Geothermal energy using oil/gas drilling techniques

[BillKidd + 139]

I don't know where I saw this, can't find it. It had to do with using modern horizontal drilling technology to create geothermal energy. I think it was something akin to a closed loop. You'd have a vertical wellbore, say, at one end of a parcel of land. Another at the other end. Then, a number of laterals within the section and everything is connected. I can't recall details but I think it was that you'd pump a fluid down, perhaps it was water, and it would heat at depth and exit the other end to be processed into steam and then electricity. The draw being that if it works, sheesh, you could do that in many places. Beats me, perhaps many places? I know that in the Haynesville shale play, it can be 400 degrees F at, say, 13k feet vertical depth. Is this a used technique or just an idea?

I do not recall this having to do with an aquifer. I recall it simply using the high(er) temp at depth to heat the fluid in the wellbore. Perhaps it wouldn't require much geology; drilling the laterals through shale might work.

If you have info on this or other geothermal ideas, share, and thanks, geothermal is interesting!

Edited March 13, 2021 by BillKidd

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

I get most of my geological information from the wonderful tome written by John McPhee, Annals of the Former World. 

He outlines that most geothermal areas are near a transform fault, where one tectonic plate butts up against another one (say the Pacific Plate ramming into the North American Plate). These produce the "Ring of Fire" where most of the volcanoes occur. Therefore, most of the geothermal areas in the U.S. are in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho. 

There's another interesting thing that McPhee mentions: "Hot Spots" that exist intra-plate. There are only a few of these in N. America: Yellowstone, of course, but also Jemez Springs in New Mexico, and there is one in British Columbia.  

I have wondered why California didn't exploit geothermal more than it has. Geothermal is the ultimate in clean. I imagine they were concerned about interrupting the "stability" of the San Andreas Fault, which is precisely the subduction zone where the Pacific tectonic plate dives under the North American plate--they say it's grinding away as we speak. 

You're right about those high temperatures in some of the shale fields. As I'm sure you know, shale is a sedimentary rock whereas most of the economically interesting geothermal areas are in metamorphic rock. So you have to go pretty deep in the shale fields, whereas most geothermal areas are relatively shallow (but within dense igneous rock, such as lava or granite). 

As an aside, if you climb to the top of Mount Rainer, you'll be impressed that hot air blows right up your pants leg. That's from one of the dozens of fumaroles that dot that area. This is apparently due to the collection of snowmelt in what is known as a meteoric water system, heated by magma that comes too close to the surface for comfort. It smells like rotten eggs due to the H2S from the magma. The fumarole feels good at subzero temperature . . . until you realize that you're standing on top of an angry volcano. HaHa, that'll get a guy going. 

I have just exhausted everything I know about geothermal, and it's all in McPhee's book, which is a real delight if you like geology. Be sure to share what you learn; I'll bet most of us are interested in geothermal, and it sure looks like it's "heating up" as a clean energy source. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

27 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I get most of my geological information from the wonderful tome written by John McPhee, Annals of the Former World. 

He outlines that most geothermal areas are near a transform fault, where one tectonic plate butts up against another one (say the Pacific Plate ramming into the North American Plate). These produce the "Ring of Fire" where most of the volcanoes occur. Therefore, most of the geothermal areas in the U.S. are in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho. 

There's another interesting thing that McPhee mentions: "Hot Spots" that exist intra-plate. There are only a few of these in N. America: Yellowstone, of course, but also Jemez Springs in New Mexico, and there is one in British Columbia.  

I have wondered why California didn't exploit geothermal more than it has. Geothermal is the ultimate in clean. I imagine they were concerned about interrupting the "stability" of the San Andreas Fault, which is precisely the subduction zone where the Pacific tectonic plate dives under the North American plate--they say it's grinding away as we speak. 

You're right about those high temperatures in some of the shale fields. As I'm sure you know, shale is a sedimentary rock whereas most of the economically interesting geothermal areas are in metamorphic rock. So you have to go pretty deep in the shale fields, whereas most geothermal areas are relatively shallow (but within dense igneous rock, such as lava or granite). 

As an aside, if you climb to the top of Mount Rainer, you'll be impressed that hot air blows right up your pants leg. That's from one of the dozens of fumaroles that dot that area. This is apparently due to the collection of snowmelt in what is known as a meteoric water system, heated by magma that comes too close to the surface for comfort. It smells like rotten eggs due to the H2S from the magma. The fumarole feels good at subzero temperature . . . until you realize that you're standing on top of an angry volcano. HaHa, that'll get a guy going. 

