1 / 16

Pilgrim Hot Springs Feasibility Study | Geothermal Energy Evaluation in Nome, Alaska

Preliminary assessment by Michelle Wilber & Lorie M. Dilley PE/CPG Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell for Alaska Energy Authority. Key exploration costs, shallow vs. deep geothermal systems, potential MW output. Evaluation of site development, well drilling, power plant construction, and transmission line installation. Detailed breakdown of cost components and three alternative development options provided.

randall-stanton
Download Presentation

Pilgrim Hot Springs Feasibility Study | Geothermal Energy Evaluation in Nome, Alaska

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PILGRIM HOT SPRINGSPRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT By Michelle Wilber & Lorie M. Dilley PE/CPG Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell For the Alaska Energy Authority

  2. Pilgrim Hot Springs • Located approximately 60 miles north of Nome, Alaska • Located within Mary’s Igloo Native tribal lands is 2 sq. miles of thawed ground • Nome using approximately 3 MW to 5 MW • What is the feasibility of developing Pilgrim Hot Springs? • What are the order of magnitude costs?

  3. Pilgrim Springs Catholic Church built 1918-1920 and mission grounds The 7.5 mile access road Starts at Marker 53 (Nome – Teller Road)

  4. Geothermal System • 1978-1984 – Studies to confirm resource • 6 wells – 60 to 1000 feet deep • Shallow geothermal system – 90 C • Thermal Gradient – 2.2 C per 100 feet • 90% of the potential 12 to 19 MW is unidentified source • An assumed deeper source – 150 C and about 5,000 feet deep

  5. Alternatives Developed • Alternative 1 – Shallow Source – UTC System : 90 C fluid, 500 ft deep • Alternative 2 – Deep Source – UTC System : 150 C fluid, 5,000 ft deep • Alternative 3 – Deep Source – Binary Plant : 150 C fluid, 5,000 ft deep

  6. Cost Components • Site Development • Exploration, Confirmation, & Permitting • Production Well Drilling • Power Plant and Gathering System • Transmission Line • Costs from outside sources incurred an “Alaskan Factor” of 2

  7. Site Development • Upgrade 7.5 mile road to accommodate drill rigs : 24 ft wide, 3 ft section, culverts for stream crossings : 3 to 5 M$ • Pad Development : 15,000 sq ft building, drill pads : 0.5 to 1 M$

  8. Exploration, Confirmation & Permitting TOTALS: 7-14 M$ 11-22 M$

  9. Production Well Drilling Average Costs of Onshore Oil & Gas Drilling for 2003 from Joint Association Survey on Drilling (Augustin, 2006).

  10. Power Plants & Gathering System UTC System • $1,300 per kW • Currently only 200 kW • Developing 1 MW • Shipping & Building & Alaska Factor • 12 to 17 M$ Binary System • $1,600 to $2,400 per kW • Full Range of Generators • 5 MW Generator • Shipping & Building & Alaska Factor • 23 to 30 M$

  11. Transmission Lines • 60 miles assuming winter construction, topography is gentle • Dryden & LaRue: 0.5 to 0.75 M$ per mile • Hanse suggest 0.2 to 0.45 M$ per mile • Total Cost : 20 to 45 M$

  12. Alternative 1

  13. Alternative 2

  14. Alternative 3

  15. Conclusions

More Related