Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to IGA Academy Report 0101-2013

geological habitats

Supported by:

Classification of geothermal plays according to geological habitats

I. Moeck
Faculty of Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3, Canada

Abstract: Geothermal resources can be found in a large variety of geological environments ranging from volcanic
arcs to sedimentary basins to crystalline rock provinces. Two large groups can be distinguished between all
geothermal resources types: Either the heat transport is dominated by convection leading to accumulated heat, or the
heat transport is conduction dominated leading to distributed heat. Considering the source of heat, heat transport,
and thermal energy storage capacity of rock to store heat or to host hot fluids, it becomes obvious that geologic
controls influence significantly the placement and formation of geothermal resources. The new geothermal play
concept follows the basic approach of general resources assessment to group exploration targets according
geologically controlled tiers, connected by similar geodynamic, sedimentary, magmatic and/or tectonic evolution.
This lecture introduces into the geothermal play concept, play analysis and play assessment comprised by
meaningful natural groups placing this concept directly into a geologic context. Worldwide case studies are
demonstrated and exemplify the application of this new geothermal play concept.
and it does not help in decision making for the
1 The play type concept
appropriate exploration strategy. Two major
In his article about exploration plays, well known problems rise from such an unspecific classification
petroleum explorationist Harry Doust (2010) refers to scheme: the first problem is that these criteria are not
the almost mythical status of “plays” in the known prior to exploration, therefore we cannot
hydrocarbon industry. Playmakers are considered as classify a geothermal resource before exploration and
heroes of the industry, and the successful play feeds therefore we cannot estimate the success of an
everlasting legends about incredible discoveries, exploitation venture. The second problem is that low,
exploration efforts and glory men. Basically, the play shallow, medium, deep are adjectives that invite us to
type concept is a fundamental part of resources guess a whole suite of subjective interpretations and
assessment in hydrocarbon industry. The analysis and ultimately numbers.
understanding of play types is recognized as essential
to strategically focused and successful exploration Let us have a look to one example: “moderate
ventures. temperature” is described as between 90-150°C
(Muffler, 1979), 125-225°C (Hochstein, 1988), 100-
Amazingly, the geothermal community is lacking 200°C (Benderitter and Cormy, 1990) and 180-230°C
such a concept although the utilization of geothermal (Sanyal, 2005). Global explorationists may struggle
heat and energy looks back to a much longer history with a classification scheme that leads to such a wide
than hydrocarbon production. Instead we range of temperature between 90-230°C. Obviously
exhaustingly try to classify geothermal resources this concept is globally not applicable: in a standard
according to temperature (low-, medium-, high- sedimentary basin 230°C is not in economically
temperature), to depth (shallow, medium-shallow, drillable depth while at volcanic systems this
medium-deep and deep) or to hydrothermal versus temperature might be accessed in a few couples of
petrothermal systems. Obviously such a classification hundreds of meters. Important factors as porosity,
focuses on the end-user or the probable utilization permeability, type of heat source, distribution of heat
concept that may be demanded at a certain site. It (vertical or horizontal) are completely neglected in
clearly prevents, however, from analog comparisons such an approach. The ultimate question is: what are
because a certain temperature can be found in all we actually looking for? Is it temperature, or flow
kinds of geological environments at various depths rate, or fluids in place? What answers need to be
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to
geological habitats
provided by geothermal exploration, and how can we
learn from geothermal field to field worldwide?
Eventually how to avoid over-estimates and under-
estimates of resources?
An alternative way to categorize geothermal
resources may be based on a globally applicable play
type concept (Moeck, submitted). A play type in
petroleum geology represents a particular
stratigraphic or structural geological setting, defined
by source rock, reservoir rock and trap. Translated to
geothermal systems, a play type might be defined by
the heat source and the geological controls on heat
transport and thermal energy storage capacity. The
geological setting not only controls the play type but
also the most appropriate exploration and heat
recovery technologies.
Certainly the geothermal community would benefit
from a consistent globally applicable framework.
Moreover a logical and consistent framework for a
geothermal play type catalog needs to be simple
enough to communicate important aspects of
geothermal energy potential to both non-experts and
the general public. Additionally, it must be
comprehensive enough to provide a geological
framework to cover the whole range of possible
geothermal systems applicable for experts in industry
and academia. Plays can best help if they comprise
meaningful natural groups that can be used both for
reliable analog comparison and for exploration
decision making in a specific geologic context. In this
lecture we will learn about a new catalog of
geothermal play types based on geologic controls.