I have just exhausted everything I know about geothermal, and it's all in McPhee's book, which is a real delight if you like geology. Be sure to share what you learn; I'll bet most of us are interested in geothermal, and it sure looks like it's "heating up" as a clean energy source. 

Dang it, I'm going to have to find that book now Gerry. I'm pretty sure my dad had a copy but it was among the many things that didn't get saved when he passed. I got all his papers, but not his books.  🙁

As for California geothermal, they are no slouches at it, I'm thinking it's right around wind in their generating mix. The biggest operation up by San Francisco has been depleting the water table for so long, they actually import sewage water from the Bay Area to "replenish" the system. Brings a whole new meaning to "rotten eggs" smell from mercaptins. 😳

For interested parties Tons of info on this site, just look around. I started to get a project going there, but got cold feet thinking about dealing with the regulatory compliance and tax system there. The other states you mention in the ring of fire are all more business friendly then Kalifornistan. 

 

[BillKidd + 139]

I came across the article below, a PhD dissertation. He has some interesting charts in there showing hotspots. You can see that what appears to be the Sabine uplift, which happens to be home of the Haynesville shale, is hotter than the surrounding area. (Northwest Louisiana / East Texas)

As for the OP, I just found it interesting... like, why not!.... use oilfield drilling crews to drill these wellbores/laterals for the wellbore loop. If it were to dollar up, that would be really cool to create these sites over thousands of square miles. Err, not cool, hot!

This article is not the one I originally wrote about; this is about a different (and localized, not widespread) engineering idea and an aquifer is involved.

https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5045&context=gradschool_dissertations

Edited March 13, 2021 by BillKidd

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

5 hours ago, BillKidd said:

I came across the article below, a PhD dissertation. He has some interesting charts in there showing hotspots. You can see that what appears to be the Sabine uplift, which happens to be home of the Haynesville shale, is hotter than the surrounding area. (Northwest Louisiana / East Texas)

As for the OP, I just found it interesting... like, why not!.... use oilfield drilling crews to drill these wellbores/laterals for the wellbore loop. If it were to dollar up, that would be really cool to create these sites over thousands of square miles. Err, not cool, hot!

This article is not the one I originally wrote about; this is about a different (and localized, not widespread) engineering idea and an aquifer is involved.

https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5045&context=gradschool_dissertations

PH.d disertation = toiletpaper

His "downhole bidirectional HTXCHr is the highest quality of toilet paper. 

What is the problem with ALL brines in a HTXCHr... ???  And he wants to put this down a bore hole where you can't clean it.... Nowhere did I see him talking about an automatic HTXCHr cleaner.  Not to mention all the silt/sand particulate that said pump will continuously be ingesting as it has zero ability for a centrifugal trap in a bore hole... I'll let someone WITHOUT a moron idiot PHD, tell everyone how long a pump works ingesting sand...

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

To throw a little cold water on the hot fires of geothermal energy, this idea was tried in Australia. they tried drilling down to these hot rocks but nothing came of the project. There are substantial geothermal power plants in New Zealand and California? but without looking in detail at the plants I suspect that in those cases the volcanic activity is quite close to the surface. Obtaining geothermal energy in sites where the heat is well below the surface is far tougher.. It may well be possible.. but at what cost..  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

Here is a report on the Alberta No. 1 geothermal project, an actual project of this type that is currently doing preliminary exploration.

https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/temperature-logs-of-geothermal-project-in-alberta-canada-promising/

the companies involved include Schlumberger.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

To throw a little cold water on the hot fires of geothermal energy, this idea was tried in Australia. they tried drilling down to these hot rocks but nothing came of the project. There are substantial geothermal power plants in New Zealand and California? but without looking in detail at the plants I suspect that in those cases the volcanic activity is quite close to the surface. Obtaining geothermal energy in sites where the heat is well below the surface is far tougher.. It may well be possible.. but at what cost..  

