geothermal heating feasibility study - Anderson Engineering

175 Pages·2009·7.22 MB·English

GEOTHERMAL HEATING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Oregon EconomiC & Community Development Department Project # A08l0
OWNER:
TOWN OF LAKEVIEW

525 NORTH 1ST STREET

LAKEVIEW, OREGON 97630

541-947-2029

FAX [phone]

ENGINEER:
ANDERSON ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.

17681 HWY 395

PO BOX 28

LAKEVIEW, OREGON 97630

[phone]

FAX [phone]

CONSULTING HYDO-GEOLOGIST:
DALE BUGENIG ECO:LOGIC
10381 DOUBLE R BOULEVARD
RENO, NV 89521
CONSULTING GEOTHERMAL ENGINEER:
KEVIN RAFFERTY, PE

PO BOX 1935

KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON 97601

JANUARY 2009
EXPIRES DEC. 31, 2009
This report was funded in part with Oregon State Lottery Funds administered by the

Oregon Economic and Community Development Department.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GEOTHERMAL HEATING FEASIBILITY STUDY
Oregon Economic & Community Development Department Project # A0810

Executive Summary

Lakeview’s Geothermal Resources Page 1

Barry Wells Source Page 2

Barry Wells Testing Page 4
WELL TESTING
Well B Pumping Test and Well A Injection Test
Figure 1. Drawdown data
Figure 2 Water-level data
Figure 3. Comparison of drawdown and recovery data 8/07
Well A Pumping Test
Figure 4. Comparison of drawdown and recovery data 9/07
PUMPING TEST DATA ANALYSIS Page 7
Analysis of the step test data from Well B
Figure 5 Analysis 8/2007 Step Test
Analysis of the constant-discharge test data from Well B
Figure 6 Analysis of drawdown data
Figure 7 Analysis of 8/2007 test
Analysis of the injection test date for well A
Figure 8 Analysis 8/2007 injection test and 9/2007 constant discharge test
Figure 9 Analysis of 9/2007 injection test
Analysis of the pumping test date for Well A
Figure 10 Analysis of drawdown data
Figure 11 Analysis of 9/2007 test
WATER TEMPERATURE Page 14
Figure 12 Temperature & Electrical Conductivity Well A
Figure 13 Temperature Profiles
Figure 14 Temperature & Electrical Conductivity Well B
WATER CHEMISTRY Page 16
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 16
2008 BARRY WELLS TESTING Page 18
Temperature Graph for Well B
Temperature Graph Spring
Spring Flows Graph
RESULTS OF THE 2008 TESTING Page 21
FINAL BARRY WELLS SOURCES TEST RESULTS Page 22

School and Hospital Requirements Page 23
Table 1 Summary of Findings
LAKEVIEW HIGH SCHOOL Page 26
Geothermal Retrofit
Figure 15 Lakeview High School and Ag Shop Geothermal Retrofit
Existing Heating Energy Use
Retrofit Costs
AGRICULTURAL AND WOOD SHOP BUILDING Page 30
Existing Heating Energy Use
Retrofit Costs
FREMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Page 32
Geothermal Retrofit
Figure 16 Fremont Elementary Retrofit
Existing Heating Energy Use
Retrofit Costs
DALY MIDDLE SCHOOL Page 35
Geothermal Retrofit
Figure 17 Daly Middle Scholl Retrofit Flow Structure
Existing Heating Energy Use
Retrofit Costs
Daly Middle School Geothermal Retrofit Costs
HAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Page 40
Geothermal Retrofit
Figure 18 A D Hay Elementary Retrofit
Existing Heating Energy Use
Retrofit Costs

Bin Analysis Page 45
Table 2 Total Water Use/Well B

Lake County Industrial Park Page 46
Table 3 Industrial Park Buildings

Re-Injection of Return Water Page 47

System Description Page 48
Figure 18 Schematic Diagram of the Geothermal System
Figure 19 Typical Trench Section

Financial Analysis Page 53
Table 4 Construction Cost Estimate

Hospital & School Savings Analysis Page 53
Table 5 Savings Analysis
Table 6 School Savings over a 30 Year Period
Table 7 Hospital Savings over 30 Year Period

Funding Options Page 57
OREGON ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
USDA LOAN / SURPRISE VALLEY ELECTRIC
BUSINESS ENERGY TAX CREDITS
ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM
PUBLIC PURPOSE FUNDS
ENERGY TRUST OF OREGON Page 58
CLIMATE TRUST
REVENUE BONDS
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION

Ownership of the System Page 59
TOWN OF LAKEVIEW
SEPARATE DISTRICT
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

Water Rights Page 59

Permits Page 60
Table 8 - Permits

Conclusion Page 60

References Page 61
Executive Summary

The attached report explores the possibility of using a known geothermal resource site
south of Lakeview for heating of the local schools and hospital. In addition, geothermal
heating can also be provided to the Lake County Industrial Park for existing businesses
and new future business. Heating will be accomplished by pumping 183º water from the
supply well and transporting the water to the schools and hospital to supply
approximately 5 million BTU’s of heat energy per hour. After heating these facilities the
return water, at 130º, will be available for the Lake County Industrial Park before being
re-injected back into the groundwater aquifer.

Lakeview has existing geothermal resources. In this time of energy costs and economic
uncertainties, using the available sustainable natural resource is wise planning for the
future. It will not only put the heating costs under local control and bring revenue into
the local area; but allow the users to spend the savings for better education opportunities
and continuing to utilize the technological advancements in health care.

Lake Health District has planned for a geothermal heating system in the current hospital
upgrade project schedule to begin in the summer of 2009 so the facility will be equipped
when the geothermal line is installed to the site. The School District has conversion work
to do to several buildings. However, the existing mechanical systems are 40 to 100 years
old, so an upgrade would be needed soon.

The savings for Lake Health District and Lake County School District #7 total 2.4 million
dollars over the life of the system. This savings alone makes the project viable.
However, this project also has other benefits. By not using the current boilers 800 tons
of carbon per year will be removed from the Lakeview air shed (and the worlds). New
business may be attracted to the industrial park to take advantage of the return water.
The Town will benefit from geothermal system operation income, and increased jobs
from users putting their money into different expenditures other than energy. The
multiplier benefits will continue throughout the life of the system. Once this system is
operational more areas of Lakeview may begin utilizing the resource, making expansion
of the system to include more users.

Construction and operation will utilize proven technology. Geothermal water will be re-
injected making no consumptive use of the hot water resource other than heat. Current
conditions also make funding of the project easier than at any time before. This project
is feasible and should be immediately undertaken during this time of geothermal related
opportunities.
This report examines the feasibility of bringing geothermal heating water from a known
source south of Lakeview, Oregon to the local Schools, the Hospital, and the Lake
County Industrial Park. High energy prices, concerns for carbon fuel usage, and air
quality issues have made sustainable and green energy sources more attractive. During
the spring of 2008 diesel and heating fuel costs of over $4.00 per gallon made the search
for less expensive energy not only feasible but a necessity. This report analyzes a known
geothermal resource and how it could benefit our community.

Lakeview’s Geothermal Resource
Geothermal resources in Lakeview have been known since the early settlement of the
area. The hot spring areas north and south of Town were an indication that hot
geothermal water was available. Early plans for heating go as far back as the early
1900’s. The Hunter Hot Springs area north of Town was developed for space heating and
therapeutic mineral baths in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Also some home heating systems
were developed in the immediate Hunter’s Hot Spring area. Currently there are still
some homes on independent wells and a greenhouse using the geothermal resource.
Corrosiveness of the water, maintenance costs, and other problems lead to geothermal
system failures of these older systems.

In 2004 the Town of Lakeview, in conjunction with the Oregon Department of
Corrections developed a new well for geothermal heating water, a transport system and a
re-injection well for the Warner Creek Correctional Facility. The savings to the State of
Oregon has been $10,000 a month in heating fuel costs. This system is the first major
use of the geothermal resources being constructed with the benefit of modern engineering
design to carefully address geothermal water handling issues. The success of this project
has encouraged the Town to look at other possibilities to help make Lakeview a
sustainable community.

The location of Lakeview’s geothermal resource is along the base of the Warner
Mountains extending to Highway 140 on the north and nearly to the California border to
the south. Existing wells in these areas indicate that the resource is available in locations
along the fault line of the Warner Mountain Range. The conceptual model for the
geothermal resource in the Lakeview area assumes that the hot water originates deep
within the volcanic rocks and migrates upward along permeable zones associated with
faults until it discharges to the alluvial deposits. Once in the alluvium, it mixes with the
cooler groundwater of the alluvial aquifer as it moves laterally toward the west to
southwest.

