Technical and socio-economic risk evaluation
for the development of the geothermal energy
in Europe
P. Ledru
After two years, 6 workshops and 2 conferences…
>
ENGINE, a scientific exchange platform: a R&D task force for
defining research projects
•
>
ENGINE, along with other coordinating initiatives (European
Commission, IEA-GIA, MIT expert panel, IGA, EGEC…) can
•
•
>
>
Identification of bottlenecks and prioritisation of research needs
contribute to the construction of an international strategy
consolidate the available information systems
Economic and environmental constrains have changed as a result
of the increase of the energy price and of the threats of global
warming as a consequence of greenhouse gas concentration in the
atmosphere
Several major geothermal projects have been developed, especially
in Germany (Gross Schönebeck, Landau, Unterhaching…) and
Iceland, and the interest for unconventional geothermal energy
worldwide has been renewed (Australia, US)
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
>2
Coordination action breakdown structure: http://engine.brgm.fr/
ENGINE: ENhanced
Geothermal Innovative
Network for Europe
A scientific and technical European Reference Manual for
the development of Unconventional Geothermal Resources
and Enhanced Geothermal Systems
An updated framework of activities concerning
Unconventional Geothermal Resources and Enhanced
Geothermal Systems in Europe
WP3
Investigation of
Unconventional
Geothermal
Resources and EGS
- The scientific and
technological
challenges of the
exploration phase
- Gaps, barriers and
cost effectiveness
WP4
Drilling, stimulation
and reservoir
assessment
Publications
- state-of-the-art
- proceedings of
conferences
- definition and
analysis of
bottlenecks and
solutions
Publications
- state-of-the-art
- proceedings of
conferences
- definition and
analysis of
bottlenecks and
solutions
- Drilling technology,
reservoir modelling
and management
- Gaps, barriers and
cost effectiveness
WP5
Exploitation,
economic,
environmental and
social impacts
- Integrated economic
approach for costeffectiveness
- Policy makers and
public awareness
- Gaps and barriers
holding back
development
Publications
- state-of-the-art
- proceedings of
conferences
- definition and
analysis of bottlenecks
and solutions
Best Practice Handbook
and innovative concepts
WP9 Risk evaluation for the
development of geothermal energy
Report on the integration of results in a
Decision Support system
WP8 Expertise on
exploitation, economic,
environmental and social impacts
Synthesis on best practices,
barriers holding back development and
possible solutions
WP7 Expertise on drilling, stimulation
and reservoir assessment
Synthesis on best practices,
barriers holding back development and
possible solutions
WP6 Expertise on investigation of
unconventional Geothermal
resources and EGS
Synthesis on best practices,
barriers holding back development and
possible solutions
WP2
Information and
dissemination system
- General information
- Information on
training and education
- Reports and results,
publications
- Data management
- Publication policy
- Connection with
media
Deliverables
- a web site
- access to databases,
models and opensource software
- on-line access to
articles and reviews
WP1
Project Management
- 1 co-ordinator and
secretary
- follow up time / quality
/ cost
- 1 executive Group
- 1 steering committee
- Connection with
international agencies,
national programmes,
industrial partners
Deliverables
- quarterly reports to
EU
- stronger links with
potential partners for
new projects
Extension of the network to Third countries (Mexico, El Salvador, Philippines)
WP1, Project Management
WP2, Information and dissemination system
WP3. Investigation of UGR and EGS
Launching
Conf.
(France
2/2006)
Mid-term
Germany
(11/2206) Conference
Italy (04/2007)
WP6. Expertise on
investigation of UGR
and EGS
WP4. Drilling, stimulation and reservoir assessment
Mid-term
Switzerland
Conference
(06/2006)
Iceland (07/2007)
WP7. Expertise on drilling,
stimulation and reservoir
assessment
WP9. Risk evaluation
for the development of
geothermal energy
Final
Conference
The Netherlands (Lithuania, 02/2008)
(11/2007)
WP5. Exploitation, economic, environmental and social impacts
France
(9/2006)
Mid-term
Conference
(Germany
01/2007)
Greece (09/2007)
WP8. Expertise on
exploitation, economic,
environmental, social
impacts
Specialised workshops
Beginning of contacts with the Stakeholder Committee
Identification of bottlenecks and prioritisation of research
needs
EGS
technology
Priority A
Impact of
innovation
Priority
B
Impact of
innovation
Priority
n
Impact of
innovation
Resource
investigation
Topic 1
x%
Topic 2
y%
Topic n
z%
Drilling,
stimulation
and reservoir
assessment
…
…
…
Exploitation,
reservoir
management
and monitoring
…
…
…
Economic,
environmental
and social
impacts
…
high
…
medium
…
low
…
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
>5
What is now missing?
