The Foundation for Geothermal Innovation

Designing
a Global
Geothermal
Challenge

“THE LEMELSON REPORT”

Designing a Global
Geothermal Challenge
This report is available on the internet at:
www.geothermalinnovation.org/Lemelson and
www.lemelson.org/geothermal

Copyright Notice: The submitted manuscript has been authored as part of a contract with The
Lemelson Foundation. Accordingly, the Lemelson Foundation retains a nonexclusive royalty free
license to publish or reproduce the published form or allow others to do so.

© The Foundation for Geothermal Innovation All rights reserved.

No part of this report may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means
(including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in
writing from the foundation.

The Lemelson Foundation was founded with the mission and focus of “…spreading sustainable
technologies that can create economic opportunity and improve lives in societies that can
benefit from such advances. It also researches and disseminates information that highlights the
role of invention in society.”

Acknowledgements
This meeting and report were produced under a grant from the Lemelson Foundation. The
Lemelson Foundation was created with the mission of “…spreading sustainable technologies
that can create economic opportunity and improve lives in societies that can benefit from such
advances. It also researches and disseminates information that highlights the role of invention
in society” The role and scope of an incentive prize for geothermal innovation fits within this
mandate.

Without doubt, the most appreciated contribution was the dedication of a full day by the
participants and observers. The geothermal industry is operating at a frenetic pace in 2009, and
to have industry experts allocate a full day of their time is a testament to the level of support
and belief the industry has to the need for a robust geothermal pump.

Dr. Roland Horne of the Department of Geosciences at Stanford University was

generous in allowing the Lemelson meeting to piggyback on the workshop, saving time and
money for many of the participants. The Foundation for Geothermal Innovation wishes to
thank Patrick Maloney of the Lemelson Foundation for arranging and administering the
grant.

Denis Hayes from the Bullitt Foundation mentored this concept through its initial formation
in August, 2007. Funding for sketching out a geothermal incentive prize was provided by a
modest grant from the Tagney Jones Foundation. They gave this journey its initial push.

The Foundation for Geothermal Innovation is a 501 (c)3 registered in the State of California.
The Foundation’s mission is to encourage innovation and accelerate the commercialization of
geothermal energy.
 Contents

INTRODUCTION 01
Background 02
U.S. Geothermal Potential 08
Scope of Multi-Year RD&D Plan 18

TECHNOLOGY 21
Energy Diversity 21
Offset of Coal and Natural Gas 21
Offset of Nuclear 23
Offset of Foreign Oil 23
Contribution to Renewable Energy Portfolios 23
Environmental Benefits 24
Climate Change 24
Water Use & Water Quality 26

Program Challenges 31
Institutional Barriers 31
Access to Transmission Infrastructure 31
Lack of Available and Reliable Resource Information 31
High Exploration Risks and High Upfront Costs 32
Absence of National Policy 32
Siting, Leasing, and Permitting Issues 33
Resource Assessment and Data Needs 34
Education Workforce Development 36

Technical Plan 37
Enhanced Geothermal Systems Research,
Development, and Demonstration 37
4.1.1 Site Selection 39

Technical Plan 37
Enhanced Geothermal Systems Research,
Development, and Demonstration 37
4.1.1 Site Selection 39
Executive Summary
The Foundation for Geothermal Innovation is in
the process of developing a “Global Geothermal
Challenge,” a large geothermal industry
incentive prize focused on solving a discrete
technical challenge while re-invigorating an
industry that will be part of the planet’s
long-term energy platform.

Repeated government studies, as well as the seminal 2007 MIT study “the Future of
Geothermal Energy,” identify the need for a robust downhole pumping system as the critical
missing piece to the advancement of the geothermal category. To be launched in 2010, the
prize will award its multi-million dollar prize purse to the teams that can meet specific targets
for designing and building efficient and durable production-ready geothermal pumps. An
additional powerful incentive to the competition will come in the form of Advance Market
Commitments (AMCs) that will assure the sale of a large number of pumping systems for
installation and deployment in existing hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal
systems sites under development.

