Second European Geothermal Review - Geothermal Energy for Electric Power Production - BESTEC GmbH
←
→
Transkription von Seiteninhalten
Wenn Ihr Browser die Seite nicht korrekt rendert, bitte, lesen Sie den Inhalt der Seite unten
Second European Geothermal Review
Geothermal Energy for Electric Power Production
Abstracts & Papers − Tagungsbeiträge
June 21 – 23, 2010
FAVORITE Parkhotel
City of Mainz, Rhineland Palatinate
Germany
Dear Friends, Colleagues and Business Partners.
"Geothermal on the upswing!"
Since the “First European Geothermal Review in 2007”, the progress in Geothermal is accelerating, we see the birth of a new
market. Probably because of the lack of large natural resources, geothermal development in Central Europe is occurring on a
high technical level. New technologies are often implemented without reservation, as the industry is still young and willing to try
out new techniques. Experiences gained under such boundary conditions may also be of value for an internationally established
geothermal operator.
Initiative, new ideas and new technologies are required to overcome crises and to help develop new markets, like the
geothermal market in Central Europe.
We believe all this to be enough reason to cordially invite you to join us during the
“Second European Geothermal Review” in Mainz, Germany, June 21 - 23, 2010.
We would like to openly debate all aspects, problems, opportunities and challenges of power production from geothermal
energy with you. We want to share experiences, listen to your problems and discuss solutions.
Geothermal resources cannot be carried from one continent to another. We are bound to be linked to the ground beneath our
feet. Therefore, we believe that communication links in our geothermal industry should be much less restricted for reasons of
competition and professional secrecy than in any other energy industry. Let's make use of this advantage, let's jointly make
geothermal stronger, more successful.
Welcome in Mainz!
Jörg Baumgärtner & Ihr BESTEC team!
Sehr geehrte Freunde, Kollegen und Geschäftspartner.
„Geothermie im Aufschwung!“
Seit dem „First European Geothermal Review 2007“ hat sich der Ausbau der Geothermie auch in Mitteleuropa rasant
beschleunigt, ein neuer Markt tut sich auf. Diese Entwicklung findet, vermutlich mangels herausragender natürlicher
Ressourcen, auf einem hohen technischen Niveau statt. Da dieser Industriezweig noch jung und risikofreudig ist, werden neue
Technolgien oftmals ohne zu zögern umgesetzt. Die dabei gemachten Erfahrungen zu den Themen Erschließung, Entwicklung
aber vor allem zum Reservoirmanagement und der Nachhaltigkeit der Lagerstätte, können auch für international etablierte
Geothermiebetreiber von Nutzen sein.
Um Krisen zu überwinden und die Entwicklung neuer Märkte wie den der Geothermie in Mitteleuropa voranzubringen, bedarf es
Initiative, neuer Ideen und Technologien.
Vor diesem Hintergrund möchten wir Sie herzlich zu dem
„Second European Geothermal Review“ in Mainz, Rheinland Pfalz vom 21. – 23. Juni 2010 einladen.
Wir möchten gemeinsam mit Ihnen alle Aspekte, Probleme, Chancen, Potentiale und Herausforderungen bei der Nutzung der
geothermischen Energie kontrovers diskutieren. Geothermische Ressourcen sind ortsgebunden, Erfahrungen beziehen sich
oftmals auf lokale Strukturen, lassen sich nicht einfach übertragen. Dies eröffnet uns im Bereich der Geothermie die Chance,
über Länder- und Firmengrenzen hinweg offen diskutieren zu können. Lassen Sie uns diesen Vorteil der Geothermie nutzen!
Willkommen in Mainz!
Jörg Baumgärtner & Ihr BESTEC team!
PARTICIPANTS
List of Participants
Jennifer ANDREWS Lauren BOYD Frank EDER
Applied Seismology Consultants Ltd. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) AXA Versicherung AG
5 Claremont Buildings Geothermal Technologies Program Colonia-Allee 10-20
Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY1 1RJ Office of Energy Efficiency 51067 Köln
UK and Renewable Energy Germany
jenny@appliedseismology.com 1000 Independence Avenue, S. W. frank.eder@axa.de
20585 Washington, DC
Julia ANGERER USA Tim ERDMANN
lauren.boyd@ee.doe.gov
SWM Services GmbH Baker Hughes
Emmy-Noether-Str. 2 Baker-Hughes-Str. 1
80287 München Dennis BREG 29221 Celle
Germany Deep Drill Group Germany
pletl.christian@swm.de Havenkade 24 tim.erdmann@bakerhughes.com
1775 BA Middenmeer
Miklos ANTICS The Netherlands Keith EVANS
dennis@deepdrill.nl
GPC Instrumentation Process ETH-Zürich
165, rue de la Belle Etoile Geological Institute
95946 Roissy-en-France Marcus BRIAN Sonneggstr. 5
France ENERCHANGE 8092 Zürich
m.antics@geoproduction.fr agentur für erneuerbare Energien Switzerland
Goethestr. 4 keith.evans@erdw.ethz.ch
Hiroshi ASANUMA 79100 Freiburg
Germany Peter FRANKE
Tohoku University marcus.brian@enerchange.de
Graduate School of Engineering Ingenieurbüro Franke
6-6-20 Aramaki, Aoba-ku Grafftring 9
980-8579 Sendai Ullrich BRUCHMANN 29227 Celle
Japan Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Germany
asanuma@ni2.kankyo.tohoku.ac.jp Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit pe.fra@t-online.de
Referat KI III 5
Andrea BALLOUK Bereich Erneuerbare Energien Heike FRIED
Alexanderstraße 3
Projektträger Jülich 10178 Berlin Pfalzwerke AG
Forschungszentrum Jülich Germany Kurfürstenstr. 29
52425 Jülich Ullrich.Bruchmann@bmu.bund.de 67061 Ludwigshafen
Germany Germany
a.ballouk@fz-juelich.de heike_fried@pfalzwerke.de
Aad CASTRICUM
Roy BARIA Baker Hughes Centrilift Joachim FRITZ
Wijkermeerweg 7A
MIL-TECH UK Ltd 1951 AH Velsen-Noord Landesamt
62 Rosewood Way, West End The Netherlands für Bergbau, Energie und Geologie
Woking, Surrey, GU24 9PF aad.castricum@bakerhughes.com Stilleweg 2
UK 30655 Hannover
roybaria@onetel.com Germany
Ralf CAVELIUS joachim.fritz@lbeg.niedersachsen.de
Wolfgang BAUER Evonik New Energies GmbH
St. Johanner Str. 101-105 Ralf FRITSCHEN
360plus Consult GmbH 66115 Saarbrücken
Bahnhofstr. 46 Germany DMT GmbH & Co. KG
76137 Karlsruhe ralf.cavelius@evonik.com Am Technologiepark 1
Germany 45307 Essen
w.bauer@360plusconsult.de Germany
Nicolas CUENOT ralf.fritschen@dmt.de
Jörg & Helga BAUMGÄRTNER GEIE Exploitation Minière de la Chaleur
Route de Soultz, BP38 Jack FROST
BESTEC GmbH 67250 Kutzenhausen
Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2 France Frost Consulting Group
76829 Landau cuenot@soultz.net 12263 Blackstone Drive
Germany 91739 Rancho Cucamonga, California
baumgaertner@bestec-for-nature.com USA
Fabrice DÔME jfrost@frostconsultinggroup.net
Tony BENNETT Tractebel Engineering S. A.
