You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: tests/examples/Fervo_Project_Cape-6.txt
+2-2Lines changed: 2 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -33,9 +33,9 @@ Capital Cost for Power Plant for Electricity Generation, 1900, -- [US DOE, 2021]
33
33
Exploration Capital Cost, 30, -- Equivalent to 2024b ATB NF-EGS conservative scenario exploration assumption of 5 full-size wells (NREL, 2025), plus $1M for geophysical and field work, plus 15% contingency, plus 12% indirect costs.
34
34
35
35
Well Drilling Cost Correlation, 3, -- 2025 NREL Geothermal Drilling Cost Curve Update (Akindipe and Witter, 2025).
36
-
Well Drilling and Completion Capital Cost Adjustment Factor, 0.9, -- 2024b Geothermal ATB ([NREL, 2025](https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2024b/geothermal)). Note: Fervo has claimed lower drilling costs equivalent to an adjustment factor of 0.8 (Latimer, 2025); the case study conservatively uses the higher ATB-aligned value.
36
+
Well Drilling and Completion Capital Cost Adjustment Factor, 0.9, -- 2024b Geothermal ATB ([NREL, 2025](https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2024b/geothermal)). Note: Fervo has claimed lower drilling costs equivalent to an adjustment factor of 0.8 (Latimer, 2025); the case study conservatively uses the higher ATB-aligned value. See [Sensitivity Analysis](#sensitivity-analysis-section) for effect of different drilling costs on results.
37
37
38
-
Reservoir Stimulation Capital Cost per Injection Well, 4, -- The baseline stimulation cost is calibrated from costs of high-intensity U.S. shale wells (Baytex Energy, 2024; Quantum Proppant Technologies, 2020), which are the closest technological analogue for multi-stage EGS (Gradl, 2018). Costs are also driven by the requirement for high-strength ceramic proppant rather than standard sand, which would crush or chemically degrade (diagenesis) over a 30-year lifecycle at 200℃ (Ko et al., 2023; Shiozawa and McClure, 2014) and the premium for ultra-high-temperature (HT) downhole tools. Note that all-in costs per well are higher than the baseline cost because they include additional indirect costs and contingency.
38
+
Reservoir Stimulation Capital Cost per Injection Well, 4, -- The baseline stimulation cost is calibrated from costs of high-intensity U.S. shale wells (Baytex Energy, 2024; Quantum Proppant Technologies, 2020), which are the closest technological analogue for multi-stage EGS (Gradl, 2018). Costs are also driven by the requirement for high-strength ceramic proppant rather than standard sand, which would crush or chemically degrade (diagenesis) over a 30-year lifecycle at 200℃ (Ko et al., 2023; Shiozawa and McClure, 2014) and the premium for ultra-high-temperature (HT) downhole tools. Note that all-in costs per well are higher than the baseline cost because they include additional indirect costs and contingency. See [Sensitivity Analysis](#sensitivity-analysis-section) for effect of different stimulation costs on results.
39
39
Reservoir Stimulation Capital Cost per Production Well, 4, -- See Reservoir Stimulation Capital Cost per Injection Well
40
40
41
41
Field Gathering System Capital Cost Adjustment Factor, 0.54, -- Gathering costs represent 2% of facilities CAPEX per [Matson, 2024](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fervo-energy-technology-day-2024-entering-geothermal-decade-matson-n4stc/).
0 commit comments