1.1 Play definition
Before we talk about geothermal play types in
particular it might be indispensable to define a play.
A play may initially be defined as a model in the
mind of a geologist of how a number of geological
factors might generate a recoverable geothermal
resource at a specific structural position in a certain
geologic setting. Comparable with the general play
concepts described by Allan and Allan (2005) these
geological factors must be capable of providing the
essential ingredients of a geothermal play, namely:
 The reservoir unit, porous or fractured enough to
store thermal fluids and yielding them to the well
bore at commercial rates. Man-made reservoirs
units must be capable for stimulation treatments as
fracturing or acidizing (Enhanced Geothermal
Systems-EGS). The more brittle the reservoir unit
the better the requisite for hydraulic stimulation
2
IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
and permeability enhancement. There are clearly
physical limits to extract thermal fluids from any
rock types and main focus of play assessments is
on the description of the reservoir unit therefore.
 The heat charge system, comprising the type of
heat source and the heat transport, expelling heat
from deeper to shallower parts in a geothermal
system.
 The regional topseal or caprock, a low
permeability unit which traps the thermal fluids at
a (litho)stratigraphic level and concentrates steam,
liquids or thermal fluids in specific locations,
allowing commercial exploitation either without or
with EGS treatments.
 The timely relationship of the above four
ingredients, for example that a pluton intrudes into
a porous rock formation, which is then covered by
low-permeability rock as fine grained mélange at a
forearc region of a subduction zones.
 The play fairway, the geographic area over which
the play is believed to extend as for example the
size of an intrusion in diameter and depth, or a
fault zone hosting vast volumes of circulating
fluids. The mapping-out of the play fairway
belongs to the essential task in the early
exploration phase and conceptual model building.
1.2 Geologic tiers in geothermal plays
Key defining elements of this play type catalog are
whether heat transfer is dominated by conduction or
convection, and the characteristics of the heat source,
reservoir and host rock, porosity-permeability
structure and fluid types. This new catalog is
explicitly not based on temperature, depth or
hydrothermal versus petrothermal systems but on
geological tiers (Moeck, submitted; Moeck, in press).
Geothermal plays can be separated at the system
scale into two large groups referring to heat transport:
either the heat transport is dominated by convection
leading to accumulated heat, or the heat transport is
conduction dominated leading to distributed heat.
Whether convection or conduction dominates
depends primarily on the characteristics of the heat
source and the distribution of permeability within the
host rocks at the system scale (Bogie et al., 2005;
Lawless et al., 1995). It is important to recognize that
convection and conduction are end-members of a
heat transfer continuum. Conductive intervals always
exist in localized parts of a convective regime, while
convective intervals can sometimes exist within
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
geological habitats

conductive systems. For example, gravity-driven
convection might occur within a discrete aquifer
within a conduction-dominated system in steep
mountainous terrain where recharge zones are at a
higher elevation than discharge sites. Alternatively,
buoyancy variations due to different concentrations
of fluid salinity can result in local convection.
Geothermal play types in convection-dominated
systems are grouped into “Magmatic”, “Plutonic” and
“Fault-controlled in Extensional Domains” referring
to the nature of the dominant heat source and tectonic
setting (Moeck, submitted). Geothermal play types in
conduction-dominated systems are grouped into
“Intracratonic Basins”, “Orogenic Belts with
Adjacent Foreland Basins” and “Basement types”
divided according to the dominant permeability
control; lithofacies, fractures, or a combination of
both. In the next chapters the geologic controls on
each play type are described and constrained by real-
world case studies. This new catalog of geothermal
play types provides a range of generic conceptual
models that serve as basis for refinement through
appropriate exploration methods.
2 Convection dominated plays
Convection-dominated Geothermal Play Types
include those often referred to as ‘viable’ or ‘active’
geothermal systems (Gianelli and Grassi, 2001). They
include all known ‘high temperature’ (>200°C)
geothermal reservoirs shallower than 3,000 m. These
invariably lie adjacent to plate tectonic margins or in
regions of active tectonism (Nukman and Moeck,
2013), active volcanism (Bogie et al., 2005), young
plutonism (< 3 Ma), or regions with elevated heat
flow due to crustal thinning during extensional
tectonics (Faulds et al., 2009; Faulds et al.,2010). In
convection-dominated geothermal plays, heat is
transported efficiently from depth to shallower
reservoirs or the surface by the upward movement of
fluid along permeable pathways. Laterally extensive,
porous high-permeability formations act as the
primary reservoirs. Convection-dominated
geothermal plays are grouped primarily according to
the nature of the heat source.