Avenue Ariane 7 Terry GANDY
EGS Energy Ltd. 1200 Brussels
13 North Parade Belgium BESTEC Drilling GmbH
Penzance, Cornwall, TR18 4SL fabrice.dome@gdfsuez.com Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2
UK 76829 Landau
tonyb@egs-energy.com Germany
Jürgen DORNSTÄDTER gandy@bestec-for-nature.com
Astrid BERZ GTC Kappelmeyer GmbH
Heinrich-Wittmann-Str. 7a Stanisław GAZDA
BESTEC GmbH 76131 Karlsruhe
Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2 Germany Oil & Gas Exploration Co. Jasło
76829 Landau dornstadter@gtc-info.de Asnyka St. 6
Germany 38-200 Jasło
berz@bestec-for-nature.com Poland
sgazda@pnig.jaslo.pl
List of Participants
Wolfgang GEISINGER John HELM Toni KRAFT
Geothermie Unterhaching GmbH & Co. KG Geocerf ETH-Zürich
Bahnhofsweg 8 107A Rue de la République Swiss Seismological Service
82008 Unterhaching 77720 Hoerdt Sonneggstr. 5
Germany France 8092 Zürich
w.geisinger@geothermie-unterhaching.de John_a_helm@yahoo.fr Switzerland
toni@sed.ethz.ch
Albert GENTER Thomas HETTKAMP
GEIE Exploitation Minière de la Chaleur BESTEC GmbH Ottomar KRENTZ
Route de Soultz, BP38 Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2 Sächsisches Landesamt
67250 Kutzenhausen 76829 Landau für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie
France Germany Halsbrücker Str. 31a
genter@soultz.net hettkamp@bestec-for-nature.com 09599 Freiberg
Germany
Steffan GERDES Has HOUTER ottomar.krentz@smul.sachsen.de
Fangmann Energy Services GmbH Scientific Drilling Controls
& Co. KG Robbenkoog 42 Hagen KROHN
Brietzer Weg 10 1822 BB Alkmaar WASTEC
29410 Salzwedel The Netherlands Abfallmanagement und -technik GmbH
Germany has.houter@scientificdrilling.com Landauer Str. 28
sgerdes@fangmanngroup.com 76870 Kandel
Katrin JAKSCH Germany
Jean-Philippe GIBAUD h.krohn@wastec-web.de
Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam
Schlumberger Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum
Geothermal Services Telegrafenberg F 224 Stefanie KRUG
Les Collines de l'Arche 14473 Potsdam BGR Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften
76 route de la Demi-Lune Germany und Rohstoffe
92057 Paris La Défense Cedex kawi@gfz-potsdam.de Stilleweg 2
France 30655 Hannover
jgibaud@slb.com Anita JOBBIK Germany
stefanie.krug@bgr.de
MOL Plc.
Rüdiger GIESE Október huszonharmadika út. 18
Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam 1117 Budapest Günter KUBA
Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum Hungary UGS GmbH Mittenwalde
Telegrafenberg F 224 ajobbik@mol.hu Berliner Chaussee 2
14473 Potsdam 15749 Mittenwalde
Germany Manfred JOSWIG Germany
rudi@gfz-potsdam.de kuba@ugsnet.de
Universität Stuttgart
Institut für Geophysik
Xavier GOERKE Azenbergstr. 16 Wolfram KÜPPER
GEIE Exploitation Minière de la Chaleur 70174 Stuttgart ITECO Oilfield Supply GmbH
Route de Soultz, BP38 Germany An der Pönt 62a
67250 Kutzenhausen joswig@geophys.uni-stuttgart.de 40885 Ratingen
France Germany
goerke@soultz.net Reinhard JUNG wolfram@iteco-supply.com
JUNG-GEOTHERM
Jean-Jacques GRAFF Gottfried-Buhr-Weg 19 Adrian LARKING
GEIE Exploitation Minière de la Chaleur 30916 Isernhagen Green Rock Energy Ltd.
Route de Soultz, BP38 Germany 6/38 Colin Street
67250 Kutzenhausen jung.geotherm@googlemail.com 6005 West Perth
France Australia
graff@soultz.net Hans-Jürgen KALTWANG alarking@greenrock.com.au
Evonik New Energies GmbH
Gary GRAVELING St. Johanner Str. 101-105 Hilel LEGMANN
Buro Happold 66115 Saarbrücken ORMAT Systems Ltd.
Camden Mill, Lower Bristol Road Germany P.O. Box 68
Bath, Somerset, BA2 3DQ hans-juergen.kaltwang@evonik.com 70650 Yavne
UK Israel
Gary.graveling@burohappold.com Thomas KERK hlegmann@ormat.com
Weatherford Energy Services GmbH
Christian HECHT Eddesser Str. 1 Michael LENZ
HotRock Engineering GmbH 31234 Edemissen URACA Pumpenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG
Erbprinzenstr. 27 Germany Sirchinger Str. 15
76133 Karlsruhe thomas.kerk@eu.weatherford.com 72574 Bad Urach
Germany Germany
hecht@hotrock.de Thomas KÖLBEL sales_pip@uraca.de
EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG
Durlacher Allee 93
76131 Karlsruhe
Germany
t.koelbel@enbw.com
List of Participants
Luis LOBIANCO Jay NATHWANI Ann ROBERTSON-TAIT
Schlumberger GmbH U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) GeothermEx, Inc.
Rudolf-Diesel-Str. 23 Geothermal Technologies Program 3260 Blume Drive, Suite 220
49377 Vechta Office of Energy Efficiency 94806 Richmond, California
Germany and Renewable Energy USA
llobianco@slb.com 1000 Independence Avenue, S. W. art@geothermex.com
20585 Washington, DC
Jörn LÖHKEN USA Branka ROGULIC
jay.nathwani@ee.doe.gov
Leibniz Institut für angewandte Geophysik geox GmbH
Stilleweg 2 Industriestr. 18
30655 Hannover Audun OTTEREN 76829 Landau
Germany CMR Prototech AS Germany
joern.loehken@liag-hannover.de Norwegian Centre for b.rogulic@energie-suedwest.de
Geothermal Energy Research
Christiane LOHSE P.O. Box 6034 Tim ROSSKNECHT
5892 Bergen
Umweltbundesamt GeoGlobal Energy Europe GmbH
Norway
Bismarckplatz 1 Prinzregentenstr. 64
audun.otteren@prototech.no
14193 Berlin 81675 München
Germany Germany
christiane.lohse@uba.de Peter PENZKOFER munich@geoglobal-energy.com
BESTEC GmbH
Guy MACPHERSON-GRANT Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2 Hanna-Maria RUMPEL
76829 Landau
EGS Energy Ltd. RWE Dea AG
Germany
13 North Parade Überseering 40
penzkofer@bestec-for-nature.com
Penzance, Cornwall, TR18 4SL 22297 Hamburg
UK Germany
guymg@egs-energy.com Etienne PERRET hanna-maria.rumpel@rwe.com
Electricité de Strasbourg
Howard McLAUGHLIN 26 Boulevard Wilson Horst RÜTER
67932 Strasbourg HarbourDom GmbH
Torrens Energy Ltd. France
Suite 1, 338 Hay Street Schürbankstr. 20a
etienne.perret@es-group.fr 44287 Dortmund
6008 Subiaco
Australia Germany
hmclaughlin@active8.net.au Georg PINGITZER rueter@harbourdom.de
Smith International Deutschland GmbH
Robert MARKL Bruchkampweg 16 Marion SCHINDLER
29227 Celle BESTEC GmbH
wepuko hydraulik GmbH Germany
Max-Planck-Str. 10 Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2
gpingitzer@smith.com 76829 Landau
72542 Metzingen