In general groundwater is being heated along the fault, migrating upward and flowing
westerly mixing with colder groundwater in the alluvial deposits of the valley floor.
Where the hot water migrates further upward and can be intersected with a well, it
provides a good source of hot water for energy needs. In general wells 2000 feet west of
the base of the mountains have colder temperatures due to the mixing; hotter water is
found directly west or within 1000 feet of the mountain base.

Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 1
In January of 2006 a report by Kevin Rafferty which was funded by South Central
Oregon Economic Development District examines several of our local sites for
geothermal potential. One of the sites reviewed by Mr. Rafferty was the Barry Well Site.
The Barry Well Site is a known source, so no exploration is needed, and the site is
relatively close to Lakeview. The scope of this feasibility report will look at the Barry
wells source to provide space heating to the Hospital, Schools, and Lake County
Industrial Park.

Barry Wells Source
The Barry wells source is located on land owned by Jere Barry in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼
of Section 27, Township 39 South, Range 20 East, Willamette Meridian. The site is
directly next to Highway 395, about one mile south of Lakeview. Please see the attached
Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map in the Appendix. This site has several advantages:

1. The wells already exist and produce hot water. Therefore, the wells will not
requiring exploratory expenses.
2. The hot springs directly west of the site and a geothermal spring to the northeast
of the site indicate the geothermal resource close to the surface.
3. No geothermal development has been done in this area resulting in no prior water
rights or conflicting geothermal rights.
4. The landowner is interested in working with the Town, and agreed to a
Geothermal Well Development Agreement with the Town, a copy of which is
Exhibit 2 in the Appendix.

The wells at the Barry site were drilled in 1980 by Northwest Geothermal. Two 8 inch
wells were drilled. A shallow well (Well A for this report) of 235 feet and a deeper well
(Well B for this report) drilled to 1,355 feet. The Oregon Water Resources Department
log references are Lake 2610 for the shallow Well A and Lake 2611 for the deeper Well
B. Please see the attached Exhibit 3 and 4 – Geothermal Line Drawings and Exhibit 5 -
Well Logs. In 1980 only drilling work was completed with very little testing to determine
well hydraulic characteristics. No further work was done with these wells by Northwest
Geothermal, and the wells reverted back to the landowner.

Well A was drilled to a depth of 235 feet. It was constructed with 8-inch diameter steel
well casing to a depth of 199 feet below the land surface. Below the casing, the well was
completed as an open borehole. The annulus surrounding the casing was sealed with
neat-cement grout. The well was drilled in and derives groundwater from alluvial
deposits. Work on Well A was completed in July 1980.

Well B was drilled to a depth of 1,355 feet. The borehole penetrated alluvial deposits to
a depth of 115 feet. The alluvium was underlain or in fault contact with a series of
volcanic rocks, primarily tuffs and breccias, with intervening andesite, basalt and dacite
lava flows below the alluvium. Well B was constructed with 8-inch diameter casing to a
depth of 179 feet. Below the casing, the well was completed as an open borehole. The
annulus surrounding the casing was sealed with neat-cement grout as per the Well Logs.
The geothermal water from Well B is derived from the volcanic rocks. Work on Well B
Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 2
was completed in September 1980. A comparison of well construction and the
subsurface lithology of the Well A and Well B is also attached as Exhibit 6 of the
Appendix.

In March of 2007 the Town of Lakeview awarded a bid to Western Water Development
Corporation for cleaning and test pumping of Well A and Well B. In August of 2007 the
wells were cleaned to the well log indicated depths by Western Water Development,
using an air-rotary drilling rig prior to the test program Once cleaned a test pump plan
was compiled for the pumping of the two wells. In addition a temperature log of the
complete well depth was completed by the Geo-Heat Center of Oregon Institute of
Technology in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Testing was required to determine if the
geothermal resource was viable and usable for energy needs.

The test pumping was completed as follows:
 A short step test of Well B on August 28, 2007
 A 23 hour constant discharge test of Well B on August 29 through August 30,
2007 followed by a four hour injection test of Well A
 A 24 hour constant discharge test of Well A on September 4th and 5th of 2007.

Please see the results of the above test in the Appendix – Exhibit 7.

The test program to evaluate the heat energy (well yield and temperature) available from
the wells was developed by Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. and the test
equipment was provided by Western Water Development. Dale Bugenig of Eco:Logic
Engineering, LLC of Reno Nevada, provided analysis of the pumping test data.

The well analysis deals with the ability of the aquifer to produce water and the movement
of water through the aquifer. Movement of water through the aquifer is generally quite
slow along the lines of feet per year or feet per day. Determination of these
characteristics shows how much pumping can be sustained. In general, basic hydraulic
characteristics are defined by Q=PIA as explained below.