Favorable tectonic settings for convection-dominated
Geothermal Play Types include (I) magmatic arcs
above subduction zones in convergent plate margins
(e.g. the Indonesian Sunda Arc or the Philippine-
Japan Arc); (II) divergent margins located within
oceanic (e.g. the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) or
intracontinental settings (e.g. East African Rift); (III)
transform plate margins with strike-slip faults (e.g.
the San Andreas Fault in California or Alpine faults
in New Zealand); and (IV) intraplate ocean islands
formed by hot spot magmatism (e.g. Hawaii)

Figure 1: Plate tectonic setting of major geothermal play types upon which this catalog is based. CV1 =
convection-dominated magmatic type; CV2 = convection-dominated plutonic type; CV3 = convection-dominated
extensional domain type; CD1 = conduction-dominated intracratonic type; CD2 = conduction-dominated orogenic
belt type; CD3 = conduction-dominated basement type. The map shows the locations of examples of production
projects developed from the different Geothermal Play Types in relation to plate tectonic setting (from Moeck,
submitted). (Geothermal fields from http://geothermal-powerplant.blogspot.com; Plate tectonic map based on
Frisch and Löschke, 2003

3
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to
geological habitats
It is possible for different types of convection-
dominated plays to lie geographically close to each
other where the structural setting varies over short
distance scales.
2.1 Magmatic play type
A Magmatic Geothermal Play (CV1) is distinguished
by a shallow, intense heat source in the form of a
young magma chamber. A relatively shallow magma
chamber is the dominant feature in all Magmatic
Geothermal Plays. The chamber’s parental melts,
recharge of basalt, and crystallized melts control fluid
chemistry, fluid flow and the overall geothermal
system. Ultimately, the placement of the magma
chamber relative to the surrounding terrain controls
the geometry of the geothermal system and affects
the hydraulic head of steam and brine. Faults can act
as seals or conduits, playing a role in the formation of
reservoir compartments or hydrothermal convection,
while accommodation zones of faults can sustain
enhanced vertical permeability and channel
hydrothermal plumes (Rowland and Sibson, 2004).
2.1.1 Extrusive magmatic plays
Such plays can be identified in regions with active
basaltic volcanism at divergent plate margins (e.g.
Iceland), basaltic to andesitic volcanism along island
arcs (e.g. Java), or recent andesitic to dacitic
volcanism (e.g. South American Andes or Taiwan).
This play type may include an upflow zone and an
outflow zone, provided the topography of the volcano
supports this zonation (Williams et al., 2011;
Giggenbach, 1992; Hochstein, 1988). The outflow is
generally modified from the original fluid, and has a
lower temperature and higher pH than the upflow due
to lateral migration (with associated heat loss) and
loss of gases (during boiling) towards the flank of the
volcano (Hochstein, 1988). Vertically extensive, low-
permeability, clay-rich layers in steep terrain, such as
andesitic strato-volcanoes, can cap high temperature
reservoirs.
4
IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
Figure 2: Generic model of an extrusive magmatic
play associated with active volcanism (from Moeck,
in press)
2.1.2 Intrusive magmatic plays
An active magma chamber does not always produce
volcanism. Influenced by active faulting, deep rooted
magmas can intrude beneath flat terrain with no
volcanism, but with upflow of liquid and the
formation of hot springs, fumaroles, boiling mud
pools and other geothermal surface manifestations.
Figure 3: Generic model of an intrusive magmatic
play associated with active faulting (from Moeck, in
press)
Hence, the Taupo Volcanic Zone (New Zealand) is
also an example of this sort of Geothermal Play
(Bogie et al., 2005).
2.2 Plutonic play type – CV2
A Plutonic Geothermal Play (CV2) incorporates a
heat source in the form of a crystalline rock enriched
in heat generating elements or a young, crystallized
but still cooling, intrusive igneous body. Such Play
Types are located where surrounding mountain
ranges provide high recharge rates of circulating
meteoric water, driving a hydrothermal system with
possible vapor partition above the hot rock. This play
type can co-exist with Magmatic play types and is
typically located along continent-continent
convergent margins with recent plutonism, such as
the southern periphery of the Alpine Orogeny.