Germany Germany
markl@wepuko.de Wiesław PIWOWARCZYK schindler@bestec-for-nature.com
Oil & Gas Exploration Co. Jasło
Bernd MELCHERT Asnyka St. 6 Holger SCHÜTZ
38-200 Jasło TU Freiberg
BGR Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften Poland
und Rohstoffe Institut für Geophysik
wpiwowarczyk@pnig.jaslo.pl Gustav-Zeuner-Str. 12
Stilleweg 2
30655 Hannover 09599 Freiberg
Germany Christian PLETL Germany
melchert@soultz.net SWM Services GmbH schuetz3@mailserver.tu-freiberg.de
Emmy-Noether-Str. 2
Jens MÜLLER 80287 München Katja SCHULZE
Germany GeoMechanics International
BESTEC GmbH pletl.christian@swm.de
Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2 Baker Hughes
76829 Landau Emmerich-Josef-Str. 2
Germany Roy REITSMA 55116 Mainz
mueller@bestec-for-nature.com Reitsma Drilling Services B. V. Germany
Strengenweg 1E kschulze@geomi.com
Christian MÜLLER-WAGNER 9531 TE Borger
The Netherlands Michael SCHULZE
AXA Versicherung AG roy.reitsma@r-d-s.nl
Colonia-Allee 10-20 Schulze-Druckmessungen
51067 Köln Tuchmacherstr. 64a
Germany Jean-Luc RIFF 29410 Salzwedel
christian.mueller-wagner@axa.de BESTEC GmbH Germany
Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2 druckmessungen@t-online.de
Martin NEUDECKER 76829 Landau
Germany Andrea SEIBT
Schlumberger Information Solutions (SIS) riff@bestec-for-nature.com
Karl-Wiechert-Allee 3 BWG Geochemische Beratung GbR
30625 Hannover Seestr. 7a
Germany 17033 Neubrandenburg
martin.neudecker@slb.com Germany
bwg-a.seibt@t-online.de
List of Participants
Gunter SIDDIQI Andreas TSCHAUDER Phil WELCH
BFE Swiss Federal Office of Energy Landesamt für Geologie und Bergbau Energent Corporation
3003 Bern Emy-Roeder-Str. 5 2321 Pullman Street
Switzerland 55129 Mainz 92705 Santa Ana, California
gunter.siddiqi@bfe.admin.ch Germany USA
andreas.tschauder@lgb-rlp.de pwelch@energent.net
Henk SMEDES
Scientific Drilling Controls Uday TURAGA Lothar WISSING
Robbenkoog 42 ADI Analytics LLC Projektträger Jülich
1802 KC Alkmaar 5214 Hazepoint DR Forschungszentrum Jülich
The Netherlands 77494 Katy, Texas 52425 Jülich
henk.smedes@scientificdrilling.com USA Germany
turaga@adi-analytics.com l.wissing@fz-juelich.de
Gordon SMITH
Schlumberger Slickline Pierre UNGEMACH Gunther WITTIG
Woodlands Drive GPC Instrumentation Process Pfalzwerke AG
AB21 OGW Aberdeen 165, rue de la Belle Etoile Kurfürstenstr. 29
UK 95946 Roissy-en-France 67061 Ludwigshafen
gsmith4@slb.com France Germany
pierre.ungemach@geoproduction.fr gunther_wittig@pfalzwerke.de
William STEPHENS
University of St. Andrews Istvan VASS
Department of Earth Sciences Green Rock Energy Ltd.
North Street, Irvine Building P.O. Box 1177
KY16 9AL St. Andrews 6872 West Perth
Scotland, UK Australia
wes@st-andrews.ac.uk nhodder@greenrock.com.au
Volker STÜSSEL Merle VON MOOCK
Marsh GmbH Pfalzwerke AG
Cremon 3 Kurfürstenstr. 29
20457 Hamburg 67061 Ludwigshafen
Germany Germany
volker.stuessel@marsh.com merle_vonmoock@pfalzwerke.de
Werner SUHM Maarten WACHTER
HotRock Holding GmbH Schlumberger
Erbprinzenstr. 27 Parkstraat 83
76133 Karlsruhe 2514 JG Den Haag
Germany The Netherlands
suhm@hotrock.de mwachter@slb.com
Dariusz SZABLINSKI Steffen WAGNER
Pfalzwerke AG TU Freiberg
Kurfürstenstr. 29 Institut für Bohrtechnik
67061 Ludwigshafen Agricola-Str. 22
Germany 09599 Freiberg
dariusz_szablinski@pfalzwerke.de Germany
steffen.wagner@tbt.tu-freiberg.de
Lothar te KAMP
Itasca Consultants GmbH Gitta WAHL
Leithestr. 111 BESTEC GmbH
45886 Gelsenkirchen Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2
Germany 76829 Landau
tekamp@itasca.de Germany
wahl@bestec-for-nature.com
Dimitra TEZA
BESTEC GmbH Dorothee WALTHER
Oskar-von-Miller-Str. 2 Projektträger Jülich
76829 Landau Forschungszentrum Jülich
Germany 52425 Jülich
teza@bestec-for-nature.com Germany
d.walther@fz-juelich.de
Damien THIOLET
CRYOSTAR SAS Katharina WEISSBECK
Zone Industrielle, BP48 ITECO Oilfield Supply GmbH
68220 Hesingue An der Pönt 62a
France 40885 Ratingen
damien.thiolet@cryostar.com Germany
katharina@iteco-supply.com
ABSTRACTS
&
PAPERSTable of Contents
Opening Session
Dr. Jörg BAUMGÄRTNER Welcome, Background & Motivation for the Second European 1
BESTEC GmbH, Germany Geothermal Review
Ullrich BRUCHMANN Research Support within the Federal Energy Research Program -
BMU - Federal Ministry for the (Forschungsförderung im Energieforschungsprogramm)
Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety, Germany
Jay NATHWANI Geothermal in the United States: An Update -
U.S. Department of Energy, Geothermal
Technologies Program, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, USA
Gunter SIDDIQI Research and Development of Enhanced Geothermal Systems 2
Bundesamt für Energie, Switzerland (EGS) – the view of the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (Forschung
und Entwicklung an Enhanced Geothermal Systems – die Sicht
des Schweitzer Bundesamtes für Energie)
Project Experiences
Albert GENTER The EGS Soultz Case Study: Lessons learnt after two decades of 4
GEIE “Exploitation Minière de la Chaleur”, geothermal researches
France
Thomas KÖLBEL Geothermal Power Plant Bruchsal: Construction and initial 8
ENBW AG, Germany Operating Experiences (Geothermiekraftwerk Bruchsal: Bau und
erste Betriebserfahrungen)
Jörg BAUMGÄRTNER Geothermal Reservoir Development in the Upper Rhine Graben -
BESTEC GmbH, Germany “Concepts, Techniques and Experiences”. The geothermal projects
in Landau and Insheim.
Wolfgang GEISINGER Parallel Operation of district heating and power generation -
Geothermie Unterhaching GmbH & Co. (Parallelbetrieb von Fernwärme- und Stromerzeugung)
KG, Germany
Julia ANGERER & Christian PLETL Experience Report on Stadtwerke München’s Geothermal Project 9
Stadtwerke München Services GmbH, in Sauerlach (Erfahrungsbericht Geothermieprojekt Sauerlach der
Germany Stadtwerke München)
Pierre UNGEMACH Sustainable management of a Deep Saline Aquifer for 10
GPC INSTRUMENTATION PROCESS, Geothermal District Heating in the Paris basin
France
Christian HECHT Geothermal Project Realisation in the Upper Rhine Graben 12
HotRock Engineering GmbH, Germany (URG), a Review.