There is a whole industry building up around geothermal of various types. I cannot evaluate how much of this is real and how much is hype. Take a look at:

https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/geothermal/an-overview-of-geothermal-resources/

One approach that avoids the problems @footeab@yahoo.com raised is to use a closed-loop system. I do not know if this concept is feasible: it looks like black magic to me. These guys somehow want to drill deep horizontal wells and connect them with closed pipe, possibly after first fracking and injecting fluid to  enhance heat exchange between the rock and the pipes.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 3/13/2021 at 6:17 AM, BillKidd said:

I don't know where I saw this, can't find it. It had to do with using modern horizontal drilling technology to create geothermal energy. I think it was something akin to a closed loop. You'd have a vertical wellbore, say, at one end of a parcel of land. Another at the other end. Then, a number of laterals within the section and everything is connected. I can't recall details but I think it was that you'd pump a fluid down, perhaps it was water, and it would heat at depth and exit the other end to be processed into steam and then electricity. The draw being that if it works, sheesh, you could do that in many places. Beats me, perhaps many places? I know that in the Haynesville shale play, it can be 400 degrees F at, say, 13k feet vertical depth. Is this a used technique or just an idea?

I do not recall this having to do with an aquifer. I recall it simply using the high(er) temp at depth to heat the fluid in the wellbore. Perhaps it wouldn't require much geology; drilling the laterals through shale might work.

If you have info on this or other geothermal ideas, share, and thanks, geothermal is interesting!

OK, after completing a little feasibility trial, the guys at Eavor claim to be installing their first (small scale) actual production facility:

https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/big-oil-waking-up-to-geothermal-invests-in-closed-loop-firm-eavor-technologies/

Frankly, looking at all of Eavor's material, it looks a lot like slideware (i.e., all powerpoint slides and little actual physical reality), but not quite:

https://www.intelligentliving.co/eavor-zero-emission-geothermal-energy/

I will not be convinced until the Bavarian project actually begins providing electricity to the grid. They say they are partnering with BP and Chevron, but looking a bit deeper, we see that this is the investment arms of those companies, and it's clear that the investments were made because of the heavy government subsidies. Still, I really hope this approach ends up working profitably.

The only hard number I could see is an eventual build-out to 200 MW for $2.9 billion, which is $1450/kW. We have no reason to believe this number until we actually see it done. A CCGT plant costs maybe $700/kW and wind and solar cost maybe $1000/kW, but the numbers are not comparable, because the Eavor plant has no fuel costs but is dispatchable, with availability at least as good as CCGT.

[BillKidd + 139]

9 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

OK, after completing a little feasibility trial, the guys at Eavor claim to be installing their first (small scale) actual production facility:

https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/big-oil-waking-up-to-geothermal-invests-in-closed-loop-firm-eavor-technologies/

Frankly, looking at all of Eavor's material, it looks a lot like slideware (i.e., all powerpoint slides and little actual physical reality), but not quite:

https://www.intelligentliving.co/eavor-zero-emission-geothermal-energy/

I will not be convinced until the Bavarian project actually begins providing electricity to the grid. They say they are partnering with BP and Chevron, but looking a bit deeper, we see that this is the investment arms of those companies, and it's clear that the investments were made because of the heavy government subsidies. Still, I really hope this approach ends up working profitably.

The only hard number I could see is an eventual build-out to 200 MW for $2.9 billion, which is $1450/kW. We have no reason to believe this number until we actually see it done. A CCGT plant costs maybe $700/kW and wind and solar cost maybe $1000/kW, but the numbers are not comparable, because the Eavor plant has no fuel costs but is dispatchable, with availability at least as good as CCGT.

Dan, I think the Eavor link you provided is the study/idea I referred to in my OP. Thanks for posting. I recall that when I read it, it struck me as something that they were touting it might work in many places. Very interesting!

Edited March 16, 2021 by BillKidd

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 3/15/2021 at 2:20 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

There is a whole industry building up around geothermal of various types. I cannot evaluate how much of this is real and how much is hype. Take a look at:

Dan - as I said earlier there is already a fair amount of geothermal energy in certain areas (New Zealand, California, Iceland) where the conditions favor it. Trying to do it in areas where the heat is not close to the surface is another ball game. Like you, I have no means of evaluating these projects but my suggestion would be to wait until someone does it, producing usable energy, and then say 'there, I knew all along it could  be done'.  If it can be done well, that's good, but I wouldn't hold your breath..  

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

How Eavor expects to make steam is the question. Getting heat as you drill down is no biggie, but getting past 100C is the challenge. Then you've got to get water down there, and keep it. The mistake they made in California was venting out the steam instead of condensing and saving it. Now they're consuming a lot of energy pumping poo water uphill to send it down hole. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

How Eavor expects to make steam is the question. Getting heat as you drill down is no biggie, but getting past 100C is the challenge. Then you've got to get water down there, and keep it. The mistake they made in California was venting out the steam instead of condensing and saving it. Now they're consuming a lot of energy pumping poo water uphill to send it down hole. 