2.2.1 Plutonic play without recent volcanism
The placement of felsic plutons is characteristic for
mature subduction zones and decaying volcanism in
continental crust.
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to
geological habitats
Figure 4: Generic model of a plutonic play without
recent volcanism (from Moeck, in press)
This play type can be found therefore in fields with
declining volcanism and fore- or back-arc regions of
fold-thrust belts along subduction zones. An example
is the Geyers geothermal field in California where a
long history of subduction during Mesozoic and early
Cenozoic was followed by strike-slip offset along the
San Andreas fault during the late Cenozoic (Argus,
2001). This Andean-type continental margin
produced forearc deposits, volcanism and accretion
of terranes and mélange. A silicic pluton emplaced in
early Quaternary representing the heat source. The 7
km deep and 14 km in diameter large pluton is
overlain by porous greywacke sandstone representing
the reservoir rock which is overlain by a low
permeable caprock formation preventing the steam to
percolate from the reservoir formation upwards.
Since the recharge volume from meteoric water is not
sufficient for steam production, sewage from adjacent
communities is injected replenishing the geothermal
system.
2.2.2 Plutonic play with recent volcanism
An example is the Lardarello geothermal system,
which is controlled by the interaction between
igneous rocks and faults.
Figure 5: Generic model of a plutonic play
associated with recent volcanism (from Moeck, in
press)
Lardarello is known for its recent volcanism with
occasional phreatic eruptions. This play includes a
vapor-dominated layer (H-horizon) above a fluid-
dominated layer (K-horizon) (Bertini et al., 2006).
5
IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
The K-horizon sits above a granite intrusion
emplaced during a Pliocene extensional event (1.3-
3.8 Ma). Melts emplaced during a subsequent
Pleistocene (0.3-0.2 Ma) magmatic event provide the
primary heat source, while low-angle normal faults
from the Pliocene event control the recharge of
meteoric water into the system.
2.3 Extensional domain play type – CV3
In an Extensional Domain Geothermal Play (CV3)
the mantle is elevated due to crustal extension and
thinning. The elevated mantle provides the principal
source of heat for geothermal systems associated with
this Play Type. The resulting high thermal gradients
facilitate the heating of meteoric water circulating
through deep faults or permeable formations.
Figure 6: Generic model of a fault controlled
extensional domain play with elevated mantle due to
active crustal extension (from Moeck, in press)
Examples of geological settings hosting Extensional
Domain Geothermal Plays include the Great Basin
(Western USA), Western Turkey, pull-apart basins
along the Sumatra Fault Zone, and the African Rift.
In general, segmented faults are more favorable for
geothermal systems than large faults with large
offsets. The local stress regime and its orientation
relative to fault geometry has a controlling impact on
permeability pathways, with faults oriented
perpendicular to the minimum compressive stress
direction more likely to be permeable (Barton et al.,
1997). Belts of intermeshing, overlapping, or
intersecting faults, such as step-over regions, fault
terminations and accommodation zones, often
provide high permeability pathways through closely
spaced, breccia dominated fracture networks (Faulds
et al., 2010). In the Western USA, for example, most
known geothermal fields are located at step-over
regions or relay ramps (Faulds et al., 2012), while
geothermal systems are relatively rare along
displacement maxima or on the mid-segments of
faults.
3 Conduction dominated plays
Conduction-dominated Geothermal Play Types (Fig.
1) include all of what could be called ‘passive’
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to
geological habitats
geothermal systems due to an absence of fast
convective flow of fluids or short-term variations in
fluid dynamics. These Play Types dominate within
passive tectonic plate settings where there has been
no significant recent tectonism or volcanism. In these
settings, temperature increases steadily (although not
necessarily linearly) with depth. Conductively heated
geothermal reservoirs with potentially economic
temperatures are located at greater depth than
convectively heated geothermal reservoirs. Economic
viability, therefore, is closely linked to the
geothermal gradient. Gradients higher than the global
average can be found in regions of high heat flow (for
example, due to elevated concentrations of heat
generating elements in the crust), or where overlying
strata are thermally insulating (Beardsmore and Cull,
2001).