New Concepts
Stefanie KRUG The GeneSys project Hannover – experiences, investigations and 16
BGR – Bundesanstalt für further plans
Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe,
Germany
Roy BARIA Commercial EGS Development in the UK by EGS Energy Ltd. 17
EGS Energy Limited, UKTable of Contents
Etienne PERRET The Roquette project -
Électricité de Strasbourg, France
Adrian LARKING Geothermal Energy in the extensional Perth Basin, Australia. 18
Green Rock Energy Limited, Australia Comparisons with the Rhine Graben.
Tim ERDMANN Oil Goes Geothermal 21
Baker Hughes, Continental Europe,
Germany
Reservoir Development & Management
Andrea SEIBT Geothermal aspects of using hydrogeothermal aquifers for energy -
BWG GbR, Germany production (Geochemische Aspekte bei der Nutzung
hydrogeothermaler Aquifere zur Energiegewinnung)
Reinhard JUNG Hydraulic fracture propagation in a jointed and faulted granite 22
JUNG-GEOTHERM, Germany
Lothar TE KAMP Modelling of a geothermal system incorporating convection -
Itasca Consultants GmbH, Germany (Modellierung einer Geothermieanlage unter Brücksichtigung der
Konvektion)
Advanced Technologies
Aad CASTRICUM Geothermal pumps to cope with future requirements -
Baker Hughes, Continental Europe,
The Netherlands
Luis LOBIANCO Electrical Submersible Pumps for Geothermal Application 23
Schlumberger Artificial Lift, Germany
Jack FROST European Introduction to Lineshaft Downhole Geothermal Pumps 30
Frost Consulting Group, USA
Hilel LEGMANN Technical, Environmental and Economical Aspects of Medium -
ORMAT Systems Ltd., Israel Sized Geothermal Power Plants
Xavier GOERKE Technical Status of the Soultz Power Plant -
GEIE “Exploitation Minière de la Chaleur,
France
Gordon SMITH Slickline deployed Real-time Distributed Temperature 42
Schlumberger Slickline, UK Measurements in wellbore environments
Seismics – from Exploration to Risk Management
Wolfgang BAUER 3D seismic – adapting the tools of the oil industry to geothermal. 43
360plus Consult GmbH, Germany Examples from the Upper Rhine Graben (Germany)
Nicolas CUENOT Velocity structures of geothermal reservoirs: Contribution of the 44
GEIE “Exploitation Minière de la Chaleur, Local Earthquake Tomography obtained after the hydraulic
France stimulations on the EGS Site of Soultz-sous-Forêts (France)Table of Contents
Bernd MELCHERT Correlation between hydraulic and seismic activity during the 45
BGR – Bundesanstalt für circulations in the Soultz EGS reservoir
Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe,
Germany
Toni KRAFT Seismicity in Enhanced Geothermal Systems – Latest Results 46
ETH Zürich, Swiss Seismological Service, from Basel, Switzerland.
Switzerland
Hiroshi ASANUMA Investigations of the physics behind large magnitude microseismic 47
Tohoku University, Japan events observed at Basel, Switzerland
Jennifer ANDREWS Observations of the Microseismicity at the Landau Geothermal -
Applied Seismology Consultants Ltd., Reservoir
UK
Nicolas CUENOT Over 20 years of microseismic monitoring at Soultz: Main results 52
GEIE “Exploitation Minière de la Chaleur, observed in different experimental conditions
France
Ralf FRITSCHEN Assessment of vibrations caused by induced seismic events with 53
DMT GmbH & Co. KG, Germany the Germany standard DIN 4150
Horst RÜTER Induced Seismicity associated to Geothermal Projects – viewpoint 54
HarbourDom GmbH, Germany of an independent expert (Induzierte Seismizität bei Geothermie-
projekten aus der Sicht eines neutralen Gutachters)
Manfred JOSWIG Recent alternatives in seismic monitoring of geothermal sites -
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Roy Baria Concern of induced seismicity observations and possible way -
MIL-TECH, UK forward
Closing Session
Marcus BRIAN PR for Geothermal Projects – not voluntary, but required 57
ENERCHANGE GbR, Germany (Öffentlichkeitsarbeit für Geothermieprojekte – keine Kür, sondern
Pflicht)
Jörg BAUMGÄRTNER Closing Remarks -
BESTEC GmbH, GermanySECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
Welcome, Background and Motivation for the
Second European Geothermal Review
Jörg Baumgärtner
BESTEC GmbH, Germany
baumgaertner@bestec-for-nature.com
- Geothermal on the upswing - And the financial crisis?
Since the "First European Geothermal Review" in Since the financial crisis hit the world economy, the oil
2007, several geothermal power plants for supplying price has dropped from around 140 USD per barrel at
heat and power have started in Central Europe. the peak to currently around 70 USD per barrel.
Central Europe has finally caught up with the Will the oil price remain at this level and what will this
worldwide development. This progress in Geothermal do to all the renewable energy projects that are
is accelerating fast and one can actually see the start underway?
of the birth of a new market. Probably because of the With major financial investors either disappearing or
lack of large natural resources, geothermal having to cope with massive losses, many experts
development in Central Europe is occurring on a high predict a slowdown in clean energy investments.
technical level. New technologies are often Therefore, are renewable energies a luxury item during
implemented without reservation, as the industry is still such economical difficult times? Financial crisis,
young and willing to try out new techniques. economical crisis and lack of investment in the
Nevertheless, these developments can also be of development of - still rather expensive - geothermal
value for the established international geothermal technologies, how does this fit?
industry. One can argue that it matches very well and that it
The present focus of the activities in Europe seems has absolutely nothing to do with luxury. Yes, if the oil
to be on reservoir development. Reservoir price remains low, it will stop some new projects
management and sustainability still appear to be topics because the business case might not be convincing.
for the future. Exchange of operating experience on an However, the international energy agency (IEA)
international level may help to draw attention for the predicts that the oil price will rebound rapidly as soon
latter topics. as the world economy regains. The behavior of the oil
Although the climate change and especially the price during the last weeks points exactly into that
economic recession appears to be our main concern direction. IEA predicts an oil price exceeding 200 USD
for the past two years, another aspect that is per barrel by 2030.
appearing on the horizon which will be of even more To overcome such crises and to help develop new
significance and concern is the markets, like the geothermal market in Central Europe,
we require
Security of Energy Supply!
Initiative, new ideas and technologies.
Particularly in Europe, which is still strongly dependent
on oil and gas imports, this subject is high on the During the "Second European Geothermal Review" in
agenda of nearly all national energy strategies. Here, Mainz we would like to raise a discussion on future
geothermal energy offers a sustainable and developments and strategies for geothermal heat and
environmentally friendly energy source with additional power production, despite debating all challenges of
unique features. geothermal power production.
One of the uniqueness of geothermal energy is that Geothermal has a bright future, especially if we
it is permanently available, 24 hours a day and 7 days finally succeed to establish constant cooperation on an
a week. It is also a secure energy source within the international level, as it exists already for other
national boundary. However, Geothermal is a mining renewable energy technologies.
technology with all related complications and thus
depends strongly on technical developments, Welcome to the Second European Geothermal
experience from operators and last but not least on Review!
public acceptance.
1SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
Research and Development of Enhanced Geothermal
Systems (EGS) – the view of the Swiss Federal Office of
Energy
Gunter Siddiqi and Rudolf Minder
Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications,
CH-3003 Bern, Switzerland
gunter.siddiqi@bfe.admin.ch; rudolf.minder@bluewin.ch
Key Words
EGS Research and Development in Switzerland, Basel Project, GEOTHERM R&D Initiative, Thermal Spallation
Drilling, International Partnership for Geothermal Technology.
SUMMARY
Enhanced and Engineered Geothermal Systems are engineering discussion and will undoubtedly trigger
undoubtedly the biggest and most challenging plenty of research and development.
geothermal resources to be developed. Swiss The discussion about the future of the EGS project
geothermal stakeholders have made significant at Basel and the decision to stop the project were
contributions towards unlocking the Enhanced/ made without any measurement in the wellbore after
Engineered Geothermal Systems. the stimulation. No statements were possible on the
Researchers and small to medium sized physical condition of the wellbore (like pressures and
enterprises have contributed over many years and temperatures) and on any indication regarding the
decades to work undertaken at the highly successful permeability increase of the treated formation. Once
European EGS project at Soultz-sous-Fôrets. With approvals and permits had been obtained from the
initial major support from France, Germany and the cantonal authorities, first measurements and low-rate,
European Commission the project is now owned by an short-duration tests carried out in 2009 suggest that at
industry consortium, the European Economic Interest a depth of 4600 m the formation has a temperature of
Grouping comprising a number of French and German 174 °C with an expected but owing to an obstruction at
utility and energy companies. Swiss researchers have 4700 m depth, unverifiable bottom-hole temperature of
been permitted to participate in this effort by the 185 °C. A low-rate, short-duration production test
project’s owners and funding agencies of the project. suggests that the reservoir permeability has been
From 2010 onwards, the owners of the project will test increased by 2.5 to 3 orders of magnitude.
a number of aspects related to sustained power The ETH domain has launched a 4-year, major
production by extracting heat from the km3-sized research initiative («GEOTHERM») where among
engineered subsurface heat exchanger, by testing a other topics the Basel data will be analyzed in great
number of subsurface development configurations detail. The project consists of five interlinked modules.
relating two production wells and two injection wells. The modules intend to develop insights into the
Of national Swiss interest is the life-cycle of the permeability creation process from wellbore and
Basel EGS project from the feasibility stage to the hydraulic observations, and to provide basic geological
abandonment stage. The project will be abandoned and stress information needed for the interpretation of
following the political decision of the Canton Basel-City the seismic studies and the numerical simulation
to stop the project owing to expected large damages to studies. In addition, the relationship between stress
assets in case of continued stimulation and a heterogeneity and geological structures within the well
subsequent 30-year production period. This is the key will be described, and the mechanisms of wellbore
result of a detailed risk analysis study that was failure investigated. A hydro-thermo-mechanical
financed by the Canton of Basel-City, the Swiss modeling platform for the simulation of permeability
Federal Offices of Energy and the Environment and creation processes conditioned by the wellbore and
Geopower AG, the owner of the project. While a microseismic observations will be developed. The
deliberately highly conservative approach was taken to simulator will be fully-modular in structure, implement
analyze the geologic setting, to set up of a three- modern approaches to the representation of fractured
dimensional static reservoir model, to dynamically reservoirs, and include a geomechanics module that
model induced and triggered seismicity, and to allows the consequences of the ‘fresh-fracture' of rock
incorporate the vulnerability of the region to finally bridges within a brittle fracture zone to be simulated.
compute likely damage cases, it soon became clear The model will ultimately be extended to a full reservoir
that significant and simplistic assumptions had to be size and serve as a platform for simulating the impact
made to arrive at a result in the study. Close study of of the fluid-rock interactions on the long-term behavior
the risk analysis opens many areas for scientific and of the reservoir during circulation. Finally a part of the
2SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
GEOTHERM initiative is concerned with investigating models that allow simulation of physical processes at
the relationships between the deep and shallow geo- work during thermal spallation drilling. In parallel a
thermal resources in urban areas from the perspective laboratory scale pilot rig is currently under construction
of sustainable development. that will allow testing of thermal spallation drilling at in-
Thermal spallation drilling research at hydrothermal situ conditions on a variety of rocks. Switzerland will
conditions is a major, three-pronged fundamental soon participate in the International Partnership for
research initiative undertaken at the ETH Zürich. Geothermal Technology together with the USA,
Fundamental measurements and data on heat transfer Iceland and Australia where there exists scope to
of hydrothermal flames (stable at temperatures above apply and advance in specific projects related to these
374 °C and 22 MPa) are collected and are fed into Switzerland-specific R&D initiatives in EGS.
3SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
The EGS Soultz Case Study:
Lessons learnt after two decades of geothermal researches
A. Genter1, J. Baumgärtner2, N. Cuenot1, J.J. Graff1, T. Kölbel3, B. Sanjuan4
1
GEIE EMC, France
2
BESTEC GmbH, Germany
3
EnBW, Germany
4
BRGM, France
genter@soultz.net
Key Words
EGS, Reservoir, Exploration, Natural fractures, Native brine, Soultz-sous-Forêts, France.
ABSTRACT With the creation of the GEIE Exploitation Minière de
la Chaleur, the project is now driven by a consortium of
This paper summarizes some main conclusions about French and German industries as well as by public
the Soultz geothermal project (France). After two funding from the both sides.
decades of comprehensive studies, main outcomes The Soultz site which is located in the Upper Rhine
and scientific achievements about the sub-surface are Graben, was selected based on the huge quantities of
presented. Based on exploration borehole results petroleum data available from the old oil industry
(geology, native brine), geothermal well trajectories namely the Péchelbronn oil field. More than 5000 old
parallel to the maximal horizontal stress, deep oil wells were available even though 90% of them only
hydraulic stimulations and circulation tests at various recognized the shallow sedimentary oil-bearing
depths, tracer test results, and temperature profiles at formations (< 600 m depth). Thank to the oil history, a
5km depth, main lessons learnt are outlined and could temperature map was also available at depth,
be used for future Rhine graben-like geothermal indicating a large geothermal anomaly characterized
projects. with a temperature of about 100 °C at 1 km depth
(Fig. 1). The initial geothermal target was a tight
Introduction crystalline granite unit.
The European Soultz geothermal project is now Exploration
running for more than 20 years. Originally, it has been
driven mainly by public funding from European Based on the HDR concept, two exploration wells have
Commission, France, Germany and Switzerland. been drilled at Soultz on the top of the geothermal
anomaly (GPK1, EPS1). These wells confirmed the
very high geothermal gradient in the upper sediments,
namely between the surface and 1 km depth with
10 °C per 100 m length. However, more surprisingly,
the main result was a very low geothermal gradient in
the deep crystalline fractured basement rocks. It was
interpreted by the occurrence of natural convective
fluid movement due to native brine (100 g/l) circulating
within hydrothermally altered and fractured zones
(HAFZ) related to the Rhine Graben tectonics. They
showed both high fracture density and strong
hydrothermal alteration (from Genter [2]).
Natural fluid circulation in the fractures resulted in
both a strong dissolution of the primary minerals such
as biotite, plagioclase, and a significant deposition of
some altered minerals such as clay minerals (illite),
calcite and secondary quartz. Thus, surprisingly, the
deep fractured basement rocks which were reputed
tight and non-permeable, support natural fluid flow.
