t h a t i t

will rea l ly be any b e t t e r

t h a n

420 degrees."

For example,

a

Well Head Temperature of

450

degrees

F.,

m i g h t

Wi t h

f a c t o r

[GI.

"RISK: Wellhead Temperature, f " set equal

t o

t h e d e fau l t

value

o f

1.0, the "RISKY" cost of the current

p l a n t

will be costed assuming a

well-head temperature o f 450

-

(1.0

X

30) -

420

F.

0.4 ,

then the "RISKY" cost will assume a temperature of

450 - (0.4 X

30)

-

438

F.

The RISK

values

i n

the "Si te Data" da ta-base thus a re g en e ra l l y

t o

be

viewed

a s errors of estimation t h a t r e s e rv o i r an a l y s t s t y p i ca l l y m ak e

i n

1986.

The RISK fa c to rs t h a t you es t ab l i sh

here

are in terpreted as accomplishments o f

R&D t h a t

will h e l p

reservoir analysts reduce the magnitude

o f

erro rs o f

es t imat ion .

I f f a c t o r

[GI i s

s e t t o

These menus

have a "spotty" l o o k because not al l o f t he S i t e D a t a f a c t o r s

have

risk

values s e t aga in s t them. The p resen ta t ion se lec ted

here is

intended

t o h e lp you c ro s s -co r r e l a t e t h e s e t h ree s c reen s t o t h e i n fo rm at io n

i n

the S i t e

D a t a f i l e .

The

values

o f

t h e o f f s e t s a r e R eg i o n - s p ec i f i c .

8 - 1 0



6.5

[Y,F], Edit RISK Factors fo r WELLS & FLOW

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EDITING: Estimation Errors for WELLS

8

FLOW:

A .

0

B.

0

C.

RISK: Producer Redrill Fraction [Nom.-1.01

/

NOW

= 1

D.

RISK: Dry Holes per Producer [Nom.=l.O]

/

NOW

= 1

E.

RISK:

Y r s

Btwn. Workover, PRODU [Nom.-1.01 / NOW

= 1

F. RISK: Yrs Btwn. Workover, INJCT [Nom.=l.O]

/

NOW

= 1

G.

0

H.

0

1.

RISK: Prod. Well Flow, Klb/br [NorO.=l.O]/ NOW

= 1

J .

RISK:

Inject. Well Flou KiIjhr [Nonx.:l.O]

/

NOW

=

1

'

i

. R I S K :

Flow for Decline, Klk, 'k: [Noz.=:.O]

/

N3W

=

1

L. RISK: Declin e Coeff., l/Years [Nom.-1.01

/

NOW

=

1

M.

0

N.

0

ENTER

x

of Data Item to Change, or

Z

to CONTINUE:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

See th e note in section

3.6.4

for the desrcription

of

the meaning

o f

the se factors.

6.6 [ Y , G ] ,

Edit RISK Factors for UNIT COSTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EDITING: Estimation Errors for UNIT COSTS:

A .

0

B.

0

C. RISK: Wel? Cost, Extension,

SM

[Nom.=l.O]

/

NOW

= 1

D. 0

E . 0

F.

0 .

G.

0 -

H.

0

ENTER

x o f

Data Item t o Change, o r

Z

to CONTINUE:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here RISK Factor [C] represents the an estimate of the average non-

optimized cost risk associated with drilling and completing an "incident-free''

well.

Se e the technical discussion sections f or the detailed explanation.

B - 1 1



6.7 [Y , J ] ,

E d i t

Financial Factors

EDITING: Financial Factor

Data

Values

:

A . Royalty Rate

B.

Severance Tax

Default: .04 / CURRENT Value - .04

C. Pe rcen t Depl e t on A1 1owance Default:

.15 / C U R R E N T Value

=

.I5

D.

Intangible Fract . of Well Cost

Default :

.75

/

CURRENT

Value

=

. 7 5

ENTER

x

of Data Item t o Change, or 2

t o

CONTINUE:

Default: .10 /

CURRENT

Value = . I

I

This screen l e t s you ed i t a few geo thermal -spec i f i c f inanc ia l fac to r s .

They are included only because they were available as local values i n the

o ld e r model from which IMGEO was deve loped.

These fac to rs a re descr ibed

i n

discussions of "Financial Factors"

i n

the

more technical se ct i on s of th is report .

8 - 1 2





DETAILS OF MODEL REPORTING OPTIONS

This section provides examples of the major reports that issue from I M -

GEO's calculations and presentations.

on the reasonability

of

the RbD Achievements used t o produce the reports, or

th e possible implications o f the exa mple results.

You

migh t note that t he reports indicate which method of weiqhted

averaginq is in effect, for those reports which include weighted averages.

They are presented here without comment

1.0 Sensitivity Factors in Effect for These Example Reports

The report immediately below results fro m Option [Y,L], "Show R&D

Achievements".

exa mpl e calculations and Reports sho wn in this section.

The factors show n there were in effect when producing the

IM-GEO: SENSITIVITY FACTORS IN EFFECT 03-1 6-19 87

-

15: 14:04

R&D Achvmt: Well Prblms, Lost Circul

RbD


R&D Achvmt: Efficiency, FLASH Plant

RbD Achvrnt: Efficiency, BINARY Plant

RbD Achvmt: Cap. Cost, Heat Exchange

RbD Achvmt:

0&M

Cost, Heat Exchange

[Nom.=l

.O]:

0.70

[Nom.=l.O]: 0.85

[Nom.-1.01: 1.05

[Norn.=l.O]: 1.20

[Nom.=l.O]: 1.30

[Nom.=l.O]: 1.20

RISK: Wellhead Temperature, F

[Nom.=l .O] :

0.70

RISK: Prod. Well Flow, Klb/hr [Nom.=l.O]

: 0.50

RISK: Inject. Well Flow, Klb/hr [Nom.=l.O]

:

0.50

RISK: Decline Coeff., l/Years [Nom.=l .O]

: 0.70

RegioKal Weights

-

Regional Capacity

c - 2



2.0

M u l t i - S i t e R e s u l t s R e p o r t s

or

i s

p r i n t e d d i r e c t l y w i t h o u t b e i n g shown on t h e s c re en .

Each o f t he se r e p o r t s i s e i t h e r p r i n t a b l e a f t e r

i t

appears on the screen ,

2.1

The Main Mu l t i - S i t e R es ult s Report , ACCOUNTS

X

PERCENT

T h e r e p o r t f r o m [Y,W]: "RUN: M u l t i - R e g i o n A n a l y si s

(ACCOUNTS

X PERCENT)

R eport", i s t h e m a i n r e p o r t

o f

IM- GEO. Example:

GEOTHERMAL COST OF POWER EST I M AT E RUN: 03-16-1987 - 15:14:04

Mu lt i - Ee g.: n Weighted Averaged Data

WEIGHTS =

Reg iona l Capac i ty

1986

[From I M ~ L O oaei J TiCHNOL.

;. UF

1586 0 COST %

OF NEW

*********

TECHNOLOGY

CHANGE

TECH. TOTAL

ACCOUNT X OF COST

ELECT.

COST FROM

1986 ELECT.

COST

- - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

+**** ;Ehl

- -

e W:n

OGY

S Y S T E M ******

c

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _

TOTAL :

100.0 76.8 - 23.2

100.0

R I S K F R A C T I O N

: 32.2 18.0

- 44.1 23.5

1. I d e n t

i

y Rese rvo i r 5 .6 4.7

-

16.6 6.1

2. C on f i rm Re se r vo i r

6.4 5.4

-

14.7 7.1

3 . Wel ls

33.5 21.1 -

37.2 27.4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - -

- - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _

4. Downhole Pumps

1.4 0.9

- 32.2 1.2

5. Ga ther in g Equ ip .

5.7 3.8 - 33.1

4.9

6 . Power P lan t

33.7 28.2

- 16 .1 36 .8

7. Heat Exchangers 4.1 3.8

-

7.7 5.0

8. B r i ne S t a b i l i z i n g 2

.o

2 .o -

0.0

2.6

9. Env i ronmenta l 4.4 4.4

-

0.0 5.7

10.

Insu rance

3.2 2.4

-

25.2 3.1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The

s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s i n e f f e c t a r e p r i n t e d a t t h e bottom .

T h i s r e p o r t r e f l e c t s t h r e e a sp ec ts o f t h e c o s t i mp ac ts o f

RBD

changes:

1. Column 2,

X OF

1986 TECHNOLOGY ELECT. COST", shows t h a t t h e w e igh te d

ave rage cos t o f t h e New Techno logy sys tem i s

76.8

p e r c e n t of t h e 1986

cos t .

f r a c t i o n s o f t h e 1986 t o t a l c o st .

those subsys tems i n w h ic h t h e g r ea t e s t d o l l a r c o s t changes have

occu r red .

It

a l s o

shows New Technology subsystem costs expressed as

T h i s g i v e s a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n

o f

2. Column 3, "% COST CHANGE

FROM

1986", shows percen tage changes i n

c o s t s . H i g h p e r ce n t ag e c ha ng es c o u l d be e s p e c i a l l y r e l e v a n t f o r t h e

I d e n t i f y R e s e r v o i r a nd C o n f i r m R e s e r v o i r s u bs ys te ms ( p r o j e c t p ha se s).

These m i g h t r ed uc e t h e o v e r a l l r i s k t o t h e p r i v a t e s e ct o r w i t h r e g ar d

t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and c o n f ir m a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , even i f o t h e r a s p e c t s

o f t h e c o s t o f power do not change much.

d i s t r i b u t i o n of t o t a l c o st s a c ro ss t h e e le me nt s o f t h e N e w Technology

3. Column 4, ' X

OF

NEW TECH. TOTAL ELECT.

COST",

shows t he percentage

c - 3



system. Under t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e t

o f R&D

Achievements, th e power

p lan t accoun ts (6 ,

7, 8,

and

9)

w o u l d m a k e u p a s u b s t a n t i a l l y g re a t e r

p er ce nt ag e o f t h e t o t a l s ys te m c o s t th a n t h e y d i d w i t h 1986

technology.

You

s ho ul d n o t e t h a t

" R I S K

F r a c ti o n " here a nd i n a l l o t h e r

I M G E O

r e p o r t s

i s

an i n d e p e n d e n t v e s t i m a t e d f r a c t i o n of t h e Co st o f Power, and i s n o t a

s p e c i f i c a cc ou nt t h a t i s summed t o g e t t h e T o t a l Cost. The T o t a l C o x i s

e x p l i c i t l y t h e sum o f A cc ou nts 1 through 10.

A l s o n o t e t h e t i m e s ta mp on t h i s r e p o r t and o t h e rs . The t i m e shown there

i s t h e t i m e a t w h ic h a ny o f t h e R&D Achievment o r Reg iona l We igh t i ng f ac to rs

was e d it e d . T ha t t i m e i s t h e n "s ta mp ed " o n any re p o r t y o u g en e ra te , u n t i l yo u

e d i t t h e f a c t o r s a ga in .

r e p or t s a re t i e d t o a s p e c i f i c s e t o f R&D Achievements, es p ec ia l l y when you

are running many analyses on the same day.

T h i s t i m e s t a m p

w i l l

h e l p y ou i d e n t i f y w hic h p r i n t e d

A l t hough i t i s n o t shown h ere, t h i s r e p o r t ( a nd a f e w o th e rs )

w i l l

a lways

have th e v al ue s of t h e c u r r e n t l y a c t i v e

R&D

Achievements p r i n te d ou t benea th

i t . T h a t e n s u re s t h a t a g i v e n s e t o f R&D Achievements and t h e i r impac ts on

t h e c o s t o f p ow er a r e a l wa y s k e p t t og e t he r .

I f t h e r e s u l t s f r o m t h e m a in M u lt i- R e gi o n R ep or t l o o k l i k e th os e

immed ia te l y be low ,

t h e n y o u a re s e e i ng t h e re p o r t f o r t h e Base Case. T ha t i s ,

a l l

R&D

Achievements were set

=

1.0 b e f o r e t h e M u l t i - R e g i o n c a l c u l a t i o n w a s

r u n . N o t i c e t h a t a l l o f t h e " P e rc e nt C os t Change fr o m 1986" va lues a re ze ro .

GEOTHERMAL

COST

OF

POWER

E S T I M A T E

RUN: 03-16-1987

-

1 4 ~ 5 8 ~ 1 8

Mul t i -Region Weighted Averaged Data WEIGHTS = Reg iona l Capac i t y

1986

*****

NEW

TECHNOLOGY

SYSTEM

******

[From IMGEO Model] TECHNOL. X

OF

1986 X

COST

X

OF

NEW

********* TECHNOLOGY CHANGE TECH. TOTAL

ACCOUNT X OF COST ELECT. COST FROM 1986 ELECT. COST

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL :

100.0

100.0

- 0 .0 100.0

R I S K FRACTION : 32.2 32 .2

- 0 .0

32.2

1.

I d e n t i f y R e se rv oi r

5 .6 5 .6

- *o.o 5.6

2 .

C o n f i rm R e s e rv o i r

6 . 4

6 .4 - 0 .0 6 .4

3 . Wel l s

33 .5

33.5

- 0 .0 33 .5

4 .

Downhole Pumps

1.4

1.4

- 0 . 0

1.4

5. Gather ing Equip .

5.7

, 5 . 7

- 0.0 5 .7

6.

Power Plant

33.7 33 .7

-

0 .0

33.7

7. Heat Exchangers 4 . 1

4 . 1

-

0 .0

4 . 1

8.

B r in e S t a b i l i z i n g

2 .0

2.0

- 0.0 2.0

9. Environmental

4.4

4.4

- 0 .0 4.4

10. I nsu rance

3 .2 3 .2

- 0.0 3 . 2

A l l

S e n s i t i v i t y F a ct or s

= 1 . 0

Regional Weights

=

Reg iona l Capac i t y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IM-GEO: SENSITIVITY FACTORS

I N

EFFECT

03-16-1987

-

14:58:18

c -4



2.2 M u l t i - S i t e Re po rt , C os ts

X

Region

The repo r t f r om [ Y , Q ) : "SHOW:

Mult i -Reg., Costs

X

Region" i s shown here.

T h i s l e t s y ou s e t t h e m a j o r c o s t e s t i m a t e s and c o s t o f p ow er ( mi ll s/ KW h)

e s t i m a t e s

for

e ac h o f t h e e i g h t R e gio ns .

WEIGHTS

= Regiona l Capac i ty

Example:

GEOTHERMAL COST OF POWER ESTIMATE 03-16-1987 15:14:04

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CAP.

O&M

CAP.,

O&M, TOTAL, TOTAL,

X

COST,

COST, MILLS MILLS MILLS CHANGE

R E G I O N

SM

SM/Y

/KWH

/KWH /KWH

FROM

B A S E

- - - - - - - - _ - -

- - - - - e - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. IV -FL 153.3 7.0 39.0 19.5 58.5

-12.1

1

?

43.6 8.9 52.5

-26.5

. 1 V - B l 368.7

.

3 0 P

7.0

37.0 -14.6

:-

1".9

- ? 2 . ^

3. BR-FL

4. B R - E I

5.

CS-FL

i67.7 318 64.5 10.7 75.2 -22.7

6.

CS-BI

312.5 6.3 83.4 17.2

100.6

-29.0

7. Y V - F 1 223.3 12.3 53.6 34.9 88.5 -29.9

8.

Y V - F 2

123.5 4.8 31.3 13.2 44.5 -10.3

WEIGHTED: 204.4 6.3 51.7 17.5 69.2 -23.2

~

3;:

t c

.

-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s i n e f f e c t a r e p r i n t e d a t t h e b o tto m.

e f f e c ts o n d i f f e r e n t r eg i on s .

U s u a ll y , b u t n o t a lw ay s, t h e s i t e s w i t h

r e l a t i v e l y h i g h Base Case c o s t o f p ow e r

w i l l show

t h e h i g h e s t a b s o l u t e a n d

perce ntage changes i n the New Technology cost o f power.

below.

I f

you see t h a t a l l t h e "Percen t Changes" he re a re zero , t hen you

a r e

l o o k i n g a t

a

"Base Case" Report.

As you m i gh t expect , t h e same se t o f R&D A c h i e v e m e n t s h a s d i f f e r e r s t

For

g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t , t h e Base Case v e r s i o n o f t h i s r e p o r t i s shown

GEOTHERMAL COST

OF

POWER ESTIMATE

03-16-1987 1458: 8

WEIGHTS

=

Regiona l Capac i ty

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CAP.

O&M

CAP.,

O&M,

TOTAL, TOTAL,

X

COST,

COST, MILLS

MILLS

MILLS CHANGE

R E G I O N

SM

$M/Y /KWH /KWH

/KWH

FROM BASE

1. IV -FL

179.8

7.7 45.2 21.4 66.5

0.0

2. I V - B I 234.9

4.0

60.3

11.0

71.3

0.0

3.

BR-FL

148.9 2.5 36.3

7.0

43.3

0.0

4.

BR-BI

398.5 10.7 104.4

30.0

134.4

0.0

5.

CS-FL

355.8 4.4

85.0

12.2 97.3

0.0

6. CS-BI

448.3

8.4

118.6 23.0 141.6 0.0

7. Y V - F 1

271.0 21.6 64.4

61.8

126.3 0.0

8. YV-FZ

144.8 4.9

36.3

13.3

49.6 0.0

WEIGHTED:

266.7 8.2 67.0 23.1

90.1

0.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - -

_ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c - 5



2.3

M u l t i - S i t e Re po rt , C os ts

X

Regions

X

Accounts

f o r each Reg ion .

B as e Case r e s u l t s a r e a t t h e t o p , a nd c u r r e n t c a s e (New .

T ec h no lo gy ) c o s t s a r e a t t h e b o t to m .

R&D a t

t h e d i f f e r e n t m o d e l l e d r eg i on s .

The

[Y,R]

"FINE

G RAI N"

r e p o r t s hows t h e M il l s/ K Wh t o t a l s f o r t h e A cc ou nts

T h i s i s t h e

most

u s e f u l r e p o r t f o r m a ki n g q u i c k c o m p a r i s o n s o f i m p a c t s on

GEOTHERMAL COST OF POWER

03-16-1987 15~14~04

IM- GEO:

ACCOUNTS-BY-SITE COST DATA

BASE CASE VALUES, MILLS/KWH

IV-FL IV-BI BR-FL BR-BI CS-FL C S - B I Y V - F 1

YV-F2

EXPLR

CNFRM

WELLS

PUMPS

GATHR

PLANT

HTXCH

STABL

E N V I R

I N S U R

TOTAL

R I S K

4.2

5.4

19.3

0.0

3.6

19.8

0.0

4.8

7.6

I

.8

66.5

20.9

4.2

4.4

15.2

2.0

5.4

30.1

7.2

0.0

0.0

2.6

71.3

18.7

4.8 3.1 7.3 3.7 8.2 3.9

5.4 3.0 8.7 3.3 8.9 4.4

11.2 38.1 47.5 26.8 71.1 9.2

0.0

5.8

0.0

5.6

0.0

0.0

2.5 8.3 6.0 7.2 6.9 2.8

18.0 57.4 23.9 72.1

18.0

18.0

0.0 13.7 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.3 2.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

8.3 7.6

1.4 5.0 3.8 5.6 2.6 1.4

43.3 134.4 97.3 141.6 126.3 49.6

8.7 42.2 33.2 36.0 57.0 15.7

CURRENT CASE VALUES, MILLS/KWH

IV-FL IV-BI BR-FL BR-BI CS-FL C S - B I Y V - F l

YV-F2

EXPLR

CNFRM

WELLS

PUMPS

GATHR

PLANT

HTXCH

STABL

ENVI

I N S U R

TOTAL

3.5 3.6

4.7 3.8

14.3 8.6

0.0 1.4

2.0 3.3

19.3 22.9

0.0 7.0

4.8 0.0

7.6 0.0

1.5

1.8

58.5 52.5

4.1

4.7

7.9

0.0

2.0

17.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

37.0

2.5 6.2 2.9 6.9 3.3

2.6 7.3 2.8

7.6 3.8

19.5

32.1 15.2 40.2 .6.8

3.9

0.0 3.8

0.0

0.0

4.6 4.7 4.3 3.5

2.3

41.8 22.2 51.9 17.7 17.2

12.7

0.0

15.8

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

2.3

2.3

0.0 0.0

0.0

8.3

7.6

3.3

2.8 3.9

2.1 1.2

90.9 75.2 100.6

88.5 44.5

R I S K 16.0

8.7 4.5 16.7 20.2 15.6 26.3 13.0

C-6



3 . 0 R e s u l t s f r o m S i n g l e - S i t e A na ly se s

[ Y , U ] .

asked f o r y o u r s e l e c t i o n .

The s i n g l e s i t e a na ly ze d f o r t he se r e p o r t s i s t h a t s e l e c t ed a t O p t i o n

When you s e l ec t t h a t op t ion , you are shown a l i s t of t h e s i t e s , and

3 . 1 R e p o r t f r o m "RUN: S i n g l e - S i t e C o st o f P ower A n a l y s i s "

The r e p o r t f r o m

[ Y , V ] ,

"RUN: S i n g l e - S i t e C os t o f

P o w e r

A n al ys is " i s shown

be low.

S i t e

(ACCOUNTS

X PERCENT) Report.

s i t e .

Y o u s h o ul d n o t e t h a t t h e f o r m a t h e r e i s t h e same as t h e M a i n M u l t i -

B ut t h e r e s u l t s a r e

f o r

t h e c u r r e n t

s i n g l e

GFcTH Et:IAL

COST

0 POh'F-

E S T I M A T E

R U K: :3-16-1987 - I f . ; 3 : G

Region

: 2

I m p e r i a l V a l l e y

-

B i n a r y

[From I M G E O Model] TECHNOL. X OF 1986 % COST

%

OF

NEW

ACCOUNT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986

*****

NEW

TEC"9OLOGY

S Y S T E M

******

********* TECHNOLOGY CHANGE

TECH. T O T A L

% OF COST ELECT. COST

FROM

1986 ELECT.

COST

- - - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL : 100.0

73 .5

-

26.5

100.0

R I S K FRACTION

: 26.2 12.2 - 53.5

16.6

1.

I d e n t i f y R e s e r v o i r 5 . 9

5.0 - 16.0

6.8

2 . C o n f i r m R e s e r v o i r 6 . 2

5.4 - 13.2

7 . 3

3 . W e l l s

21.4

1 2 . 1 - 43.5

16.4

4 . Downhole Pumps 2.9

2 . 0 - 3 1 . 1

2 . 7

5 . G a t h e r i n g E q u i p .

7 . 6 4 . 7

- 38 .5

6 . 4

6 .

Power Plan t 42.3 32.2

-

23.9 43.7

7 . Heat Exchangers 10.1

9.8

- 3 . 2 1 3 . 3

8 . B r i ne S t a b i l i z i n g

0.0

0.0

-

0 . 0

0.0

9. Env i ronmenta l

0.0

0.0

-

0.0

0.0

10. I n s u r a n c e

3.7 2.5 - 31.1 3.4

The s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s i n e f f e c t a r e p r i n t e d a t t h e bo t tom .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You g e t t o t h i s r e p o r t

by

u s i n g O p t i o n [ Y , V ] ,

"RUN:

S i n g l e - S i t e

C o s t

of

I f t h e t h i r d column, X COST

CHANGE

FROM 1986' , i s a l l zeros, you w o u ld

Pow er An a 1y

s

i

" .

b e l o o k i n g

a t

t h e

Base Case v e r s i o n o f t h i s r e p o r t .

c - 7



3.2 Single-Site Current Costs Report

The report from [ Y , M ] , "SHOW: O ne -S ite Cu rre nt C os ts"

is s h o w n

below.