Conduction-dominated Geothermal Play Types can
be sub-divided according to the natural porosity–
permeability ratio within the potential reservoir rock,
and the absence or presence of producible natural
reservoir fluids. Conduction-dominated Play Types in
this Guide are divided into Intracratonic Basin Type,
Orogenic Belt Type, and Basement Type. Favorable
tectonic settings for conduction-dominated
Geothermal Play Types include (I) extensional,
divergent margins and grabens, or lithospheric
subsidence basins such as the North German Basin or
the Otway Basin in Australia; (II) foreland basins
within orogenic belts, such as the Molasse Basin
north of the Alps, or the Western Canadian
Sedimentary Basin east of the Rocky Mountains; (III)
crystalline basement underlying thermally insulating
sediments, such as the Big Lake Suite Granodiorite
beneath the Cooper Basin in Australia.
Conduction-dominated Geothermal Play Types with
low permeability potential reservoirs such as tight
sandstones, carbonates or crystalline rock can only be
developed using engineered geothermal systems
(EGS) technology. Although EGS techniques might
be applied to improve the productivity of any
geothermal reservoir, development of many
conduction-dominated geothermal systems depends
strongly on them. Through the application of EGS
techniques, non-commercial reservoir conditions (for
example, rocks with naturally low transmissivity or
storativity) might be improved. The in situ stress field
is a critical parameter for EGS technology because
the successful planning and management of large-
scale injection and hydraulic stimulation requires
knowledge of stress direction and magnitudes (e.g.
Moeck, 2012; Moeck and Backers, 2011).
6
IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
Faults do not naturally channel heat in their natural
condition in conduction-dominated Play Types.
However, faults can play an important role as a fluid
conduit or barrier during production from these
geothermal reservoirs, and may cause
compartmentalization of the reservoir into separate
fault blocks. Lithofacies (a rock unit formed in a
certain depositional environment affecting grain size,
pore geometry and mineralogy), diagenesis and
karstification greatly influence reservoir quality.
Evaluation of fault and lithofacies characteristics
should therefore be primary goals of exploration
within these Geothermal Play Types.
3.1 Intracratonic basin type – CD1
An Intracratonic Basin Geothermal Play (CD1)
incorporates a reservoir within a sedimentary
sequence laid down in an extensional graben or
thermal sag basin.
Figure 7: Generic model of an intracratonic basin
play and sub-plays therein due to the typical
formation of several troughs or sub-basins. Similar
structure is characteristic for inactive rift basins and
graben systems (from Moeck, in press)
Intracratonic basins that originate from lithospheric
thinning and subsidence are commonly divided into
several troughs or sub-basins (Salley, 2000). The
long geological history of intracratonic basins usually
produces a several kilometer thick sediment fill that
spans a wide range of depositional environments that
may include fluvial siliciclastics, marine carbonates,
muds and evaporites. Lithology, faulting, and
diagenesis control the pattern of high and low
porosity domains (Wolfgramm et al., 2009; Hartmann
and Beaumont, 2000), and are themselves strongly
influenced by basin evolution and subsidence rates.
Lithology, faults and the stress field control
permeability and its anisotropy.
Geothermal plays are located in different basin
portions depending on the internal present-day
structure of the basin. Formations above salt diapirs
might provide suitable geothermal reservoirs for
district heating because high thermal conductivity of
salt rock causes local positive thermal anomalies in
the overburden (Norden and Förster, 2006).
Formations in deeper parts of the basin might provide
suitable reservoirs for power and heat production,
provided they can produce at a flow rate of about 70
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
geological habitats

kg/s or more (Tester et al., 2007). In all potential
sedimentary reservoirs, primary porosity (affected by
deposition through lithofacies or biofacies) and
secondary porosity (affected by diagenesis) have a
major influence on the fluid storage capacity.
Potential reservoir units are terrestrial sedimentary
rocks, such as aeolian and fluvial siliciclastic
sequences, and shallow to deep marine sediments
from carbonate sequences to shale and pelagic clays.
Typical fluids are high-Cl brines (referred as basinal
fluids) or HCO3-rich fluids (referred as infiltration
water).
3.2 Orogenic belt type – CD2
An Orogenic Belt Geothermal Play (CD2)
incorporates a sedimentary reservoir within a
foreland basin or orogenic mountain belt.