The nature of the deeper fractured basement at
Soultz is well documented along the boreholes, but the
Figure 1: Temperature map at 400 m depth based on oil well inter-well domain is poorly constrained because all
measurements in the Péchelbronn-Soultz area from Haas holes are near-vertical or steeply inclined. This
and Hoffmann [1]. borehole geometry was driven by the fact that the
4SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
orientation of the main fracture system was aligned developed world-wide, and then for the largest well
with the maximum horizontal principal stress [3]. Since separation of 450 m attempted up to that time.
it is difficult to image the fracture system in 3D prior to Geochemical analyses and tracer tests in the upper
drilling, it might be more convenient for future reservoir revealed that a significant natural hydraulic
geothermal projects in a similar geology/stress context reservoir existed in the rock mass, so that mixing of
to drill inclined holes perpendicular to the strike of the the injected fluid with the native formation water
fracture system to maximise the likelihood of occurred, resulting in small return of injected tracer.
intersecting as many as possible. Such an approach The reservoir almost certainly resided in a connected
has recently been successfully applied in several network of permeable HAFZs which were seen at the
Soultz spin-off projects near Landau, Rhineland wellbore on core and borehole images, and could be
Palatinate, Germany, some 40 km north of Soultz, imaged remote from the well from high-resolution
where deviated wells were successfully drilled into the images of the pattern of induced microseismicity.
lowermost sediments and the top of the basement. However, to reach 200 °C, it was necessary to drill
till 5 km in the granite. Construction of a triplet system
Deep reservoirs hydraulic results in the lower reservoir between 4500 m and 5000 m
TVD began in 1999 and was completed in 2005. Three
The three 5 km deep geothermal wells (GPK2, GPK3, deep geothermal wells, GPK2, GPK3 and GPK4 were
GPK4) penetrated the lower reservoir, and the wells drilled and stimulated by massive hydraulic injections.
GPK1 and GPK2 form the upper reservoir (Fig. 2). The The wells are arranged in a line that coincides with the
former exploration wells GPK1 and EPS1 are also maximum horizontal principal stress orientation, with
shown (Fig. 2). the reinjection well, GPK3, in the middle, and the two
production wells, GPK2 and GPK4 a distance of 600 m
away. The trajectories of the deep geothermal wells
are roughly parallel to both the maximum horizontal
principal stress SHmax as well as the main pre-existing
fracture system imaged in the basement from borehole
image logs (Fig. 3).
Figure 2: North-south vertical cross-section through the
Soultz site showing the location of the Upper and Lower
Reservoirs. Depths are expressed in True Vertical Depths
(TVD).
Figure 3: Local map view of the Soultz site.
The upper reservoir duplet system was constructed
between 2.8 and 3.6 km during the period 1992-1996, A series of hydraulic and chemical stimulations
and circulated in closed-loop mode at 25 kg/s for 4 associated with an induced microseismicity, improved
months in 1997. The system impedance was only significantly the initial injectivity or productivity of the
0.1 MPa/l/s, the first time the long-established target geothermal wells. Each well was hydraulically
for this parameter had been reached in any system stimulated after completion. The maximum magnitudes
5SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
of the seismic events induced by the injections were induced higher production flow rates compared to
generally larger than for the stimulations in the upper artesian production with two production wells in 2005.
reservoir, and were felt by the local population. Good
communication was observed between GPK3 and
GPK2 (Sanjuan [4]), most likely due to the presence of
a major HAFZ that cuts both wells. The connection
between GPK3 and GPK4 was initially poor, tracer
studies indicating that the flow between the wells was
less direct. Following a series of acidizing stimulation
operations on GPK4, the productivity of GPK4 was
increased by a factor of 2.5. However, most of the
improvement resulted from the appearance of casing
leaks (Nami [5]).
Several limited-duration circulations have been
performed in the lower reservoir to date: without down-
hole pumps in 2005, and with one down-hole pump
and power generation in 2008. The first circulation test
of the triplet of wells penetrating the lower reservoir
(4.5 - 5.0 km) took place for 5 months between July
and December 2005 (Gerard [6]). Tracer tests
conducted during the circulation showed that ~25% of
the injected tracer was recovered from GPK2 but only
2% from GPK4. This asymmetrical response reflects a
the complex organisation of natural fractures
describing different fluid circulation loops, the hydraulic
connections between GPK3 and GPK2 being much
more direct and faster than between GPK3 and GPK4
(Sanjuan [4]). During this circulation, and all production
tests conducted at 5 km depth, tracer tests and
geochemical data invariably showed the presence of
the native geothermal brine in the discharged fluids,
even after large amounts of external fresh water had
been injected into the wells (Sanjuan [4]). This result
points to the conclusion that the exchanger is
connected to a deep natural reservoir. Some 600
microseismic events were recorded in the 6 months
during and immediately following the circulation.
Several exceeded magnitude 2.0, but none were felt.
The lower reservoir was again circulated in 2008,
this time with a line-shaft production pump installed at
350 m depth in GPK2, with GPK4 remaining shut-in.
Circulation began at the end of June 2008 and lasted
until mid-August 2008. During this period, the pump- b
assisted production from GPK2 was around 25 l/s at a
Figure 4: Location of the microseismic activity at Soultz
temperature of 162°C. The production fluid pressure at
during the 2008 summer circulation test. a) Plane view. b)
the surface was maintained at 2 MPa in order to avoid North-South cross-section. The legend on figure 4a) is
scaling before passing through a pump for reinjection common for both pictures. Colours indicate the occurrence
into GPK3. Wellhead injection pressure began at 6 time of the seismic events and the diameter of the circle is
MPa and increased continuously albeit progressively proportional to the magnitude.
more slowly to stabilize at 7 MPa for last week of the
test. Approximately 190 micro-earthquakes were During the different circulation tests conducted in 2008
associated with the circulation, which gives an event and 2009, microseismicity was fully monitored using
rate comparable to that observed in the 2005 surface seismic stations (Cuenot [7]). The monitoring
circulation (Fig. 4a, b). They also occurred in much the of the microseismic activity shows that the
same locations as the 2005 events, but the magnitude earthquakes took place within the same areas as
did not exceed 1.4, in contrast to the 2005 events, those in the 2005 circulation test. The main difference
several of which exceeded 2.0 (Cuenot [7]). This may between the two experiments is the level of magnitude,
reflect several differences between the two tests: the which was much lower in 2008 and 2009. One of the
duration (6 months in 2005, around 2 months in 2008); main seismic events, with a magnitude of 1.7 observed
a larger volume of water circulated in 2005; and the in December 2008, is related to an accidental sharp
use of a down-hole production pump in 2008 which stop of the production pump within GPK2.
6SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
Lessons learnt and conclusions References
After two decades of hydraulic experiments and testing [1] Hass, J.-O., Hoffmann, C.R., Temperature gradient
at great depth, we can state that micro-seismicity is the in Pechelbronn oil bearing region, lower Alsace: its
major concern that could occur during hydraulic determination and relation to oil reserves, American
stimulation but also time to time during hydraulic Association Petroleum Geologist Bulletin XIII n°10,
circulation. We also learnt that it was not necessary to 1257-1273, 1929.
drill at 5 km. Indeed, many faults or fractured zones [2] Genter, A., Traineau, H., Bourgine, B., Ledésert, B.,
are widely open and relatively permeable at the top Gentier, S., Over 10 years of geological investigations
basement depth section. This result could minimize the within the European Soultz HDR project, France.
drilling cost for new geothermal projects in the Upper World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku,
Rhine Graben. Moreover, induced seismicity seems Japan May 28 - June 10 2000, 3707-3712, 2000.
much more developed at great depth that at the top [3] Baumgärtner, J., Gérard, A., Baria, R., Jung, R.,
basement. Based on the occurrence of convective Tran-Viet, T., Gandy, T., Aquilina, L., Garnish, J.,
cells related to the fracture system at the interface Circulating the HDR reservoir at Soultz: maintaining
sediment/basement, a future geothermal project is production and injection flow in complete balance:
planned in France close to Soultz at Rittershoffen- initial results of 1997 experiment, Twenty-third
Hatten, where geothermal wells could be drilled at Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
3 km depth for targeting 150-170 °C for a geothermal Stanford University, California USA, 11-20, 1998.
heating application. In Rhine-Palatinate, several [4] Sanjuan B., Pinault, J.-L., Rose, P., Gérard, A.,
commercial geothermal projects corresponding to the Brach, M., Braibant, G., Crouzet, C., Foucher, J.-C.,
Soultz upper reservoir conditions are already running. Gautier, A., Touzelet, S., Tracer testing of the
Various geoscientific data gathered at Soultz allow geothermal heat exchanger at Soultz-sous-Forêts
improving the large-scale geothermal model at the (France) between 2000 and 2005, Geothermics, vol.
scale of the Upper Rhine Graben. We learnt that native 35, 5-6, 622-653, 2006.
brines are in equilibrium with a geothermal reservoir at [5] Nami P., Schellschmidt, R., Schindler, M., Tischner,
about 220-240 °C inducing a deep hot reservoir T., Chemical Stimulation operations for reservoir
somewhere in the graben. Geochemical studies also development of the deep crystalline HDR/EGS system
shown that the geothermal fluids have a sedimentary at Soultz-sous-Forêts (France). Proc. 33rd Workshop
origin even though their have been collected in the on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, January 28-30,
fractured granite (Sanjuan [8]). That means that it 2008, Stanford, California, USA, 2008.
exists probably a complex network of fractures at [6] Gérard, A., Genter, A., Kohl, T. Lutz, Ph., Rose, P.,
different scale allowing connecting geothermal fluids. Rummel, F., The deep EGS (Enhanced Geothermal
Geothermal exploration and exploitation at Soultz System) project at Soultz-sous-Forêts (Alsace,
have shown that the deep-seated granite does not France), Geothermics, vol. 35, 5-6, 473-483, 2006.
correspond anymore to the original, classical Hot Dry [7] Cuenot, N., Dorbath, L., Frogneux, M., Langet, N.,
Rock (HDR) concept (Genter [9]). At Soultz and Microseismic activity induced under circulation
probably in many places within the Upper Rhine conditions at the EGS project of Soultz-sous-Forêts
Graben, highly naturally fractured unconventional (France), World Geothermal Congress, WGC2010,
geothermal reservoirs are poorly permeable for a Bali, Indonesia, April 2010.
commercial exploitation prior to any hydraulic or [8] Sanjuan, B., Millot, R., Dezayes, C., Brach, M.,
chemical stimulation. However, their post-stimulation Main characteristics of the deep geothermal brine (5
behaviour has many facets of conventional geothermal km) at Soultz-sous-Forêts (France) determined using
reservoirs that benefit from re-injection. geochemical and tracer test data. C. R. Geoscience,
2010.
Acknowledgments [9] Genter, A., Evans, K.F., Cuenot, N., Fritsch, D.,
Sanjuan, B., Contribution of the exploration of deep
This work was supported mainly by the European crystalline fractured reservoir of Soultz to the
Commission, BMU (Germany), ADEME (France), and knowledge of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).
by a consortium of industrial members (EDF, EnBW, C.R. Geoscience, 15 p, 2010.
ES, Pfalzwerke, Evonik).
7SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
Geothermal Power Plant Bruchsal:
Construction and initial Operating Experiences
Thomas Kölbel
ENBW AG, Germany
t.koelbel@enbw.com
ABSTRACT
In view of the increasing energy demand and scarcity As a consequence of the financial support for
of fossil resources, geothermal energy is expected to geothermal power production prescribed in the
become an appealing and promising candidate to German Renewable Energy Act in 2000, the project
contribute to the world’s future energy mix. Globally, was resumed and further well tests were carried out.
the number of geothermal power plants from high Subsequently the whole installation was completed
enthalpy sources has increased considerably during and a Kalina cycle power plant has been in operation
the past decades. In contrast, the number of power since the end of 2009. The hydrothermal reservoir has
plants using low enthalpy sources is unfortunately still a temperature of ca. 131 °C, with a wellhead
negligible. temperature of 124 °C. The flow rate is 24 l/s and the
The geothermal power plant in Bruchsal power plant capacity is 0.5 MWel.
(Germany), located in a low enthalpy region, extracts Since 2009, further R&D has been financed by the
energy from a hydrothermal reservoir in Mesozoic and German Ministry of Environment (BMU) and EnBW
Permian formations. The first well was drilled in 1983 Energie Baden-Württemberg AG. The R&D focuses
down to 1,877 meters with the initial objective to are on hydraulic, hydrochemical and operational
supply heat. First geochemical analysis of the lifted issues with the aim of developing surface and
thermal water demonstrated a high mineralization subsurface monitoring tools in order to optimize the
including heavy metals and gases such as CO2, N2 interaction between reservoir and power production
and CH4. plant. Therefore, additional tests related to hydraulic
In order to comply with legal requirements, a experiments, push-pull tracer tests, chemical analyses
second well to re-inject the thermal brine back into the and modelling will be carried out to assess the change
reservoir was drilled in 1985. It has a depth of ca. in hydraulic parameters, specific surface area of the
2,500 meters and is ca. 1.5 kilometres away from the fractured rock material and chemical composition of
first well. Further investigations were conducted in the the fluids. In addition, seismic data during operation
following years, but the project was suspended finally will be monitored. Preliminary results of this project will
due to fall in oil price in the late 1990s. be presented.
8SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
Erfahrungsbericht Geothermieprojekt Sauerlach der Stadtwerke München
Julia Angerer & Christian Pletl
Stadtwerke München Services GmbH, Germany
pletl.christian@swm.de
ABSTRACT
Die Stadtwerke München haben sich mit Ihrer Ausbau- Fördermengen von 60 l/s (Th3b), 80 l/s (Th2) und
Offensive „Erneuerbare Energien“ das Ziel gesetzt, bis 120 l/s (Th1a) für die Bohrungen prognostiziert. Auf
2015 soviel Strom in eigenen Anlagen aus dieser Grundlage wurde die Th1a als Förderbohrung
regenerativen Energiequellen zu erzeugen, dass damit und die Th 2 und Th3b als Injektionsbohrungen
alle Münchener Privathaushalte versorgt werden festgelegt.
könnten. Bis 2025 soll der gesamte Strombedarf In einem am 27.10.2009 gestarteten Langzeitpump-
Münchens auf diese Weise gedeckt werden können. In und Reinjektionsversuch wurde dieses Nutzungs-
Sauerlach, ca. 25 km südlich von München, realisieren regime der Triplette getestet und analysiert. Zusätzlich
die Stadtwerke derzeit das größte Geothermie- wurde ein Rückspül-Trommelfilter in das System
Heizkraftwerks-Projekt zur gleichzeitigen Produktion integriert, um die grundsätzliche Eignung dieses
von Strom und Wärme in Deutschland. Systems für den Betrieb zu testen sowie eine mögliche
Die Planungsarbeiten bei den Stadtwerken Fracht im Thermalwasser abscheiden und analysieren
München begannen, nachdem das Projekt Ende 2005 zu können. Des Weiteren wurden verschiedene
übernommen wurde. Für das Projektgebiet Sauerlach Dichtungsmaterialien sowie Stahlsorten in einem
wurden die Teufen des Thermalwasser führenden Expositionstest auf die Verträglichkeit mit dem
Aquifers mit ca. 3.400 - 3.800 m abgeschätzt. Thermalwasser bzgl. Korrosion und Scaling getestet.