The Department of Energy’s Geothermal Technology Program’s Multi-Year Research,

Development & Development plan (“MYRD&D”) discusses the shortcoming of pumping
systems; “downhole pumps capable of withstanding EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems)
conditions while sustaining sufficient EGS flow rates do not yet exist”. And yet they set targets
for such pumps;

By 2015, improve the performance of downhole pumps, especially ESPs, to operate

at temperatures of 275°C, mass flow rates up to 80 l/s, setting depths as great as
2 km for well bores 6 5/8 to 10 5/8 and operating at pressures up to 200bar.

While the industry seeks a high temperature pump for the commercialization of EGS,
the market demand for EGS alone is too little and too slow to warrant a commercialized
pump. Fortunately, the near term hydrothermal demand is more than sufficient to warrant
a commercialized pump and will account for 90% of pump sales over the next 15 to 20
years. Such pumps would be installed in existing hydrothermal sites, increasing yield. They
would also serve as the core component for new hydrothermal systems and allow for the
development of hydrothermal resources in the 190 to 220 C range. Analysis shows that if a
pump was introduced in 2015, market demand by 2020 would approach 482 pumps per year
or approximately $360 Million in annual pump sales alone. In new drill sites, each pump set
represents US$ 15 Million in investment.

4
 Areas # of Pumps # of Pumps # of Pumps
needed to 2025 to 2050
initially

U.S. Hydrothermal existing 1221 (known) 244 4577

U.S. Hydrothermal under development 9915 1,9826 6,49810

U.S. Hydrothermal Potential 1,278 2,556 5,75110

(WGA) near term

U.S. Hydrothermal Potential 2,216 -0- 8,86211

(WGA) long-term

U.S. EGS short-term8 10 206 257

U.S. EGS Long-term12 6,000 10013 21,00012

Total (pumps) 4,902 42,593

Technically, such a device is achievable in the 5 year time frame. Electric submersible pumps
(ESPs) are just over a century old. To date the industry has not been focused on “temperature
hardening” these submersible systems. Electric motors face significant deterioration of
efficiency and longevity at elevated temperatures. However, advances in electronics and
motors used in other sectors have largely overcome these challenges. What has not occurred is
the integration of these advances into submersible pumps.

On February 11th, 2009, a technical panel of geothermal industry experts was convened at the
Stanford Faculty Club for a one day meeting to review and define the technical competition
guidelines to create a next-generation downhole pumping system. This “Lemelson Meeting”
was constructive in setting the technical parameters of the incentive prize as the prize target
has now largely been defined. Some aspects, such as diameter and temperature targets,
will continue to be debated through additional rounds of consultation with the industry
and experts before the target is formally defined and launched with the prize. The primary
guidelines that were determined are that the pumps must:

• Be deployable through 13 3/8 inch (~34 cm), 72 pound casing

• Be Capable of operating in 200 – 220°C (~395 - 437°F) geothermal fluids

• Have a flow of at least 60 l/sec (~950 gpm)

• Operate with at least 300 psi

• Maintain 750 hydraulic horsepower

• Operate reliably without failure for 3 years, and

• Be able to operate at a variable rate of flow

5
 While there are numerous technical challenges in the geothermal sector few are as well suited as a
pumping system for an incentive prize. It is a discrete product that has one of the highest impacts
on levelized cost for both hydrothermal and EGS geothermal power development projects.

Prizes can deliver change, but they work best when addressing a well-defined problem. An
industry report on prizes identified seven key areas where incentive prizes create a shift in
thinking. All of these areas are of interest to geothermal:

“downhole pumps capable of
withstanding EGS conditions while
sustaining sufficient EGS flow rates
do not yet exist” U.S. DOE
• Identify excellence – competition often brings the best to the top.
• Influence public perception – geothermal must overcome its position as the unknown
renewable.
• Focus a community – engineers, technologists, energy developers and policy analysts
need to apply their skills and focus to geothermal.

• Identify and mobilize new talent – the geothermal intelligentsia is retiring. New blood
is needed.