Q = flow in gallons per day
P = permeability in gallons/day-square foot
I = hydraulic gradient in foot per foot
A = cross sectional area of the aquifer in square feet

Permeability is sometimes called Hydraulic Conductivity. Also a similar term
Transmissivity refers to the flow rate in gallons per day through a vertical section of the
aquifer where height is the thickness of the aquifer and the width is one foot under a
gradient of 1.00. Transmissivity is determined from pump test and is used for predicting
aquifer performance.

2007 water quality testing was performed by Neilson Research Corporation on the Barry
Wells. Please see Exhibit 8 for a detailed breakdown of the water sample results.

Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 3
Barry Wells Testing

WELL TESTING

Well B Pumping Tests & Well A Injection Test
Well B was pumped at rates of 96, 136 and 160 gpm on August 28, 2007. Please see the
drawdown data below in Figure 1.

Barry Well B
Step Test 8/28/07
0
10
20
30
Step I
T) Q = 96 gpm
EE 40
F
s (
WN, 50
O Step II
D Q = 136 gpm
W
A 60
R
D
70
80
Step III
Q = 160 gpm
90
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES)

Figure 1. Drawdown data from the August 28, 2007 step test of Barry Well B.

The step test was followed by a constant-discharge pumping test on August 29 and 30,
2007. The water level in Well B was initially 14 feet below the top of the well casing and
19.5 feet in Well A. The pumping rate for the test was approximately 110 gallons per
minute (GPM). After approximately 23 hours, the pumping level in Well B was 93.6 feet
and the water level in Well A declined to 20.75 feet. At this time, the pump in Well B
was shut off in order to connect piping to Well A. The pump was restarted after
approximately one-half hour and a 4-hour injection test was performed on Well A.

Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 4
The water-level data from these tests are provided in Figure 2.
Barry Well B Constant-Discharge Test 8/29-30/07
and Well A Injection Test 8/30/07
0
injection at 110 gpm into
Well A
20
Well A responds to pumping Well B
T)
E 40
E
F
R ( Well B shut off for approx.
E 30 minutes prior to resuming
T
A 60 pumping and injecting at
W
O Well A
T
H
T Pumping Well B
P 80
E at 110 +/- gpm
D
100
120
8/29/07 0:00 8/29/07 6:00 8/29/07 12:00 8/29/07 18:00 8/30/07 0:00 8/30/07 6:00 8/30/07 12:00 8/30/07 18:00 8/31/07 0:00
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES)

Figure 2. Water-level data for the August 29-30, 2007 constant-discharge test of
Barry Well B and August 30, 2007 injection test of Well A.

From Figure 2, it is apparent that Well A responded to pumping Well B, indicating a
good hydraulic connection between the source of the geothermal fluids in the volcanic
rocks and the alluvial deposits, consistent with the conceptual model of the resource at
Lakeview. Figure 2 also shows that after four hours of injection, the water level in Well
A (the injection well) water level in the well was at the land surface. Once that occurred,
the test was terminated.

Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 5
Figure 3 compares a plot of drawdown versus logarithm of time since pumping started (s
vs. log t) with a plot for recovery versus logarithm of time since pumping stopped (s-s’ vs
log t’). Under ideal conditions, the two plots should plot on top of each other if the
analytical model used to analyze the data is consistent with the conditions in the aquifer.
The two plots are similar in appearance to each other and offset by a small amount
indicating the response of the aquifer to pumping conforms reasonably well to the
analytical models used to analyze the data.

Barry Well B
Constant-Discharge Test 8/29-30/07
0 0
Q = 110 +/- gpm
10 10
20 20
EET) 30 30 EET)
s (F 40 40 s' (F
WN, Y, s-
O R
D 50 50 E
W V
O
DRA 60 s-s' vs. t' s vs t 60 REC
70 70
80 80
90 90
1 10 100 1000 10000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES)
TIME SINCE PUMPING STOPPED, t' (MINUTES)

Figure 3. Comparison of drawdown and recovery data from the August 29-30, 2007
constant-discharge test of Barry Well B.

Well A Pumping Test
Well A was pumped at a rate of approximately 154 GPM for 24 hours September 4 and 5,
2007. Figure 4 compares the drawdown (s vs. log t) and recovery (s-s’ vs. log t’) data for
Well A. The two data plots are similar, indicating the response can be explained by the
analytical models used to analyze the data.
Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 6