T h i s

format i s d i f f e r e n t f r om

any

of the Mu lt i-Site repo r ts . Here you

can

see ,

for

each

o f

the

major

accounts,

C a p i t a l

Cost,

O&M

Cost/Year,

and

Mills/KWh values for the capita l components and T o t a l .

GEOTHERMAL COST OF POWER ESTIMATE RUN:

03-16-1987

-

15:14:04

Current Case Costs: Imperial Valley

-

Binary

[From IMGEO Model J

C a p i t a l

O&M C a p i t a l T o t a l

ACCOUNT s S / Y

r System cost

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mills/KWhour

- - - - -

- - - -

M i l l i o n

$ - - - - - - - - - -

c o s t , c o s t , P a r t

o f

Busbar

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - _

TOTAL

:

168.7

3 .2 43 .6

5 2 . 5

RISK

FRACTION

:

28.6

0 .5

7 . 3

8 . 7

1. Ident i fy Rese rvoi r 17.9

0 . 0

3 . 6 3 . 6

2 . Confirm

Reservoi

r 17.3

0.0 3 . 8 3 . 8

3 . Wells 29 .5

0 . 7

6 . 7

0 . 6

4 . Downhole Pumps

1 .7

0 . 3 0 . 5 1.4

5.

Gathering

E q u i p .

9 . 5

0 .2

2 . 7

3 . 3

6 . Power

P l a n t

6 8 . 2

1.3 19.4 2 2 . 9

7 . Heat Exchangers 18.2

0.7 5 .2 7 .0

8.

Brine S t a b i l i z i n g 0.0

0 . 0

0 . 0 0 . 0

9 . Environmental 0 . 0

0 . 0 0.0

0 . 0

10. Insurance

6.4

0 . 0 1 . 8 1 . 8

The se ns i t i v i t y f a c t o r s i n e f f e c t a r e p r in t e d a t t he

bottom.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C-8



3.3

Single- Site Base Case Costs Report

The report from

[ Y , N ] ,

"SHOW: One-Site Base Case Costs" is shown here.

The f orm at is the sam e as that of th e One-Site Current Costs report.

GEOTHERMAL COST

OF

POWER ESTIMATE

R U N : 03-16-1987

-

15:14:04

Base Case Costs: Imperial Valley - Binary

[From IMGE O Model Capital O&M Capi t 1 Tot

a1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - - -

Million

f

- - _ - - -

- - _ - Mills/KWhour - - - - -

cost, cost Part of Busbar

ACCOUNT

s S/Y r System

C o s t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

_ - - - - - _ - - _ _

TOTA :

234.9

4 . 0 6 0 . 3 7 1 . 3

RISK FRACTIC' :

64 .2

0 . 9

1 6 . 2

18.7

1.

Identify Reservoir

21.3

0.0 4.2 4 .2

2.

Confirm Reservoir

19.9

0.0

4 . 4 4 . 4

3 .

Wells 58 .2

0 .7

13.2 15.2

4 .

Downhole Pumps

2 .5

0.5

0.7 2 . 0

5. Gathering Equip.

15 .8

0.4

4 . 5 5 . 4

6 . Power Plant

89.7

1.7 2 5 . 5 3 0 . 1

7. Heat Exchangers

18.4

0.7

5 . 2 7 . 2

8 .

Brine Stabilizing

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

9 .

Environmental

0.0

0 . 0 0.0

0.0

10.

Insurance 9 . 2

0 . 0 2.6 2.6

An indication is shown that all

sensitivity factors in effect are nominal.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - -

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c - 9



3.4 S i n gl e -S i te l e

h ica l F a c t o r s Report

T h i s repor t shows in te rm edia te ca lcu la t ion va lues. I t s purpose i s so le ly

for checking on the reasonableness o f ce r t a i n i n t e rmed i a t e r e s u l t s .

Resul ts

from

t h i s r e p or t

-----

h o u l d

n o t

be c ite d as " p e r f o r m s values"

-

r

----cost e s t i m a t e s " - f ~ ~ a r t i cu I a r s i t e o r r eg io n.

Some of the values shown here

do n o t

appear when

Binary

Plants or

Deep

Well pumps are not used fo r the spec i f i c reg ion .

Page I

Region analyzed: 2 Imperial Valley - Binary

*****

SITE DETAILS

- - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _

03-16-1987

-

1 5 ~ 1 4 ~ 0 4

******* PR OJEC T MAJOR PARAMETERS

************

Pl an t n e t s i ze , M W E 50

P l a n t

F i n a l

GROSS

Power estimate,

MW 74.17367

(571 Well -Head Temperature, Deg-F

Flow

I n t o

P l a n t

r eq u i r ed ,

10A6

b / h r 7.320121

Flow From P l a n t , t o I n j e c t o r s , 10A6 b/hr 7.320121

(5271 P l a n t Type ]=BIN E d L A 3=STEAM

1

336

[S12] Brine Contam. Index = B C I

0

[S28] Down Hole Pumps 1 = YES 1

*******

W E L L

PARAMETERS

AND COSTS ***********

( 5 2 1 1 Producer Well Flow, 10A6 b/Hour .515

In j ec t o r s / producer .6

[S15]*[R6]

Prod.

r e d r i l l f r a c t . add-on cost .I5

. 2

[S13]

Well

Depth, K-Feet -

DE E P 9

Spare wells/ producer . I

Dry

Holes

/

Active Producer

No. of Producer Wells

( a t p l a n t

s t a r t ) 15

Producers plus spares

17

In jec to rs requ i red 9

Tota l Number of I n i t i a l W e l l s 30

Base cost

(no risk)

of bare well

Fract ion

o f

wells t o be extended

.75

F r a c ti o n t o be r e d r i l l e d

.15

Cost to Extend bare well

5.259376E-02

Cost

t o

Redri l l bare wel l

*2.011185E-02

Adjus t : Per Well Cost Multiplier

.85

Well cos t , w/ inc iden t s , n o t e s t s .9423407

Cost of 3-Day Well Test .04

Cost

o f

10-Day Well Test

.061

Cost of

21-Day Well Test .1375

Test Cost for W i l d c a t , I n j . , Dry .182033

Test Cost for Confirmation Producers .319533

Test Cost for Phase 3 Producers ,203033

Tota l

Cost per Wildcat Well 1.124374

Tota l Cost per Producer Well i n Phase

3 1.145374

Tota l Cost per Injector or Dry Well 1.124374

Capcost

o f

a l l i n i t i a l w e l l s ( i n Phase 3) 29.49145

.8126

Tota l Cost per Confirmation

Well

1.261874 .

c - 1 0



***** SITE

DETAILS

_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - -

age

2

Region analyzed:

2

Imperial Valley

-

Binary

*******

IDENTIFY, CONFIRM RESERVOIR

********

[S3]*[R1

J

P(success). Identification .2

No. o f Ident. units 5

Cost, Geol. and Geophysics, Regional

.05

Cost, Therm. Grad. Holes/ Wildcat,

.005

# 50

MWe Power Plants/Area (per

GROSS

MWe) 3.370468

UNIT Identific. Cost, not P.V.'d 5.696868

Duration of Identific. period, years

6.7

Total Regional Prod lr''on Life, Yrs. 43.48187

Cap recoil 'ict. for

:?

I.D. over plants .1609883

\

'd, Per Plant 4.546623

[S4]*R3], Prob. of Coni/Unit .6

No. of Confirm. Units .6666666

[R4]

Unit Cost, Confirmation 7.571242

Duration of confirmation, years. 3

Total confirm

S , P.V., All

alloc'd to

1

plant 17.31182

OK

Producers after CONFIRM 4

OK Injectors after CONFIRM 1.5

03-16-1987 - 15:14:04

Years between plants, 4

-

nominal

4

- --

J l?::-ific.

Cc.

e***** S U P P L E M E N T A L

WELLS

*tt***************

[S24] Flow Rate Decline Coefficient.

Per [S19] Adjusted Decline Coefficient.

[S23]

'

Initial flow rate, for Decline Calcs

(5211

'

Minimum flow per initial well

No.

of suppl. pr0d.s added over

L I F E

years

Discounted

N o .

of supplemental wells.

Sum

o f

Disc'td O&M Units for suppl. wells.

Cap. Cost Part of Supplm., Final Unacost

O&M

Part of Supplm., INCOMPLETE CALC. *****

.0282

.0282

,798

.515

8.00001

.633004

1.636164

.1223586

.2 18281

***** DEEP WELL

PUMPS

t * * * t t t t * t t *+**** t * t t * *

Deep Pumps,

N o .

to purchase at start

17

No.

of Pumps on line (active) at start

15

-Per pump horsepower (1000s) .6

FINAL, Net to

D.W. PUMPS,

MW 6.7113

..

Deep Pumps, Total capital cost, fM

1.7

.02

Deep Pumps, Total ObM, SM/yr .3128105

Deep Pumps, Cap. Cost & Installation,

SM

OhM per active pump per year.

c - 1 1



***** SITE DETAILS

_ _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - -

age

3

Reg i on ana l yzed :

2

I m pe r i a l Va l l ey - Bi na r y

*****

G A T H E R I N G

SYSTEM DETAILS

**************

[S14]

Sep . be t w 'n p r oduce r we l l s ,

F t . 2600

Length of p r o d . p i p e , r e c t a n g . f i e l d , F t

87890.09

P r o du c ti o n g a t h . c o s t c ap . t o t a l , M$

4.734505

C o s t of p i p e f o r f o u r a v e r ag e i n j e c t o r s , M$

2.057781

C a pc o st o f i n j e c t o r g a t h e r i n g , SM

4.810008

Fi e l d S ur fa ce Equipment, T ota l Cap. , SM

9.54451

TOTAL F i e l d , C ap , SM ( I n c l u d e s P ha se 3 Wel l s )

45.28259

Length of p i p e for

s u p p l m .

g a t h e r i n g , f e e t

155534.6

G a t h e r i n g

f o r

s upp l m . p r oduce r s , S M ,

.2802799

F l : F i e l d s t a f f a n n u a l c o s t , SM/yr

.456

F2: I n i t i a l PROD and INJ wells a n n u a l c o s t .075

F3:

G a t h e r i n g P i p e s a nd v a l v e s an n ua l c o s t

F5:

Supplm.

w el l s ,

C a p i t a l p o r t i o n , u n a c o s t

03-16-1987

-

15:14:04

Gat h f o r s uppl m . p r od , as JM/yr

3.739232E-02

.1908902

,1223586

F6: Supplm. wells, O&M p o r t i o n , u n a c o s t

6.821303E-04

F7: Supplm.

wel ls

G a t h . c a p i t a l , u n a c o s t

3.739232E- 2

F8: Supplm. Wells Gath . O&M, unacos t

5.605598E-03

t******

POWER PLANT FACTORS

e***********

BINARY SIZING DETAILS

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - -

B in ar y n e t b r i n e e f f e c t i v e n e s s 'Wh/LB, NET

6.035786

Added Gross to Make I More MWe

n e t

o u t .

.23803 6

F I T T E D , Net t o

D . W .

PUMPS, MW 3

299534

ADJUSTED GROSS Brine E f f e c t i v e n e s s

8.444039

A u x Power, W/O D.W. Pumps (Pr im. loop b c o o l ) 15.86487

Power

P l a n t

C a p i t a l c o s t ,

SM

82.20496

P l a n t O&M, SM/Year, w/o

Proper.

Tax & I n s u r .

1.890714

Brine S t a b i l . , C a p . SM

.00001

Brine S t a b i l . , O&M, SM/yr . 000

1

(Sll] H2S,

ppm

50

H2S

Equip ,

SM .00001

H2S O&M, SM/yr

. 000 1

- - - - - - E N D , B INAR Y SIZING DETAILS

- - - - - - - - - - -

***** FINANCIAL FACTORS tt*****tt************

Power p l an t book l i f e , Years

C a p i t a l R e c o v e r y f a c t o r

.I334106

Di s coun t Rate, Pl an t and Gene r a l

.13

ECON: ( F i e l d VLAFCR)/( P1a n t VLAFCR) 1

ECON:

(F ie ld DISC) / (Plant DISC)

1

Discount Rate

for

Fie ld Equipment

. I 3

.36

"30

Income t a x r a t e ( Fede r a l + S t a t e )

Adj . a l l costs f o r ROYR,

SEVR, (INTXR)*DEPL

.914

e*****

FINAL COST FACTORS

***************e*+*

F i e l d Total cap, Reduced

re

t a x c r e d i t s

21.52876

C a p i t a l

cost

to be i n s u r e d , SM

127.1334

c - 1 2



APPENDIX

D

IM-GEO

D A T A

FILES



IM-GEO SITE DATA FILE

The fo ll ow in g pages d ep ic t t h e c on te nt s of t h e f i l e "SITEDATO.DAT", t h e

main

f i l e o f s i t e c ha r ac t er i st i cs .

Not

a l l o f t h e

d a t a

lines (numbered) are used

i n

th e IMGEO code.

T h i s

f i l e was compi led during a group e f fo r t t o develop the

model , w i t h

the

understanding

t h a t

some factors would be more i m p o r t a n t t h a n o t h e r s .

The explanation of the

major

l i n e s i s a s f o l lows , u s ing va r i a b le 1 as

an

example:

I . , "YES",

"YES", "Energy in Region,

MWf30Y

5750, 1041, 3060,1751, 4559, 51490.,3250, 3250, 4000

-750,

-41 , -1500, -751 , -1559, -48490. , -750 ,

-750,-1500

The f i r s t l i n e

o f

numbers represents the "Best Case" value for each

Region. The second l i n e of numbers re pr es en ts th e

a m o u n t by

which t h e "Best

Case" value i s amended t o f ind the ''Worst Case" value.

the second l ine i s always i n t he d i r e c t ion o f m a k ing the p r o je c t l e s s l e s s

ef f i c i en t o r more expensive .

T h e f i r s t "YES" means t h a t t he va r i a b le i s used somewhere i n the cos t ing

code. The second

"YES"

means t h a t the va r iab le has risk a ssoc ia t e d w i t h

i t .

I M - G E O

se nse s the se log ic a l f l a gs t o de te r m ine i f th i s variable can be edited

by one of the three " r i sk" ed i t ing sc reens .

ed it i ng i s t o be a llowed by the user .

Note t h a t t he s i g n o f

Both

flags must be

"YES"

i f

0 - 2



"Imperial Val ley - Flash , Imperial Valley

-

Binary I'

" B a s i n S Range

-

Flash

,

Bas i n

& Range

-

Binary

It

"Cascades - Flash , "Cascades - Binary

"Young Volcanics - Flash l", "Young Volcanics

- F l a s h

2"

"Dry

Steam

1..

" Y E S " , "YES", "Energy i n Region, MW*30Y

I'

5750, 1041, 3060,1751, 4559, 51490. ,3250, 3250, 4000

2 . , " Y E S " , "NO", "Energy i n SubArea, MW*30Y"

500, 250,

250,

250.

500, 250, 250,

250,

500

3., " Y E S " ,

"NO", "Wildcat Success Rate

4 . , "YES", " N O " ,

"Confirmation Success Rate"

5., "YES",

"YES", "R ese rvi or S at ur . Temp, F I

6.,

"NO",

" N O " ,

"Resv.

Temp

a t 10 Years, F

7.,

"YES",

" Y E S " ,

"Wellhead Temperature, F "

8. ,

"NO" ,

" N O " ,

"We1 1head Pressure. ,

PSIA 'I

9 . ,

" N O " , " N O " , "Wellhead Enthalpy,

BTU/lb"

10.

NO ,

"NO",

"Non-Cond. Gases, PPM

Il.,"YES' ,

" Y E S " , "HZS, PPM

12.,"YES", "YES", "Tot. D i s . S o l i d s , PPK "

13.,"YES", " N O " , "Well Depth, 1000 Feet "

14..

NO ,

NO , "Wellhead Separat. , F t

"

15. ,"YES","YES",

"Producer Redri l l Fract ion"

16.,"VES","YES",

"Dry Holes per Producer "

II

n

*I IV-FL" ,

IV-BI " , BR- FL , B R - B I

'I

"CS

-

F L ",

CS

B I

I

,

Y V

- F 1

"

, Y V - F2 , GY -DS I'

-750, -41, -1500,-753, -1559,-48490. ,-750, -750,-1500

0,

0, 0, 0,

0, 0,

0,

0, 0

.20,

.20, .20, .20,

.20, .20,

.20,

.20, .20

0,

0, 0, 0,

0,

0,

0,

0, 0

0 ,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0, 0, 0,

0

.60, .60, .60, .60, .60, .60,

.60,

.60, .60

525, 360, 450, 300, 425, 280, 600, 550, 375

548, 358, 448, 298, 423, 278, 590, 520, 370

375, 350, 400, 288, 375, 270, 385, 406, 347

380, 500, 225, 500, 225, 500, 166, 235,

100

419, 340, 375, 280, 366, 260,

900,

370,

1100

- 2 5 ,

-20,

-50, -20, -50, -10, -25, -75, -3

-10, -10, -10, -10, -10, -10, -10, -10, -10

-20,

-20,

- 2 5 ,

-10, -65, -10, -10, -31,

-2

-38, -50,

-23,

-50, -23,

-50,

-17, -24,

-10

-42, -34, -38, -28, -37, -26, -90, -37, -110

I(

5000 ,1000 ,

1000,

2000

,

1000, 1000, 2000

1000,10000

15000,5000,

5000, 8000, 1000,

1000, 700,

200,10000

50, 0, 10,

0, 0,

0, 1500

50,

2000

50, 50, 50,

200, 25, 25, 500,

75, 2500

250,

5, 1.5,

1.2, 1.0,

0.5, 15, 10, 0

125, 1, 1.0, 1.3, 1.5,

0.5, 20,

5,

0

I(

6,

9,

8 ,

3, 10,

3, 6,

5, 10

0 ,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0 ,

0,

0,

0

0,

0, 0,

0, 0,

0 ,

0,

0, 0

015,

. l o ,

3 3 ,

.20,

.35,

.20,

.35, .20,

.35

2600,

2600,

2600, 1000, 2600,

1000,

1320, 2600, 2600

.OS, .05, .07, .05, .lo, .05,

.lo,

.05, .10

.17, .17, .25, .If, .17, .17, .20, .14, .14 ,

.03, -03, .08, .03, .33, .OB, .13, .06, .06

D - 3



17. ,"YES", "YES",

"Yrs

Btwn. Workover, PRODU"

18.

,"YES", "YES", "Yrs Btwn. Workover,

I N J C T

19. ,"NO", "NO", "N-Plant Drawd'n Effect 'I

20. , NO", "NO",

"NOT

I N CURRENT USE

2l.,"YES", "YES", "Prod. Well Flow, Klb/hr I'

22.,"YES", "YES", "Inject.

Well

Flow,

Klb/hr"

23. ,"YES", "YES", "Flow for Decline,

Klb/hr

I

24. ,"YES", "YES", "Decline Coeff., l/Years

I

25.,"YES", " N O " , "Flow

into

Plant, Klb/hr I'

26.,"YES", "NO", "Flow from Plant, Klb/hr I

27.,"YES", "NO", "Plant: l=Bin 2dla 3=Stm I'

28. ,"YES", "NO", "Downhole

Pump:

O=No/l=Yes"

29. ,"NO","NO", "Brine

Stability

l=POOR

30. ,"NO","NO", "Wellhead Layout

]=Pads

31. ,"NO","NO", "Identification Cost,

SM

I'

2.0, lo., 15., 3., lo., lo., 7., IO.,

-1.5, -2.,

- 5 . ,

-2., -2.. -1., -2., -3.,

2.0, lo., 15., 3.9 lo., lo., 7., lo.,

-1.5, -2., -5., -2.. -2., -1., -2.1

- 3 . ,

0 ,

0 ,

0 , 0 ,

0 , 0 ,

0 ,

0 ,

0 ,

0 , 0 ,

0 , 0 , 0,

01

0 ,

10,

10, 10,

10, 10,

10,

10,

10,

51

5, 5, 5,

5, 5,

5, 5,

450, 580, 750, 400, 350, 500, 70, 550,

-100, -130, -250, -50, -100, -50, -5, -100,

1350, 1160, 2250, 1200, 700, 1500, 210,

2200,

720, 928, 1200, 640, 560, 800, 112, 880,

.002, .024, ,020, .027, .020,

.010,

.036,

.020, .012

.008, .OO6, .015, .011, .025, .010, .064, .010,

.008

5450, 7140, 6600,10500, 6850,20000, 1250, 6655, 850

0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,

0 , 0 , 0, 0, 0

4250, 7140, 5400,10500, 5650,20000, 590, 5460, 50

0, 0 , 0 , 0 ,

0 ,

0 ,

0,

0,

0

21

1,

2,

1,

2, 1, 2,

2,

3

0 ,

0 ,

01 01

0 , 01

0, 0,

0

0 , 1, 0 ,

1 1

0, 1, 0, 0, 0

0 , 0 ,

0, 0 ,

0 ,

0, 0, 0, 0

1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0

0;

0,

0, 0, 0 , 0 , 0, 0, 0

1, 1,

1,

01 1, 0, 0, 1, 1

0 , 0 , 0, 0, 0 , 0,

0,

0 ,

0

I . , I . , I . , I . , I . ,

l., l., I . , 1.

-450, -580, -750, -800,

-175,

-500, -70, -550,

-100,

-130,

-250, -50, -100, -50,

-5,

-100,

15.

-5.

15.

-5.

0

0

10

5

100

-25

900

-00

160

-25

0, 01

0, 0,

0,

0,

0 ,

0 ,

0

32.

"NO",

"NO", "Confirmation Cost,

SM

I'

I . , I . , I . , I . , I . , I . , I . , l . , 1.

0, 0, 0, 0, 01 0, 0, 01 0

I .123,0.956,1.217,0.556,2.032,0.576,2.038,0.906,1 .I55

0.112,0.110,0.171,0.062,0.144,0.032,0.179,0.102,0.127

0.149,0.053,0.097,0.048,0.253,0.088,0.219,0.120,0.100

.ol .o, .o, .o,

.o,

.o, .o, .o, .o

33.,"YES", "YES", "Well Cost, Extension,

SM

"

34.

" Y E S " ,

" N O " ,

"Well Lost

Circ. Probs.

MS"

0-4



35.

" Y E S " , "NO",

"Well Cementing

P r o b s . ,

MS"

36.. " Y E S " ,

" N O " ,

"Well Other Prob lems,

MS

It

37 . . " Y E S " , " N O " , "Workover Cost, SM, PRODU I'

3 8 . , " Y E S " ,

"NO",

"Workover Cost, SM,

INJCT

'I

0.067,0.001,0.040,0.001,0.107,0.027,0.191,0.0B6,0.100

.o, .o, .o,

.o,

.o,

.o,

.o, .o,

.o

0.034,0 .029,0 .036,0 .017,0 .061,0 .017,0 .06~,0 .027,0 .035

.o, .o, .o, .o, .o, .o, .o, .o, .o

.055, .025, .025, .025, .025,

.025,

.055, .025, .050

.o, .o,

.o,

.o, .o, .o, .o,

.o, .o

.055, .025,

.025,

,025, .025,

.025, ,055,

,025

.050

.o, .o, .o, .o, .o, .o, .o, .o, .o

D - 5



. -

IM-GEO FINANCIAL FACTS

F I L E

The contents o f "BUSFNFCT.GE0" are presented here only as a matter o f

record .

E n t i n g h ,

Meridian Corporation, Falls Church, Virginia, (703) 998-0922, f o r

guidance

and

as s i s t an ce .