> For starting up new
ambitious projects, to rally
industrial partners and get
support form politics at the
national and European
level?
•
The European Strategic
Energy Technology Plan
defines a target of 20%
renewable market
penetration in 2020.
However, if prospects for
market penetration are
presented for biofuels,
photovoltaics or wind
energy, reference to
geothermal energy is still
missing.
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
>6
Milestones for achieving ENGINE…
>
>
Identification of bottlenecks and prioritisation of
research needs
Defining concepts for qualifying and quantifying
geologic technical and environmental risk
•
Examples from US, Australia and Europe
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
>7
Geothermal Learning Curve
Specific costs
Exploration
forecast
Reservoir
engineering
R&D
Exploration
forecast
Reservoir
engineering
System
reliability
System
reliability
Time
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
>8
The R&D contribution to the learning curve of
Geothermal Energy
MWe
MWe
8000
8000
4000
4000
Innovation 1: non reproducible
A 100% increase in permeability after stimulation
The R&D input
2000
2000
1179
X
1650
X
2010
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
2000
2020
>9
The R&D contribution to the learning curve of
Geothermal Energy
MWe
MWe
8000
8000
4000
4000
Innovation 2: reproducible 100% increase
in permeability after stimulation
The R&D input
2000
2000
1179
X
1650
X
2010
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
2000
2020
> 10
The R&D contribution to the learning curve of
Geothermal Energy
MWe
MWe
8000
8000
Innovation 3: reproducible 3D thermal
modelling of the 1st 5 km, with an error
bar on t°C estimation < 10°C
4000
4000
Innovation 2: reproducible 100% increase
in permeability after stimulation
The R&D input
2000
2000
1179
X
1650
X
2010
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
2000
2020
> 11
The R&D contribution to the learning curve of
Geothermal Energy
MWe
MWe
8000
8000
Innovation 4: Reduction of
drilling investment by 50%
4000
Innovation 3: reproducible 3D thermal
modelling of the 1st 5 km, with an error
bar on t°C estimation < 10°C
4000
Innovation 2: reproducible 100% increase
in permeability after stimulation
The R&D input
2000
2000
1179
X
1650
X
2010
2000
2020
The Soultz Innovation: The Gross schönebeck Innovation: non
connectivity at depth reversible increase in permeability in
between wells
sedimentary basin, sustainability of t°C
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 12
Site Screening
Petrography, Petrophysics,
Mineralogy
Geochemistry, fluid geochmistry
Hydraulic properties
Stress Field
Borehole Geophysics
(Acoustic Borehole Imaging,
VSP,...)
Surface Geophysics (gravimetric, EM, Seismic)
Resource analysis
Geology, Hydrogeology
Heat Flow
Tomography
Lithosphere Strength
Moho Depth
Continental
Regional
Local/Concessional
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
Reservoir
> 13
Regional reconnaissance
Prospect identification
Steps to delineating a geothermal resource
Evaluation of risk in US
>
The level of risk for the project must account for all
potential sources of risk
•
>
>
>
technology, scheduling,finances, politics, and exchange rate. The level
of risk generally will define whether or not a project can be financed
and at what rates of return
Current hydrothermal projects or future EGS projects will,
in the near term, carry considerable risk as viewed in the
power generation and financial community.
Risk can be expressed in a variety of ways including cost
of construction, construction delays, or drilling cost and/or
reservoir production uncertainty.
In terms of “fuel” supply (i.e., the reliable supply of
produced geofluids with specified flow rates and heat
content, or enthalpy), a critical variable in geothermal
power delivery, risks initially are high but become very low
once the resource has been identified and developed to
some degree, reflecting the attraction of this as a
dependable base-load resource.
