Geophysical Exploration

for Geothermal Resources

by

William Cumming
Cumming Geoscience, Santa Rosa CA
wcumming@wcumming.com

Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysics Outline
• Types of reservoirs
• Types of geophysical methods
• High temperature versus low temperature
• How resistivity methods work
• MT, T-MT, TDEM, CSMT, VES
• Applications of resistivity methods
• Other methods
• Gravity, SP, Magnetics
• Cost of geophysics
• Example pitfall in geophysics interpretation
• New Methods and Research
 Geothermal Geophysics
• Paul Brophy’s “types” have similar rock physics
• Almost all geothermal reservoir types host temperature
sensitive clays that can be imaged using resistivity
• O&G geophysics is dominated by seismic imaging of
permeability “traps” and, recently, reservoir properties.
• Geothermal geophysics is dominated by resistivity imaging of
the permeability “traps” and a key reservoir property, the
natural state isotherm pattern, that is the starting point for
most geothermal reservoir models.
• Surface resistivity cannot image individual entries but can
image the permeable volume of the reservoir and, with
geology, geochemistry etc, can significantly reduce well
targeting risk in many cases.
• Even if resistivity “works” for shallow low temperature
resources, other approaches may be more cost-effective.
• There are many “special” methods for “special” issues
 Geothermal Development
Characteristics Affecting Geophysics
For >210°C Issue
• Production by flash lift of water-steam
• Flash and/or binary generation
• 50 to 100% injection at new fields
• Reservoir top usually 300 to 1000 m deep Deeper
• Reservoir thickness 300 to 3000 m Thicker
• Testable wells usually >$1.5 million Wells cost more
• Commercial wells usually >$3 million

For <180°C Issue

• Production by pumping hot water
• Binary generation
• 100% injection
• Reservoir top usually 100 to 500 m deep Shallower
• Reservoir thickness 100 to 1000 m Thinner
• Testable wells usually >$0.5 million Wells cost less
• Commercial wells usually $1 to $2 million
 Geophysical Exploration of
>200°C Geothermal Systems
• Resource image area Acid Sulphate
Fumarole Chloride
Spring
> 1 km2, often > 4 km2 Unaltered
y
Cla
ite
ect
• Exploration image area Sm
Basin
Clays
> 4 km2, often > 50 km2 Propylitic
Alteration in

• Depth to reservoir top Fractured

Geothermal
Reservoir
300 to 2000 m
• Access often rugged Heat and Gas
from Magma
Isotherms
1 KM

• Environmental issues
1:1

after Cumming et al. 2000

Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysical Exploration of
<180°C Geothermal Systems
• Resource image area
> 1 km2, often > 4 km2
• Exploration image area
> 4 km2, often > 20 km2
• Depth to reservoir top
100 to 1000 m
• More like exploration
for aquifers than for
minerals or petroleum.

Cumming Geoscience
 Geothermal Geophysics
Technology
• Geophysical exploration technology is
mainly adapted from the petroleum and
mining industries.
BUT
• Mining has shallower, smaller targets.
• Petroleum has different imaging needs in
a different geological setting, making
reflection seismic the preferred technique.
• Petroleum and minerals have more value
per explored volume than hot water.
Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysical Acronyms
MT Magnetotellurics
AMT Audiomagnetotellurics
T-MT Telluric-Magnetotellurics
CSAMT Controlled Source Audiomagnetotellurics
HEM Helicopter Electromagnetics
TDEM Time Domain Electromagnetics
TEM same as TDEM
VES Vertical Electrical Sounding
SP Self-Potential
dGPS Differential Global Positioning System
MEQ Microearthquake
Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysical Techniques
Geothermal Exploration
Standard: MT, T-MT, TDEM, Gravity
Legacy: Dipole-Dipole, Tensor Dipole-Bipole
Special: VES, AMT, CSAMT, SP, HEM
Aeromagnetics, Precision Ground Magnetics
Research: Reflection / Refraction Seismic
Special Applications
Development: Microgravity, Microearthquake, Subsidence
Proprietary: E-Scan, E-Map
Unreviewed: Aquatrack
Suspect: Seismic Noise, Low Res Ground Magnetics
Plausible methods with weak technical support

Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysical Techniques
in Geothermal Exploration
Infer geothermal resource characteristics for well
targeting and resource capacity estimation by
remotely constraining rock properties such as:
• Resistivity: using MT, TDEM, VES, CSAMT, HEM
• Density: using gravity and seismic reflection
• Magnetic susceptibility: using magnetic field
• Seismic velocity: Refraction and reflection seismic
• Natural electrical potential (V): using SP
• et al (e.g. crack density from MEQ)
Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysical Techniques
in Geothermal Exploration
“Special” “Standard”
• CSMT for noisy areas or • MT for base of
where limitations do not clay cap
matter and low cost does • TDEM for
• Magnetics for alteration statics and
& unit boundary patterns detail
• SP for shallow <180°C • Gravity for
• DC profiling and HEM for lithology and
reconnaissance mapping large structure
Cumming Geoscience
 “Standard” Geophysical Plan
>200°C Geothermal Exploration
• MT to map base Acid Sulphate
Fumarole Chloride

of clay “cap”
Spring
Unaltered
lay
• TDEM for MT ectit
eC
Sm
statics and detail Basin
Clays
• Gas and fluid Propylitic
Alteration in
geochemistry for Fractured
Geothermal
conceptual target Reservoir

• Maybe gravity for

lithology and large Heat and Gas Isotherms
from Magma 1 KM
structure 1:1

Cumming Geoscience Cumming, 2006

 “Standard” Geophysical Plan
<180°C Geothermal Exploration
• TDEM or other low-cost
resistivity for clay cap
• SP if target shallow and
topography gentle
• Other methods to support
geology, geochemistry
• Temperature Gradient
Wells if access and
drilling are low cost.
• More like exploration for
aquifers than for minerals
or petroleum.

Cumming Geoscience
 MT Objectives
in Geothermal Exploration
1. Map structure and conductance of
<180°C low resistivity smectite clay zone
capping the relatively resistive >200°C
propylitic reservoir
2. Integrate with geochemistry and geology
to
– Estimate resource capacity
– Target wells for high temperature
permeability
Cumming Geoscience
 MT Method
• E 2 dipoles ~100 m
• H 3 magnetometers
• EM signal from sun
and electrical storms
• MT resistivity at 1 Hz
is about 1 km down
• Blue zone is low
resistivity smectite
• Topo and shallow
conductors give
different resistivity on
2 dipoles, i.e. statics
Cumming Geoscience
 MT Physics

Geophys.washington.edu
 MT Acquisition Issues
• AC power line noise is usually mitigated by
a ~200 to 400 m standoff
• DC power lines and electric trains can limit
depth of investigation to <1000 m
• Pipes, fences and similar metal features
usually require a 200 to 1000 m standoff
• Although the equipment is portable, cost
rises steeply if access to sites is poor

Cumming Geoscience
 MT Field Layout
• Uses natural EM signal
• > 5 km depth
• Records 7 to 20 hours
• 2-5 man portable system
• One or two stations/day
• T-MT uses 2 to 3 MT stations
with 2-10 T-only stations for
lower cost where lateral
changes are smooth.

Cumming Geoscience
 MT versus T-MT

Digging holes for

magnetometers is
time-consuming so
costs are reduced by
doing T-MT in areas
with smooth near-
surface resistivity
variations.

Cumming Geoscience
T-MT Profiling

Quantech, 2003
 T-MT Profiling
• Continuous line of T stations with one MT station
• 100 m spacing used in minerals is seldom cost-
effective for deeper and/or larger geothermal targets
• Cost is sometimes less than MT stations for smaller,
shallower targets, like those in minerals exploration
• Real time processing and display for noise reduction
• Statics due to topography on continuous T-MT can be
corrected when surface resistivity is uniform
• Having T but not MT at some stations may limit
resolution but this is seldom an issue in geothermal

Cumming Geoscience
 TDEM / TEM
• Pulse current in
outer loop, measure
signal in inner loop
from “smoke rings”
of current induced
by magnetic field.
• TDEM depth < MT
• No electrodes so no
static distortion
• Focused so less
2D/3D distortion Cumming, 2003

Cumming Geoscience
 TDEM

• Record in minutes
• Very portable when
using batteries
• 1 to 7 stations/day
• Cost $200 to >$600 per
station

From: Geosystem
Cumming Geoscience
TDEM Survey Types

From: MINDECO
 TEM at Krafla
• Detects base of clay
• Maps reservoir top
• MT not needed
• Shallow reservoir
• 300 to 1000 m loops
• Cost >$600/station
• 1 to 3 stations/day From: Arnason et al 2000