One of Eavor's big claims is that the closed loop operates as a thermosiphon: no pump needed. The loop contains an unspecified fluid under high pressure. I got the impression it makes steam via a heat exchanger when the fluid reaches the surface. This is fundamentally different engineering than a traditional geothermal system. Their little prototype project just validated the closed loop and thermosiphon without actually doing anything much with the heat.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Not to sound like the prophet of doom and gloom, but while we in America have heard almost nothing about it, something weird is happening in Iceland, the clearcut "king" of geothermal energy. As would be expected, geothermal is most alluring in areas of the world--there are fewer than a dozen of them--where the mantle of the earth comes closest to the surface. And obviously, these are the most rambunctious. 

The company in Iceland that is responsible for tapping into nature's furnace is called "Warm Energy." They've noticed a batch of spiderweb cracks in the surface, and these have correlated with "seismic swarms," in that more than 22,000 earthquakes have occurred in the Reykjanes Peninsula since Feb. 24 of this year. They are all around Reykjavik. People say they can't sleep. The recordings show long stretches of low frequency rumbles which they say are due to magma fluids moving closer to the surface. A volcano is likely about to erupt, and this would correlate with solar blanking and coronal holes. Why, I do not know, but it does.

Geothermal energy is exceptionally interesting and alluring--as clean as it gets. But the geothermal closed loop systems that "work" at scale seem to be at the juncture of two tectonic plates that are either grinding away or pulling away. In the case of Iceland, the Eurasian plate is pulling away from the North American plate. In Northern California the Pacific plate is grinding into the North American plate. That latter process extends up into British Columbia, right along the fault line.

Nothing is free in the energy world. Steadfastly, I have maintained that there will be unintended consequences of any renewables energy source that is used at scale. No one knows where the critical limit really is for any of this because no one has pushed the envelope yet. 

Any place where the magma comes closest to the surface is going to pose some hazards. In British Columbia, there is an added risk of hitting pockets of natural gas--that has already happened once before. I'm sure they learned from that experience but this geothermal energy is not going to come with zero risk of an adverse happenstance.

[surrept33 + 609]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210303-geothermal-the-immense-volcanic-power-beneath-our-feet

^- the Great Rift Valley, which is extremely stable geologically, has a lot of geothermal potential.  I know there has been quite a lot of collaboration between Iceland and some of the countries there to help develop it. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

12 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

^- the Great Rift Valley, which is extremely stable geologically, has a lot of geothermal potential. 

Well, by definition, it's a rift, which means that two tectonic plates are pulling away from each other. That is precisely what is happening in Iceland. There are some intraplate "hot spots" but for the most part geothermal prizes are going to be right on the edge of two different plate systems: the Salton, Iceland, North and South Rift Valley, etc. That's where the magma is closest to the surface. But it's also (usually) in a seismically and/or volcanically active region. 

I think geothermal could play a larger role than it is today. But like all the other forms of alternative energy, it's going to get very interesting when it is brought to greater scale.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Well, by definition, it's a rift, which means that two tectonic plates are pulling away from each other. That is precisely what is happening in Iceland. There are some intraplate "hot spots" but for the most part geothermal prizes are going to be right on the edge of two different plate systems: the Salton, Iceland, North and South Rift Valley, etc. That's where the magma is closest to the surface. But it's also (usually) in a seismically and/or volcanically active region. 

I think geothermal could play a larger role than it is today. But like all the other forms of alternative energy, it's going to get very interesting when it is brought to greater scale.

Not to mention what happens to "wind corridors" when tens of thousands of wind turbines go up. Wind is exactly like water, in that it will follow the path of least resistance. In heat exchangers and wellbores, they install something called "turbulators" to purposely increase the Reynolds number and generate turbulent flow. However, those are constrained systems. Wind isn't, and it will happily choose another route, around all those annoying whirligigs, which will become stranded "assets" not worth the price of dismantling. Scale is an interesting thing, no? 

[turbguy + 1,405]

45 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Not to mention what happens to "wind corridors" when tens of thousands of wind turbines go up. Wind is exactly like water, in that it will follow the path of least resistance. In heat exchangers and wellbores, they install something called "turbulators" to purposely increase the Reynolds number and generate turbulent flow. However, those are constrained systems. Wind isn't, and it will happily choose another route, around all those annoying whirligigs, which will become stranded "assets" not worth the price of dismantling. Scale is an interesting thing, no? 