Entsprechend der Teufenlagen ergaben sich Tempe- Am 10.12.2009 wurde der Langzeitpump- und
raturprognosen von bis zu 130 °C. Die Erschließung Reinjektionsversuch erfolgreich abgeschlossen. Es
sollte über eine Doppelduplette mit einer Förderrate konnten Temperaturen an der Tauchkreiselpumpe bis
von insgesamt bis zu 240 l/s erfolgen. Auf diesen zu ca. 140 °C gemessen werden. Der Kopfdruck und
Parametern wurde ein Geothermie-Heizkraftwerk mit die maximalen Injektionsdrücke lagen unter 10 bar.
8 MW elektrischer Leistung und bis zu 7 MW Die Prognose für die Förderung aus der Th1a mit
thermischer Leistung für das Fernwärmenetz der 120 l/s konnte nach vorläufiger Auswertung bestätigt
Gemeinde Sauerlach konzipiert. werden.
Die Ausführung in Sauerlach begann mit der Momentan gehen die Planungen von einem 5 MW
Errichtung des Bohrplatzes im Juli 2007. Die Kraftwerk aus, aus dem nach einem bereits
Bohrarbeiten an der ersten Bohrung Sauerlach Th1 abgeschlossen Liefervertrag zusätzlich 4 MW
wurden am 04.10.2007 aufgenommen. Von den thermische Leistung für das Fernwärmenetz der
ursprünglich vier geplanten Tiefbohrungen kamen - Zukunftsenergie Sauerlach GmbH geliefert werden.
aufgrund der Ergebnisse - letztendlich drei Bohrungen Die Ausschreibung für das Heizkraftwerk erfolgt
zur Ausführung. systemoffen (ORC- oder Kalina-Prozess) an einen
Die Bohrungen erreichten ihre geologischen Ziele Generalunternehmer, der das Kraftwerk und den
und sind die tiefsten Geothermiebohrungen in Thermalwasserkreislauf schlüsselfertig liefern soll. Es
Deutschland: Th1a ET 4.757 m MD, Th2 ET 5.060 m wird mit einer Vergabe im Frühjahr 2010 gerechnet,
MD, Th3b ET 5.567 m MD. Die horizontalen Ablenk- was eine Inbetriebnahme des Geothermiekraftwerks
strecken in Th2 und Th3b erreichten Strecken deutlich gegen Ende des Jahres 2011 ermöglichen würde. Den
über 2 km. Nach einer Gesamtzeit von 691 Tagen momentanen Arbeitschwerpunkt im Projekt Sauerlach
wurde die Bohranlage am 24.08.2009 nach Durch- bildet die Aufarbeitung der gesammelten Daten und
führung sämtlicher Bohr- und Workovertätigkeiten Erfahrungen sowohl in geologischer als auch
sowie Kurzzeittests zum Abbau freigegeben. Auf Basis bohrtechnischer Hinsicht.
erster hydraulischer Auswertungen wurden potentielle
9SECOND EUROPEAN GEOTHERMAL REVIEW – Geothermal Energy for Power Production
June 21 – 23, 2010, Mainz, Germany
Sustainable Management of a Deep Saline
Aquifer for Geothermal District Heating
In the Paris Basin
Pierre Ungemach & Miklos Antics
GPC IP, France
pierre.ungemach@geoproduction.fr
SUMMARY
The Paris Basin geothermal district heating (GDH) story undoubtedly benefited from the convergence of
scheme stands as the second world largest of its kind, three main driving stimuli (i) evidence of a dependable
after the city of Reykjavik, with a total installed capacity geothermal reservoir (Dogger limestones) of regional
and yearly heat supplies (heating and sanitary hot extent, reliably assessed thanks to former hydrocarbon
water – SHW) amounting to 220 MWt and 1100 GWht exploration and development campaigns (over 3000
respectively, serving ca 150 000 equivalent dwellings wells drilled and 5000 km processed seismic lines); (ii)
(each ca 200 m³ in volume) from 34 well doublets. a strong, voluntarist, commitment of the State in favour
The first attempt to exploit the hot waters hosted in of alternative energy sources and accompanying
the Dogger carbonate formation (mid Jurassic) dates incentives (mining risk coverage, mutual insurance
back to year 1962, at Carrieres-sur-Seine west of (sinking)-fund mitigating exploitation hazards, financial
Paris. The well, despite a high productivity, was support to district heating grids and focused R,D&D
abandoned as a result of a highly saline brine, programmes), and, last but not least, (iii) the presence
incompatible with the disposal of the waste water in above the geothermal resource of large social dwelling
the natural medium (a surface stream). This led a units, eligible to district heating, numerous throughout
private operator to commission, in 1969, the first field the Paris suburbs.
implementation of the geothermal doublet concept of In spite of this strong backing, geothermal
heat mining, combining a production well and an development did not avoid contagion from infantile
injection well pumping the heat depleted brine into the diseases inherent to the implementation of new
source reservoir. technologies as evidenced by several symptoms,
The doublet (two deviated, 7" cased, wells) chiefly.
produced in self flowing mode was put online in 1971,
on the henceforth Melun l'Almont emblematic site, - Structural: lack of expertise from operators (mainly of
South of Paris, to supply heat to a nearby social the public sector) in managing industrial installations
dwelling compound. It enabled, incidentally, to design and energy processes implying a strong mining
new, titane alloyed, plate heat exchangers, able to impact;
cope with a hostile fluid environment, a corrosive,
slightly acid (pH = 6), saline (30 g/l eq. NaCl) and hot - Technical: (i) loose mastering in operating heating
(74 °C) brine. The system since then has been grids, under a retrofit rationale combining several base
operating satisfactorily, the doublet moving in the load and back-up/relief energy sources and fuels, (ii)
meantime towards a triplet array including two injector repeated failures of submersible pump sets, and (iii)
and one new, innovative, anti corrosion production well above all, devastating corrosion of well casing, well
combining steel casings and freely suspended, non heads and equipments caused by a thermochemically
cemented, fiberglass liners. Noteworthy is that this hostile fluid;
pioneer achievement was completed irrespective of
any energy price crisis nor public subsidising - Administrative and managerial: imprecise definition of
whatsoever. Regarded at the time as a technological, duties and obligations of involved parties (operators,
fairly exotic, curiosity the concept has been extended engineering bureaus, heating companies, consults…)
later to the whole Paris Basin GDH systems. and of relevant exploitation/service contracts,
The sharp energy prices rises in the aftermath of inefficient marketing and negotiations of heat sales
the 1970s oil shocks led the French authorities to and subscription contracts;
promote, among other renewable energy sources, low
grade geothermal heat as base load to district heating - Economic and financial: severe competition from
grids and other space heating systems. This conventional fossil fuels (heavy fuel oil and natural
commitment has been concluded by the development, gas, the leading competitor) penalising sales and
in the Paris Basin alone, of 54 GDH doublets of which revenues, persistent depleted energy prices further to
34 still serviced to date, indeed a satisfactory score the second oil shock, adding to a debt nearing 85 % of
given it addressed a new energy development route total investment (CAPEX) costs in a capital intensive
and a highly competitive energy market. This success (5 to 8 M€, now approaching 15 to 18 M€), low equity,
10Sie können auch lesen
