NO MORE
DEEP DRY HOLES??
Geothermal Energy!
The Future Of Depleted Wells.
Initially conceived and investigated by:
Douglas B. Swift and Richard J. Erdlac, Jr.
Formerly of West Texas Earth Resources Institute
Total Energy Production, 1949-1999
80
U.S. Energy Consumption
& Production
Versus Research &
Development
(Arthur D. Little)
Quadrillion Btu
70
60
50
40
30
1949
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
Energy Production By Source, 1949-1999
1 kWh = 7.8 bbls
oil = 1,270 m3 gas
25
Coal
20
Quadrillion Btu
Crude Oil
Typical
Metropolitan
Power Usage
Curve
15
10
Nuclear Electric
Natural Gas
5
Wood and Waste
Hydroelectric
Geothermal Solar and Wind
0
1949
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
Texas Railroad Commission
Texas Crude Oil Production
1,400,000
1,200,000
Mbbs
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
Year
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Texas Railroad Commission
Predicted Future Texas Oil Production (Mbbl)
1,400,000
1,200,000
Mbbls
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
y = -31081x + 6E+07
400,000
R2 = 0.9834
200,000
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Texas Railroad Commission
Avg Per Well Prod (bbl/day)
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
1971
1968
1965
1962
1959
1956
1953
1950
1947
1944
1941
1938
1935
0.0
Texas Railroad Commission
Texas Total Gas Well Production
10,000,000,000
9,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
Mcf
6,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
0
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Texas Railroad Commission
700,000
70,000
600,000
60,000
500,000
50,000
400,000
40,000
300,000
30,000
200,000
20,000
100,000
10,000
0
0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Wells
Mcf
Texas Gas Production Per Well (Mcf) & Number Of Wells
Texas Railroad Commission
Texas Railroad
Commission
700,000
70,000
600,000
60,000
500,000
50,000
400,000
40,000
300,000
30,000
200,000
20,000
100,000
10,000
0
0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Wells
Mcf
Texas Gas Production Per Well (Mcf) & Number Of Wells
Texas Railroad Commission
Texas Railroad
Commission
Why Does This Matter?
First Wave: Agricultural Revolution
Second Wave: The Industrial Revolution
Third Wave: The Information Age
(just now beginning)
Richard Duncan
‘Olduvai Theory’
Alvin Toffler
‘Third Wave’
Alternative Energy Resources
NON-RENEWABLE
Conventional oil production
RENEWABLE
Wood/other biomass
Oil sands/heavy oil
Shale oil
Natural gas
Gas hydrates
Hydropower 1
Solar
Wind
Tidal
Nuclear fission, fussion 2
Geothermal (DPSGE)
Ocean thermal energy
Geothermal 3 (hot wet/dry rock)
conversion (OTEC)
1 Renewable only to life of reservoir.
2 If ever accomplished, may be
regarded as renewable, since fuel
supply is huge.
3 So far, all electric quality
reservoirs are in declining
production.
Adapted from Geotimes, July 1998.
Geothermal Energy Types & Characteristics
Type
Hydrothermal
Steam
Liquid
Hot Dry Rock
Magma
Geopressure
Earth Energy
Deep Permeable Strata (DPSGE)
Heat Source
Volcanic/Intrusive
Status
Operational
Drawbacks
Location
Intrusive
Volcanic
Depositional/Geothermal Gradient
Various
Geothermal Gradient
Experimental
Permeability
Highly Experimental Technology
Experimental
Liability/Fluid Disposal
Operational
Cultural
Untested
Unproven
Conventional Geothermal
Resource Regions
Texas Geothermal Resource Regions
Unconventional
Geothermal
Resource Areas
Permian Basin
Geothermal
Potential
Blue = 66o – 81o C
Green = 82o 142o C
Red = 143o C & up
Delaware Basin
Ellenburger
Structure Map
(>15,000 ft)
- 1
50
00
- 15000
- 15
000
-1
0
-
-1
50
00
0 00 0
- 15000
- 10
00
0
00
0
00
- 50
0
00
2
-5
-1
00
00
-1
- 1000
0
0
500
-15000
Delaware Basin
Tectonic Map
Temp. Grad.