I f you need t o change the contents o f t h e s e f i l e s , p l e a s e c o n t a c t Dan

1986

1986 1986 3

.85 .9747237 1.089035 .I408685

1.413805 1.413805

1 1 1

30 .I3 .04

F nanci a1 Fac tors :

Generated

by:

BUS1MGEO.BAS

Used

by:

1MGEOnnn.EXE

C A S E T i t l e :

SET

IM-GEO

FACTORS,

AS-BUILT, N O

AFDC

A F D C

(]=yes):

0

Overnight =

0 ,

As Built

=

1:

R u n

Date:

03-12-1987

1



.

..

.

APPENDIX

E

INSTALLATION and START UP

E - 1



I N S T ,

1.0 R e q u i r e d F i l e s

You

c a n r u n

I M - G E O

d i r e c t

The d i s t r i b u t i o n d i s k e t t e

y o u r h a r d d i s k .

c o nt a in s t h e f o l l o w i n g

f i l e s :

L L A T I O N and START U P

IMGE0300.EXE

HWEIGHT.HLP

HTOPMENU.HLP

H E D I T .HLP

HSHOW . LP

BUSFNFCT.GE0

DATATEST.BAS

SITEDATO.MAS

SITEDATO.DAT

IMGE0300.

BAS

1MGEOUT.TXT

128764

1024

1024

1152

1152

427

2176

6656

6656

88388

1

3-16-87

3- 15-87

3-14-87

3-15-87

3-15-87

3 - 12-87

3-04-87

3-16-87

3-16-87

3-16-87

3

- 16-87

y f ro m th e d i s t r i b u t i o n d i s k e t t e , o r copy i t t o

f o r I M - G E O Ve rs io n 3.00, da te d 16 March

1985

l l : 0 2 a

l l : 5 7 p

7 : 0p

8: 56p

8: 58p

l l : 2 2 a

12:53p

11:52a

l l : 5 2 a

10:42a

1:21p

Execu tab le I M - G E O Program,

HELP

F i l e

HELP F i l e

HELP F i l e

HELP

F i l e

F i n a n c i a1 Fac to rs

F o r T e s t i n g E d i t e d S I T E D A T O . D A T

" O f f i c i a1

I

S I T E D A T O .

DAT

F i

e

S i t e Data Base read by I M - G E O

Source Code ( i n Q U I C K

B A S I C 2.0)

File f o r I M - G E O Report O u t p u t s

A l l o f t h es e f i l e s e x ce pt

D A T A T E S T B A S , SITEDATO.MAS,

IMGE0300.BAS, and

1MGEOUT.TXT must be on t h e same d e f a u l t d i s k d r i v e ( d i s k e t t e o r h a r d d i s k )

from which you execute IMGE0300.

2 .0 S ta r t in g th e Prog ram

T o s t a r t

I M - G E O ,

t y p e :

D>

IMGE0300

and press the <Enter> key .

("D>", h er e, i n d i c a t e s t h e

DOS

system prom pt on yo ur screen.) The program

l o a d s i n about 20 seconds f rom d iske t te ,

and then uses about 25 more seconds

(on an

XT)

t o r ea d f i l e s and i n i t i a l i z e data.

f a s t e r i f you use a ha rd d isk o r an AT computer.)

( T h i n g s a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y

You

w i l l

hear a beep when th e p rogram i s ready

' f o r

you t o use.

NOTES:

I . P r e s s i n g t h e c C t r l - B r e a k > k e y c o m b i n a t i o n w i l l s t o p t h i s p r og ra m.

2. The f i l e IMGE0300.BAS on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n d i s k e t t e i s the Source code

You

c an a l s o e x i t t h i s p ro gr am b y s e l e c t i n g O p ti o n

Q

f r o m t h e

[Z]

MENU.

f o r

I M - G E O i n Q U I C K B A S I C 2.0.

The p rog ramming conven t ions a re s im i la r

t o

t h o s e f o r I B M B A S I C A and M ic roSo f t

GW-BASIC,

b u t a re s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t

t h a t IM-GEO.BAS w i l l

pJ

run as a

B A S I C A

program.

f i l e s .

3.

Any d oc u me n ta t io n f i l e s on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n d i s k e t t e a r e W ordS ta r ( TM)

E-2



APPENDIX

F

IM-GEO PROGRAM SOURCE CODE

F - 1



IM-GEO

PROGRAM SOURCE

C O D E

The IM-GEO program source code

i s

presented here.

The code consists o f

seven conceptual sections.

subrout ines

.

Each section contains one or more routines

or

* ZINIT -

I n i t i a l i z e s a r r a y s , d is p la y s progam i d en t i f i ca t i o n s c reen .

*

Z E N G N

- The main cos t ing rou t ines . These a re con t ro l l ed

by

processes

located i n s ec t i o n s

Z M E N U

and ZCTRL.

*

Z M E N U -

Pr ese nts op tion s t o User, and con tro ls much of t h e l o g i c

o f

program flow to ensure

t h a t

re su l t s conform t o the cur ren t

va lues o f se ns i t i v i ty parameters.

* ZCTRL

- Executes lower leve l con t ro l fo r s in g l e- s i t e and mul t i - s i t e

ca l cu a l a t i o n s .

* ZEDIT - Enables e d i t i n g

o f

sens i t iv i ty parameters .

* Z L O A D - Loads Si t e

Data

and

o t h e r

f a c t o r s . Resets Base

Case

v a l u e s .

* ZOUTS - Creates major screen and printed report outputs .

*

ZMISC

- Creates other screen and report outputs .

Note t h a t

program

c o n t r o l a t s t a r t u p begins

w i t h Z I N I T ,

and jumps

from

Z E N G N ,

the "cost ing engine",

i s

presented early

i n

the fol lowing pages

t h e r e t o t h e t o p of s ec t i o n

Z M E N U .

because i t contains the code for most of the technical relat ionships among

reservoir p h ys ica l ch a ra c t e r i s t i c s , s en s i t i v i t y f ac t o r s , and t h e eq u a ti o ns fo r

performance and cost of technology.

The programmed l i s t of %on-risk" RLD Achievements i s on page F-36. T h a t

l i s t will

h e l p

you t i e t h e f a c t o r s

on

E d i t i n g Menus [ Y , A ] ,

[ Y , B ] , and [ Y C ] t o

s p e c i f i c l i n e s i n t h e Z E N G N costing codes.

f a c t o r s on t h e

e d i t i n g

screens i s cont ro l l ed by the vec to rs R E V ( i ) .

o f f by comm ent-controll ing apostrophes. These r e fl e c t pla ce s where usef ule

addi t ional features could easi ly be added t o t h e co d e l a t e r .

This s ec t io n s t a r t s on page F-6.

Note t h a t the sequence of these

In

some

places

i n

t h e Z E N G N code you wil l f ind features

t h a t

are blocked

F - 2



' *** ZINIT

'

Last Edited 14 March 87

I

'PROGRAM NAME:

"

IMGE0300. EXE"

'PURPOSE:

CALCULAT E IMPACTS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON

COST OF GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC POWER

'Version: 3.00 16 March 1987

'Author: Daniel 3. Entingh, Meridian Corporation,

'Language: QUICKBASIC

2.0,

Microsoft (CR)

'PROGRAM HISTORY:

Falls

Church, V A

'(from GEO.BAS) Copyright, Daniel

J.

Entingh, April

2 , 198

'Use permitted by Meridian Corporation, Falls Church VA 5/8

'Use permitted by U.S. Department

o f

Energy 5/84

'Revised: GEO.BAS

V1.l

5/85 Added constant

S

costs to displays.

'Revised: IM-GEO.EXE 12/86 V1.08 Adds Menus, Editors, Risk Calcs.

'Use Permitted Sandia Corporation, 12/86

'Revised: IM-GEO.EXE Jan & Feb 87, Version 2.xxx:

'Revised: Version 3.00, 13- 16 March

1987

'

Prepared By Meridian Corporation, Falls Church, Virginia

' as final de liverable under Contract No. 02- 194 7 from

'

Sandi a Corporation, A1 buquerque, New Mexico.

'

Meridian Corporation Project No. 275.

'Copyright, Meridian Corporation, 1986, 1987

' NOTICE: LICENSE T O USE AND DISTRIBUTE HEREBY

'

I

Extensive revisions of costing codes per technical inputs

from

Bill

Livesay, Susan Petty, Stanley Unitt

I

I

GRANTED T O SANDIA CORPORATION,

16

March 1987

' ***** INITIALIZATION ROUTINES ************

I

OPTION BASE

1

'Least subscript

- 1

on all arrays.

DIM MTBS(18), MV(18), MMf(l8)

DIM RADRISK$(50), RADRISK(50)

'R&D,

Estimation Errors

DIM RADACHS(60), RADACH(60)

I R & D ,

Other Achievements

DIM REV(60)

'R&D

Ach. Editing Vectors

DIM SITENAME$(

10) 'Region Names

DIM

SITESHORTS

(10)

'Region Short Name Stubs

DIM SITEUSES (40) '"YES" i f Datum i s active

DIM SITERISKS(40)

"YES"

i f

R i s k offset

i s

active

DIM

SITEDATAS(40) 'Physical Data Categ. Names

DIM SITEDATA(2,40,10) 'Physical Data, by Categ./Region

'

'

SITEDATA(2,1,3)

-

Worst Case values.

These are

'

compounded

i n

*** SUBR: ADJUST. WORST. D A T A

from

SITEDATA(l,I,J),

SITERISK(1,J) and RADRISK(1)

I

I

SITEDATA(l,l,J) -

B e s t

Case values



DIM SITERISK(40,lO) 'Measurernent/Ri sk Dat a

DIM RESULTS(2,10,12,5) ' M A I N RESULTS M A T R I X

' RESULTS( I , J,K, L)

'

I:

1

- Base Case, 2

-

Current Case

'

3:

Vec to r s f o r 10 Reg ions .

K: A c co un ts f o r P r o j e c t E l em e nt s

11

= T o t a l

12 = P o r t i o n Due t o R i s k .

'

1: C a l c u l a t i o n S u b t ot a l s

1 = Cap i ta l Cos t , S M i l l i o n

2 -

0 M,

3

=

C a p i t a l , m i l l s / k w h , C o ns t an t D o l l a r s

4 - O&M,

5 -

T o t a l ,

8

ac t i ve on 16 Jan

87.

I

I

I

I

I

I

'

I

S

M i 11

i

n/Year

II II

II

II

DIM ACCOUNTS(l2) 'C os t Ac co un t Names

DIM IUEIGHT(8)

DIM WEIGHT.USER(8) 'User 's w ei gh ts , E d it a b l e

DIM RESCAPADJ (12)

'

DIM PICOST(5)

DIM RESMUL(2,lZ) 'R es ul ts: 8 - S i t e Weighted Avgs, 12 Acc ount s

DIM RSUM(20)

DIM WCOSTL( 2 ,5 )

'

DIM SHOWOUT(12,4)

' R e s u l t w e i g h t s f o r R eg io ns

' R e s u l ts , A d j u s t e d C a p i t a l C o st s

' Co st T o t a l s f r o m En gi ne o u t e r l o o p

'Sums f o r i n t e r m e d i a t e r e s u l t s .

'Resu l t s : 8 - S i t e Weigh ted:

' R e s u l t s f o r SUBR: SHOW.MAIN

(U sed o n l y i n C o s t i n g E n g in e )

1

1

= Base Case,

2 = Curren t Case

(See L

i n

RESULTS(I,J,K,L) f o r t h e

5

c o s t c a t e g o r i e s )

' Mi sc el la ne ou s I n i t i a t i o n S te ps :

' P r i n t - t me con t ro l codes

:

CHANNELlS

-

"PRINTER

CHANNELES

-

" F i l e : 1MGEOUT.TXT"

CHANNELS = CHANNELIS

PSWITCHS = *P"

I

I t

' F i r s t s i t e f o r s i ng l e s i t e a na ly s i s:

' U se r 's w e i g h t s f o r r e g i o n s :

' D at a n o t e d i t e d y e t :

I n i t i a l i z a t i o n c o m p l e t e d .

JSITE =

1

FOR 1-1

TO 8:WEIGHT.USER(I)-l: NEXT

I

EDFLAGS="NO" : EDFLAGES="NO"

F - 4



' Begin Operation:

WELCOMES "WELCOME TO IM-GEO.

(

Setting

u p

Base Case ) 'I

GOSU B sublBASELOAD 'LOAD Base Case Site Data

WELCOMES

-

'

'No 1 onger appropr ate.

PRIN T CHRS

(7)

'Beep tel ls user that program is ready.

Program Identification Screen:

C L S :

PRINT

PRINT

PRINT ' VERSION 3.00 [ IMGE03003 16 Mar.

1987"

PRINT

PRINT ' IMPACTS OF R&D ON COST OF GEOTHERMAL POWER"

PR NT

PRINT '

PRINT ' Falls Church, Virginia"

PR NT

PRINT

(I

PRINT ' A 1 buquerque, New Mexico"

PRINT ' Contract

N o .

02-1947 '

PRINT

PRINT

"

Project Team:

'

PRINT

PRINT

'

PRINT

'

PRINT: PRINT:

PRI NT PRESS ANY KEY TO START OPERATION ==-===>

GOS UB INLETTER 'Get response

TTIMES

-

TIMES 'Inital Stat ic Time f o r Reports

GOT0 TOPMENU 'Start at TOPMENU (MAIN MENU)

'

NOTE: EXIT

to

SYSTEM is at TOPMENU subroutine in ZMENU Section

PRINT

'

IM-GEO

11

Prepared By Meridian Corporation"

Under Contract t o Sandia Corporation"

Dan Entingh, Bill Livesay, Susan Petty,"

Richard Traeger, Stanley Unitt"

'

*****

End o f "Initialize" Section **+**

..

F - 5



'*** ZENGN

'***** COSTING CALCULATION ROUTINES FOR ONE PROJECT

*********

I

' A u t h o r : D a n i e l

J.

E n t in g h , M e r i d i a n C o r p o r a t i o n

I

March 1987

' L a s t e d i t e d : 1 5 M ar ch 1 98 7

F a l l s Church, VA 22041

CALC .A. S ITE :

'***

SUBR: Ca lc u l a t io n : One Res er vo i r

Used

f o r

s i n g l e an d m u l t i - s i t e ca ses .

' D a t a S et up s, N o t a f f e c t e d by

R I S K :

FEXCS = RADACH(2) ' [R02] I d e n t i f i c a t i o n U n i t Co st

FWLCS = RADACH(5) ' [ROS] U n i t c o s t

o f

avg. Wel l

PTYPE = SITEDATA(1,27,JSITE) ' [S27] P l an t Type

DPUMP

-

SITEDATA(1,28,JSITE)

'

[S28]

Down

Hole Pumps

'

Power P l a n t C o st M u l t i p l i e r :

FPTCS

-

1

I F SITEDATA(1,27,JSITE) -

1

THEN FPTCS - RADACH(17) 'Binary

IF SITEDATA(1,27,JSITE) = 2 THEN FPTCS

=

RADACH(16) 'Flash

'

Power p l a n t e f f i c i e n c y m u l t i p l i e r :

FPTEF

=

1

I F SITEDATA(1,27,JSITE)

- 1

THEN FPTEF

=

RADACH(1S) 'Binary

I F SITEDATA(1,27,JSITE)

= 2

THEN FPTEF

-

RADACH(14) 'Flash

'

C o s t a d j u s t m e n t s f r o m J a n

1

1980

t o

Jan

1

1986:

ESClWELL

*

0. 940 'SERIES 7, DONE

2

Jan

86

d j e

ESClGENRL

= 1.425

'****

F a c t o r V al u e S e t :

NSPR

-

0.1

'Spare w el ls / produc er. BJL/SP/DJE

I

O VARIABLE I N NEW SET, YET,

15

Feb 87:

POUT

= 50. '50

MWE

'

In co me t a x r a t e : .34 F e d e r a l

t .02

S t a t e :

INTXR =

0.36 'July

1 1 9 8 7 a n d f o l l o w i n g

'

C a p l t a l R e c ov e r y F a c t o r . F o r u s es

i n

Engine.

(Spreads PV

a t

P.O.L. d a t e ov er

30

Year as a unacos t : )

'

DISC = D i s c o u n t R at e, f rom BUSFNFCT.GE0 F i na nc ia l F ac to rs f i l e .

'

FBL

=

P r o j e c t Book L i f e ,

I

.

L I F E

=

FBL

D

= (1 +

D1SC)"LIFE

I

I

1

'GNP IMPL IC IT DEFL., DONE 2 J a n 86 d j e

I

I

KROK 1 'MED-HARD ROCK [NOT USED]

1

I

'Nominal

=

30

y e a r s

CAPRECOV (DISC*D)/(D

- 1)

'***

END

OF

ENGINE FACTOR SET-UP SECTION

**********

1

F-6



I

Two

passes he re ca lcu la te and save cos t

o f

"non - r i sky " and

' " r i s k - l o a d e d " p r o j e c t .

'

Pass

1

-

No

Risk :

Z R I =

1 Uses BEST C A S E d at a f o r s i t e .

BASECOP - 100' Avo id D iv /Ze ro

GOSUB ENGINE.CORE ' C a l c u l a t e c o s t

w/o

r i s k

BASECOP

-

BUSBAR

'

Co st w/o Risk ,

i n

m i l l s / k w h

FOR 1-1 TO 5 :

PlCOST(I)=RESULTS(2,JSITE,ll,I)

:

NEXT I

ZRI

=

2 Uses WORST CASE da ta f o r s i t e .

GOSUB ENGINE.CORE ' C a l c u l a t e c o s t w i t h r i s k .

Z R I S K

-

BUSBAR

-

BASECOP

' R I S K

Cost,

i n

m i l l s / k w h

BASECOP

-

BUSBAR

' Save P r e s e n t a t i o n t o t a l s :

' T ot al , I n c l . R i sk i s

i n :

RESULTS(2,JSITE,ll,I)

FOR

I

1 TO 5 ' Risk amounts:

NEXT

I

I * * * *

NEW

c - - >

OLD Correspondence:

' RESULTS(2,3SITE,11,5) - BASECOP I * * * Total, W/RISK, m/kwh

' RESULTS(2,JSITE,12,5)

=

ZRISK I * * * Risk, m/kwh

'For OLD D is p l ay Header : Fo r GOSUB RESULT1 ****

RETURN

I * * * END SUBR: OUTER CALCULATION

ENGINE,

o n e s i t e

/

I

I

S a v e a c c o u n t t o t a l s :

Pass 2

=

With R i s k :

I

/

'16 Jan, OLD/ May be needed ? ? ? ? ?

RESULTS( 2, JSITE, 12, I) RESULTS( 2, J S I T E , 11,

I )

- PICOST( I)

' ****

COSTPOW

=

lOO*BUSBAR/BASECOP

' R e l a ti v e , p e r c en t p o i n t s

C O S T R I S K

-

lOO*ZRISK/BASECOP ' R e l at i v e , p e r c en t p o i n t s

I

ENGINE. ORE :

I * * * SUBR: ONE

PASS

SIZES,

'Dua l va lue

( Z R I :

l - N o R i s k

I

I

/

COSTS, AND PRICES

21Risk-Loaded) Data Fa ct or s s e t her e:

' 51 Re se rv o i r Sa t . Tempera tu re , Deg-F

ZZTRES

-

SITEDATA(ZRI,5, JSITE)

' [

71 F or TEMP: Well -Head Temperature, Deg-F

ZZT - SITEDATA(ZRI.7,JSITE)

TEMP - ZZT

' (121 Fo r TDS, T o t a l D isso lved So l ids ,

l

and

BCI: B r i n e Contam. Index:

F - 7



TDS

-

SITED ,TA(Z

,12, JSITE

'

P e r H o l t 1 987 a p p a r e n t

cu

I F TDS >

10.

THEN ZZB

=

I F TDS

> 100.

THEN ZZB -

BCI

=

ZZB

I

.

p o i n t s :

1 ELSE ZZB = 0.

2

" ' -Note INEL/Technecon 1980 l o w e r c u t p o i n t was:

I

I F TDS >

2.

THEN ZZB =

1

' [13] Fo r DEEP: We l l Depth, K- Fee t

ZZD = SITEDATA(ZRI,13,JSITE)

:

DEEP = ZZD

' [15] F o r WRED: - R e d r i l l i n g i n c i d e n c e f r a c t i o n

' 161 F o r WDRY: D r y we11 / p ro d u ce r

WRED

=

SITEDATA(ZRI,IS,JSITE) * RADACH(6)

WDRY

=

SITEDATA(ZRI,16,JSITE)

*

RADACH(7)

'[ 21 ] F o r FLOW:

' Da ta s t a r t a s 1000 l b /Ho u r :

P ro d u ce r F lo w ,

10*6

l b / H o u r

ZZF = SITEDATA(ZRI,21,JSlTE)*RADACH(8)/lOOO.

FLOW

-

ZZF

'Programmer's note:

' No t u se d i n Ve rs 3.00: ZZW

=

WLIF

'*****

Ot he r NEW Dat a Se tups s hou ld go h e re :

Correspondences of va r i a b le n a me s :

' ZZB - BCI : ZZD = DEEP : ZZF = FLOW

:

ZZT = TEMP

'T he c o s t i n g s t ep s s t a r t he r e:

PLANT. SIZ E:

I F PTYPE = 2 THEN GOT0 FLASH.SIZE

BINARY.SIZE : ' PTYPE = 1

'1. GROSS WITHOUT PUMPS, FROM PUMP3.BAS, DJE, 6 FEB

S e t gr o ss p l a n t

s i z e

t o

me et a ux . re q u i r e me n ts .

t

I

I

'1.1

FIND FLOW AND GROSS FROM NET POWER AT TEMP, DEGyF

NETBE * -14.64212 + (0.06154139)*(ZZT)

TFLOWINO

=

5O/NETBE 'M-LB/HR

GROBE

=

(1.450921E-05)*(ZZT"2.281921) 'WH/LB, GROSS

'WH/LB, NET

GROSSO

-

TFLOWINO*GROBE 'MW, SHADOW

'1.2 SUBTRACT FITTED PUMP POWER, USING "KB IN " FORMULA:

'

KBIN

+

1

=

Added Gross

t o

Make

1

Mo re MWe n e t

ou t .

'1.3

SET

BARE-AUX ->

15

MW ( P r i m a ry l o o p & c o o l i n g ) .

'

Gro ss Po we r n e t o f F i e l d A u x i l l i a r y Power Needs:

KBIN = 3.243886

-

.5167263*LOG(ZZT)

PUMPF

-

GROSSO*(l-KBIN) - 50 'FIT, NET TO D.W. PUMPS

BARE.AUX = GROSSO - 50 - (l+KBIN)*PUMPF

I F BARE.AUX

< 15

THEN BARE.AUX = 1 5

MW

GROSS1 = 50 + BARE.AUX

GROSSO = GROSS1

+

(l+KBIN)*PUMPF

FACTOR FOR CALC'ING GROSS POWER:

GROBEl - GROSSO/TFLOWINO

GROSS

W/O

PUMPING

' ADJUSTED SHADOW GROSS

ADJUSTED

GROSS

B.E.

F - 8



'

****************

Adjust for POUT:

' 1

' 1 '

GROSSl - GROSSl*POUT/SO

'

Convergence loop below sets binary gross power

and

plant inlet/outlet flow requirements, adjusted

To

fit Auxilliary power requirements.

' Starting Guesses:

' WNUM

- #

of Primary Producer Wells and Pumps

at

Start

:

BINARY.SIZE2 : ' Top of conv. loop .