So, wind turbines might be considered "turbulators"!

Water (and electricity) flows through ALL paths of resistance.

Edited March 17, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, turbguy said:

So, wind turbines might be considered "turbulators"!

Water (and electricity) flows through ALL paths of resistance.

Water, wind, electricity and everything else subject to Navier Stokes equations will preferentially follow the path of least resistance. Just because stray lost electrons might "choose" another path by no means allows an engineer to design a system where the electrons go through wood instead of copper. Still want to play silly pedantic games or can we move on? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

So, wind turbines might be considered "turbulators"!

Water (and electricity) flows through ALL paths of resistance.

No, electricity does not flow through glass. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

In heat exchangers and wellbores, they install something called "turbulators" to purposely increase the Reynolds number and generate turbulent flow.

We did a fluids experiment last semester revolving around this concept. Pain in the ass. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Whether you look at Leonhard Euler's mind-blowing equations, from which both the Bernoulli and the Navier Stokes equations were formulated (one considers viscosity and the other one doesn't and I can never remember which is which), the status of wind once it is interrupted by something that takes it from a linear plane of laminations to turbulent chaos is subject to several variables. I'm sure the big wind farms have several wind physicists working on placement of wind turbines because of this and other issues. 

Some of this gets beyond me pretty fast. However, one thing I am pretty sure about: when you do anything to increase the Reynolds number beyond the usual range you are going to create profound noise/vibration on the ground. In a big wind farm, I would imagine that the vibration frequency enters the Richter scale. 

Before horizontal drilling became a reality, slant drilling was both illegal (if the bend was too severe) and commonly practiced. A 29,000 foot well was drilled in the quest for deep gas circa 1980. My father didn't get a night's sleep for a year, before he died of a heart attack. He kept saying, "The drill bit is right under my pillow," even though the well was on a hill a half-mile away. When I related the story to the driller, he looked thoughtful and said, "Between you and me, he may have been right." 

Vibration drives people crazy! I don't know what the critical mass of windmills would be before vibration entered the Twilight Zone of health problems, but if the Reynolds number is torqued up as high as possible, I think there will be some issues.  

And no matter what anyone says, I think wind currents will change, go around the churn. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

52 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I'm sure the big wind farms have several wind physicists working on placement of wind turbines because of this and other issues. 

Nope. They should but don't

[turbguy + 1,405]

5 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

No, electricity does not flow through glass. 

Glasses are great insulators, until heated near molten, then..surprise! 

That said, some "stray electrons" do get through with sufficient potential.  Use copper in series, and the VAST amount passes through the copper, on the order of 20(+) orders of magnitude greater.  You would be hard pressed to measure, or even detect, the current through a "solid" glass conductor. They are very 'stray'.

 

[turbguy + 1,405]

3 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Whether you look at Leonhard Euler's mind-blowing equations, from which both the Bernoulli and the Navier Stokes equations were formulated (one considers viscosity and the other one doesn't and I can never remember which is which), the status of wind once it is interrupted by something that takes it from a linear plane of laminations to turbulent chaos is subject to several variables. I'm sure the big wind farms have several wind physicists working on placement of wind turbines because of this and other issues. 

Some of this gets beyond me pretty fast. However, one thing I am pretty sure about: when you do anything to increase the Reynolds number beyond the usual range you are going to create profound noise/vibration on the ground. In a big wind farm, I would imagine that the vibration frequency enters the Richter scale. 

Before horizontal drilling became a reality, slant drilling was both illegal (if the bend was too severe) and commonly practiced. A 29,000 foot well was drilled in the quest for deep gas circa 1980. My father didn't get a night's sleep for a year, before he died of a heart attack. He kept saying, "The drill bit is right under my pillow," even though the well was on a hill a half-mile away. When I related the story to the driller, he looked thoughtful and said, "Between you and me, he may have been right." 

Vibration drives people crazy! I don't know what the critical mass of windmills would be before vibration entered the Twilight Zone of health problems, but if the Reynolds number is torqued up as high as possible, I think there will be some issues.  

And no matter what anyone says, I think wind currents will change, go around the churn. 

No doubt that wind turbines have issues when spaced too closely, and then the wind direction places one behind another.  Difficult to model except in simple cases, I suppose.

Think about the "success" of one helicopter hovering directly over another...