Geothermal Play-Fairway Analysis of Washington State Prospects: Final Report
- Washington Geological Survey, Olympia, WA (United States)
- Cyrq Energy, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT (United States)
- Temple Univ., Philadelphia, PA (United States)
- Temple Univ., Philadelphia, PA (United States); Ormat Technologies, Inc., Reno, NV (United States)
- Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO (United States); Washington Geological Survey, Olympia, WA (United States)
- US Geological Survey, Boulder, CO (United States)
- Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA (United States)
- Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (United States)
- Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA (United States)
- BOS Technologies, LLC, Ridgeland, SC (United States)
- AltaRock Energy, Inc., Seattle, WA (United States)
- Stravan Consulting, LLC, Austin, TX (United States)
- US Geological Survey, Portland, OR (United States)
The Washington State Geothermal Play-Fairway Analysis overcomes the exploration challenges posed by dense vegetation, glacial deposits, and extreme precipitation. The geothermal play-fairways we target are locations where heat, permeability, and saturated porosity are present in sufficient volume to provide adequate heat exchange at depths accessible by modern drilling technology. The three study areas lie along the Cascade Range magmatic arc and are near Mount Baker, Mount St. Helens, and the Wind River Valley. The seven-year project is divided into three phases. In Phase 1 we build on a previous statewide assessment of geothermal resources and develop an initial modeling approach. The results are a series of favorability, uncertainty, and risk maps for three targeted study areas. Based on these initial results, we collect new geologic and geophysical data to further refine our modeling and reduce exploration uncertainty in Phase 2. We improve the modeling method to handle the new data and update the favorability, uncertainty, and risk maps. We also update the conceptual geothermal resource models. In Phase 3 we validate our modeling approach by drilling two temperature-gradient holes and collecting and analyzing core, image logs, and new geochemistry. Our modeling approach improves on an earlier statewide method through a more-rigorous and detailed assessment of heat and permeability. Permeability potential is assessed through geomechanical modeling of the deformation that can generate and maintain reservoir porosity and permeability. Metrics to inform heat potential include temperature-gradient wells, which are sparse in Washington; proximity of Quaternary volcanic vents and young intrusive rock; spring temperature; and reservoir temperature inferred from geothermometry. We weight the individual components using an expert-guided approach known as the Analytical Hierarchy Process. During Phase 2 we also develop a fluid-filled fracture model, and an infrastructure model that helps to delineate areas which are more favorable for geothermal development based on proximity to transmission lines, elevation, land ownership and use restrictions, and availability of process water. New geologic and geophysical data is collected during Phase 2 in each of our three main study areas. At Mount Baker and north of Mount St. Helens we conduct 1:24,000-scale geologic mapping and lidar analysis to better constrain the location and character of surface faults; detailed mapping in the Wind River Valley was completed just prior to the start of this project. Ages of intrusive rocks are determined with 40Ar/39Ar geochronology, though all of our samples are Miocene or older. We collect ground based gravity observations (a total of 1,580 new stations) in all of our study areas and ground-based magnetic lines (a total of 93 km) at Mount Baker. These data are combined with existing gravity and aeromagnetic data and used to constrain fault locations and geometry. Two to three cross sections are constructed at each study area using the mapped surface geology and forward-modeling of the gravity and magnetic data; these cross sections form the basis for our updated conceptual models. We collect magnetotelluric surveys at Mount Baker and Mount St. Helens and these data are inverted to form a resistivity model from the surface to about 10 km depth; each model shows conductive zones that can be interpreted as upwelling geothermal fluids. At Mount St. Helens we deploy a passive seismic array and use the newly detected events to refine the location of the Saint Helens seismic zone. We also employ ambient-noise tomography to develop a detailed seismic-velocity model for the study area and use this model to help constrain our cross sections and conceptual model. Based on the new data collected during Phase 2—and our updated models—we develop a campaign of temperature-gradient holes and core analysis to validate our modeling in Phase 3. Drill hole MB76-31 is located near Little Park Creek, 11 km west-southwest of the summit of Mount Baker, and is 1,471 ft deep. About 410 ft of core from the lower portion of the hole—and image logs from ~175 ft below ground surface to the bottom—are collected and analyzed. Water samples are collected and processed for geothermometry. Drill hole MSH17-24 is located along upper Schultz Creek, 16 km north-northeast of Mount St. Helens and has core from 470 ft to the bottom at 1,053 ft. We did not collect image logs due to borehole stability concerns, but water samples are collected and analyzed for geothermometry. Repeat temperature-gradient measurements are made at both sites and thermal conductivity is measured from core samples. At MB76-31, the equilibrated temperature gradient of 64°C/km and calculated heat flow of 141–159 mW/m2 is more than twice the regional average. Detailed mapping and analysis of the core, coupled with correlation to the image logs, indicates a history of permeability generation consistent with our predictions of high permeability. Because the site has high favorability in the Phase 2 model, we consider the results a positive validation of the modeling. At site MSH17-24, the equilibrated temperature gradient of ~15°C/km and calculated heat flow of 41–43 mW/m2 are similar to regional. Geochemical analysis of the water samples indicates a meteoric source without any geothermal component. Detailed outcrop-based mapping of fault exposures near the drill site and analysis of image logs from nearby boreholes indicates a history of permeability generation consistent with our predictions. Because the site has low favorability in the Phase 2 model, we consider the results a positive validation of the modeling. Together, the two sites provide a reasonably positive validation of the Phase 2 modeling and should encourage future use of this modeling approach.
- Research Organization:
- Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Geological Survey
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Renewable Power Office. Geothermal Technologies Office
- DOE Contract Number:
- EE0006728
- OSTI ID:
- 1823116
- Report Number(s):
- DOE-WGS-6728
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Geothermal play-fairway analysis of Washington State prospects
Washington Play Fairway Analysis Geothermal Heat and Permeability Potential Geodatabases