• Geonics Protem / EM37

Cumming Geoscience
 CSMT Profiling
• Scalar MT profiling using
a wire transmitter
• Costs < MT
• Active source better near
some noise sources
• Cannot as reliably detect
or correct static and
2D/3D distortion
• “Near field” transmitter
distortion
• Higher frequency so
depth < 200 to < 1000 m
• Fewer imaging and
processing options
Cumming Geoscience
 VES Resistivity
• Vertical Electrical Soundings ( also known as Schlumberger or
DC Soundings ) transmit current in one expanding dipole and
measure voltage across a smaller centered dipole.
• Use 2D images from VES for well targeting and resource
capacity, single dipole spacing for reconnaissance
• In geothermal areas, depth of resolution is about 15 to 25% of
transmitter dipole length. Transmitter dipoles sometimes must
be >5 km long to resolve top of relatively resistive reservoir.
• Reprocessing old VES data to 1D/2D smooth images is often
worthwhile if transmit dipole large enough (AB/2 > 2 km)
• Environmental issues, cost and logistics limit new surveys

Cumming Geoscience
VES and Dipole-dipole Resistivity
at Cerro Prieto

Charre-Meza et al 2000
 Resistivity Imaging in
Geothermal Exploration
1. Map base and conductance of low
resistivity clay zone capping relatively
resistive reservoir
2. Integrate with geochemistry and geology
to
– Estimate resource capacity
– Target wells for high temperature
permeability
 Awibengkok Geothermal Field
MT Cross-section
MT Resistivity with MeB Smectite & Isotherms from Wells

1000

-1000

1 Km
Cumming Geoscience from: Gunderson, Cumming, Astra and Harvey (2000)
 Karaha Bodas MT (Moore,2006)

Cumming Geoscience from: Moore (2006)

 MeB Analysis of Cuttings
Grind Cuttings Suspend Powder

1. 2.

Add MeB Increments Detect Excess MeB

3. 4.

from: Gunderson, Cumming, Astra and Harvey (2000)

 El Tatio
Schlumberger
Profiling
1973

Lahsen and Trujillo (1976)

La Torta Conceptual Cross-section
with MT Resistivity

Cumming, Vieytes, Ramirez and Sussman (2002)

 La Torta
3D MT
Resistivity
Structure
(Elevation of
base of clay)

Cumming, Vieytes, Ramirez and Sussman (2002)

 Gravity
• 1 or 2 people
• Scintrex automatic meter
reduced error compared
to L&R (which are OK)
• dGPS reduced cost and
error by half
• Responds to rock density
variation, mainly related
to rock porosity.
• Interpreted for lithology,
structure and alteration.

Cumming Geoscience
 Gravity Interpretation
• Density in geothermal exploration models is determined by
porosity and, to a lesser extent, mineral grain density.
• Pore fluid changes detected by precision gravity for development
monitoring are usually insignificant in exploration surveys.
• 2D interpretations focus on lithology, structure and alteration.
• Large, shallow density contrasts overwhelm subtle ones so sinter
may be undetectable near lava domes surrounded by pumice tuff.
• Use top-down interpretation in models because the gravity effect
of a deeper density contrast is more spread out and indistinct and,
more importantly, rock density contrasts decrease with depth:
• At 100 m, 30°C, lava can be 2.7 and tuff 1.1 g/cm3
• At 1000 m, 250°C, lava can be 2.7 and tuff 2.4 g/cm3
• Contrast at 100 m is ~10 times larger than at 1000 m.
• Because of its greater ambiguity, gravity is often more effective in
extending models developed using sounding methods like MT.