' Previous Gross for conv. test:

'2. Add Pump Power from previous producer well count:

'1000

Horsepow er per pump: depends on well depth:

I F

ZZD

>

1.

THEN PER.PUMP

-

0.6

ELSE PER.PUMP

-

0.4

PUMP.POWER

-

0.7457*PER.PUMP*WNUM

' @

lOOOHP

-

0.7457 MW

GROSS

-

GROSSl

t

(ltKBIN)*PUMP.POWER

' FPTEF

-

Plant Efficiency Multiplier [R15]

TFLOWIN - GROSS/(GROBEl*FPTEF)'Flow required

' ZZF

-

Flo w per producer, initialized above:

WNUM - INT(TFLOWIN/ZZF) t 1

'

Convergence test:

IF ABS(GR0SS - GROSSTEST)

>

1.0 THEN GOTO BINARY.SIZE2

' Test met:

GOT0 BASEWELLCOST

'****

End of binary sizing. *****

FLASH.SIZE : PTYPE

-

2

GROSSl

=

52.5 'Net

+

2.5 MW Internal

'Add Brine stabliization power requirement:

GROSS

-

GROSSl + 3*ZZB

-

0.5*22B*(ZZB-I)

'Flash Flow Requirement:

OLD: Spe cif ic energy: Net Whr/lb brine:

' OLD: TFLOW = POUT/SPE'Plant flow, 10A6 b/hr

TFLOWIN = SITEDATA(ZRI,25, SITE)/( 1000*FPTEF)

TFLOWIN

=

TFLOWIN*GROSS/52.5

'

Adj, f or Gross.

WNUM

-

INT(TFLOWIN/ZZF)

+

1

GOTO BAS EWE LCOST

'***

End o f Flash sizing. ****

1

GROSS - 1.3*POUT ' MW

WNUM

-

GROSS/15

I

GROSSTEST

-

GROSS

1

I

'

No. of PRODUCERS needed. ***

1

I

'Unitt

OLD:

SPE

= ( -16.9t

.0614*ZZT+2.344*PTYPE-. 534*ZZB)*FPTEF

'FPTEF

-

Adjust per Plant Efficiency Multiplier

~ 1 4 3

'

No. of PRODUCERS needed.

***

F - 9



BASEW

L

LCOST

:

I

WCPW: Well Cost, pe r well,

$

Millions

' Livesay Estimates, February

87:

Base cost part of bare well:

WCBASE

-

SITEDATA(

1,33,

SITE)

'

Extension add-on, full cost:

WCEXTEND - SITEDATA(ZRI,33,JSITE)

-

WCBASE 'Still "RISKED"

WCPW

-

WCBASE 'Base cost, "Non-Optimized"

I

t SITEDATATZRI ,34,3SITE)*RADACH(30) -

'Lost circulation Problems

t

SITEDATA(ZRI,35,JSITE)*RADACH(31) - 'Cementing Problems

t SITEDATA(ZRI,36,JSITE)*RADACH(32)

'Other Problems

WCPW

-

WCPW

*

FWLCS 'Adjust by Well Cost Multiplier.

'

Set ups for adding Extension and Redrill Costs to the

WCBASE

-

WCBASE

*

FWLCS 'Adjusted, For use below.

WCEXTEND - WCEXTEND

*

FWLCS '

PR.EXTEND

= 1

- . 2

-

.25*WDRY 'Fraction of wells to be extended.

PR.REDRILL

-

WRED 'Fraction to be redrilled.

MODAL.FR

-

0.75

'Fraction of full cost o f operation that is

expended in modal (expected) case.

'Cost to

E x t e n d :

CST.EXTEND - (MODAL.FR)*(PR.EXTEND)*(WCEXTEND)

'Cost

to

Redrill (Cost t o redrill is

22%

of well base cost.)

CST. REDRI LL - (MODAL. FR)*( PR. REDRILL)*(. 22)*(WCBASE)

'

Adjust WCPW to reflect Extension and Redrill Costs:

'

WCPW

-

Fully loaded well cost, sans testing costs.

'

TESTING

COST

-

INITIAL

+

DAYS*($/DAY)

; S

Million

'

3

Day Test:

base price o f the wells:

II I t

It

I

I

WCPW

-

WCPW t CST.EXTEND

t

CST.REDRILL

I

SET

UP

COSTS

OF

TESTING:

'

I F TDS < 100

10

Day Test:

I F

TDS

< 100

'

21 Day Test:

I F TDS e 100

THEN TESTT3D

ELSE TEST.3D

-

.035

t

5

*

.005

-

.025

t

5

* .003 -

THEN TESTTIOD

-

.025 t 12 * .003 -

ELSE TEST.IOD

-

.035

t

12

* .005

THEN

TESTT21D -

.050

t

25

*

.0035

-

ELSE

TEST.2lD

-

.IO0

t

25

*

.0060

Logging:

I F ZZTRES c 400

THEN

TEST. lOE -

(2.53

t ZZD*10.667)/1000

-

ELSE TEST.LOG

-

(5.33

t ZZD*

6.667)/1000

Analysis

o f All

Tests:

TEST.ANSIS - 0.0435

F - I O

http://modal.fr/

http://modal.fr/



'

Combos of tests needed:

TESTO

-

TEST.LOG t TEST.ANSIS All wells

TESTl - TESTO

t

TEST.3D For WC.GENL

TEST2 - TESTl

t

TEST.21D ' For WC.CONF

TEST3

-

TESTO

t

TEST.lOD Development ProducersI

I

WC.WILD

=

WCPW t TESTl *RADACH(2)

WC.CONF

-

WCPW t TEST 2 *RADACH(4) ' PRODUCER I N PHASE 2, CONFIRMATION

WC.PROD

=

WCPW t TEST 3 *RADACH(33) ' PRODUCER I N PHASE 3, DEVELOPMENT

WC.GENL = WCPW

t

TESTl *RADACH(35)

I * * *

End: Well Capital Cost

WILDCAT W E L L

INJECTOR

OR

DRY W E L L

I

I * * * SUBSYSTEM Costing Modules L I N E l

-

LINE9 Start Here.

LINEl

:

' IDENTIFY RESERVOIR

I

EXPL

-

Exploration Cost, S Millions, Jan 1980

I * * IDENTIFICATION UNIT COST

Unit of Identification Consists o f :

' 1. Geological and Geophysical Survey Work, Per Region

' 2. Gradient Wells, per Wildcat sited

I

I

3. Wildcat Wells, per Wildcat Success Ratio, to achieve one

J

I

successful well,

used

later as Observation Well.

Unit costs depend on depth of prospect:

I F ZZD > 3000 THEN GOTO ID.UC.l

'

Shallower system costs:

' SM, Geology and Geophysics, Regional

'

JM, Therm. Gradient Holes/ Wildcat

UCOSTl

-

0.053

UCOST2

=

0.005

GOT0 ID.UC.2

ID.UC

- 1

:

Deeper system

UCOSTl = 0.200

+

0.100

UCOST2 = 0.010

ID.

C. 2:

Adjust non-we

UCOSTl

-

UCOSTl

UCOST2

-

UCOST2

costs:

-

' SM,

Geology and Geophysics, Regional

' SM, "Deep Geology"

' SM, Therm. Gradient Holes/ Wildcat

1

costs

v i s

RhD factor:

*

RADACH(2)

RADACH(2)

Probability o f wildcat success:

UPROB

-

S EDATA

(

1 ,3,

S TE

*RADACH ( 1

)

I F UPROB > I THEN UPROB = 1 'Protect

I F UPROB <

.1

THEN UPROB

- .1

' Number o f Wildcat Wells to get one good one :

N.IDENT

-

l/UPROB

' TOTAL Identification UNIT Cost (not present valued):

' S3 , R ]

'

UCOST.ID

=

UCOSTl t N.IDENT*(UCOST2

t

W C . W I L D )

SM

I

F - 1 1



The next probability, UPROBl, reflects the probability that

a confimation effort will

fail.

to preceed that failed Confirmation effort is added here.

Some additional time for failed portion is added here.

The identification effort spent

I

UPROBl = SITfDATA( 1,4,3SITE)*RADACH(3) 1 ~ 3 3

IF UPROBl >= 1 THEN UPROBl

-

1

'

Protect

IF UPROBl <

.1

THEN UPROBl

= .1

'

Total Identification cost (not present valued):

EXPL

-

UCOST.ID/UPROBl

'I.D.

Work, Includes extra

'

Spread Exploration ov er a number of

50

MWe Plants:

' Duration

o f

exploration unit:

DUR.EXPL -

2.0

'Geological

,

geophys. surveys.

I exploration for unsuccessful confirmation.

P.PER.SITE -

SITEDATA(ZRI,Z,JSITE)/GROSS

1521

'

?

+

0.5 7UPROB

t 3.0

(1-UPROBl)

-

'Failed confirmation work

t

1.0

'Permitting re confirmation

'Per wildcat attempt

'

Spread ov er all P.PER.SITE plants, as unacost:

BTWN.PLANTS - 4*RADACH(34)

AREA.LIFE

- BTWN.PLANTS*(P.PER.SITE)

D

=

(ltDISC)AAREA.LIFE

EXPLRECOV

-

(DISC*D)/(D - 1 )

E

- (1tDISC)"BTWN.PLANTS

PAYMENTS

=

(E - l)/(DISC*E)

'

o f payments required for each plant.

EXPL

-

EXPL

*

EXPLRECOV

*

PAYMENTS

AREA.LIFE

=

AREA.LIFE

t

LIFE 'Total Production Life, Yrs.

RESULTS (2 SITE

,

,

)

-

EXPL' CAP

'

NOTE:

RESULTS(2,JSITE,192)

- .000001

'OM

' 4

years between plants, nominal.

'

Unacost factor for each year.

'P.V. factor for BTWN.PLANTS number

1

1

I

RESULTS(Z,JSITf,l,l) i s escalated to P.O.L.

yea r at end o f Section LINEE.)

Count of

OK

Production Wells so far:

GOOD.PRODS

- 0

'Assumes no good producers from Ident. Phase.

LINE2

:

CONFIRM RESERVOIR

'**

CONFIRMATION UNIT COST

'

drill and test the following:

I

Unit o f Confirmation consists o f activity over 3 years

to

GOOD.

PRODS

-

4

'

Production wells

G00D.INJS

-

1.5 Injection wells

DRY.COUNT

- 0.5

Dry Holes

All o f this results in a reservoir for which developer i s ready

to go to bank for loan. Certainty of achieving

30

years of

' power production

i s

assumed t o be 0.95.

I



..

Total cost (not present valued),

SM:

UC0ST.CF

-

GOOD.PRODS

*

(WC.CONF)

-

'Producers

+ GOOD*.INJS

*

(WC.CONF)

-

' njectors

+ DRY.COUNT (WC.CONF) 'Dry Holes

All of 1 Unit of CONF is allocated to a single plant.

'

In addition, UPROBI, from above, is used to add an amount of

'

'

t o fail.

thi s prospect.

' Distribu te those N.CONF units of CONF over P.PER.SITE plants

Raw total

o f

confirmation costs:

CONF -

( 1

+ N.CONF*EXPLRECOV*PAYMENTS)*UCOST.CF

'

Escalate confirmation cost t o plant start up:

' YCN

-

years

of

construction, from above,

3

years nominal,

'

YCN/2 avoids double count from AFDC adjustments later:

CONF

-

CONF

*

((1

+

DISC)A(DUR.CONF

t

YCN/Z))

RESULTS(2,JS1TE92,1)

-

CONF 'CAP

RESULTS(2,JSITE,2,2)

-

0.00001 'OM

' And, escala te cost o f EXPL:

C

-

RESULTS(2,JSITE,I,l)

' YCN = yea rs of construction, from above,

3

years nominal,

'

YCN/2 avoids double count from AFDC adjustments later:

C

=

C

*

((1 t DISC)^(DUR.EXPL

t

DUR.CONF + YCN/2))

RESULTS(E,JSITE,l,l)

-

C

confirmation effort (at a different prospect) that is assumed

Its costs are then spread over all plants at

I

Number o f failed Confirmation Units:

N.CONF (1 - UPROBl)/UPROBI

I

I

LINE3

:

I PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELLS

'Cal cul ate required num ber of Vel

1

s

:

Flow int o plant:

TFLOW - TFLOWIN

'

Flow

from

plant:

'

I

NOTE: TFLO WIN was calculated in plant sizing routine, above.

'For old displays

I

Note: Relationship to SITEDATA for flash is not highly

I

and should be remodelled f rom data with a broader

temperatu re range, and perhaps

a

more explicit code for

expected steam quality of t he brine.

I F PTYPE -

1

THEN TFLOWbUT = TFLOWIN

ELSE TFLOWOUT

-

TFLOWIN*SITEDATA(ZRI

,26,

JSITE)/SITEDATA(ZRI ,'25, JSITE)

"Else" clau se reflects steam quality at wellhead, for flash plant

Binary Plant, must balance

'WIJN variable i s new,

19 Jan

8

WIJN

-

INT(TFLOWOUT/(SITEDATA(ZRI,22,JSITE)/lOOO))

+

1

WIJN - WIJN*RADACH(9) '(R91

WIN3 - WIJN/WNUM

'Total Number

o f

Wells

&

Total Well Cost:

WPSPR - INT(WNUM*WSPR) + 1 Spare Producers

WPDRY -

INT((WNUM)*WDRY)

+

1

'

Dry "Producers"

'Rat i o , In /Producer

F - 1 3



' T o t a l Number o f I n i t i a l W e ll s:

WCNT = WNUM t

WIJN

t

WPSPR t

WPDRY

' C a p i t a l c o s t

of

a l l i n i t i a l we l l s, i n c l u d in g t e st i n g :

'

GOOD.PRODS and GOOD.INJS a r e pa i d f o r p r e v i o u s l y :

'

I n j e c t o r t e s t s a r e i n cl u de d

i n

p ro d uc e r t e s t c o s t s .

1

*

(WNUM

t

WPSPR

-

GOOD.PRODS)

*

(WC.PROD* ( l tWRED)

+

0)

1 2

13

(WIJN

-

GOOD.INJS) * WC-GENL

(WPDRY - DRY.COUNT)

*

WC-GENL

WCTL

=

T 1 t T2

t 13

'CAP COST, WELLS

' E s c a l a t e t o P.0.L d a t e , f o r 3 y e a r c o n s t r u c t i o n l a g :

'

T h is i s t u r n ed o f f because

AFDC

i s added be low :

'

WCTL

=

WCTL*((l+DISC)A(l.5))

C al c u l a te No.

and D iscounted No. o f Supplementa l We1 1s :

'

1.

F a c to r t o a d j u s t d e c l in e c o e f f i c i e n t t o m u l t i p l a n t i n te r fe r e nc e

e f f e c t .

As

paramete r

C P I F

[S19] i nc rea ses f ro m

0

t o 1, t h e

'

i m pa c t o f d rawdown i n t e r f e r e n c e f r o m a l l o t h e r p l a n t s o n same

' p r o s p e c t i n c r ea s e s , by a n a l g o r i t h m he r e t h a t i n c r e a s e s t h e

'

o n e -p l a nt f l o w d e c l i n e c o e f f i c i e n t v i a a power f u n c t i o n o f t h e

s u p p o r t a b l e number o f p l a n t s .

'

NOTE: T h i s f e a t u r e i s n o t

used

i n

V e rs i o n

3 . 0 0 or

e a r l i e r .

(13 March 87)

DRWDN

=

SITEDATA(ZRI,24,3SITE)

'

D e c l i n e C o e f f i c i e n t .

CPIF

=


'

A d j u s t m e n t f a c t o r

' CPIF

=

0 i n SIT E DATA BASE o f 12 March 87.

PPSITE

=

(P.PER.SITE)"0.7 ' f r om LINE1 calcs . , f r a c t a l

2. S up p le m en ta l w e l l s t o comp en sate f o r p re s s u re d e c l i n e :

DECLINE

:

'DISC Di sc ou nt Fa cto r, fr om above. (FINFACT)

'L IFE L i f e o f P l an t , Yrs ., f rom above. (F INFACT)

'DRWDNE

'

D e c l i n e C o e f f i c i e n t , a d j u s t e d f o r N P l a n t s

VSTART

=


'

I n i t i a l f l o w r a t e

VNEEDED = SITEDATA(ZRI,21,JSITE)

NWO = WNUM ' No.

o f

p ro du ce rs a t s t a r t

NW1 = 0.00001

NWD

=

0.00001 'Re sul t : Disc ounte d No. o f wel l s added .

SNWOAM =

0

' R e s u l t : Sum o f D i s c ' t d

O&M

U n i t s f o r t h e s e w e l l s .

FOR I Y R =

1

TO LIFE ' I n years .

NW

= 0

'#

o f

new we l l s needed t h i s year .

S1

- 0

' D i s c ' t d

O&M

u n i t s added, t h i s ye a r .

FLOW0

-

VSTART*EXP(-IYR*DRWDNE)

DECLINE1

:

FLOWQ

-

FLOWO*(NWOtNWl)/NWO

'

Tes t F low

I F FLOWQ

>

VNEEDED THEN

GOTO

DECLINE2

'Loop: Add new w e l l s t h i s year :

I

t

DRWDNE DRWDN*(l

t

CPIF*(PPSITE-1))

I

'

Min. f l o w p er i n i t i a l w e l l

'Result : No. o f w e l l s ad ded o v e r L I F E y e a rs

'

Flow, s t a r t o f

Y r .

NW

-

NW t

1 :

NWl

-

NWl t 1

:

GOTO DECLINE1

DECLINE2

:

I F NW

- 0

THEN GOTO DECLINE3

'Accumulate Prese nt Va lue

of

No.

o f

new wel ls :

NWD NWD t NW/(( l tDISC)A(IYR-l ))

f - 1 4



'Accumula te O&M U n i t s due t o t h i s y e ar :

'

DECLINE3

:

NEXT I Y R

' C o n v e r t P r e s e nt V al u e s t o An nu al U n i t O&M c o s t s :

WDECLOMl - NWD *

( WC .

PROD*( l + W R E D ) * ( l +WSPR ) + TEST.WELL)

*

CAPRECOV

' WDECLOMl, t h e C a p i t a l Pa r t ,

i s FULLY costed here.

WDECLOMZ - SNWOAM

*

CAPRECOV

'

'

s - 0

FOR K

Th en , d i s c o u n t t o P.O.L. y e a r , a nd t o t a l :

SNWOAM

-

SNWOAM

t

S*NW/(

( l t D I S C)A I Y R)

I Y R

TO LIFE: S=S

+

l/((ltDISC)A(LIFE-IYR)):

NEXT

K

'O&M P a r t .

MUST

b e mu1 t i p 1 e d

by

annua l O&M c o s t p e r w e l l t o g e t f i n a l SM/year value.

B o th WDECLOMl and WDECLOME a r e added i n t o F i e l d O&M, b e l o w .

I

'** End o f S u p pl e m en t al W e l l C o s t s .

' F i n a l R e s u l t: W e ll c a p c o s t :

'

W e l l s

O&M

Cos t s a r e be low , unde r L INE5 :

RESULTS(Z,JSITE,3,1)

-

WCTL

' C A P

LINE4: 'DEEP WELL PUMPS

I

' * Deep Pump Cost and O&M

I F DPUMP

-

0 THEN DPTL=.00001

:

DPOM=.00001 : GOT0 PUMPENDED

I

'OLD: DPC - ZZF*( .2068-. 1681*LO G(ZZF)) 'EGbG, me ga $/ we ll

' P u m p C a p i t a l a n d I n s t a l l a t i o n , SM :

'

Depends on depth

o f

w e l l :

DPC

=

DPC*RADACH(20) R20]

PNUM

=

WNUM

+

INT(WNUM*WSPR)

+

1

' #

o f

pumps t o pu rchase

DPTL

-

DPC*PNUM 't ot al c a p i t a l cos t ,

SM

' OLD: DPTL = DPTL * ESClGENRL 'To 198 6.0

I F

ZZD > 1. THEN DPC

=

0.100 ELSE DPC = 0.075

'PUMP O&M:

'OLD: DPM - .05724+ .02348*LOG(ZZF) 'megaS/yr/WELL me ch an ic al

'OLD: DPM - DPM * ESClWELL 'TO 1986 .0

DPM -

0.020

' P e r a c t i v e pump p e r y e a r .

DPM = DPM*RADACH(21) ' [ R Z l ]

D1 = (DPM)*WNUM ' I n i t i a l pumps

D2 = NWD*DPC*CAPRECOV

D3 - WDECLOM2*DPM 'O&M, s u p p l .

' C a p i t a l , s u p pl e me n t al w e l l s

' T o t a l pump 08M, megaS/yr

POM - D1

+

D2 + D3

PUMPENDED

:

RESULTS(2,3SITE,4,1) = DPTL

'CAP

RESULTS(Z,JSITE,4,2) = DPOM 'OM

'*** End o f P u m p C a l c u l a t i o n s

1

t

I

F - 1 5



LINE5 : ' GATHERING SYSTEM

'*** Field Surface Equipment Capital costs: S/kWe net

'

1.

Initial Gathe ring Sys tem Cost:

'

1.A. Producer Wells:

'

NOTE:

'

'

' Separati on between pro ducer s wells, in feet:

SEPAR = SITEDATA(ZRI,l4,3SITE) (141

WPRODSUM

=

INT(WNUM*(ltWSPR))

t

1 ' Producers plus spares

' Total length of pipe, rectangular field,

' one full run fo r each well:

NFEET -

(WPRODSUMA(l.48))*(0.51039)*SEPAR

'2 Feb 87 DJE

1986

Cost is then

$50.00

per foot,

'

Plus

$20,000

for control valv e on each well:

1.B. Inj ect or Wells:

I

I

Feb

87:

No provisi on is made f or pipe cost saving due

t o having a W of pro ducers o n a single pad. All wells are

assumed t o be drilled vertically, not directionally.

CPRODGATH

=

(50.*NFEET

+

20000.*WPRODSUM)/(10A6)

' M.$

CPRODGATH

=

CPRODGATH*RADACH(28) 'R[28]

'

Assumes four wells per pipe run, with injectors heads

'

set at

6

times SEPAR distance

from

plant.

COSTPER4 - 6*SEPAR*50.*SQR(4*(SITEDATA(ZRI ,22,JSITE)/500))

COSTPER4

=

COSTPER4/(10A6)

'

Total, and add $20K per well f or valve:

CINJGATH - COSTPER4*(WIJN/4) t 0.020*WIJN

CSNJGATH

-

CINJGATH*RADACH(28) 'R[28]

Field surface equipment total cost:

SPTL

-

CPRODGATH + CINJGATH

' SPTL-SPTL/FPTEF 'Ad just: P1 ant efficiency mu1 ti l i er

I

TTL

-

EXPL+WCTLtDPTLtSPTL

RESULTS(E,JSITE,5,1) = SPTL

' TOTAL Field, cap, mega$

I

'Capital, Gathering Sys.

' 2.

Gathering System Cost fo r Decline Producers

:

' NOTE: It

i s

assumed that initial injectors will

2.A.

Capital Portion

o f

Added gathering:

Pipe run, based o n in crement t o original piping:

t

same total flow rat e through life of plant. 2 Feb.

..