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 17
Risk assessment
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 18
Risk assessment
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 19
Risk assessment
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 20
Oil & Gas Methods for the Assessment Risk & Uncertainty of Hot
Rock Plays (Let’s move to Australia…)
Generalisations:
• If 3 geologic factors are at least adequate – a hot rock play is prospective.

Source of heat Ex. Radiogenic, high heat-flow granites;

Insulating strata to provide thermal traps;

Hot Rock reservoirs Ex. Permeable fabrics within insulating and heat source
rocks that are susceptible to fracture stimulation.
• The serial product of key geologic factor adequacy is the chance for
geologic success. Where P = the probability of a geologic factor being at
least adequate (for a viable hot rock resource to exist) - the chance all 3
factors are at least adequate is:
Chance of Hot Rock Adequacy =
P heat source x P heat trap x P heat reservoir
Visit: www.pir.sa.gov.au/geothermal
goldstein.barry@saugov.sa.gov.au
Insulating
strata
Hot Rock
reservoir
Source of
Heat
Access to this figure was kindly provided by Jeff Tester – MIT
Generalisations taken a step further
• The estimated chance for a geothermal well to flow hot fluids at an initial rate (defined as
litres per second at an initial oCelsius) deemed at least adequate (prospective) to underpin
break-even outcomes is proposed as the key additional ingredient to define practical
prospectivity.
• This Hot Rock heat flow rate factor (Pheat flow rate) is integrates physical and economic criteria
and is analogous to global best practice for pre-drill estimates of ‘expected’ (risked) petroleum
targets – which entail estimates of minimum economic pool-size (Pmeps) for local conditions
• Example Calculation. Very certain granites at > 210oC below insulating strata in stress field
known to be conducive to naturally occurring horizontal fractures:
P heat source
= 90%
P heat source x P heat trap x P heat reservoir x P heat flow rate
P heat trap
= 90%
=
90%
P heat reservoir
= 50%
=
20.25% estimated chance of economic success
P heat flow rate
= 50%
x
90%
x
50%
x
50%
This enables risk-ranking of plays, expected value estimates, value of
information estimates and a portfolio approach to managing risk and
uncertainty, analogous to best practice in the petroleum E&P business.
Visit: www.pir.sa.gov.au/geothermal
goldstein.barry@saugov.sa.gov.au
Expected Value Estimate for a Hot Rock Test Well (An Example)
Four outcomes are possible from the drilling and flow testing of a Hot Rock target.
•
Geologic success (rock properties are at least adequate to justify flow tests)
•
Geologic failure (rock properties are insufficient to justify flow tests)
•
Technical success (flow tests undertaken but outcome is not competitive in foreseeable markets)
•
Economic success (flow tests demonstrate a resource is at least 50% certain to be competitive in foreseeable markets)
Example calculations for the chance for these four outcomes follows:
•
the chance for geologic success in a hot rock play (Pg)
Decision-tree for a hypothetical Hot Rock target
= (P heat source x P heat trap x P heat reservoir)
P success = 20.25%
= 90% x 90% x 50%
Say NPV of mean success case is $50
million for a single play trend. The NPV
for the mean success case for the
entire play trend is $500 million
= 40.5%
•
the chance of geologic inadequacy is the complement of Pg
= 100% - Pg
= 100% - 40.5%
P geologic success
20.25%
= 59.5%
•
the chance of a technical success (i.e. a geologic success with inadequate flow rate)
but < economic flow rate
=
Say cost of unsuccessful fracture
stimulation is $2 million
= (1- P heat flow rate) x Pg
= (100% – 50%) x 40.5%
= 20.25%
•
P Geologic Inadequacy = 59.5%.