Cumming Geoscience
 Gravity
Bradys Hot Springs and Desert Peak Interpretation

from Oppliger, 7 May 03

 SP
• Self Potential (SP) profiling
measures voltage across a
dipole to map V/m.
• Low cost; requires 2 people
with wire, volt-ohmmeter and
electrodes.
• SP pattern mainly reflects
electro-kinetic effect, water
flow in shallowest aquifer.
• In geothermal prospects,
thermo-electric effect is
significant but ambiguous.
• SP “anomalies” may indicate
faults, or aquifer geometry.
Cumming Geoscience
 SP
• Case histories show SP
can characterize upflow
and shallow outflow
aquifers in areas with Mokai
gentle topography.
• Near-surface groundwater
signal is strongest so even
rainfall significantly
changes SP patterns.
• Cost is relatively low but
so is relevance, especially
for deeper resources.
• SP mainly used to
characterize shallow low
temperature systems.
Cumming Geoscience
Hochstein et al., 1990
 Magnetic Surveys
Map local variations in earth’s magnetic field that,
in volcanics, correlate with magnetite content
Aeromagnetic survey: magnetometer in plane
• Draped is better, constant elevation is easier
• Used to: 1) map structure and lithology; and
2) characterize extent of alteration, especially
related to SO4 destruction of magnetite
Ground magnetic survey: 1 person walks profiles
• Proton precession magnetometer usually
saturated and under-sampled near volcanics
• Cesium-vapor magnetometer data every 50 cm
using dGPS can map near-surface geology.
Cumming Geoscience
 Cost for Geophysics
Includes acquisition & some imaging but not
integrated interpretation. MT <0.05 to >300 Hz
Low cost: Sites < 500 m from vehicle. < 1 hr to easy camp, etc.
High cost: >30% sites > 1 km from vehicle. > 1 hr to camp, etc.

Method Cost / data unit Mob & misc

MT $1k - $3k / MT $5k - $30k
T- MT $0.2k - $1.2k / T $8k - $35k T-MT
T-MT Profile $4k - $10k / line km $5k - $45k
CSAMT $2k - $6k / line km $3k - $30k
TDEM $0.2k - $0.6k / TDEM $3k - $15k
Gravity+dGPS $30 - $90 / station $3 - $15k
Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysical Exploration of
<180°C Geothermal Systems
Can geophysics
be both useful and
low cost.
Yes, if
• Production aquifer
is <500 m deep.
• Method is matched
to the situation; e.g.
TDEM for <500 m,
SP in gentle terrain.
• Deep inferred from
shallow

Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysics Uncertainty in
Geothermal Exploration
MT -TDEM can image the base of the clay cap conforming to the
top of the reservoir for most geothermal reservoirs >140°C
but
• Although the apex of this structure is often the shallowest
permeability and sometimes becomes a steam cap, it is
sometimes tight and it is often not located over the deep high-
temperature upflow.
• MT might not be the most cost-effective approach for shallow
resources, especially for low-temperature cases.
so
• Check conceptual advantages of other methods
• Integrate with geochemistry and geology
• Drill a conceptual model, NOT an anomaly

Cumming Geoscience
 Value of Information
• Use case-oriented decision trees to estimate:
– Value of resource based on risk weighted ENPV
– Value of new information through its affect on case
probabilities

• Use decision tables to assess new information:

– How much would the new information likely affect resource
decision probabilities?
– How much does sufficiently reliable information cost?
– What other information would redundantly affect the same
resource probabilities and how does it compare with
respect to the above questions?

Cumming Geoscience
 Geothermal Geophysics
Interpretation Pitfall Example
MT Observation
• MT resistivity cross-section contours often appear to define a low resistivity zone extending near-
vertically below 500 m depth.

Interpretation Pitfall
• Vertically trending low resistivity zones at >500 m depth are commonly misinterpreted as evidence of
deep reservoir structural permeability
Issue
• Flaws in MT processing commonly produce false vertically-oriented low resistivity zones at depth.
• Static distortion, noise, and inconsistent station projection are the most common problems.

Recognition
• Large contrasts in resistivity over large depth ranges at adjacent stations suggest a statics problem.
Check for a split between MT apparent resistivity curves at high frequency.
• Check for noise in the apparent resistivity and phase curves for stations near the vertical feature.
• 2D inversions can be distorted when MT stations are projected onto the profile being imaged so that
their relative geometry is not preserved.

Remedies
• Correct statics using TDEM, smoothing inversions or surface geology consistency.
• Edit noise so that it does not bias the inversion to low resistivity at depth
• Correct inconsistent station projections.
• Reliable imaging of resistivity is usually relatively smooth horizontally so be skeptical when interpreting
near vertical resistivity contours.
• Review the plausibility of resistivity values with respect to realistic reservoir properties.