A - (WPRODSUM

t

NW1)"(1.480)

A - A*(0.51039)

NFEET2 - A*SEPAR

CPRODGATHl

-

(5O.*(NFEET2 - NFEET)

+

20000.*NW1)/(10A6)

' M$

I F

N W l <

1 THEN NFEET2

-

0

:

CPRODGATHE

= 0

CPRODGATHl = CPRODGATHl*RADACH(28) [R28]

' Discount to POL year:

CPRODGATHE = CPRODGATHl * (NWD/NWl)

' Apply unacost to treat as an annual cost:

'

'Did not compile

as

one line

' $M

CPRODGATH3 - CPRODGATH2 * CAPRECOV $M/year

Added t o Well O&M Costs, Later

I

F - 1 6



' 3. Miscellaneous Field O&M Costs, mega$/year

'From INEL 1980 Analysis:

B B B

=

2 Z B V

-

ZZB t 2

F1

=

.320 *

ESClGENRL

'

Field staff

'NOTE: NO RID impact on Field Staff cost.

'OLD:

F2

= 0.01

*

BBB

WCTL

'

Initial PROD and IN3 wells.

'Unit annual costs for reworking initial wells:

PROD. REWORK

-

SITEDATA(

ZRI(37,

SITE)*RADACH(

1 1 )

/

-

1NJ.REWORK

= SITEDATA(ZRI,38,JSITE)*RADACH(13) / -

F2 =

WNUM*PROD.REWORK

t

WIJN*lNJ.REWORK 'Total Rework

F3

=

0.01 * B B B * SPTL

F3 = F3 *

RADACH(29)

I F4

-

ZZBf(ZZB-1)*.0075*(TTL-EXPL)

'Schilling, Solid Waste

'For supplemental we1

1

s needed du e t o pressure decl ine:

(All R&D impacts for

F5

and

F6

are via factors from above)

F5

=

WDECLOMl 'Capital portion, unacost

'OLD:

F6

= WDECLOM2*(O.Ol*BBB*WCPW)

F6 =

WDECLOM2*PROD.REWORK 'OIM portion, unacost

'For Gathering Cap. & O&M f or supplemental wells:

F7 = CPRODGATH3 'Supplm. Wel ls Gathering Cap., unacost

'R&D Ach. on F7 is via CPRODGATHl, above.

F8

-

O.Ol*BBB*CPRODGATH2 'Supplm. Gathering O&M

F8 = F8

RADACH(29)

' Note: [R28] also afects

F8.

'Old summation, f or Reports (DPOM-Pump O&M)

:

FOAM - FltF2tF3 tF5tF6tF7tF8 t DPOM

't

F4 ??

'ObM Cost totals:


=

FltF2tF5tF6

'OIM, WELLS

RESULTS(

2 ,

JSITE,

5,2)

=

F3tF7tF8

megaS/year, revised 2 Feb 87

'(0,l.Z) maps to (2,2,4)

S TEDATA

(ZR ,

7,

S T )*RADACH

( 10

S I

TEDATA ZR , 18,JS TE )*RADACH 1 2)

'

Gathering Pipes and valves.

I F4 from OLD model : 2 Feb:

' [R29]

f

'O&M,

GATHERING

t

F4

? ?

LINE6

: ' PLANT

'*** Electric Plant Capital Costs: HegaS

I

f

I F

PTYPE

=

'2THE N GO T0 FLASH.PLANT.COST

..

BINARY. PLANT. COST:

' NOTE: Changed markedly on 15 March

87,

DJE:

'

Based on Input Flow Requirement and Temperature, as best

way

to

match Unitt Dec. 86 cost estimates:

'

COST.PER.FLOW

units

-

$Million per Million Lb/Hr:

COST. PER.

FLOW = 2.83 t 0.025*ZZT

PPC

-

TFLOWIN

*

COST.PER.FLOW

'JM,

1986.0

'

SET

BELOW:

PPC = PPC*FPTCS ' Plant Cost Mult. [R17]

' PPC - PPC*((POUT/50)A.7) 'Scale

to

net

s i r e

'

Scale to BCI per Technecon Heb er Analysis,1983:

B=ZZB

'End o f Binary Plant Costing.

Pl=EXP(

7.7103-

(

.001968-B*(

Btl)*.

000006)*ZZTt6.456001 E-O2*B)

PPC

=

PPC*PI/EXP( 7.7103 -

.001968*ZZT)

F - 1 7





LINE8 : BRINE STABILIZATION

1

'

A t

13

M a r c h 8 7, c o v e r s

o n l y

c o s t

o f

c r y s t a l l i z e r - c l a r i f i e r .

BSCAP-.00001 : BSOAM=.00001 ' N i l

I F PTYPE

-

2 AND ZZB

=

1 THEN BSCAP

-

6.6

I F PTYPE - 2 AND ZZB = 2 THEN BSCAP = 14.0

I F PTYPE -

2

THEN

BSOAM - 0.15*ZZB

BSCAP = BSCAP

*

RADACH(26)

BSOAM = BSOAM RADACH( 18)

RESULTS(Z,JSITE,8,1) - BSCAP 'CAP

RESULTS(Z,JSITE,8,2) - BSOAM 'OM

' R26]

'[R18]

LINE9 : ' ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

' A t

13

M a r c h 87, c o v e r s

o n l y

c o s t o f H 2 S c o n t r o l .

ENVCAP=0.00001

:

ENVOAM=0.00001 ' N i l

HSULF

-

(SITEDATA(ZRI, l l , JSIT E)) 'ppm

I

I F HSULF >

70

AND PTYPE

2

THEN ENVCAP - 6.0 '

SM

I F HSULF > 500 AND PTYPE -

2

THEN ENVCAP - 8.3 ' SM

I F HSULF > 70 AND PTYPE -

2

THEN ENVOAM = 2.2 ' $M/yr

ENVCAP - ENVCAP*RADACH(27)

ENVOAM - ENVOAM*RADACH(19)


-

ENVCAP 'CAP

RESULTS(Z,JSITE,9,2) - ENVOAM 'OM

' R27]

' R19]

'

'LINEIO: ' RESERVOIR INSURANCE

' 16 J a n

87,

Rough es t im a t e :

' I n s u r a n c e s e t a t 5

pe r cen t

o f p o s t - c o n f i r m a t i o n Cap. C o s t:

ZINSUR

- 0

FO R I - 3 TO

9

ZINSUR

-

ZINSUR

t

RESULTS(Z,JSITE, I,])

NEXT

I

RESULTS(2,JSITE,lO,l)

-

0.05 ZINSUR 'CAP

RESULTS(2,JSITE,10,2) * .00001 'OM

1

'LI NE12: CONTINGENT RI SK

'

4 s

RESULTS(2,JSITE,12,1) - .00001-'CAP


-

.00001

'OM

F - 1 9



'**** FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS, AS COST CHANGES:

'*** ADJUST FIEL D COSTS:

'

keeps RESULTS(I,J,K,l) as capital cost estimates.

FOR I=l TO 12:RESCAPADJ(I)=RESULTS(2,JSITE,I,I):NEXT I

I * *

NOTE: Hand Calculate PTOF,DTOF from 2 BUSIMGOE.BAS runs.

'

Version 3.00:

PTOF=l .OOO

DTOF=1.000 '(Field DISC)/(Plant DISC)

FLAFCR-PTOF*VLAFCR : FISC=DTOF*DISC ' Fie1 d Rates

I * * Expense INTANGIBLE % of wells

'

I

Set Capital Costs into RESCAPADJ(12), which

I

Sam e economics for plant and field:

I

(Field VLAFCR)/(Plant VLAFCR)

I

I

' LINE1 - IDENTIFY:

RESCAPADJ(1)

=

RESCAPADJ(1)

*

(1

-

(l.O)*INTXR)

'

LINE2

-

CONFIRM:

' Large additional fraction

is intangible:

RESCAPADJ(2)

' LINE3

-

FIEL D DEVEL OPMENT WELLS:

RESCAPADJ(3) RESCAPADJ(3)

-

WCTL*FINT*INTXR

Entire cost assu med intangible and expensed:

I

RESCAPADJ(2) * (1 - INTXR*(FINT +.3)/1.3)

I

' The nominal fraction o f well costs is intangible:

I

I

'***

LEVELIZED COSTING CALCULATIONS:

I * * * *

ROYALT ES

,

ETC

'

SEVFAC "Severance Factor" i s used t o adjust all

costs to

I

reflect positive effects of royalty rate, resource severance

tax, and negative effect of resource depletion allowance tax

saving on the final cost

of

power.

SEVFAC=l/(l - ROYR - SEVR

+

(INTXR)*DEPL )

RMILLS - 1000*COSTADJ/( 8,76*POUT*FLVLCF)

'SET UP FACTO RS FOR MILLS/KWH,

LEVELIZED I N CONSTANT DOLLARS

1

I

NOTE: "Constant $ " cos t is January

1986

cost.

This must be

I

I

I

multiplied by th e assumed general rate of inflation to

get the s ales cost in each succeeding year.

HFCP

-

FABC*FAFRD*YOAM*FLAFCR*RMILLS*SEVFAC/GLVL

MPCP -

FABC*FAFRD*ZOAM*VLAFCR*RMILLS/GLVL

MFOM -

YOAM FLVL RMILLS SEVFAC/GLVL

MPOM - ZOAM*GLVL*RMILLS/GLVL

I

F - 2 0



'CONVERT Capital and O&M Costs to mills/kwh

FOR

I - 1 TO 3

NEXT

1

FOR

I = 4 TO 10

RESULTS(2,JSITE,I,3)

-

MPCP

*

RESCAPADJ(1)

NEXT I

'

O&M ACCOUNTS:

'

Deep

Pump

O&M, per Field Equipment

F a c t o r :

FOR

I - 1

TO

4

FOR

I - 5

TO 10

f

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS:

RESULTS(E,JSITE, 1,3)

-

MFCP

*

RESCAPADJ(

)

RESULTS(Z,JSITE,I,4)

-

MFOM RESULTS(2,JSITE,1,2)

:

NEXT

I

RESULTS(Z,JSITE,I,4)

-

MPOM

*

RESULTS(2,JSITE,I,2)

: NEXT I

I

'Find Account Subtotals: Cap + O&M, mills/kwh:

FOR

I

-

1

TO

10

NEXT

I

RESULTS( 2, JSITE, , 5)

-

RESULTS( 2, SITE, ,S)tRESULTS(

2 ,

JSITE, I,4)

I

RISK (LINE12)

IS ZERO DURING THESE SUMMATIONS

f

L I N E l l :

'COST TOTALS

'

And, B o t t o m Line Totals,

S ,

S/Yr,

3

X Mills/kwh :

FOR

I -

1 TO 5 : ZZXR = 0

1

FOR J=l

TO

10

NEXT J

:

RESULTS(2,JSITE,ll,I)

-

ZZXR

ZZXR

-

ZZXR

+

RESULTS (2, SITE,3,

)

NEXT

1

'AND FINAL BUSBAR COST:

BUSBAR

-

RESULTS( 2, JSITE, 11,5)

RETURN

'***

END SUBR: ENGINE.CORE ***

'

I

I

I * * * * *

END OF SUB-FILE: CALCULATION

E N G I N E *****

.

F - 2 1



'

LASl EDITED

14

March

1987

TOPMENU :

'*** ENTRY POINT and INTIATION for TOP MENUS: *******

BXPS

= "

MLITS 0 AXPStAXPSt"--"

MLIBf - " I tBXP$+BXPSt"

It

PRINT MLITS

PRINT

1

IM-GEO-[Z] STAR T-U P and QUIT MENU

PRINT MLIMS

PRINT

I'

I

'PRINT

1

I C. SHOW: Files/Print Control STATUS

PRINT MLIMS

PRINT MLIBO

PRINT 'I* I

PRINT MLIBf

PRINT MLIMS

PRINT 'I

I

R. CHANGE: Where REPORTS are sent:

PRINT 'I

I

NOW -

'I;

CHANNEL$

;

I'

PRINT MLIMd

PRINT MLIBS

PRINT 1

Y.

GO TO: OPERATIONS Menu

PRINT MLIBS

PRINT MLIMS

PRINT

1

Q. QUIT to DOS

PRINT MLITS

PRINT "ENTER SELECTION

=====>

" e

TOPMENUl : GOSUB INLETTER: IF A k S - I1 THEN GOTO TOPMENUI

'

AXP$

=

'I- - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'

I1

:

MLIMS = I'

I

"tAXPS+AXPS+" I'

CLS f*t*t********** TOP MENU ******e*************

A. HELP: What Y o u Can

/

Should Do Here

B .

SELECT: Report Contents

F. SET: BASE CASE to Current Data

G. RESET: BASE CASE to Original Defaults

I

I It

::

I

I

'

IF ANSS="A" THEN HELPS = "HTOPMENU.HLP" : GOSUB SUBHELP

'IF

ANS$="C" THEN GOSUB MENSTATUS

'IF

ANSS="B" THEN GOSUB SUBREPCON '

7

Dec 86

IF ANSS= "F" THEN GOSUB CALC.MULTI.SITES

:

'Get C.O.P. Values

I F ANSS="G" THEN GOSUB SublBASELOAD ' Reset ALL

I F

ANSf="Y" THEN GOTO MENUEDIT '

8

DEC.

IF ANS$="Q" THE N CLS

:

SYSTEM

I F ANSJ-"R" THEN

I F PSWITCHS - kP"

IF PSWITCHS = " P " -

GOSUB MAKE.BASE.CASE

'

- ' L o a d

values

'*e****

THE EXIT Point

e*****

THEN PSWITCHS = - "F " ELSE PSWITCHS = "PI'

THE N CHANNELS --CHANNELIS ELSE CHANNELS

=

CHANNELES

GOTO TOPMENU

No valid option selected.

'*** END: MENU: START-UP = "TOPMENU"

F - 2 2



MENUED IT :

I

PRINl

PR N7

PRINl

PR Nl

PR N'I

PRINl

PRINl

PRINl

PR N1

PRINl

EDFLAGS="NO" & EDFLAG2S="NO" Set in INIT & elsewhere.

CLS

M2LTS

-

STRING4(72,"-")

'I +

STRING$(?O,"-")+ I' 'I

M2LBf = "

I'

+ STRINGf(70,"-")+ 'I I'

PRINT MELTS

PRINT 1 IM-GEO-[Y]

OPERATI t ;

M2LMf

- I I

I

PRINT "ONS MENU

I

I t

.

RINT M2LMf

PRINT ' '1 A. HELP: Editing Options

PRINT

'I K .

HELP: Report Options

PRINT

" 1 B .

EDIT: R&D Achvmnts, RESERVOIR";

PRINT

' ' 1

C. EDIT: R&D Achvmnts, WELLS

'I.

PRINT M. SHOW: 1-Site Current Costs

PRINT

1 D.

EDIT: R&D Achvmnts, PLANTS ;

PRINT "

0.

PRINT 1 -Site Technical Details

1

PRINT " 1 F. EDIT: RISKs, WELLS & FLOW

PRINT " P. ****

PRINT 1 G. EDIT: RISKs, UNIT COSTS

PRINT "

Q.

SHOW: Multi-Reg., Costs

X

Region 1

PRINT " R. PRlNT Multi-Reg., F I N E GRAIN Rbt I "

PRINT 1

1. ****

'

1

' 1

PRINT 'I L. SHOW: R&D Achievements

PRINT

"

N. SHOW: 1-Site Base Case Costs

I

PRINT 1 E. EDIT: RISKs, RESERVOIR

$1

.

' I *

9

' 1 "

*I.

PRINT

1

H. EDIT: Regional WEIGHTS

PRINT 1 J. EDIT: Financial Factors

PRINT STRS(JSITE1; I

of

;

I "

11 .

(1 .

PRINT " S.

****

' I "

PRINT " T. EJECT Page (After cPrt.Scr>) ' I "

.

PRINT MELMS

PRINT

1

U. SELECT: Single Analysis Site, NOW =

;

'

1

V. RUN: Single- Site Cost

. "Power

Analysis

MELMS

' 1

U. RUN: Multi-Region Ana

' , (ACCOUNTS X PERCENT Report)

'

MELMS

' 1 2. GO TO: START-UP / QUIT

' I

* MELTS

' "ENTER SELECTION =====> ;

F - 2 3

ysis";

I

MENU

;

It



MENUEDITl :

'OPERATIONS A c t i o n

L i s t :

" ' Se t s t a t i c TTIMES

i f

e d i t i n g

o f

f a c t o r s o cc ur s:

" ' I F

0

<> INSTR("BCDEFGHM",ANSS) THEN TTIMES

=

TIMES

SAVS - ANS$ ' To r e s t o r e s e l e c t i o n a f t e r *** SUBR: changes.

I F ANSS="A" THEN HELPS

=

"HEDIT.HLP" : GOSUB SUBHELP

I F ANS$="K" THEN HELPS = "HSHOW.HLP" : GOSUB SUBHELP

I F

ANS$="B" THEN GOSUB EDIT.ACH.FIELD

I F ANS$="C" THEN GOSUB EDIT.ACH.WELLS

I F

ANS$="D" THEN GOSUB EDIT.ACH. PLANT

I F

ANS$="E" THEN GOSUB EDIT.RISK.RESVOIR

I F ANS$="F" THEN GOSUB EDIT.RISK.WELLS

I F ANS$="G" THEN GOSUB EDIT.RISK.COSTS

GOSUB INLETTER: I F ANS$ =

'In

THEN GOTO MENUEDITl

'

' F i x up r i s k f a c t o r s :

I F

(0

<>

INSTR("EFG",SAV$)) AND EDFLAGS="YES" THEN

-

GOSUB ADJUST. WORST. DATA

I F ANS$="J" THEN GOSUB ED FI N

I F

ANS$="L" THEN GOSUB RADACH.SCRN

I F A N S $ = " T " THEN LPRINT CHRS(12); : ANSf = "ZAP" 'Ej. page

I F LEN(ANS$) > 1 THEN GOTO MENUEDIT 'Done w i t h ab ove, ZAP.

' U n r e s o l v e d e f f e c t s

f o r

both S i n g l e a n d M u l t i p l e c a se s:

I F EDFLAGS = "YES" THEN EDFLAGES = "YES"

' I f n o u n r e s o l v e d ch a ng e s, d o n ' t me ss a bo u t :

' Reca l c f o r s i n g l e - s i t e r e p o r t s :

'Reca lc

f o r

m u l t i - s i t e re p o r t s :

GOSUB CALC.MULTI .SITES

:

EDFLAG2S -"NO"

EDFLAGS

-

"NO"

'

E v e r y t h i n g

i s

f i x e d

f o r

s i n g l e c as e.

ANSS - SAVS

R e s t o r e u s e r ' s o p t i o n s e l e c t i o n .

'

I F EDFLAGS

<>

"YES" AND EDFLAGES

<>

"YES" THEN GOTO MENUEDIT3

I F 0 <> INSTR("MNOV",SAV$) AND EDFLAG$ = "YES" THEN

-

GOSUB SUBlENGINE

I F 0 <> INSTR("QRW",SAVS) AND EDFLAGES

-

"YES" THEN

-

HENUEDIT3 :

I F

ANS$="M" THEN IXCOST-2

:

OSUB COSTS. OUT ' C u r r e n t 1 s i e

I F ANSS-"N" THEN IXCOST=I:GOSUB COSTS.OUT 'B as e 1 s i t e

I F ANSS="O" THEN GOSUB SUBlENGINE : ' I n t e r m e d . D a t a

=

JSITE

I F ANS$="Q" THEN GOSUB REGIONS.SCR

I F

ANSS="R" THEN GOSUB COSTS.LIST: 'C os ts , S i t e s

X

Accounts

I F ANS$="U" THEN GOSUB PICK.ONE.SITE :

I F ANSS="V" THEN GOSUB SUBGENCOP 'Run/Show 1 P r o s p e c t

I F ANS$="W" THEN GOSUB RUN.MULT1 'Run Mu1

t i

S i t e

I F

ANSS-"2" THEN ANSS - "ZAP" : GOTO TOPMENU

GOTO MENUEDIT '

NO GOOD

RESPONSE

I F ANSS-"H" THEN GOSUB MENUWEIGHTS

GOSUB SITE.TECH.FAC3 ' I - S i t e Te c hn ic al

' C o s t s , M u l t i - S i t e

'

I F EDFLAGPS - "YES" THEN GOSUB-SUBlENGINE

'

#

F - 2 4



SUBHELP :

'***

SUBR:

Writes simple HELP t o screen.

HELP.YOU2 :

I F

EOF(3) THEN GOTO HELP.YOU4

LINE INPUTU3, BS

:

I F

LEFTS(BS,3)="Sfb" THEN GOTO HELP.YOU4

PRINT Bf : GOTO HELP.YOU2 ' Next Line

HELP.YOU4 : PRINT

CLS

:

axb$

* t t * * * t * t t t * * * t t * * ****** t * * ***********~~

print axbS t

HELP " t axbS : OPEN HELP$ FOR INPUT AS # 3

PRINT " *tf*t **t*t*****+*******>RESS ANY KEY 1 1 ;

PRINT "to CONTINUE (*+*t*****************t*n

GOSUB INLETTER : CLOSE U3 : ANSS ="ZAP" : RETURN

'***

END SUBR: Give HELP ******

PRINT

'

PRINT

"

PRINT "

PRINT

"

I. Weight - Regional Capacity

[

- DEFAULT ]

3.

Weight - Equal fo r all Regions

K. Weight - User's Numerical Values

L. Weight

-

Relevance to R&D Program

I t

II

II

II

IF ANSS="A" T HEN HEL PS

-

'HWEIGHT.HLP"

I F ANSS-"S" THEN GO SUB UEIGHTS.SHOW

I F ANSS="Z" THEN ANSS-"ZAP" : RETURN

GOTO

MENUWEIGHTS '

No v a l i d o p t i o n se

'***

END:

MENU:

Set Regional Weights

I * * * END

SECTION: ZMENUS

***

F

: GOSUB SUBHELP

ected.

10

Feb

87

2 5



'***

ZCTRL

'****** CONTROL OF MAJOR CALCULATIONS

*******

I

'

L a s t E d i t e d

2 1

Feb

87

SUBGENCOP

:

'***

SUBR: C a l c u l a t e One P l a n t Case, Show/Pr in t

' GOSUB subIENGINE

'*** END SUBR: SUBGENCOP

*****

'

CLS

GOSUB SCONSOLEI ' how/ P r i n t Resu l t s

ANSS - "ZAP"

:

RETURN ' t o CALLER

SUBlENGINE

:

I***

SUBR: SINGLE SITE CALC VERSION

' D i r e c t c a l l

t o

h e r e

wi l l

c a l c u l a t e ,

not

Show/Pr in t .

' I s

c a l l e d

f rom 4 or

5 p l a c e s : 21 Feb

87.

' JSITE

- [1-8]

( S i t e

#

t o

Do).

Must

be

set above.

PRINT WELCOMES : PRINT

:

PRINT "WAIT: RECALCULATING SINGLE SI TE No. : ; SITE

'*** END SUBR: SINGLE SITE CALC

V E R S I O N

I

CLS

GOSUB CALC.A.SITE

RETURN

'*******

CONTROL CALC-ENGINE F O R MULTI-CASE USES ********

RUN. MULTI

:

I * * *

SUBR: Ca lc and Show M u l t i - S i t e Case

'

GOSUB CALC.MULTI.SITES 'C a lc . 8 S i t e s

RETURN

'**+

END SUBR: C a l c

and

S how M u l t i -S i t e Case

I

GOSUB SHOW. MULTI

' D is p la y t h e r e s u l t s

SHOW.

