Assessment of the Appalachian Basin Geothermal Field: Combining Risk Factors to Inform Development of Low Temperature Projects

Abstract:

Exploration methods for deep geothermal energy projects must primarily consider whether or not a location has favorable thermal resources. Even where the thermal field is favorable, other factors may impede project development and success. A combined analysis of these factors and their uncertainty is a strategy for moving geothermal energy proposals forward from the exploration phase at the scale of a basin to the scale of a project, and further to design of geothermal systems. For a Department of Energy Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis we assessed quality metrics, which we call risk factors, in the Appalachian Basin of New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. These included 1) thermal field variability, 2) productivity of natural reservoirs from which to extract heat, 3) potential for induced seismicity, and 4) presence of thermal utilization centers. The thermal field was determined using a 1D heat flow model for 13,400 bottomhole temperatures (BHT) from oil and gas wells. Steps included the development of i) a set of corrections to BHT data and ii) depth models of conductivity stratigraphy at each borehole based on generalized stratigraphy that was verified for a select set of wells. Wells are control points in a spatial statistical analysis that resulted in maps of the predicted mean thermal field properties and of the standard error of the predicted mean.

Seismic risk was analyzed by comparing earthquakes and stress orientations in the basin to gravity and magnetic potential field edges at depth. Major edges in the potential fields served as interpolation boundaries for the thermal maps (Figure 1). Natural reservoirs were identified from published studies, and productivity was determined based on the expected permeability and dimensions of each reservoir. Visualizing the natural reservoirs and population centers on a map of the thermal field communicates options for viable pilot sites and project designs (Figure 1). Furthermore, combining the four risk factors at favorable sites enables an evaluation of project feasibility across sites based on tradeoffs in the risk factors. Uncertainties in each risk factor can also be considered to determine if the tradeoffs in risk factors between sites are meaningful.