the chance for an economic success (i.e. the probability of economic success Ps)
Say cost of failure is $10 million
= (P heat source x P heat trap x P heat reservoir x P heat flow rate)
= 90% x 90% x 50% x 50%)
Chance of economic failure = 20.25% + 59.5% = 79.75%
= 20.25% = Ps
Sum of probabilities = 100%
The chance for economic success (Ps) for this Hot Rock Play
NPV = Net Present Value
= (Ps x NPV of Hot Rock Play) –
((1- Ps) x full-cycle NPV to prove post-frac flow > economic threshold rate)
= {20.25% x $50,000,000} - {$12,000,000 79.75%)
Visit: www.pir.sa.gov.au/geothermal
goldstein.barry@saugov.sa.gov.au
= $560,000 Expected Net Present Value
This is << than the expected value of the play tested by a single well
Value of Information (VoI) Estimate for a Hot Rock Play (An
Example)
Say the first ‘play-maker well was successful – and demonstrated economic flow rates are credibly
more certain for a the entire Hot Rock play (worth NPV of $500 million). The implications of that
successful ‘proof-of-concept’ test well could be that:
•
Pheat reservoir to move from 50% to 75%; and
•
Pheat flow rate to move from 50% to 75%.
In this example:
•
the chance for Hot Rock play geologic success (Pg) = 90% x 90% x 75% = 60.75%
•
the chance of geologic inadequacy is the complement of 60.75% i.e. 39.25%
•
the chance of technical success = Pheat flow rate x Pg = (100% – 75%) x 60.75% = 15.19%
•
the chance for economic success = Pg x Pheat flow rate = (60.75% x 75%) = 45.56%
•
the VoI gained from a successful proof-of-concept flow test is the additional expected value
The VoI gained in this Hot Rock play is estimated as follows:
•
Pre-drill Expected Net Present Value (NPV) for the Hot Rock Play =
{20.25% x $500 million NPV for the Play} - {$12 million x 79.75%) = $91.68 million
Post drill Expected NPV for the Hot Rock Play =
{45.56% x $500 million NPV for the Play =} - {$12 million x 54.44%) = $221.27 million
The value of information ($129.59 million) from the successful proof-of-concept flow tests is the
difference between the pre- and post-drill expected net present values expressed above
Visit: www.pir.sa.gov.au/geothermal
goldstein.barry@saugov.sa.gov.au
How Much Is Enough Research & Demonstration? An example
Assume 3 distinct Hot Rock play-trends to explore with geologic factor adequacies as follow.
Portfolio:
Play A
Play B
Play C
Chance of
Adequacy
Chance of
Inadequacy
Chance of
Adequacy
Chance of
Inadequacy
Chance of
Adequacy
Chance of
Inadequacy
P heat source
90%
10%
90%
10%
50%
50%
P heat trap
90%
10%
90%
10%
90%
25%
P heat reservoir
50%
50%
75%
25%
50%
50%
P heat flow rate
50%
50%
25%
75%
25%
75%
Factors
Play A
Play B
P geologic success(Pg) = (90% x 90% x 50%) = 40.50%
P geologic failure (1-Pg) = (1 - 40.50%)=
59.50%
P economic success (Ps) = (40.50% x 50%) =
P economic failure (Pf) = (1 – 20.25%) =
= (90% x 90% x 75%) = 60.75%
= (50% x 90% x 50%) = 22.50%
= (1 - 60.75%) =
= (1 - 22.50%)
39.25%
= 77.50%
= 60.75% x (1 – 25%) = 45.56%
= 22.50% x (1 – 25%) = 16.88%
79.75%
= (1- 45.56%) =
54.44%
= (1- 16..88%)
20.25%
= (60.75% x 25%) =
15.19%
= (22.50% x 25%)
= 5.63%
79.75%
= (1 – 15.19%) =
84.81%
= (1 – 5.63%)
= 94.38%
P technical success = 40.50% x (1 - 50%) = 20.25%
P technical failure = (1- 20.25%) =
Play C
= 84.22%
Estimates of the chance that testing all 3 play trends will result in the discovery of at least one:
Technically adequate Hot Rock play: 1 – {Pgeologic inadequacy for A x Pgeologic inadequacy for B x Pgeologic inadequacy for
C}
Economically attractive Hot Rock play: 100% – (79.75% x 84.81% x 94.38) = 36%
Funding exploration through demonstration of an independent fourth Hot Rock play would
inevitably increase the chance of demonstrating at least one economically attractive resource