MULTI

:

'***

SUBR:

Show

M u l t i - S i t e Case

SHOW. MULT

I 1

:

I

GOSUB LOAD.OUT.MULT1 'Lo ad Ou t p u t A r r a y

GOSUB SHOW.ACCOUNTS

TO

SCREEN

GOSUB SHOW.CHOICE USER RESPONSE

IF

ANSS c>

"ZAP"

THEN GOT0 SHOW.MULTI1 'RESHOW

RETURN

I ND

SUBR:

Show

M u l t i - S i t e Case

F - 2 6



. CALC.MULTI.SITES

:

I

'*** SUBR: Calculate and Show MultiSite Case

CLS

:

PRINT WELCOME$ : PRINT

PRINT "WAIT: CALCULATING

8

REGIONS:

'

:

PRINT

TEMPSITE = JS IT E 'Save User's Selection

FOR IXSITE = 1

TO 8

PRINT " REGION:"; IXSITE

JSITE

-

IXSITE : GOSUB CALC.A.SITE ' ENGINE. Do one

o f 8.

NEXT IXSITE

GOSUB WAY. SUM S

JSITE - TEMPSITE

IF JSITE <> 8 THEN GOSUB SUBlENGINE

RETURN

I * * * END SUBR: Calculate MultiSite Case

'Reset Weighted Averages

'Restore User's Selection, Data:

LOAD.OUT.MULT1:

'***

SUBR: Out-Load Multi-Sit e Results:

BS

-

"Multi-Region Weighted Averaged Data

CASETITLE$

-

Bf t "WEIGHTS

- "

+ WEIGHTS

ZREPORTS - "A" 'No-cost report

' Move 8-c ase results to SHOWOUT(12,4):

' Base Cas e Percents:

' Current/Base Total :

Current, Change from Base:

'

Current Cas e Percents:

NEXT

I

' Ready t o display a

RETURN

I * * *

END

SUBR: Load-Out Mul ti- Site Case

I

FOR I - 1 TO 12

SHOWOUT(

I, 1 )

= 100*( RESMUL

1, I

)/RESMUL ( 1 , l l )

SHOWOUT( I,

2)

= loo*( RESMUL( 2, I )/RESMUL ( 1 , l l ) )

SHOWOUT( I ,3) - loo*( (RESMUL(2, I)/RESMUL( 1,

I))

SHOWOUT(

I,4)

-

100*RESMUL(2, I)/RESMUL(E,ll)

WAY. SUMS

:

I * * * SUBR: Hake Weighted Averages:

'12

Accounts, weighted and normalized:

FOR

K -

1 TO 12

: 8 = 0 : C

= 0 'Base

&

Current cases

B

- 8 t

RESULTS(l,J,K,S)*WEIGHT(J)

C = C + RESULTS(Z,J,K,S)*WEIGHT(J)

I

FOR J

=

1

TO

8

NEXT J : RESMUL( l,K)=B/WAYSUM : RESMUL(2,K)=C/WAYSUM

N E X T

K

'5 Cost Values, weighted and normalized:

FOR I = 1

TO

2

:

FOR L =

1

TO 5 : A = 0

FOR J

=

1 TO 8

NEXT 3

WCOSTL

I,

L) - A/WAYSUM

A

-

A t RESULTS(I,J,ll,L)*WEIGHT(J)

NEXT

L :

NEXT I

RETURN

'*** END

SUBR: Make Weighted Averages

F - 2 7



'*** FOUR WEIGHT SETTING ROUTINES ******

WEIGHT. CAPAC ITY :

I

UBR:

EDFLAGS

-

"YES"

TTIMES

-

TIMES

WEIGHT.CAPACITY.EX

: <--

For automatic use,

w/o

top flags.

C L S :

WAYSUM - 0

FOR J -

1

T O

8

' RISK SE T HERE, 20 Feb.

NEXT J

WEIGHTS - "Regional Capacity

ZWAYZ = 1

:

ANSS

=

"ZAP"

:

RETURN

'***

END SUBR: WEIGHT.CAPACITY

WEIGHT.UNITY

:

'***

SUBR:

WEIGHTS - "Equal f or all Regions

ZWAYZ - 2

:

EDFLAGS - "YES"

:

TTIMES - TIMES 'Set tim e stamp.

ANSI - "ZAP" : RETURN

'*** E N D SUBR: WEIGHT.UNITY

r

WEIGHT. USER

:

I UBR:

'

Restore Users Earlier Weights

:

AR E IN WEIGHT.USER

Let User edit t he weights (using DATACH)

C L S

MNAMES

-

" WEIGHT for Region's Cont ribu tion to Totals"

MSlZE

-

8

I

I

Weight

=

Region's gross potential

'Set time stamp.

Per S.P. & D.J.E.

WEIGHT(3) - SITEDATA(E,l,J)

WAYSUM - WAYSUM

t

WEIGHT(J)

11

t

I

All weights set to

1.0

CLS:

FOR 1 - 1

TO

8 : WEIGHT(1) = 1 : NEXT I

WAYSUM - 8

'I

'

Weigh ts entered by user.

FOR

I -

1

TO 8

MV(

I) -

WEIGHT.USER(

I)

IF MV(1) < .00001 THEN MV(1) - 0

MM$(I)="WEIGHT

o f "

t SITENAMES(1)

'Hide protection

'Region name

'Time stamp, EDFLAGf are there.

NEXT I

GOSUB SUBDATACH

'And store results:

WAYSUM

-

0

FOR

I

-

1

TO

8

IF MV(1) <=

0

THEN MV(1) = .000001 'Protection

WEIGHT.USER(1)

-

MV(1) 'User's We ight s

WEIGHT( I) = WEIGHT.USER( I)

WAYSUM - WAYSUM + WEIGHT(1)

'Active Weights = User's

'Active sum

NEXT I

WEIGHTS = "User's Numerical Values

TTIMES -.TIMES

ZWAYZ

- 3 ; ANSS - "ZAP" : RETURN

'***

END

SUBR: WEIGHT.USER

"

'User may be just checking, and keeping

thi s selection.

F - 2 8



I

WEIGHT. RELEVANCE :

'*** SUBR: Weighted by Res ource and C.O.P. utility

T h e utility function here assumes that the program's interes t

*

i n

a region decreases on eithe r side

o f

an assumed competitive

' cost

of

power of

80

mills/KWh. C.O.P. used is from Base Case.

EDFLAGS = "YES"

TTIMES

-

TI MES 'Set ti me stamp.

WEIGHT.RELEVANCE.EX

:

C L S

FOR

3

-

1 TO

8

'

CO P utility curve:

NEXT

J

WAY UM=O

FO R 1-1 TO 8:WAYSUM=WAYSUMtWEIGHT(I)

:

NEXT I

WEIGHTS

-

"Relevance t o R&D Program "

ZWAYZ

- 4

ANSS - "ZAP" : RETURN

'*** EN D SUBR: WE1GHT.RELEVANCE

I * * *

END OF TH E WEIGHT SETTING ROUTINES

******

'

*

f

'<--

For automatic use, w/o top

flags.

COP - RESULTS(l,J,ll,S)

MWE

-

SITEDATA(E,l,J)

IF COP <= 80 THEN U - COP/80 ELSE U - 80/COP

WEIGHT(3)

-

MWE*U/1000

'Mills/KWh Total, Base Case

'Resource potential, Risk Loaded

I

MAKE. BASE. CAS E

:

'***

SUBR: Fill base ca se from current case, all Regions:

CLS

:

PRINT WELCOMES

:

PRINT

PRI NT "WAIT: FILLING BASE CASE VALUES"

FOR 3 = 1

TO

1 0

I

FOR K = 1 TO 12

FOR L - 1 TO 5

RESULTS( 1 ,J,K, L) = RESULTS( 2,3, , L)

I F

RESULTS(

1, J,

, L)-0 THEN

I F

RESULTS(E,J,K,L)-0 THEN

NEXT L

RESULTS(1,J,K,L)-.OOOOOi '** Prevent Div

by Zero

RESULTS(2,J,K,L)-.OOOOOi '** Prevent Div by Zero

NEXT

K

NEXT

3

RETURN

' *** EN D SUBR: HAKE.BASE.CASE

'***

END OF ZCTRL PORTION OF CO DE

***

F - 2 9



'***

ZED11

'*** EDIT MAJOR FACTORS

********

I

' L a s t E d i t e d : 13 M arch 87

PICK.ONE. SITE :

'For S i n g l e - S i t e A n a l y s i s :

CLS

:

PRINT "SELECT SINGLE S I T E FROM ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

PRINT : PRINT

FOR I 1

TO

8

I

'I

PRINT USING " # # # # # # # # . ;I;

PRINT SITENAMES(1)

NEXT 1

LOCATE 14,8 : PRINT "CURRENT SITE

#

IS: I; JSITE

LOCATE 16,8

INPUT "SELECT S ITE NUMBER

[ l

-

81,

<Enter>

:

'I,

ZNSITE

ZNSITE = INT(ZNSITE1

I F (ZNSI TE ( ' 1 ) OR iZNSITE > 8) THEN GOT0 PICK.ONE.SITE

JSITE

=

ZNSITE

ANSS="ZAP" ; RETURN

'***

END SUBR: PICK.ONE.SITE

ED IT . ACH .

I

LD :

'***SUBR: E d i t R&D Achi evem ents, R es e rv o ir *****

'Var iables: REV(1)

= 1

- 9

CLS : MNAMES=" R&D Ac h ie ve me nt s for RESEVOIR"

MSIZE=9

FOR

I = I

TO MSIZE

NEXT

1

GOSUB subDATACH 'D at a Changer, t h e n Ou tl oa d:

MV( I)=RADACH( REV( I ) ) :MMS ( )=RADACHS (REV (I)

FOR I

-

1 TO MSIZE : RADACH(REV(1)) = MV(1)

: NEXT I

'** END SUBR: EDIT.ACH.FIELD ***

NSf="ZAP" : RETURN

EDIT. ACH. WELLS :

'***SUBR: E d i t R&D Ach.s, WELLS ***** ..

'Var iables: REV(1) = 10 -

2 2

CLS

:

MNAMES=" R&D Ac hi ev eme nt s for WELLS"

MS

ZE = l3

FOR

I

- 1 TO MSIZE

NEXT I

GOSUB subDATACH

ANSS-"ZAP" : RETURN

MV( I ) =RADACH (REV(

I

t 9 ) )

:

MMf

(I)

RADACHS (REV

(

I

9 )

)

FOR I = 1 TO MSIZE : RADACH(REV(It9)) = MV(1) : NEXT I

'** END SUBR: EDIT.ACH.WELLS ***

F - 3 0



EDIT.ACH.PLANT :

'***SUBR: Edit R&D Ach.s, PLAN TS *****

'Variables:

CLS : MNAMES=" R&D Achievements for PLAN

MS ZE-13

FOR

I = l TO

MSIZE

GOSUB subDATACH

REV(1) = 23 -

35

MV( I)-RADACH( REV( 1t22) :MMS (

I

)=RADACHS

FOR I -

1

TO MSIZE

:

RADACH(REV(It22))

ANSf="ZAP" : RETURN

'**

END SUBR: EDIT.ACH.PLANT ***

S I

REV(It22)):NEXT I

- MV(1)

:

NEXT I

EDIT.RISK.RESVOIR

:

'***SUBR: Edit Estimation Errors, RESERVOIR

*****

'Variables: 1 - 12

CLS

:

MNAMES=" Estimation Errors for RESERVOIR"

MS

IZE- 2

FOR

1-1

TO

MSIZE

SAVPOT - RADRISK(1)

GOSUB subDATACH

'Reset weights under certain conditions:

IF SAVPOT - RADRISK(1) THEN GOT O EDIT.RISK.RESV9 'OK

IF ZWAYZ

-

2 OR ZWAYZ

=

3

'OK

'Reset Weights, and recalculate all:

'

MV(1)-RADRISK(1)

:

MMS(I)=RADRISK$(I):NEXT I

'Re Weight Resetting

FOR I

-

1 TO MSIZE

:

RADRISK(1) = MV(1)

:

NEXT I

THEN GOTO EDIT.RISK.RESV9

IF ZWAYZ -

1

THEN G OSUB WEIGHT.CAPACITY

IF ZWAYZ - 4 THEN GOSUB WEIGHT.RELEVANCE

GOS UB ADJUST. WORST. DATA

EDFLAGS - " N O "

:

EDFLAGES ="NO"

EDIT.RISK.RESV9

:

'**

EN D SUBR: EDIT.RISK.RESVOIR

+**

' ' :

GOSUB CALC . ULTI . ITES

ANSS-"ZAP"

:

RETURN

EDIT.RISK.WELLS :

'***SUBR: Edit Estimation Errors, WELLS & FLOW *****

'Variables: 13

-

26

CLS : MNAMES-" Estimation Errors fo r WELLS & FLOW"

M S ZE-I4

FOR 1-1

TO

MSIZE

MV( I)-RADRISK( 1t12) : MMS( I)-RADRISKS( It12) :NEXT I

GOSU B subDATACH

ANSS-"ZAP" : RETURN

'**

END SUBR: EDIT.RISK.WELLS

***

FOR 1

1

TO

MSIZE

:

RADRISK(1+12) - MV(1)

:

NEXT I

'Programming Note: 18 Jan 87

' Variab les RADRISK(27-30) are not edited. They are integer

'

values that select aspects

of

technol ogy for each region.

'

The se variables can be changed only by editing the site

da ta fil e "SITEDATO.SIT" or other versions

o f

site

dat a files.

F - 3 1



EDIT.RISK.COSTS

:

'***SUBR: E d i t E s t i m a t i o n E rr or s, UNIT COSTS

*****

' V a r i a b l e s :

31-38

CLS : MNAMES=" E s t i ma t io n E r r o r s

f o r

UNIT COSTS"

MSIZE=8

FOR

111 TO

MSIZE

MV(I)=RADRISK( I t 3 0 ) : MM$(I)=RADRISKS(It30):NEXT I

FOR I 1 TO MSIZE : RADRISK(It30) = MV(1) : NEXT I

GOSUB subDATACH

ANSS-"ZAP"

:

RETURN

'** END SUBR: EDIT.RISK.COSTS

***

'Programming Note :

' T he f o l l o w i n g OLD E d i t o r s we re m oved t o

' f i l e : ZHOLD on 19 Feb 87:

"EDPROSP:

'***SUBR: EDIT Ba se Case G.T. P r o s p e c t

"EDLOGI

:

'***SUBR: EDIT R e s e r v o i r LOGICAL D a t a

"EDRISK

:

'***SUBR: ED IT RESERVOIR RI SK FACTORS

"EDRAND :

***SUBR: ED IT MAJOR IMPACT MULTIPLIERS

EDFIN :

'***SUBR: EDFIN: EDIT F i n a n c i a l F ac t or s *****

MNAME$=*' F i na n c i a l F ac to r Da ta Va lues

I'

MSIZE=4

MM$(l)

- O f

MV(l)=ROYR

:

MV(2)mSEVR

*

: MMS(2) = PS : MMS(3) - QS : MMS(4)=RS

:

MV(3)sDEPL

:

MV(4)sFINT

GOSUB subDATACH

' R e l o a d n ew d a t a v a l u e s :

'**

END SUBR: EDF IN

***

'DATACH = Da ta Changer

ROYR=MV(l)

:

SEVR =MV(2) : DEPL-MV(3) : FINT-MV(4)

ANSS-"ZAP"

:

RETURN

'****

DATA AND TABLE EDIT ING SUBROUTINES:

INLETTER : ** SUBR **

'

Get /C lean Up 1-char ALPHA I n p u t

' A c c e p t s one key p r e s s . R e t u r n s :

'

-

ANSS

=

A-Z

or " "

'

- ANS =

1-26

o r

0

INLETTERl: ANSS - INKEYS

I F AN$$

- ""

THEN GOT0 INLETTER1

ANS ASC(ANSS): I F ANS > 90 THEN ANSsANS-32

AN$$ CHR$(ANS) : ANS

=

ANS

-

6 4

I F (ANS <

1)

OR (AN$

>

26) THEN ANSS="": ANSO

RETURN

'**

END SUBR: INLETTER

**

..

F - 3 2



subDATACH:

'** SUBR: DATACH: GENERAL DATA CHANGING HANDLER ***

' C a l l i n g :

E d i t s

by

c h a n g i n g a b s o l u t e v a l u e .

I

I

I

I

I

MSIZE = Number o f d a t a e l e m e n t s ( r ow s )

MMS(i)

-

i - t h

Data element name

M V ( i )

-

i - t h D a t a e l e m e n t n u m e r i c a l v a l u e

MNAMES

=

Henu T i t l e

BLANK5 - STRINGS(79,"

)

' P r i n t MENU T i t l e an d (n = MSIZE) Opt ions:

subDATACH1 : CLS : LOCATE 1 , l

PRINT "EDITING: "

+

MNAME5 : PRINT: PRINT

FOR I = 1 TO MSIZE

' #

NO OF LINES I N MENU

PRINT CHRS(64t l) +

.

" + M M S ( 1 ) ;

I F MM$(I) " "

THEN PRINT " / NOW =

;

MV(1)

-

ELSE PRINT M V ( 1 )

NEXT

I

PRINT "ENTER x o f D a t a I t e m t o Change, o r Z t o CONTINUE:

' I ;

GOSUB INLETTER :

I F

ANSS - " " THEN GOTO SUBDATACH3

subDATACH2 : LOCATE 20,1,

1 '

Response PROMPT

subDATACH3

:

I F ANS5

=

"Z" THEN GOTO SUBDATACH9 'Done, g e t o u t .

I F ANS <= MSIZE THEN GOTO SUBDATACHS

'IS

OK

'Reminder re O p t i o n s :

GOTO subDATACH2

'

E n t e r n ew d a tu m v a l u e :

subDATACH5

:

LOCATE 20,l : PRINT BLANKS : PRINT BLANK$

EDFLAGS

-

"YES"

TTIMES

-

TIMES

LOCATE 22,l : PRINT "EDITING: ; N$$; .

"t

MM$(ANS);

LOCATE

23,l:

INPUT "ENTER NEW VALUE

-

, EWVAL

MV(ANS) = NEWVAL

GOTO subDATACH1

subDATACH9 : CLS : RETURN

'

*** END SUBR: DATA CHANGING HANDLER

***

LOCATE 20,l : PRINT BLANK5

:

PRINT BLANK$

:

LOCATE 21,l

P RI NT " S e lec t i on ; NSS;"

i s n o t

on

Menu.

S e l e c t a g a i n . "

' Se t f l a g t o show e d i t i n g o c c u rr e d

' S e t t i m e s tamp .

PRINT "

/

NOW = ;MV(ANS)

'New v a l u e t o M enu V a r i ab l e

'

*** END OF DATA EDITORS SECTION

***

F - 3 3



'

L a s t E d i t e d 1 4 M ar c h

87

sublBASELOAD :

I

UBR: l o a d BASE CASE

'Loa d M u l t i - S i t e D a ta :

GOSUB LOAD.SITE.DATA 'LOAD Reg iona l Case Da t a

GOSUB LOADFIN 'Read F i n a n c i a l F a c t o r s BUSFNFCT.GE0:

I

OPEN "1MGEOUT.TXT" FOR OUTPUT AS A12 : CLOSE

# 2

GOSUB LOAD. RAD. FACTS

GOSUB

ADJUST. WORST. DATA 'MUST be a f t e r LOAD. RAD. FACTS

GOSUB WEIGHT.CAPACITY.EX ' A v o i d a d i v .b y . ze ro .

C L S

:

PRINT

WELCOMES

: PRINT

PRINT "WAIT: LOADING BASE CASE VALUES"

I

No te : N e x t tw o, LOAD.RAD.FACTS

&

ADJUST.WORST.DATA,

Open and c l o s e r e p o r t s c r o l l f i l e t o empty i t :

MUST be a f t e r LOAD.SITE.DATA, bec aus e t h e y use

T i t l e S t r i n g s o r D a ta f r o m th er e.

I

I

GOSUB

LOADBASE

GOSUB LOAD. ACCOUNTS

GOSUB CALC.MULTI.SITES ' S e t C.O.P. Va lues

GOSUB

MAKE.BASE.CASE 'S et bas e ca se v a l u e s .

GOSUB WEIGHT.CAPACITY .EX ' D e f a u l t Weight s

GOSUB WAY.SUMS

ANSI ="ZAP" ; RETURN

'***

END SUBR: sublBASELOAD

****

'LOAD: BASE CASE param et e r va l ues .

'Loa d Acc ou nt TITLES f o r SHOW.MAIN>

' We ig hte d r e s u l t s f o r d i s p l a y s

LOADBASE :

'*** SUBR:

'***

V a lues

i n [. ]

a r e D e f a u l t V al ue s

1

Base Case"

Note: 18 Feb

87:

T h i s w a s o l d r o u t i n e f o r l o a d i n g f a c t o r s a nd

'

s t u b s

for

1 s i t e m od el . C om pl et e c o p y o f t h e o r i g i n a l c a n b e

' o u n d i n "ZOLDO". A f e w re mn an ts a r e k e p t h e r e f o r

*** L o c a l F i n a n c i a l F a c t o r s : ( P r o b a b l y U se d)

ROYR

=

.1 :OS-"Royal t y R a te D e f a u l t : . 10 'I

SEVR 1.04

:

S="Severance

Tax

D e f a u l t :

.04 I'

DEPL 1 .15 :QS-"Percent De p l e t io n A l lowa nce De fa u l t : . 15

It

FINT 1 .75 :RS-" In tang ib le F r ac t . o f W e l l C o s t D e f a u l t :

.75

I'

I

I n i t i a l r e Ph ys ic al /E co n F a c to r Da ta

i n i t i a l i z a t i o n p u r p o s e s :

'*** RLD DETAILED IMPACT MULTIPLIERS:

'Note: None o f t h e s e a r e use d, a s o f 4 March 87:

RI DE T(1 ) I l .

RETURN

'***END SUBR: e****

F - 3 4



LOADF I N:

'**SUBR: Read F i n a n c i a l Fa ct or s:

OPEN I , # 1 , "BUSFNFCT.GE0"

INPUT # l , YCB, YPL, YRP, YCN

INPUT

01,

FLVLCF, FABC, FAFRD, VLAFCR

INPUT

#1,

GLVL, FLVL, COSTADJ, ZOAM, YOAM

INPUT # I , FBL, DISC, FI F L

CLOSE 4 1

RETURN

I * * * END SUBR: Read F i n . F a c t o r s

****

I

LOAD. SITE . DATA:

'**SUBR: Load M u l t i - S i t e Base Case Da ta

CLS : PRINT WELCOMES : PRINT

PRINT "WAIT:

'Open S i t e D a t a F i l e :

'Read R e g i o n a l T i t l e s :

'Read S i t e D at a Names and Values:

f

LOADING PHYSICAL DATA FOR REGIONS"

OPEN "SITEDATO.DAT" FOR INPUT AS #1

FOR

I

1 TO 9 : INPUT

Y 1 ,

SITENAMES(1) i NEXT

I

FOR

I 1

TO

9

: INPUT

#1,

SITESHORTS(1) : NEXT

I

FOR I

1

TO 38 SETS OF DATA

INPUT #1, DUMMY ' I t e m Number, Dump

INPUT #1, SITEUSES(1) D a t a I t e m Used? YES/NO

INPUT # I , SITERISKS(1) R i s k O f f s e t Used? YES/NO

INPUT #1, SITEDATAS(1)

'

DATA ITEM HEADER

FOR

3 = 1 TO

9 : INPUT #1, SITEDAT A(l,I, J) : NEXT 3

FOR

3

=

1

TO

9

:

INPUT # l , SITERISK(I.3)

:

NEXT

3

S i t e s p hy s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s i t i c s d a t a l i n e :

S i t e s r i s k a dd -o ns d a t a l i n e :

NEXT

I

CLOSE # I : RETURN

'**END SUBR:

L oa d M u l t i - S i t e B as e C ase D a t a

LOAD. RAD. FACTS :

'***

SUBR: 'Loa d R&D T i t l e s

and

F a c t o r s

'NOTE:

'

FOR

I - 1 TO

38

'ELSE:

T i t l e

f r o m SITEDATO

f i l e .