1.46
1.40
1.34
1.28
1.22
1.16
1.10
1.04
0.98
0.92
0.86
0.80
0.74
0.68
0.62
0.56
0.5
No. of Wells
80
60
40
20
0
1.60
1.55
1.50
1.45
1.40
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
Wells
Total Permian Basin
100
80
60
40
20
0
Degrees F/100 Ft
New Mexico-SE
100
Permian
Basin
Geothermal
Gradient
Degrees C/Km
27.71
26.80
25.89
24.97
24.06
23.15
22.24
21.33
20.42
19.51
18.59
17.68
16.77
15.86
14.95
14.04
13.13
12.21
11.30
Wells
Permian Basin Geothermal Gradient
Total Permian Basin
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Delaware Basin Temperature Data
Delaware Basin Temperature Data
Generalized BHT Boundaries
8000
z = 3384.8Ln(T) - 10323
R = 0.9961 & R2 = 0.9922
7000
6000
Depth (m)
Logarithmic
Curves
Defining
Upper &
Lower BHT
Boundaries
5000
z = 3974.4Ln(T) - 14389
R = 0.9957 & R2 = 0.9914
4000
3000
Upper Boundary
Lower Boundary
Log. (Upper Boundary)
Log. (Lower Boundary)
2000
1000
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Temperature (C)
140
160
180
200
220
Bottom Hole Temperatures
Power Tube Range
9000
Deep 1512 Readings
z = 34.678T + 827.62
2
R = 0.8839 & R = 0.7812
8000
Depth (m)
7000
6000
Shallow 2111 Readings
z = 65.002T - 1235.7
5000
R = 0.8730 & R = 0.7621
Binary Plant Range
Delaware Basin
Temperature
Data
2
4000
3000
Pecos
Reeves
Combined 3623 Readings
z = 3372.5Ln(T) - 11083
2000
1000
Terrell
Loving
2
R = 0.9560 & R = 0.9139
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Temperature (C)
Normal-Normal
Distribution
Bottom Hole Temperatures
10,000
Depth (m)
1,000
Log-Normal
Distribution
Pecos
Combined 3623 Readings
z = 3372.5Ln(T) - 11083
R = 0.9560 & R2 = 0.9139
Reeves
Terrell
Loving
100
Power Tube Range
Binary Plant Range
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
Temperature (C)
120
140
160
180
200
220
Bottom Hole Temperatures
9000
Deep 1512 Readings
z = 34.678T + 827.62
R = 0.8839 & R2 = 0.7812
8000
Depth (m)
7000
6000
Delaware Basin
Temperature Data
Shallow 2111 Readings
z = 65.002T - 1235.7
R = 0.873 & R2 = 0.7621
5000
4000
Pecos
Reeves
3000
Terrell
2000
Combined 3623 Readings
z = 3372.5Ln(T) - 11083
R2 = 0.9139
1000
Loving
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Temperature (C)
Linear
Regression
Analysis And
The
Geothermal
Gradient In
The Delaware
And Val Verde
Basins
BHT Measurements
Correlation Coef Determination Coef
R
R2
Thermal Gradient
(1 - R2)
dT/dz (oC/m)
0.0154
0.0288
Combined Basin Shallow
0.8730
0.7621
0.2379
Combined Basin Deep
0.8839
0.7812
0.2188
Reeves Shallow
0.8754
0.7664
0.2336
Reeves Deep
0.8221
0.6758
0.3242
Loving Shallow
0.8213
0.6745
0.3255
Loving Deep
0.7419
0.5504
0.4496
Pecos Shallow
0.8383
0.7028
0.2972
Pecos Deep
0.9220
0.8510
0.1490
Terrell Shallow
0.7867
0.6198
0.3802
Terrell Deep
0.9201
0.8465
0.1535
0.0154
0.0333
0.0146
0.0581
0.0153
0.0281
0.0117
0.0261
Shallow Multiple Run Wells With 610 Measurments