Figure 8: Generic model of an orogenic belt play with adjacent foreland basin with typical conductive thermal
structure (red isotherms), groundwater flow paths and discharge temperatures (blue arrows). The deeper parts of
the foreland basin may provide targets for sedimentary geothermal reservoirs (from Moeck, in press)
Sedimentary sequences in foreland basins are Hutcheon, 2001). Figure 8 illustrates a typical
influenced by significant crustal subsidence (up to conduction-dominated, locally convectively
several kilometers) towards the orogen due to the disturbed, thermal structure in an orogenic zone.
weight of the thickened crust of the orogenic belt and
loading of erosional products from the mountain belt 3.3 Basement type – CD3
on the non-thickened crust. The result of this process The key feature of a Basement Geothermal Play
is downward bending of the non-thickened (CD3) is a faulted or fractured crystalline (usually
lithosphere, forming areas of local extension and granitic) rock with very low natural porosity and
normal faulting in an overall compressional plate permeability but storing vast amounts of thermal
tectonic setting (Cacace et al., 2013). The wedge energy.
shape of foreland basins results in a progressive
deepening of potential aquifer rocks towards the
orogen, with an associated increase in temperature.
Faults and reef complexes provide prime reservoir
targets in carbonate rocks of the Bavarian Molasse
Basin, Germany, (Cacace et al., 2013) while highly
permeable and porous sandstone in the Williston
Figure 9: Generic model of a basement play in
Basin in Saskatchewan, Canada, and North Dakota,
crystalline rock with geologic controls on
U.S.A., also provide potential geothermal reservoir
temperature (from Moeck, in press)
targets (Bachu and Burwash, 1991).
Such low porosity-low permeability rocks underlie
Within the orogenic mountain belt itself, the
large areas of continents but require reservoir
conductive thermal regime can be locally disturbed
development by EGS techniques to allow circulation
where groundwater infiltration cools the rock mass.
between injector and producer wells using the hot
Groundwater flow and thermal gradient are both
rock mass as a heat exchanger (Cuenot et al., 2008).
strongly influenced by extreme relief and resulting
Fractured crystalline rocks attain potentially
hydraulic head (Bachu and Burwash, 1991; Toth,
economic temperatures through elevated heat flow or
2009). The great depth and small width of mountain
thermal insulation in the overburden. Heat flow is
belt valleys result in relatively shallow penetration of
likely to be elevated if underlying rocks have
recharge water, discharging in valley floors or on
elevated radiogenic heat production from heat
shallow valley slopes (Toth, 2009). Conductive
producing elements such as thorium or uranium.
thermal gradients can vary from about 15-20°C/km
beneath high mountains at to about 30-50°C/km Since crystalline rocks are generally not natural
beneath deep valleys (Craw et al., 2005; Grasby and aquifers, fluids need to be injected both to improve

7
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to
geological habitats
the transmissivity of the rocks and to ‘charge’ the
system with ‘geothermal fluid’. Mineralogy and
crystal size may have major effects on the success of
stimulation and the self-propping of induced
fractures, critical to maintain fracture transmissivity
after stimulation and shear-offset along a rough
fracture surface.
4 Application of the play type
concept: Exploration and play
chance
For this course the geothermal play type concept is
applied in a case study for extensional domain plays.
Western Turkey and the Western U.S.A are examples
how analog comparison of similar play types helps to
characterize structural controls in geothermal
reservoirs and how to develop exploration strategies
specifically for extensional domain plays (Faulds et
al., 2010).
The optimal aim is to identify likely Geothermal Play
Types at the earliest stage of assessment of the
geothermal potential of a region in order that an
optimal and logical exploration process can be
designed. The most appropriate exploration methods
for geothermal systems vary according to the
Geothermal Play Type. In a broad sense, exploration
for convection-dominated Geothermal Play types
relies on mapping surface geothermal phenomena,
geochemical data and select geophysical data against
background geology. Exploration for conduction-
dominated Geothermal Play Types places greater
importance on subsurface rock properties and
mapping through 2D/3D geological modeling of
geophysical data.
A geothermal play may be considered as proven if
recoverable heat (steam, vapor, brines, water) are
known to have resulted from the operation of the
geological factors that define the play. These
geological requirements must be thus known to be
present in the area under investigation, and the play
may be defined as “working” (e.g. the Geysers
geothermal field). In unproven plays, there is some
doubt as to whether the geological factors actually do
combine to make a viable heat and/or fluid and/or
permeability accumulation. One of the objectives of
play assessment is to estimate the probability of the
play working, and this can be defined as play chance.
The play chance combines conceptual model risk and
conditional play risk into one factor and helps to
determine the uncertainty range (Allan and Allan,
2005).