ZLRF4 :

NEXT I

I

M u s t occur on ly a f t e r f i r s t

c a l l t o

LOAD.SITE.DATA,

because t h i s u se s T i t l e S t r i n g s f r o m t h er e .

1.

Make RADRISKS T i t l e S t r i n g s f r om SITEDATAS(1) :

I

I

I F SITEUSES(1)

<>

"YES" THEN RISKS-"" : GOTO ZLRF4

I F S ITERISKS(1)

<>

"YES" THEN RISKS=""

:

GOTO

ZLRF4

RISKS- "RISK: *+ SITEDATAS(1) t [Nom.=l.O)"

RADRISKS(1) = RISKS

IF RISKS -"" THEN RADRISK(

I ) - 0

ELSE RADRISK(

1)=1

O

'

F - 3 5



I 2. S e t RADACH T i t l e s , t h e n V al ue s:

V e c to r s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d h e r e t o a l l o w programmer t o s e t

'

d i f f e r e n t o r d e r s a nd g r o u pi n g s when t h e R&D achievements

'

a r e b e i ng e d i t e d

by

t h e u s e r .

' a re ca l cu la t ed au tom a t ica l l y be low. Groupings a re

' s e t a n d o p e r a t e d u p o n a t t h e r e l e v a n t E d i t i n g S c r e e n s .

CRITICAL: Use# MUST - S u b s c r i p t

of

RADACH$(i) --.

PROGRAMMING NOTE:

R&D

Ach ievement Ed i t in g Vectors .

The reverse vectors, RACH(i)

I

I

I

I

i

V

EDITING VECTOR: E d i t #

/

Use#

RADACHS(1)

=

"W i ldca t Success Ra t io 'I : REV(1) = 1

RADACHI(2)

=

" T e s t i n g C os ts , I d e n t i f y 'I : REV(2)

=

2

RADACHb(3)

=

"Conf i rm. Success Ra t i o

'I

: REV(3) - 3

RADACHb(4) - "Tes t ing Cos ts , Con f i rm I' : REV(4) = 4

RADACHI(7)

-

Dry H o l e s / Producer 'I

:

REV(5) = 7

RADACHS(8)

-

"Flow Rate, P roducer

"

:

REV(6)

=

8

RADACHs(9)

-

" Fl ow R at e, I n j e c t o r

"

: REV(7)

-

9

RADACHS(33)

-

"T es t i ng Costs , Producer 'I

:

REV(8)

-

33

RADACHI(35) - "Tes t Costs ,

I n j .

o r

Dry

"

: REV(9)

=

35

RADACHb(6) = " P r o d u c e r R e d r i l l F r a c t .

''

: REV(l0) = 6

RADACHS(30) = "Wel l Prb lms, L o st C i r c u l "

:

REV(I1) - 30

RADACHI(31) = "Wel l Prb lms, Cementing " : REV(12) - 31

RADACHI(32) = "Wel l Prb lms, Other " : REV(13) = 32

RADACHI(5) - "TOTAL Cost, Avg. Well

:

REV(14)

= 5

RADACH$(20) - "Cap.C ost, Deep W el l Pump" : REV(15) - 20

RADACHS(21) -

"O&M

Co st, Deep W el l Pump"

:

REV(16) = 21

RADACHS(28) - "Cap.Cost, Ga th er in g Sys." : REV(17) - 28

RADACHI(29) - "O&M Cost, Ga the r in g Sys." : REV(18) = 29

RADACHI(10)

-

"Workove r In te rva l , P rod . "

:

REV(19)

-

10

RADACHS(l1)

-

"Cost p e r Workover, Prod." : REV(20)

-

11

RADACHS(12) = " W o r k o v e r I n t e r v a l , I n j c . " : REV(21) - 12

RADACHI(l3) = "Cost p e r Workover , In jc . "

:

REV(22) - 13

RADACHf(34) - "Years Between Plants

"

: REV(23) = 34

RADACHS(14) - "E f f i c iency , FLASH P lan t "

:

REV(24)

-

14

RADACHS(16)

-

"Cap. Cos t, FLASH P l a n t " : REV(25)

=

16

RADACHI(22)

- "ObM

Cost, FLASH P la nt " : REV(26) 1 . 2 2

RADACHS(l5)

-

"E f f i c i enc y , BINARY P la n t "

:

REV(27) = 15

RADACHS(17) - "Cap. Cos t, BINARY P l a n t " : REV(28) -

1 7

RADACHS(23)

- "O6M

Cost, BINARY P la n t"

:

REV(29) = 23

RADACHI(24) - "Cap. Cost, He at Exchange" : REV(30) = 24

RADACHI(25)

=

"OLM

Cost, Heat Exchange"

:

REV(31)

=

25

RADACHS(26) = "Cap.

C os t, B r i n e S t a b i l . " : REV(32)

=

26

RADACHS(18) = "ObM C os t, B r i n e S t a b i l . "

:

REV(33) = 18

RADACHS(27) - "Cap. Co st, H2S Tre atm en t" : REV(34)

= 27

RADACHS(19)

=

O M Cost,

H2S

Treatment" : REV(35)

=

19

I - - -

# - - -

I

I

F - 3 6



'

Set nominal value and String:

FOR

I -

1 TO 35

'&

Augment the se Strings:

NEXT

I

RADACH(1) - 1.0 'Nominal R&D Achievements

RADACHS(1)

-

"R&D Achvmt:

t

RADACHS(1)t" [Nom.=l.O]"

f

Se t Null Strings (For Later, and NULL Editing)

FOR I - 36 TO 40 'DIM IS

60

REV(1) - I

RADACH(1)

- 1.0

RADACHS(1) - "R&D Achvmt: EMPTY SLOT"

NEXT I

RETURN

'**END SUBR:

Load R&D Achievement Strings

&

Values

LOAD.ACCOUNTS :

'***

SUBR: LOAD ACCOUNT STUBS

ACCOUNTS(1)

-

"Identify Reservoir

ACCOUNTS

(2)

-

"Conf rm Reservoir

"

ACCOUNTS (3)

-

"We1 1

s

ACCOUNTS (4) - "Downhol e Pumps

ACCOUNTS(5)

-

"Gathering Equip. I'

ACCOUNTS(6)

-

"Power Plant

ACCOUNfS(7)

-

"Heat Exchangers

'I

ACCOUNTS(8) - "Brine Stabilizing "

ACCOUNTS (9) - "Environmental

ACCOUNTS(10) - "Insurance

ACCOUNTS(l1)

- "

TOTAL :

"

. .

ACCOUNTS(12)

-

" RISK FRACTION :

"

RETURN

I * * * END SUBR: LOAD ACCOUNTS

f

"

11

N

n

n

ADJUST.WORST.DATA :

Make SITEDATA(E,I,J) to reflect w orst case values:

CLS : PRINT WELCOMES : PRINT

PRI NT "WAIT: ADJUSTING WORST CASE DATA"

FOR I -

1

TO

40 : FOR 3 - 1

TO

10

*

SITEDATA(2,

I,

3 ) -

SITEDATA(l,I,J)-t RADRISK(I)*SITERISK(I,J)

NEXT J : NEXT I

RETURN

**END

SUBR: ADJUST .WORST .DATA

'********* END OF ZLOAD PORTION

OF

CODE

************

F - 3 7



'***

ZOUT

'***** DISPLAY AND REPORTS SECTION *******

'

L a s t E d i t e d

21

Feb

87

I

'**** DISPLAY RESULTS TO CONSOLE *******

9CONSOLEl:

I

'** SUBR: SHOW-A: 1-CASE RESULTS TO CONSOLE:

CLS

GOSUB LOAD. OUT. 1 STANDARD RESULTS

GOSUB SHOW.ACCOUNTS TO SCREEN

GOSUB SHOW.CHOICE

'

USER RESPONSE

RETURN

'***

END SUBR:

Show

One Case To Console

I F ANS$ <> "ZAP" THEN GOTO 9CONSOLEl 'RESHOW

COSTS. OUT :

' ***

SUBR: COSTS.OUT

' S i n g l e - s i t e 4 - c o l u m n c o s t

report.

CLS: GOSUB LOAD. OUT. COSTS :

IF IXCOST-1 THEN CASETITLES =

IF IXCOST=2 THEN CASETITLES

=

GOSUB SHOW.ACCOUNTS ' TO SCREEN

GOSUB SHOW.CHOICE

'

USER RESPONSE

CASETITLE$

-

" "

' E r a d i c a t e

i t .

RETURN

'***

END SUBR: C o s t s O u t t o Conso le

I

IXCOST - 1: Base Case = 2: C ur re nt Case

"Base Case Costs: "

+

SITENAMES(JS1TE)

"Current

Case Costs:

+ SITENAMES (JSITE)

I F ANSf c> "ZAP" THEN GOTO COSTS.OUT 'RESHOW

SHOW.ACCOUNTS :

' *** SUBR: Ma in Ou tp ut

t o

Screen:

WIDTH "SCRN:",

255

OPEN "SCRN:"

FOR

OUTPUT AS # 2 :

CLS

GOSUB SHOW.MAIN1

CLOSE 1 2 'Release # 2 .

RETURN

'

***

END Show m a i n

t o

Screen.

******

/

' 1 2

Accounts, X

o f

B ase , R i sk

REGIONS. SCR :

'*** SUBR: Re gi on al R es ul ts

t o

Screen.

WIDTH "SCRN:"

255

OPEN "SCRN:" :OR OUTPUT

AS t 2

CLS : GOSUB REGIONALS : CLOSE 1 2 'Show r e s u l t s

PRINT

PRIN' TAB(8) ; "ENTER:

I

'Open Console

f o r

O u t p u t .

P = PRINT Resul ts,

Z = C o n t i n u e ===+

'I;

F-38



REGIONS.SCR1 : GOSUB INLETTER

I F

ANSS

-

"P" THEN GOSUB REGIONS.PRN : GOTO REGIONS.SCR

I F

ANSS = "Z" THEN ANSS - "ZAP"

:

RETURN 'EXIT

GOTO REGIONS. SCRl

'***

END SUBR: REGIONS TO SCREEN

SHOW. CHOICE : .

'***

SUBR: Get User Prompt Re Print:

PRINT TAB(8); "ENTER: P = PRINT Results,

Z =

Continue

= = = e

I ;

SHOW.CHOICE1: GOSUB INLETTER

1

IF ANSS = "P" THEN GOSUB PRINT.MAIN.RES : CLS : RETURN 'RESHOW

I F

ANSS

=

"2" THEN ANSS = "ZAP"

:

RETURN 'EXIT

GOTO SHOW.CHOICE1

'*** END SUBR: SHOW.CH0ICE ***

'****PRINTER OUTPUT ROUTINES

*****************

PRINT.MAIN.RES :

'***

SUBR: SHOW.OUT Results to PRINTER

GOS UB ZOPEN.PRINTER 'Open as

# 2

GOSU B SHOW .MAIN1

PRINT

U 2 "

'I

GOSU B RADACH.OUT

GOS UB 2CLOSE.PRINTER 'Close

U 2 .

ANSS - "ZAP"

:

RETURN

1

'Percentage o f Base, Risk Points

'*** END SUBR: Show Main to Printer ******

REGIONS. PRN

:

'*** SUBR: Regional Results to PRINTER

I

GOSUB

ZOPEN.PRINTER

GOSUB REGIONALS

PRINT

12, " "

GOSU B RADACH .OUT

GOSU B ZCLOSE. PRINTER

ANSS - "ZAP" : RETURN

'*** END SUBR: REGIONS, TO PRINTER

'******

ROUTINES FOR DEVICE P 2 OUTPUT

****************

I PROGAMMING NOTE:

t

These routines send results to any device that has been

previously opened as device #2.

As o f 14 Feb 87 they are used only for SCRN: and LPTl:.

SHOW.MAIN1 :

'

***

SUBR: Master Display for the 12 Accounts

' For Screen or Printer:

t



GOSUB SHOW.STUB1

I F ZREPORT) - "A" THEN GOSUB SHOW.STUB2 'NO c o s t

I F ZREPORT)

''B"

THEN GOSUB SHOW.STUB3 ' 1 - S i t e 4 - c o l c o s t

GOSUB SHOW. RESUL1

RETURN

'

***

END MAIN P a r t

of

OUTPUT SUBR

******

SHOW. STUB1 :

I

I

PRINT #2, TAB(8); "GEOTHERMAL COST OF POWER ESTIMATE

'I

;

I F CASETITLES C> I HEN PRINT U2, T AB(8 ); CASETITLES

PRINT #2, RUN: 'I; DATES; I - 'I ; TTIMES

'Case T i t l e S t r i n g ,

i f

D e f i n e d :

RETURN

SHOW.STUB2 :

I

'

Z B L I P l s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*I

.

RINT U2, TAB(8); ZB LI Pl S

t

ZBLIPlS

PRINT U2, TAB(8 ); 19 86

9

PRINT #2, I*****EW TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM

*******I

PRINT #2 , TAB(8); "[From I M G E O Model] TECHNOL.

9

X

OF NEW 'I

RINT U2, "%

OF

1986 % COST

PRINT #2, TAB(8 ); '

PRINT #2, "TECHNOLOGY CHANGE TECH. TOTAL"

PRINT

U2,

TAB(8)

;

"ACCOUNT % OF COST ' I ;

PRINT

# 2 ,

"ELECT. COST FROM 1986 ELECT. COST"

PRINT #2, TAB(8); ZBLIP2S

t

ZBLIP3S

11 .

********* ( 1 .

ZBLIP2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - - - - - - -

fBLIP3$

" - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - ' I

n

RETURN

SHOW. STUB3 :

I

I

' F o r o

ZB L I P l

PRINT

PRINT

PR

I

T

PRINT

PRINT

PRINT

PRINT

PRINT

PRINT

ZBLIP2

ZBLIP3

In

s

#

#

#

#

#

I

cy

I

I

'5

;$

PRINT #2, TAB(8); ZBL IP2 $ t ZBLIP3f

RETURN

I

SHOW. RESULI :

I

PRINT 12, TAB( l2) ; ' "

TOTAL : . I * * * * * * *

PRINT 1.2, TAB(12); "

RISK FRACTION:

'I.

'*******

- 11

: GOSUB SHOW.RESULl.1

F - 4 0



I

1 2

:

GOSUB SHOW .RESULl .l

PRINT #2, TAB(8); ZBLIPZS t ZBLIP3S

'DATA ACCOUNTS

FOR

I - 1

TO

10

PRINT 12, TAB(8);

:

PRINT #2, USING

' I ## ' ' ;

I ; : PRINT

# 2 ,

'. 'I;

NEXT

1

PRINT #2, TAB(8); ZBLIPlS + ZBLIPIS

GOSUB SHOW. RESULl

.

1

RETURN

SHOW. RESULl

.

1

:

I

I

'SUBR: One l i n e o f

Is

for SHOW.MAIN1

ou tpu t :

PRINT 12, ACCOUNTS(

I ) ;

TAB(33);

PRINT

#2,

USING #####.I "

;

SHOWOUT(1,l);

PRINT

#2,

USING " # # # # . #

"

; SHOWOUT(I,) ;

PRINT

#2,

ZBLIP4S;

PRINT

#2,

USING

I##.#

PRINT #2, USING

" # # # # . # "

; SHOWOUT(I,4)

RETURN

'*** END SUBR: One Line for SHOW.MAIN1 SUBR

'*** END o f Main ACCOUNTS

Output

SUBRs

I F SHOWOUT(I,3)>0 THEN ZBLIP4S="

"

ELSE ZBLIP4S="- 'I

"

;

ABS( SHOWOUT(

I

3))

;

I

******

REGIONALS

:

'** SUBR: Show RESULTS BY REGION

CLS

I

ZBLIPAS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ZBLIPBf =

m - - - - - _ - _ - - - - - _ - _

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I '

PRINT #2,TAB(8) ;"GEOTHERMAL COST OF POWER ESTIMATE

PRINT #2,TAB(8) ; "WEIGHTS

-

"

+

WEIGHTS

PRINT #2,TAB(8) ; ZBLIPAS

PRINT #2,TAB(8); " CAP. O&M CAP.,

O&M,

TOTAL, TOTAL, %"

PRINT #2,TAB(8 ); COST, COST, MI LL S MILLS MI LL S CHANGE 'I

PRINT #2,TAB(8); "REGION

SM

$M/Y /KWH /KWH /KWH FROM BASE"

PRINT #2,TAB(8); ZBLIPBS

'PRINT " 111.2

++5.6

130.4 110.2 240.'6 +45.2"

FOR 3

- 1 TO

8

PRINT #2,TAB(8);

:

PRINT I2,USING

" # " ; 3 ;

PRINT #2,". ; ITESHORTS(3);" " *

FOR K=1 TO 5 : PRINT I2,USING

"

NEXT

K

B RESULTS(l,J,ll,S) :

A

lOO*(RESULTS(2,J,11,5)-B)/B

PRINTY2, USING

"

### . I ;

NEXT J :

PRINT #2,TAB(8); ZBLIPBS

' Weighted averages:

PRINT #2,TAB(8) ;"WEIGHTED: " ;

;

ATES;"

-

";TTIMES

'PRINT 1. I V - F L bbxxx.xbbxxx.xbbxxx.xbbXxX.Xbbxxx . x b b X X X . XI'

&.#";

RESULTS(2,J,ll,K);

FOR K - 1 TO

5

NEXT

K

PRINT #2,USING "

I## .# ;

COSTL(2,K);



B = KOST

A

=

loo.*(

PRINT 12,U

PRINT 12,TA

RETURN

1*5)

WCOSTL (2, ) -B)

/B

ING " ###.#"; A

(8) ZBL PAS

I * * *

END SUBR: Show RESULTS

BY

REGION

'***

END

OF

MAJOR OUTPUT ROUTINES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

'********

ROUTINES FOR PREPPING DATA FOR OUTPUT *******

LOAD. OUT. 1 :

'

Move one c ase results to SHOWOUT(l2,4):

'

Case Identification:

CASETITLES = "Region : "tSTRS(JSITE)+"

ZREPORTS

- " A "

'No-cost report

FOR

I

=

1

TO

12

:

'

Base Case Percents:

SHOWOUT(

I ,

) =

'

Current/Base Totals:

SHOWOUT(I,2)

-

Current, Change from Base:

f

"tSITENAMES(JS1TE)

100* (RESULTS(T S T , I ,5) RESULTS ( 1, JS T , 11 ,5)

100*(RESULTS(?, JSITE

,

,5)/RESULTS( 1, JSITE, 1,5)

)

Z -

RESULTS(l,JSITE,I,5)

SHOWOUT(

I, 3)

SHOWOUT (

I, 4)

=

loo*(

(RESULTS (2 SITE,

,

5 ) / 2 )

-

1 )

'

Current Case Percents:

NEXT

I

RETURN

lOO*(RESULTS(~, SITE,

,

)/RESULTS(2

,

SITE, 1,5))

*** END SUBR: LOAD.OUT. 1

LOAD. OUT. CO STS

:

*** SUBR: Move 1-REGION

cost results to SHOWOUT(12,4):

ZREPORTS

= B

'One-site 4-col costs.

I

IXCOST = 1: Base Case IXCOST = 2: Current Case,

' Capital, MS

FOR 1 1 1

TO

12

:

SHOWOUT(I,1)=RESULTS(IXCOST,JSITE,I,l) : N E X T I

O&M, MS/Yr

FOR 1-1 TO 12

:

SHOWOUT(1,2) = RESULTS(IXCOST,JSITE,1,2) : N E X T

I

'

Capital

,

mills/kwh

FOR

1-1

TO

12

:

SHOWOUT(1,S)

=

RESULTS(IXCOST,JSITE,1,3)

:

N E X T

I

T o t a l , mills/kwh

FOR 1-1 TO 12 : SHOWOUT(1,I) = RESULTS(IXCOST,JSITE,I,5)

: NEXT I

RETURN

'*** END SUBR: LOAD. UT. COSTS

I

'***** END OF ROUTINES FOR PREPPING DATA *******

'***

END SECTION, ZOUTS-

f - 4 2







SITE.TECH.FACS :

'***

SUBR: Print Site Detailed Technical Factors

CLS Pr og ra mi ng Note: "TECHn:" used here for short labels.

GOSUB ZOPEN. PRINTER

t

PRINT

"

SHOULD BE PRINTING SITE-TECHNICAL-FACTORS REPORT

***

"

t

PRIN T 12,"

PRIN T Y2,

PRIN T 12,"

PRINT 12,""

PRINT #2,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT

12 ,

PRINT 12,"

PRINT Y2,"

PRINT

12,"

PRINT

12,

PRINT 12,"

PRINT

12,

PRINT 12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT 12,

PRINT 12 ,

PRINT

12,

PRIN T 12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT Y2,"

PRINT

12,

PRINT Y2,"

PRINT #2,"

PRINT 12,"

PRIN T 12,"

PRINT

12,

PRINT

Y 2 , "

PRIN T 12,"

PRINT

12,"

PRINT

12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT

12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT Y2,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT 12,"

PRINT Y2,"

*

*****

SITE DETAILS

- - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -

Page

1

Region analyzed:

;

JSITE; SITENAME$(JSITE)

*******

PROJECT MAJOR PARAMETERS

************I '

[S27] Plant Typ e I-BIN 2=FLA 3-STEAM

;

PTYPE

Plant net size,

M W E

' I ;

POUT

Plant Final GROSS Power estimate,

M W I ' ;

GROSS

[ S 7 ]

Well-Head Temperature, Deg-F

' I ;

ZZT

[S12] Brine Contam. Index = BCI

I ;

ZZB

Flow Into Plant required,

10A6

lb/hr

'I ;

TFLOWIN

Flow From Plant, to Injectors,

10A6

lb/hr

'I;

TFLOWOUT

(528) Down Hole Pumps

1

-

YES

' I ;

DPUMP

; ATE$;

I' -

; TIME4

******* WELL PARAMETERS AND COSTS

***********'I

(5131 Well Depth, K-Feet

-

DEEP

' I ;

ZZD

($211

Producer Well Flow, 10A6 lb/Hour

' I ;

ZZF

Injectors

/

producer

; I N J

Spare we1

1 s/

producer

"

;

WSPR

[S15]*(R6] Prod. redrill fract. add-on cost

' I ;

WRED

Dry Holes / Active Producer

I' ;

WDRY

No. of Producer Wells (at plant start)

; W N U M

Producers plus spares

'I

; WPRODSUM

Injectors required

' I ;

WIJN

Total Number

o f

Initial Wells

'I;

WCNT

Base cost (no risk) of bare well

I; WCBASE

Fraction of wells to be extended ; R.EXTEND

Fraction

to

be redrilled ; R.REDRILL

Cost t o Extend bare well

;

ST.EXTEND

Cost

to

Redrill bare well

;

ST.REDRILL

Adjust: Per Well Cost Multiplier

;

WLCS

Well cost, w/incidents, no tests

; CPW

Cost of 3- Day Well Test

;

EST.3D

Cost

o f

10-Day Well Test

; EST.lOD

Cost of 21-Da y Well Test

;

TEST.2lD

Test Cost fo r Wildcat, Inj., Dry

'I;

TEST1

Test Cost for Confirmation Producers

;

EST2

Test Cost fo r Phase

3

Producers

;

EST3

Total Cost per Wildcat Well

;

C.WILD

Total Cost per Confirmation Well ; C.CONF

Total Cost per Producer Well

In

Phase

3 ;

C.PROD

Total Cost per Injector or Dry Well

;

C.GENL

Capcost of all initial wells

(in

Phase

3) ;

CTL

F - 4 5





S t a r t Page 3 o f r e po r t .