0.873
0.7621
0.2379
0.0145
Deep Multiple Run Wells With 6-10
Measurments
0.8839
0.7812
0.2188
0.0300
Deep/S hallow
Thermal Grad Ratio
1.8701
2.1623
3.9795
1.8366
2.2308
2.0690
Bottom Hole Temperatures For Wells With
Multiple BHT Measurements
9,000
Wells With 6 To 10 BHT Measurements
8,000
Depth (m)
7,000
6,000
Total 298 Readings
z = 3721.1Ln(T) - 12549
5,000
R = 0.9662 & R2 = 0.9336
4,000
Deep 124 Readings
z = 33.32T + 1122
3,000
R = 0.8966 & R = 0.8039
2
2,000
Shallow 174 Readings
z = 68.745T - 1511.1
1,000
R = 0.9372 & R = 0.8784
2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Temperature (C)
J a ke L. Ha m o n # 1 Kim be r Ga s Unit (R e e ve s 10)
Te xa c o # 3 R e e ve s TXL S ta te (R e e ve s 6)
Hum ble # 1 C ha rle s J Wa lke r (P e c o s 8)
S o c o ny M o bil # 1-B S ible y (P e c o s 8)
Exxo n # 1 M M c C o m b Ga s Unit (P e c o s 7)
P hillips # B -1 P uc ke tt A (P e c o s 6)
C itie s # 1 S a m s S ta te A (P e c o s 6)
P a n Am e ric a n # 1 Unive rs ity C S (P e c o s 6)
R a lph Lo we Es t # 1 Unive rs ity 17 (P e c o s 6)
P a n Am e ric a n # 1 Ke ith M itc he ll (Te rre ll 6)
S e rie s 31
M a gno lia # 2 J M R a pe (R e e ve s 6)
F o re s t # 1 C ha rle s J Wa lke r (P e c o s 10)
P hillips # 1 P uc ke tt F (P e c o s 8)
Arc o # 1 R o xie Ne a l Es ta te (P e c o s 6)
Hum ble # 1 WM Edwa rds (P e c o s 6)
P hillips # 1 Unive rs ity EE (P e c o s 7)
Exxo n # 1 Edith C liffo rd (P e c o s 6)
P hillips # 2 Gle nna (P e c o s 6)
S o c o ny M o bil # 1 Ka thle e n J M o o re (P e c o s 6)
Na tura l Ga s & Oil # 1 Wilde r (Lo ving 6)
S e rie s 32
S un # 1 Te rrill-S ta te Unit (R e e ve s 6)
Exxo n # 1 C C M itc he ll (P e c o s 7)
S he ll # 1 He rs he ns o n 5 (P e c o s 7)
Atla ntic # 1 J C Ke lly (P e c o s 7)
P e rry R B a s s # 1 R o xie Ne a l (P e c o s 6)
S he ll Hum ble # 1 B la c ks to ne S la ughte r (P e c o s 6)
Na pe c o # 1 C e nturio n (P e c o s 6)
R a lph Lo we # 1-49 J O Ne a (P e c o s 6)
S upe rio r # 1 Ido l (P e c o s 6)
S e rie s 30
220
Target Geothermal Formations
Devonian
Porosity Range
Avg. Porosity
Fracture Permeability Range
Avg. Permeability
2 to 25%
6 to 8%
1 to 2,840 md
10.5 md
Fusselman
Porosity
Avg. Porosity
Fracture Permeability Range
Avg. Permeability
3 to 11%
4 to 5%
2 to 26 md
8.5 md
Ellenburger Porosity
Avg. Porosity
Fracture Permeability Range
Avg. Permeability
2 to 14%
4%
.1 to 2,250 md
75 md
Delaware Basin Industrial Potential
From Hot Water
Energy Equivalents
413 Mwatts Generating Capacity
96,000 mcf Gas/Day
16,000 bbls Oil/Day
5,840,000 bbls Oil/Year
Birsic, 1974
Geothermal Energy Production
Methodologies For Permian Basin
1) Binary Plant – hot water passes through
heat exchanger on earth’s surface, heating
the working fluid that then drives a turbine;
water is then injected back into strata
through a secondary well.