Cumming Geoscience
 Geothermal Geophysics
Interpretation Pitfall Example
• Vertical contours in MT
cross-section show deep
low resistivity in red
• Erroneously interpreted
as reservoir fault zone
• MT imaging of resistivity
distorted by:
• noise near station 1
• static at station 2
• MT cross-section without
distortion shows classic
geothermal cap geometry

Cumming Geoscience
 Geothermal Geophysics
Research Topics
• Reflection Seismic
• Earthquake Tomography
•Velocity
•Attenuation
•S-wave splitting
• 3D Integrated Resistivity
Cumming Geoscience
 Reflection Seismic
• Dominates petroleum exploration
• However, $ billions in petroleum seismic
research have not solved problems with:
• P attenuation by shallow gas like CO2 in clay
• Shallow dense rocks like lavas
• Statics due to rugged topography with rapid
seismic velocity changes (like lavas and tuffs)
• Resolving closely spaced deep structures
• Lack of rock contacts that coherently reflect
• S-conversion interference
• So MT, gravity etc used by oil companies
Cumming Geoscience
 Geothermal Reflection Seismic
• Goal is usually to image permeable zones
• Clay cap and possibly reservoir imaged by refraction
tomography with resolution usually poorer than resistivity
and cost that is higher
• Reservoir volume imaged by reflection seismic in the sense
that it is usually a “no data” zone
• Large scale structural setting of fields imaged
• Few reservoir faults or entries imaged
• Therefore, still a research topic for geothermal exploration
applications
• Potential development applications such as field-margin
injection well targeting would be more cost-effective if
acquisition cost was reduced.

Cumming Geoscience
 Reflection Seismic
• Coso reflection seismic section
(annotated)

Pullammanappallil et al. 2001 and Unruh et al. 2001

 Refraction Seismic

• Coso refraction
tomography
section showing
velocity variation
in color

Pullammanappallil et al. 2001 and Unruh et al. 2001

Reflection Seismic
Rye Patch

Majer and Gritto, 2003

Reflection Seismic
Rye Patch
LBNL Modeling of Rye Patch

P-wave

Majer and Gritto, 2003

 Microearthquakes (MEQ)
in Geothermal Exploration
• Numerous conventional (not noise mapping) MEQ exploration
surveys had little or no success at wildcat geothermal prospects.
• Limited exploration successes (Simiyu and Malin, WGC 2000) were
on the margins of developed fields.
• Most geothermal fields that have been monitored prior to
production are relatively aseismic over a decade or so.
• Tests to check if this was due to an unusual number of small events
relative to larger earthquakes have not found this to be the case.
• After production, most fields that have deep injection have an
increase in local earthquakes but several large fields with deep
injection and production remain relatively quiet. Most shallow fields
remain aseismic.
• Although MEQ monitoring is a common geothermal development
tool at fields where many MEQ’s are detected, the episodic data and
high cost make it a risky exploration tool.
Cumming Geoscience
 3D MT Resolution Research

Cumming and Mackie, 2003

Cumming Geoscience
 New Geophysical Technology
Question:
• What investment in geophysical technology is likely to
pay out in geothermal exploration?
Past answers and successes:
• Leverage petroleum and mineral technology
• MT, TDEM, VES, CSMT, Gravity etc but adaptation crucial
• University / Lab basic science and method validation
• TDEM - MT static correction validated for geothermal
• MT - 1D and 2D smooth inversion imaging for geothermal
• MT - remote-reference processing for noise leveraged
• dGPS - leveraged to make all surveys cheaper and better
• Audit geophysics with geology, geochemistry, etc
• Illite-smectite clay model for resistivity interpretation
• Top down modeling for gravity and magnetic interpretation
• Integrate using case histories and risk assessment
• Integrate geophysics into resource risk assessment by interpreting
in context of likelihood of conceptual model cases

Cumming Geoscience
 Audit Geophysics with Geology
e.g. Joe Moore pointed out lithologic permeability at Bulalo

Litho/Structural Facies Model of Bulalo Reservoir

Moore, 2006

Cumming Geoscience
 Geophysical Exploration
for Geothermal Resources
by

William Cumming
Cumming Geoscience, Santa Rosa CA
wcumming@wcumming.com

Cumming Geoscience
 Discussion Session
• JAXA L-band satellite interferometry for
deformation
• Re-do geological ground truthing of
geophysics aided by remote sensing
• Gas seep and spring surveys should
never be assumed to be complete
• Exploring for injection can be different
• …

Cumming Geoscience