Visit: www.pir.sa.gov.au/geothermal
goldstein.barry@saugov.sa.gov.au
A benchmark of case studies in Europe
> Methodology of GE-ISLEBAR
•
•
•
Classification of the barriers
Each barrier has been considered as a criticality
a "criticality index" has been assigned to each criticality in proportion to
its ability to obstacle or hinder the implementation of the project : From
very low…to very high
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 26
A classification of the barriers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Resource
•
Geothermal resource, Well productivity, Fluid characteristics, Actual Field capacity, Long term
Field capacity, Implementation of the plant, Earthquakes-Volcanic Activity
Project economy
•
Exploration Investment cost, Exploitation Investment cost, Operation costs, Maintenance
costs, Economic attractiveness, Financial parameters, Financial supports and incentives
Demand
•
Energy demand, Competitivity of Alternative energy
Environment
•
Normative for wells, for plant construction, for plant operation, for outside water reject, for
reinjection, for Air emission, Noise pollution, Visual Impact
Sociological aspects
•
Misleading opinions , Lack of knowledge
Conflicts of interest towards the project
•
Adequacy of legislation, National, regional, EU supports, Local hostile economics operators,
Local hostile environmental groups, Local hostile institutional entities
Organisation of the project
•
Lack of entity in charge of the management, competition between different entities, confusion
among the roles of different entities)
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 27
Pantelleria
1.1 Geothermal resource
Organisation
Resource
8.2 Roles of different entities possibly
1.2 Well productivity
8.2 Interest of different entities possibly
5
1.3 Fluid characteristics
1.4 Actual Field capacity
8.1 Entity in charge of the management
4
7.3 Local hostile institutional entities
7.2 Local hostile environmental groups
1.4 Long term Field capacity
1.5 Implementation of the plant
3
7.1 Local hostile economics operators
1.6 Earthquakes-Volcanic Activity
2
6.2 National, regional, EU supports
2.1 Exploration Investment cost
1
Conflicts
6.1 Adequacy of legislation
2.2 Exploitation Investment cost
0
5.2 Lack of knowledge
2.3 Operation costs
5.1 Misleading opinions
2.4 Maintenance costs
Sociological
Economy
4.7 Visual Impact
2.5 Economic attractiveness
4.6 Noise pollution
2.6 Financial parameters
4.5 Normative for Air emission
2.7 Financial supports and incentives
3.1 Energy demand
.
3.2 Competitivity of Alternative energy
4.4 Normative for reinjection
4.4 Normative for outside water reject
4.1 Normative for wells
4.3 Normative for plant operation
4.2 Normative for plant construction
Environment
Demand
Nisyros
1.1 Geothermal resource
Organisation
Resource
8.2 Roles of different entities possibly
1.2 Well productivity
8.2 Interest of different entities possibly
5
1.3 Fluid characteristics
1.4 Actual Field capacity
8.1 Entity in charge of the management
4
7.3 Local hostile institutional entities
7.2 Local hostile environmental groups
1.4 Long term Field capacity
1.5 Implementation of the plant
3
7.1 Local hostile economics operators
1.6 Earthquakes-Volcanic Activity
2
6.2 National, regional, EU supports
2.1 Exploration Investment cost
1
Conflicts
6.1 Adequacy of legislation
2.2 Exploitation Investment cost
0
5.2 Lack of knowledge
2.3 Operation costs
5.1 Misleading opinions
2.4 Maintenance costs
Sociological
Economy
4.7 Visual Impact
2.5 Economic attractiveness
4.6 Noise pollution
2.6 Financial parameters
4.5 Normative for Air emission
2.7 Financial supports and incentives
3.1 Energy demand
.