GOSUB EJECT. PAGE

PRINT # 2 , "

PRINT

# 2 ,

Region analyzed:

"

;

J S I T E ;

S I T E N A M E S

(JSITE)

PRINT

U 2 ,

PRINT

# 2 ,

PRINT # 2 , " [SI41 Sep. betw 'n produce r we l ls , F t . ; SEPAR

PRINT

# 2 ,

L en gt h o f p ro d. p i p e , r e c t a ng . f i e l d , F t 'I ; N F E E T

PRINT

# 2 ,

P r o d u c t i o n g a th . c o s t cap. t o t a l , MS

'I ;

CPRODGATH

PRINT

U 2 ,

Co st o f p i p e f o r f o u r a vera ge i n j e c t o r s , M b 'I; COSTPER4

PRINT

U 2 ,

C ap co st o f i n j e c t o r g a th e ri n g,

SM

' I ;

C I N J G A T H

PRINT

Y 2 ,

F i e l d Sur face Equipment, To ta l Cap.,

SM

; SPTL

PRINT

W 2 ,

TOTAL Field, Cap,

SM

( Inc ludes Phase

3

Wel ls)" ; TTL

PRINT

# 2 ,

L en gt h o f p i p e f o r s upplm . g a t h e r i n g , f e e t

PRINT

U 2 ,

Gathe r i ng f o r supplm . p roducers , SM,

" ;

CPRODGATHE

PRINT

# 2 , "

Gath f o r supplm. prod, as

SM/yr

; CPRODGATH3

PRINT

# 2 ,

F I : F i e l d s t a f f a nn ua l co s t,

SM/yr

'I ;

F 1

PRINT

U 2 ,

F 2 : I n i t i a l PROD and IN3 w e l l s annua l co s t

; 2

PRINT

1 2 ,

F3: Gathe r i ng P ipes and va l ves annua l co s t

;

3

PRINT

# 2 ,

F5: Supp lm . we l l s , Ca p i t a l po r t i o n , unacos t ; F5

PRINT

# 2 , F6:

Supplm. wel ls,

O&M

p o r t i o n , u n a c o s t

; F6

PRINT # 2 , "

F7:

Supplm . we l l s Ga th . ca p i t a l , unacos t

; F7

PRINT

1 2 ,

F8: Supplm. Wells Gath. O&M, unacos t ; F8

PRINT

# 2 ,

PRINT

# E ,

BINARY S I Z I N G DETAILS - - - - - - - - - -

RINT

# 2 ,

- - - - - -

PRINT

# 2 ,

Bi na ry n e t b r in e e f fe ct i v en es s 'Wh/LB, NET ;NETBE

PRINT

1 2 ,

PRINT

# 2 ,

FITTED, Net t o D.W. PUMPS,

MU

;

PUMPF

PRINT

U 2 ,

ADJUSTED GROSS B r i n e E f f e c t i v e n e s s

;

R O B E l

PRINT

# 2 ,

Aux Power, W/O D.W. Pumps

( P r i m .

l o o p & cool)"; BARE.AUX

#

P R I N T U 2 ,

I' : PRINT

# 2 , "

: PRINT # 2 , " I' :

P R I N T # 2 ,

e**** SITE DETAILS

- - _ - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - -

age

3

PRINT

# 2 ,

; DATES; 'I -

;

TIMES

***** GATHERING SYSTEM DETAILS **************"

;

NFEETE

e****** POWER PLANT FACTORS +***********

(I

I F

PTYPE

<> 1

THEN GOT0 TECH25

1

Added Gross t o Make 1 More MWe n e t out . ;KBIN

PRINT

# 2 ,

TECH25 :

PRINT

1 2 ,

Power P l a n t C a p i t a l c o s t ,

SM

;PPC

PRINT

1 2 ,

PRINT

1 2 ,

B r i n e Sta b i l . , Cap.

SM

;BSCAP

PRINT

1 2 ,

B r i n e S t a b i l ., ObM,

JM/yr ;

BSOAM

PRINT

1 2 , [ S l l ] H 2 S ,

ppm ; HSULF

PRINT

1 2 ,

H2S Equip, SM

;

NVCAP

PRINT # 2 , " H2S O&M, SM/yr

;

NVOAM

PRINT

1 2 ,

PRINT

1 2 ,

PRINT

1 2 ,

P o w e r p l a n t b o o k l i f e , Y e a rs

;

IFE

PRINT

12,"

C a p i t a l R e c o v e r y f a c t o r ; APRECOV

PRINT

1 2 ,

Dis cou nt Rate, P l an t and Genera l

;

D I S C

a

PRINT

1 2 ,

ECON: ( F i e l d VLAFCR)/(Plant VLAFCR)

;

TOF

PRINT

1 2 ,

ECON: ( F i e l d DISC)/( P1 a n t DISC) ; TOF

PRINT

1 2 ,

D i s c o u nt R a te f o r F i e l d E qu ip me nt ; FISC

PRINT

Y 2 , "

I n c o m e t a x r a t e (F e d e ra l + S t a t e )

;

NTXR

PRINT

1 2 ,

Ad j. a l l co s ts f o r ROYR, SEVR, (INTXR)*DEPL ; / S E V F A C

PRINT

1 2 ,

PRINT

1 2 ,

- - - - - - END, BINARY SIZING DETAILS I

P l a n t O&M, SM/Year, w/o P ro pe r. l a x & I n s u r . ; OAM

e****

FINANCIAL FACTORS t*t*+**+*t******t****

e*+*** FINAL COST FACTORS

***********t**t+***~

F-47





ZOPEN. PRINTER:

"'PSWITCH)

-

"P"

' [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

S et f ro m above.

I * * *

SUBR: Open P r i n t e r

o r

S c r o l l F i l e as D e vi ce

#2

ZOPENl :

'Open PRINTER as De vi c e 12:

WIDTH "SCRN:", 255

:

CLS

PRINT: PRINT: PRINT

"

SHOULD BE PRINTING"

:

PRINT

OPEN "LPTl:" FOR OUTPUT AS

#2

: GOTO ZOPEN3

ZOPEN2

:

WIDTH "SCRN:", 255

:

CLS

PRINT: PRINT: PRINT " S c r o l l i n g t h a t Repo r t To F IL E 1MGEOUT.TXT"

PRINT

OPEN "1MGEOUT.TXT" FOR APPEND AS #2

ZOPEN3 :

PRINT # 2 , "

" :

PRINT #2," 'I

:

PRINT #2," I'

:

PRINT # 2 , "

'PRINT 12, " ** DRAFT RESULTS, NOT ACCURATE FOR CITATION **I'

RETURN

'***

END SUBR: Open PRINTER o r SCROLL FILE.

I

I

I

I F PSWITCHS = "PI' THEN GOTO ZOPENl ELSE GOTO ZOPENZ

Open SCROLL FILE f o r "PRINTER"

ou tpu t :

4 B l a n k L i n e s

f o r

header :

I ************ DRAFT WARNING ******t*******t****+t

ZCLOSE. PRINTER :

I * * * SUBR: C l o s e PRINTER o r SCROLL f i l e as De v i ce

#2:

GOSUB EJECT.PAGE ' A t e i t h e r de v ic e .

CLOSE 1 2

:

CLS C l o s e e i t h e r d e v i c e .

I F PSWITCHS

=

"P" THEN RETURN

LOCATE 10,lO : PRINT " S e n t t h o s e r e s u l t s t o f i l e 1MGEOUT.TXT"

LOCATE 13,lO : PRINT

"

PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE

=========>

'I

GOSUB INLETTER

: CLS

RETURN ' S c r o l l F i l e

i s

c l osed .

I

*** END SUBR: Cl os e "P r i n t i n g " Ou tpu t Channel

EJECT. PAGE :

I * * * SUBR: E j e c t Page a t PRINTER o r SCROLL f i l e .

I F PSWITCHS

<>

"P" THEN GOTO ZEJECT2

LPRINT CHRS(12); : RETURN Form

feed sent .

ZEJECTP : M ark page border

i n

S c r o l l F i l e :

PRINT

#2,

""

PRINT 12,

" "

RETURN

'

Page br ea k marked.

I * * * END SUBR: E j e c t Page.

I

D on e a t

p r i n t e r .

F o r S c r o l l F i l e , S i g n al p r o gr es s

t o

SCREEN:

I

I

E j e c t p a g e

f rom

PRINTER, using

a

Form Feed:

: PRINT

92 ,

TAB(8); "*** END OF PAGE

****

I'

I

'***

END OF

- - -

ZMISC - - - MISCELLANEOUS ROUT

I

ES ******

F-49





_ - . .

A P P E N D I X G

P R O G R A M M E R NOTES

G - 1



PROGRAMMER

NOTES

1. The T I M E Stamp

The t i m e - s t a m p f o r r e p o r t s , T T I M E S , i s r e s e t f r om

T I M E $

any t i m e t h a t t h e

u s e r h a s a c t u a l l y s e l e c t e d a s e n s i t i v i t y i t e m

f o r

e d i t i n g .

b y s e t t i n g T T I M E S f r o m w i t h i n t h e d at um c ha ng in g c ode o f t h e SUBDATACH

r o u t i n e . M e r el y e n t e r i n g a n E d i t o r O p t io n and v i e w i n g t h e e d i t a b l e l i n e s does

not change the

t i m e

stamp.

T h i s

i s

achieved

The t ime-s ta mp i s a ls o updated when the WEIGHT s e l e c t i o n i s changed.

2 . Repor ts t o Screen, P r i n t e r , and T e x t F i l e

l i n e s o f code t o e i t h e r t h e S creen o r t h e P r i n t e r .

t h e

use

o f

"PRINT

#2,

- - - -

'I

code.

channel # E b e f o r e t h e P R I N T l i nes a re exp ressed .

o f ou tp u t code.

bo th the Screen and pr in ted copy .

The p r og ra m m akes e x t e n s i v e u se o f r e d i r e c t i o n o f o u t p u t f r o m t h e

s a m e

T h i s i s a c c o mp l is h ed by

T h i s m akes f o r e f f i c i e n t use

The d e s i r e d t a r g e t d e v i c e i s o pened

a s

I t a lso ensu res tha t exac t l y the same ma te r ia l appea rs on

A t

t h e

v e r y

e n d o f t h e

B A S I C

source code you w i l l f i n d t h e code t h a t

h an dl es th e u s er s o p t i o n t o r e d i r e c t o u t pu t i n te n de d f o r t h e p r i n t e r t o t h e

f i l e "1MGEOUT.TXT".

i n

a

f i l e

f o r

l a t e r m anual e d i t i n g .

and i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y e m p ti e d a t t h e b eg in n in g

o f

each run o f I M - G E O .

T h i s i s a d ocum ena tion a i d f o r c a p t u r i n g " p r i n t e r " o u t p u t

"1MGEOUT.TXT" i s se t

up

t o A P P E N D o u t p u t ,

3 . EDITFLAGS and

E D I T F

LAGES.

These t w o l o g i c a l f l a g s h a nd l e m ost o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t e ns ur e t h a t

t he r e s u l t s o f s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r e d i t i n g a r e r e f l e c t e d a cc ur a te ly i n th e

p re s en e te d r e s u l t s .

I f EDITFLAGS i s "YES", t h a t means t h a t b o t h t h e c u r r e n t s i n g l e - s i t e

o r

m u l t i - s i t e r e s u l t s need t o be r ec a lc u la t ed t o r e f l e c t c ur r e n t s e n s i t i v i t y

f a c t o r c o nd i ti o ns .

i s r es et t o

"NO"

a f t e r a s i n g l e - s i t e o r

m u l t i p l e - s i t e i s p er fo rm ed

EDITFLAGS

I f

EDITFLAGE) i s

"YES",

and EDITFLAGS i s

"NO",

t h a t m e a n s t h a t o n l y t h e

c u r r e n t s i n g l e s i t e ( us er 's

J S I T E )

r e s u l t s a r e c o r r e c t . Any o t h e r s i t e needs

t o

be re ca lc u l a t ed be fo r e be ing shown.

-

A s k i n g f o r

a

d i f f e r e n t

J S I T E

d u r i n g t h i s c o n d i t i o n makes

I M G E O

r e c a l c u l a t e t h a t o ne s i t e . EDI T F L AG ES rema ins

"YES"

t o i n d ic a t e th a t

some o th e r s i n g l e s i t e r e s u l t s (and t h e r e fo r e t h e m u l t i - s i t e r e s u l t s i n

g e n e r a l) a r e n o t c u r r e n t .

t h e m u l t i - s i t e c a l c u l a t i o n s . EDFLAGES i s t h e n r e s e t t o

"NO".

- A sk in g f o r a m u l t i - s i t e r e p o r t under t h i s c o n d i t i o n makes I M G E O redo

EDFLAGS i s s e t t o "YES" any t i m e t h e u se r a l t e r s a s e n s i t i v i t y f a c to r .

T h i s i n cl u d es u s e r' s s e l e c t i o n o f a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f R e g io n al W e ig ht s.

6 - 2



4 .

"Official Version" provided

w i t h

the model ( o r approved as changed later) f o r

a l l f ina l e s t ima tes of impac ts of R D achievements.

IM-GEO read s th e con te nt s of f i l e 5 I T E D A T O . D A T when i t i n i t i a l i z e s t h e

S i t e da ta base. The f i l e "S1TEDATO.MAS" i s the "m aste r" ve rs io n of t h i s

d a t a

base, and should

n o t

be a l t e r e d .

To change the S i t e da t a va lues , e d i t t he f i l e

S IT E DAT O.DAT

using

a n

"ACSCII-only" word processor, such the N-mode of WordStar or the non-document

mode or "programming" mode of other word processors. Then r u n I M - G E O .

have made ser ious edit ing errors ,

then you' l l get error w a r n i n g s or

un int erp reta ble re s u l ts from th e IM-GEO repo rts. If t h a t i s the case , use

B AS IC A

or

G W - B A S I C t o r u n the Microsof t in te rpre te r BASIC program

DATATEST.BAS

on the d i s t r ib u t i on d i s ke t t e , i . e. D>

B A S I C A D A T A T E S T

<Enter>.

Changing

t h e S i t e Data Base

You can change the contents of the Site Da t a Base, b u t you must

u s e

t h e

I f

yo3

DATATEST.BAS

s i m p l y r e a d s f i l e

SITEDATO.DAT and

o u tp u ts i t s c o n te n ts

t o

the screen i n the expected order , type,

and

number of v ar ia b le s. Use

< S c r o l l

Lock>

t o

ha l t th e d isp la y and look for p laces e r ro rs of

d a t a

type or number

have occurred. Be tte r ye t , i f you are using DOS 3.X, r ed ir ec t the output

from

DATATEST.BAS

t o a sc r o l l i ng f i l e , e . g . :

D >

B A S I C A

DATATEST > SCROLL.TXT <Enter>

th en e d i t t he f i l e

SCROLL.TXT

t o f ind where the e r r or s a re .

5 .

Break the code

i n t o t he

eight modules a t t he Z I N I T ,

Z E N G N , e tc .

boundaries. These ar e

i n

r e a sona b le s i z e f o r e d i t i ng .

Write a "COMPILER.BAT" procedure t h a t concatenates those modules i n t o

a

s in g le f i l e ,

e.g., ZNEW.BAS ,

and then compiles and links the code into the

e i t h e r t h e "BRUN"

(best for development work) o r

BCOM

( be s t

for

export ing

t h e f i n a l

version) versions of o u t p u t from Q U I C K BASIC.

r e p o r t s s u i t a b l e for detect ing when fa ta l compila t ion errors have occurred.

These can be used to abo r t t he l ink ing step .

Hints for Revising the Code

The compiler used i n "separate compilation" mode generates DOS E R R O R L E V E L

6 - 3





A P P E N D I X H

P R E V I O U S S T U D I E S

H - 1



P R E V I O U S

S T U D I E S

O U . S .

Dept. of Energy (DOE/ET/ 27242- T1). Geothe rmal Well Field

a n d P o w e r P l a n t I n v e s t m e n t D e c i s i o n A n al y si s . P h i l a d e l p h i a

P e n n s y l v a n i a , T e c h n e c o n A n a l y t i c R e s e a r c h , Inc., M a y

31,

1981.

G o o d e x p l i c a t i o n

o f

t h e T e c h n e c o n m od e l o f g e o t h e r m a l

i n d u s tr y u t i l i t y p r e f e r e n c e s . A ll d a t a b a s e s u s e d h e r e h a v e

( p r o b a b l y ) b e e n u p d a t e d a f t e r 1981.

O U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y, B o n n e v i l l e P o w e r A d m i n i st r a t i on .

R e s o u r c e A s s e s s m e n t : E v a l u a t i o n a n d R a n k i n g o f G e o t h e r m a l

R e s o u rc e s f o r E l e c t ri c a l G e n e r a t i o n o r E l e c t r i ca l o f f s e t

i n

I d a h o , M o n t a n a , O r e g o n a nd W a s h i n g to n . P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n ,

W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e E n e r g y O f f i c e , J u n e 1985.

T h i s i s t h e m o s t r e c e n t e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s

o f

r e s o u r c e

a v a i l a b i l i t y an d e n g i n e e r i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

i n

t h e P a c i f i c

N o rt h we s t. S h o u l d b e f a c t o r e d i n t o a n y s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

databa se, if on e is used in yo ur study. Some

o f

t h e d a t a p o i n t s

w e r e c r i t i c i z e d a s o v e r l y c o n s e r v a t i v e

b y

i n d u s t r y

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a t 1 9 8 5 G R C a n n u a l m e et i ng .

O U.S.

D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y ( D O E / C S / 3 0 6 7 4 - 2 ) . G e o t h e r m a l P o w e r

Plant

R & D .

A n A n a l y s i s o f C o s t - P e r f o r m a n c e T r a d e o f f s an d t h e

H e b e r B i n a r y - C y c l e D e m o n s t r a t i o n P ro je ct . P h i l a d e l p h i a ,

P e n n s y l v a n i a , T e c h n e c o n A n a l y t i c R e s e a r c h , Inc., J u n e 30, 1983.

S e c t i o n s

1.2,

1.3, and 1.4 are r e l e v a n t t o i m p a c t s o f R &D o n

b i n a r y p l a n t s t o c o s t o f p o we r . R e s u l t s a r e e x p r e s s e d in

H - 2



di f f e r ent i a l me ga wa t t s , no t c os t of power . I t i s not c l e ar

wh e t h e r t h e i mp a c t s of R&D a s s u me d ( i n T a bl e

1- 2

a n d

1- 3)

a r e

i n

f a c t s u pp or t e d by

a

c o h e r e n t R&D p l a n by GT D t o l t d e v e l o p t t uch

t ec hno l o gi e s ... t h e i s s u e her e i s wh at t h e c o s t

o f

t he R&D woul d

be.

O

U. S. Dept . of Ener gy ( DOE / E T/ 2 72 42 - T 2) Nat i o nal F or e c as t f o r

Ge ot he r ma l Re s our c e E xp l o r a t i o n and De ve l o pme nt . P h i l a d el p hi a ,

P e nn s y l v a ni a , Te c hne c on Ana l y t i c Re s e ar c h , I nc . , Ma r c h

3 1 ,

1982.

T he mode l / dat a ba s e f o r t h i s s t udy i s o ne o f t h e be s t

a t t e mp t s t o de al wi t h mi d - t e r m d e v el o p me n t / u s a g e o f

u nd i s c o v er e d po r t i o ns of t h e hy dr ot he r mal r es our c e.

O U. S. Dept . o f

E n e r g y ( D O E / S F / 1 1 7 2 7 - T 1 ) .

F e de r a l Ge o t h er ma l

Roy al I n c ome De r i v ed f r o m t h e Be ne f i t s o f Go v e r n me n t - S p on s o r e d

R&D. P hi l a de l p hi a , P en ns y l v an i a , T ec hnec on Ana l y t i c Re s e ar c h ,

I nc. , J anua r y 3 1 , 1984.

Us e s a b l o c k o f e i g h t F e d er a l R&D i mp ac t s ( T a bl e

1 - 1

page

4 ) .

Co ns i d er s t h r e e mo de s of pr i c i n g F ede r a l r o ya l t y p ay me nt s

( c oa l , o i l , av oi ded cos t ) . Es t i mat es no t R&D c o s t s , but r a t h er

R & D

b ud ge t t h at c o ul d be s u pp or t e d

by

n et pr es e nt v al ue o f

ant i c i pa t ed di f f e r e n t i a l r oy al t y i nc ome ( Tabl e 1 - 2 , p. 6).

T hi s i s o ne of t h e f e w ( t h e o nl y ? ) T ec hn ec o n ge ot he r ma l

ana l y s i s wh os e o ut p ut i s e xp r e s s e d i n t e r ms o f d ol l a r s . Al mos t

al l o t h er Tec hnec on r e po r t s ex pr e s s r e s ul t s i n t e r ms of

( d i f f e r ent i a l ) p ower on l i ne.

O Of f i c e

of

T e c hn ol o gy As s e s s me n t ( OT A- E- 24 6) .

New

El ec t r i c

Power Te chno l o gi es : Pr obl ems

and

P r o s p e c t s f o r t h e 1 9 9 0 ' s .

Wa s h i n gt o n , D. C. ,

U . S .

Go ve r n me nt P r i n t i ng Of f i c e , J u l y

1 9 8 5 .

H-3





i n put pa r a me t e r s ( e. g. , we l l c o s t ) of g eo t h er ma l R&D p r o g r a m

ec onom c bene f i t ( i . e. , d i f f e r ent i a l po we r on l i ne or

d i f f e r ent i a l c o s t o f p owe r on l i ne ) model s .

U . S . De pt . of E ne r g y. Up d at e a nd As s e s s me n t

o f

Ge ot h e r ma l

Ec ono m c Mo de l s , Geot her mal F l ui d F l o w, Heat Di s t r i but i o n

Mo d e l s a nd Ge o t h e r ma l Da t a b as e s .

Aut ho r i t a t i v e s o ur c e o n c a p a bi l i t i e s and s t a t u s

o f

al l ma j o r

ge ot h er ma l c o s t o f p o we r mo de l s . S o me o f t h es e a c c e pt s i t e

phys i c al c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s and i mpa c t s of

R & D

as i n pu t da t a o r

pa r a me t e r s .

H-5





TIC-4500-R66-UC-66C

DISTRIBUTION

Dr. J. E. Mock, Director

Geothermal Technologies Division

US Departmentof Energy

Forrestal Building

Washington, DC 20585

CE-342

D. B. Lombard


US Department

of

Energy

Forrestal Building


R.

R.

Loose



Forrestal Building


CE-342

CE-342

G. J. Hooper

(5

Copies)


US Department of Energy

Forrestal Building


A. Jelacic



Forrestal Building


L. W. Pratsch


US Department

of

Energy

Forrestal Building


CE-342

CE-342

CE-342

4 8

M. J. Reed


US Department

of

Energy

Forrestal Building


CE-342

J. E, Rannels


US Department

of

Energy

Forrestal Building


CE-342

R. J. LaSala



Forrestal Building


CE-342

R.

Fortuna



Forrestal Building


CE-342

Susan Petty 5 Copies)

329

S.

Quillan

St.

Kennewick, WA 99336

Susan PettyL nsulting

Daniel Entingh

(5

Copies)

Meridian Corporation

4300

KingStreet, Suite 400

Alexandria,

VA

22302-1508

Bill Livesay

(5

Copies)

Livesay Consultants

261 6 Angel1 Ave.

San Diego, CA 92122



Documents

Impact of R&D on Cost of Geothermal Power