1) Power Tube – working fluid circulated
through subsurface borehole, vaporizing the
fluid and driving high speed turbine in the
hole near the earth’s surface.
Works
well in
moderate
to high T
range
(110o –
180o C).
Dixie Valley
Binary Cycle
Plant
Delaware Basin Temperature Data
Typical Binary Plant Waters
 Water at well head:
154o (310o F) – 160o C (320o F).
 Reinjected waters:
Summer = 99o C (210o F)
Winter = 77o C (170o F)
 Temperature decrease in 10-year period:
10o – 15o F.
 Temperature decrease at wellhead annulus:
15-20% (depends upon geothermal system).
Power Tube
Delaware Basin Temperature Data
Binary Plant
vs.
Power Tube
Footprint
Prometheus
For Producing On-Site
Electricity From Hot
Oil
Working Fluids Comparison
Binary Power Plant
Water
(1 cal/gm H20/1o C)
Heat vaporization = 100o C
539 cal/gm to raise 1o C
above heat vaporization
Power Tube Facility
Isobutane
Heat vaporization = -12o C
88 cal/gm to raise 1o C
above heat vaporization
Isopentane
Heat vaporization = 28o C
For 1 MW Electrical Energy
Binary Power Plant
417 ft/sec to drive turbine
1,500,000 lbs/hr vapor
Power Tube Facility
40 ft/sec to drive turbine
144,000 lbs/hr vapor
Power Tube Oil Volumes
Power Tube Oil Use With Depth
9000
8000
7000
Meters
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
Bbls
Wind Energy – Power Tube
Comparison
Texas Wind Energy
Development (1/21/2003)
1095.74 Mwatts Online
1188 Wind Turbines
Avg. 0.92 Mwatts/Turbine
Power Tube Facilities
(1000 Mwatts)
1 Mwatt unit = 1000 units
5 Mwatt unit = 200 units
10 Mwatt unit = 100 units
50 Mwatt unit = 20 units
Project Goals
1)
Phase I – Data Base Development (temperature, permeability
& porosity, fluid salinity, hole size).
2)
Phase II – Evaluation (graphs – temperature quality control,
data source comparison, well profiles, fluid salinity; maps –
temperature, geologic framework, surface use analysis; thermal
modeling).
3)
Phase III – Target Reservoirs (subsurface strata, size of target
features, status of features).
4)
Phase IV – Economic Analysis (operations cost,
sustainability).
5)
Phase V – Technology Transfer (written – technical journals,
internet data access, CD Rom access, newspaper, targeted
communication; oral – technical presentations, general
presentations, TV & radio).
Project Initiation
Projected 3-Year Project Cost
Proposed Project To Cover 20,000 Sq. Miles
Within Delaware & Val Verde Basins
PREFERRED PROPOSED 3 YEAR BUDGET
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Total
I. Direct Costs - Personnel (1.5
FTE, 5 PTE [students])
$149,970.00
$154,494.00
$159,244.20
$463,708.20
II. Other Direc Costs (est.
materials, computer, travel, copy)
$16,700.00
$4,200.00
$7,700.00
$28,600.00
III. Indirect Cost (22% salary covers elec., water, etc.)
$28,875.00
$29,733.00
$30,633.90
$89,241.90
IV. Total Estimated Cost
$195,545.00 $188,427.00 $197,578.10 $581,550.10
Conclusion:
Two Choices For The Future
1) Passive
Let things continue as they are. Then we can sit
around tables drinking coffee reminiscing about past
oil and gas success stories.
2) Proactive
Help initiate a new, undeveloped energy resource.
Then we can sit around tables drinking coffee amazed
at the number of old wells reactivated for geothermal
energy production.