3.2 Competitivity of Alternative energy
4.4 Normative for reinjection
4.4 Normative for outside water reject
4.1 Normative for wells
4.3 Normative for plant operation
4.2 Normative for plant construction
Environment
Demand
Bouillante
1.1 Geothermal resource
Organisation
Resource
8.2 Roles of different entities possibly
1.2 Well productivity
8.2 Interest of different entities possibly
5
1.3 Fluid characteristics
1.4 Actual Field capacity
8.1 Entity in charge of the management
4
7.3 Local hostile institutional entities
7.2 Local hostile environmental groups
1.4 Long term Field capacity
1.5 Implementation of the plant
3
7.1 Local hostile economics operators
1.6 Earthquakes-Volcanic Activity
2
6.2 National, regional, EU supports
2.1 Exploration Investment cost
1
Conflicts
6.1 Adequacy of legislation
2.2 Exploitation Investment cost
0
5.2 Lack of knowledge
2.3 Operation costs
5.1 Misleading opinions
2.4 Maintenance costs
Sociological
Economy
4.7 Visual Impact
2.5 Economic attractiveness
4.6 Noise pollution
2.6 Financial parameters
4.5 Normative for Air emission
2.7 Financial supports and incentives
3.1 Energy demand
.
3.2 Competitivity of Alternative energy
4.4 Normative for reinjection
4.4 Normative for outside water reject
4.1 Normative for wells
4.3 Normative for plant operation
4.2 Normative for plant construction
Environment
Demand
What should a good opportunity look like ?
1.1 Geothermal resource
Organisation
Resource
8.2 Roles of different entities possibly
1.2 Well productivity
8.2 Interest of different entities possibly
5
1.3 Fluid characteristics
Don’t
worry to much about
1.4 Actual Field capacity
resource
uncertainty and
1.4 Long term Field capacity
economy
8.1 Entity in charge of the management
4
7.3 Local hostile institutional entities
7.2 Local hostile environmental groups
1.5 Implementation of the plant
3
7.1 Local hostile economics operators
1.6 Earthquakes-Volcanic Activity
2
But have an attentive look to
policy makers awareness
Conflicts
Adequacy ofacceptance
legislation
and6.1public
6.2 National, regional, EU supports
2.1 Exploration Investment cost
1
2.2 Exploitation Investment cost
5.2 Lack of knowledge
2.3 Operation costs
Sociological
If those
barriers are strong, you’ll
have to work hard on them
Economy
… provided some financial
tools are implemented,
and
2.5 Economic attractiveness
demand exist
5.1 Misleading opinions
2.4 Maintenance costs
4.7 Visual Impact
4.6 Noise pollution
2.6 Financial parameters
4.5 Normative for Air emission
2.7 Financial supports and incentives
3.1 Energy demand
.
3.2 Competitivity of Alternative energy
4.4 Normative for reinjection
4.4 Normative for outside water reject
4.1 Normative for wells
4.3 Normative for plant operation
Average :1
4.2 Normative for plant construction
Environment
Demand
Milestones for achieving ENGINE…
>
>
Identification of bottlenecks and prioritisation of
research needs
Defining concepts for qualifying and quantifying
geologic technical and environmental risk
•
>
Examples from Australia and Europe
An evaluation of the investment and the expected
savings on cost operation at the 2020 horizon for
each R&D initiative and industrial project
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 32
The R&D contribution to the learning curve of
Geothermal Energy
MWe
MWe
8000
8000
Innovation 4: Reduction of
drilling investment by 50%
4000
Innovation 3: reproducible 3D thermal
modelling of the 1st 5 km, with an error
bar on t°C estimation < 10°C
4000
Innovation 2: reproducible 100% increase
in permeability after stimulation
The R&D input
2000
2000
1179
X
1650
X
2010
2000
2020
The Soultz Innovation: The Gross schönebeck Innovation: non
connectivity at depth reversible increase in permeability in
between wells
sedimentary basin, sustainability of t°C
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 33
Milestones for achieving ENGINE…
>
>
>
>
>
Identification of bottlenecks and prioritisation of
research needs
Defining concepts for qualifying and quantifying
geologic technical and environmental risk
•
Examples from Australia and Europe
An evaluation of the investment and the expected
savings on cost operation at the 2020 horizon for
each R&D initiative and industrial project
Data available from the updated framework of
activities and expertises performed must converge to
select discrete and significant parameters for the risk
analysis.
The use of Decision Support Systems that will
integrate the critical parameters defined. From this
modelling, a definition of the most favourable
contexts for the development of Unconventional
Geothermal Energy in Europe is expected.
ENGINE, Workshop 7, Leiden, 8-9 November 2007
> 34