8
IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
The basic unit of geothermal resource assessment is
the play. Another meaningful approach might be the
“geothermal system” concept which is also a useful
way for practicing geothermal exploration geologist
to organize her/his investigations. But this might be
matter of another short course in the IGA Academy.
Acknowledgement
Discussions with C. Harvey, H. Rueter, J. Lawless
and L. Rybach significantly improved this play type
catalog. Special thank is addressed to G. Beardsmore
for thoughtful review, fruitful discussions, helpful
advice and overall patience.
Reference List
Allen, P.A., Allen, J.R.: The Petroleum Play, in:
Basin Analysis – Principles and Applications, 2nd
ed., pp. 309-396, Wiley-Blackwell Science Ltd., 560
pages, 2005.
Argus, D.F.: Present tectonic motion across the Coast
Ranges and San Andreas fault system in Central
California, GSA Bulletin, v. 113, no. 12, pp. 1580-
1592, 2001.
Barton, C.A., Hickman, S., Morin, R.H., Zoback,
M.D., Finkbeiner, T., et al.: Fracture permeability and
its relationship to in-situ stress in the Dixie Valley,
Nevada, geothermal reservoir. USGS Staff --
Published Research. Paper 359.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/359,
1997.
Beardsmore, G.R. and Cull, J.P.: Crustal Heat Flow:
A Guide to Measurement and Modelling. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 321pp., 2001.
Benderitter, Y., Cormy, G.: Possible approach to the
geothermal research and relative cost estimate, in:
M.H. Dickson, and M. Fanelli, eds., Small
Geothermal Resources: UNITAR/UNDP Centre for
Small Energy Resources, Rome, Italy, pp. 61-71,
1990.
Bertini, G., Casini, M., Gianelli, G. and Pandelli, E.:
Geological structure of a long-living geothermal
system, Larderello, Italy. Terra Nova, v. 18, pp. 163–
169, 2006.
Bogie, I., Lawless, J.V., Rychagov, S. and Belousov,
V.: Magmatic-related hydrothermal systems:
Classification of the types of geothermal systems and
their ore mineralization. In: Rychagov, S. (Ed.),
Geothermal and Mineral Resources of Modern
Volcanism Areas, Proceedings of the International
Kuril-Kamchatka Field Workshop, July 16–August 6,
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to
geological habitats
2005. http://web.ru/conf/kuril_kam2005/art3.pdf,
2005.
Bachu, S. and Burwash, R.A.: Regional-scale
analysis of the geothermal regime in the Western
Canada Sedimentary Basin. Geothermics, v. 20, no.
5/6, pp. 387–407, 1991.
Cacace, M., Bloecher, G., Watanabe, N., Moeck, I.,
Boersing, N., et al..: Modelling of fractured carbonate
reservoirs: outline of a novel technique via a case
study from the Molasse Basin, southern Bavaria,
Germany. Environ Earth Sci, Online first, doi:
10.1007/s12665.013.2402.3, 18 pp., 2013.
Craw, D., Koons, P.O., Zeitler, P.K. and Kidd, S.F.:
Fluid evolution and thermal structure in the rapidly
exhuming gneiss complex of Namche Barwa-Gyala
Peri, eastern Himalayan syntaxis. Journal of
Metamorphic Geology, v. 23, pp. 829–845, 2005.
Cuenot, N., Faucher, J.P., Fritsch, D., Genter, A. and
Szablinski, D.: The European EGS project at Soultz-
sous-Forets: from extensive exploration to power
production. IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting. Pittsburg, 20-24 July 2008, paper 4596680,
2008.
Doust, H.: The exploration play: What do we mean
by it? AAPG Bulletin, v. 95, n. 11, pp. 1657-1672,
2010.
Faulds, J.E., Bouchot, V., Moeck, I. and Oguz, K.:
Structural controls of geothermal systems in Western
Turkey: A preliminary report. GRC Transactions, v.
33, pp. 375–383, 2009.
Faulds, J.E., Coolbaugh, M., Bouchot, V., Moeck, I.
and Oguz, K.: Characterizing structural controls of
geothermal reservoirs in the Basin and Range, USA,
and western Turkey: Developing successful
exploration strategies in extended terranes.
Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress, Bali,
Indonesia, 25-30 April 2010; paper 1163: 11 pp,
2010.
Faulds, J.E., Hinz, N. and Kreemer, C.: Structural and
tectonic controls of geothermal activity in the Basin
and Range province, Western U.S.. Proceedings of
New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, 19-21
November 2012, Auckland, NZ, 2012.
Frisch, W., Loeschke, J.: Plattentektonik.
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp.
190, 2003.
Gianelli, G. and Grassi, S.: Water-rock interaction in
the active geothermal system of Panetelleria, Italy.
9
IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
Chemical Geology, v. 181, no. 1/4, pp. 113–130,
2001.
Giggenbach, W.F.: Magma degassing and mineral
deposition in hydrothermal systems along convergent
plate boundaries. Economic Geology, Society of
Exploration Geologists Bulletin, v. 97, pp. 1927–
1944, 1992.
Grasby, S.E. and Hutcheon, I.: Controls on the
distribution of thermal springs in the southern
Canadian Cordillera. Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences, v. 38, pp. 427–440, 2001.
Hartmann, D.J. and Beaumont, E.A.: Predicting
reservoir system quality and performance. In:
Beaumont E.A. and Foster, N.H. (Eds.), Exploring
for Oil and Gas Traps. Treatise of Petroleum Geology
Handbook Series. AAPG Publishing, Tusla (OK).
1146 pp., 2000.
Hochstein, M. P.: Assessment and modelling of
geothermal reservoirs (small utilization schemes).
Geothermics, v. 17, no. 1, pp. 15-49, 1988.
Lawless, J.V., White, P.J., Bogie, I. and Andrews,
M.J.: Tectonic features of Sumatra and New Zealand
in relation to active and fossil hydrothermal systems:
A comparison. Proceedings of the PACRIM ’95
Congress, Publication Series—Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy 9/95, 311–316, 1995.
Moeck, I. and Backers, T.: Fault reactivation
potential as critical factor during reservoir
stimulation. First Break, v. 29, pp. 67–74, 2011.
Moeck, I.: Iterative development of stress models for
deep geothermal reservoirs. Proceedings of the 74th
EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 4–7 June 2012. 5pp., 2012.
Moeck, I.: Catalog of geothermal play types based on
geologic controls. Submitted to Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, in review.
Moeck, I.: Catalog of geothermal play types, in:
Revised Best Practice Guide for Geothermal
Exploration, C. Harvey, G. Beardsmore, H. Rueter, I.
Moeck (eds), International Geothermal Association,
in press.
Muffler, L.P.J.: Assessment of geothermal resources
of the United States – 1978. U.S.G.S. Circular 790,
163 p., 1979.
Norden, B. and Förster, A.: Thermal conductivity and
radiogenic heat production of sedimentary and
magmatic rocks in the Northeast German Basin.
AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 6, pp. 939–962, 2006.
Moeck: Classification of geothermal plays according to
geological habitats
Nukman, M., and Moeck, I.: Structural controls on a
geothermal system in the Tarutung Basin, north
central Sumatra. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v.
74, pp. 86-96, 2013.
Roland, J.V. and Sibson, R.H.: Structural controls on
hydrothermal flow in a segmented rift system, Taupo
Volcanic Zone, New Zealand, Geofluids, v. 4, no. 4,
pp. 259–283, 2004.
Salley, R.C.: Applied Sedimentology, 2nd Edition.
Academic Press; San Diego (CA), London (UK),
Burlington (MA). 523 pp., 2000.
Sanyal, S.K.: Classification of Geothermal systems –
a possible scheme. Proceedings, 30th Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, Jan 31-Feb2, 2005, SGP-
TR-176, 2005.
Tester, J.W., Anderson, B.J., Batchelor, A.S.,
Blackwell, D.D., DiPippo, R., et al.: Impact of
enhanced geothermal systems on US energy supply
10
IGA Academy Report 0101-2013
in the twenty-first century. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A, Mathematical,
Physics & Enginerring Science, v. 365, no. 1853, pp.
1057–1094, 2007.
Toth, J.: Gravitational Systems of Groundwater
Flow—Theory, Evaluation, Utilization. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 297pp., 2009.
Williams, C.F., Reed, M.J. and Anderson, A.F.:
Updating the classification of geothermal resources.
Proceedings, Thirty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford,
California, January 31 - February 2, 2011. 7 pp.,
2011.
Wolfgramm, M., Obst, K., Brandes, J., Koch, R.,
Raubbach, K. and Thorwart, K.:
Produktivitaetsprognosen geothermischer Aquifere in
Deutschland. In: Der Geothermiekongress. Bochum
Germany; 2009 Conference Proceedings, 2009.