• Educate and improve skills – the motor itself is an integral part of the energy equation
in our nation. It is time to bring engineers around to this larger challenge.

• Mobilize capital – advanced market commitments for pumps will generate investment
well beyond the capacity of a straightforward research grant.

It is not enough to simply create a prize. It must be distinct, draw numerous competitors and
have a strategy, implementation plan, and learning model. The plan and its implementation
are more important than the prize purse itself. The near-term work is in creating the prize
architecture; a prize platform with clear ground rules, respecting intellectual property, creating
media awareness around competition and executing the project faithfully.

Fortunately, a geothermal pumping system is well suited to a prize competition. The state of
the geothermal industry, the technological challenge of a high-temperature, ESP pump, and its
economic impact on reducing levelized cost all coalesce around the creation of a geothermal prize.

Perhaps the biggest value of the day’s proceedings was the survival and strengthening of
the prize concept as it made it through the gauntlet of geothermal experts in the room.
Fortunately, while there are numerous technical challenges in the geothermal sector and
across the renewable energy category, this challenge has the rare distinction of being well
suited for a large incentive prize with a focus and drawing potential to motivate a wide
spectrum of competitors to plunge themselves and millions of dollars of resources to charge
after a very meaningful breakthrough with substantial global benefits.

6
 GEOTHERMAL
CHALLENGES
> INTRODUCTION 01
> RENEWABLE ENERGY ASSESMENT 02
> Pumping System Requirements & Challenges 05
> Pumping SysteMS TODAY 05
> RESOURCE 05
> NATIONAL
 TRANSMISSION GRID & GEOTHERMAL
SITES IN THE WESTERN U.S (AND HAWAI) 05
> MARKET SIZE BEYOND HYDROTHERMAL & EGS 05

7
INTRODUCTION
In the global search for low carbon energy alternatives, geothermal power is often overlooked.
Geothermal is considered a mature and demonstrated energy source by power engineers.
Its history of development and research has been limited since commercialization began in
1904 in Larderello, Italy. The technical challenge has always been tapping hotter geothermal
resources to extract the most energy. However, while geothermal resources reach 350°C pumps
capable of delivering heat from depths are limited to 190°C.

In fact, many attributes of geothermal energy, namely its widespread distribution, base-
load dispatchability without storage, small footprint, and low emissions, are desirable for
a sustainable energy future in the United States. While the current industry focus is on
hydrothermal resources, the prospect of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) offers the
greatest geothermal opportunity.

Source: SMU Geothermal Lab

Temperature differential is the key for effective power conversion – hence the quest for
tapping higher temperature resources. Across the planet, resources exist everywhere, but their
accessibility is a function of geology and depth of occurrence. As drilling depths increase, so do
development costs, as well as the energy required to pump heat to the surface.

Below the surface, the challenges are legion. Technically they have been well identified, but
none of these challenges can be resolved without a pumping system to engage the geothermal
reservoir. EGS cannot be commercialized without this pump.

8
 As with any energy project, multiple factors affect the eventual cost of power. In the case of

The Benefits of ESP geothermal, temperature and flow are the most important parameters. For geothermal, the
hotter the fluid and the higher the pumping rate, the greater the electrical power output. An
• D
 epth (beyond the Line-shaft maximum
analogy to wind power would compare wind speed and turbine size. The faster the wind and
of 600 meters)
bigger the blades, the more electrical power produced. With the wind industry, the goal has
• P ower (beyond the line-shaft maximum
been bigger turbines in windier locations. However, with wind power, the source is both easier
of 800Hp)
to identify and tap. Subsurface exploration, resource identification and delineation, subsequent
• F low control – critical in stimulated
development and management (all through a 13-inch borehole) are a key challenge and the
reservoirs
focus of the art. And then there is pumping the heat to the surface for conversion into electricity.
• M
 inimizing fluid loss through pressure
regime control But among the technical challenges facing geothermal, the lack of a robust commercial
• M
 inimizing unscheduled seismicity by electrical submersible pump (ESP) affects the industry the most and holds it back from viability
controlling pressure. on a large national and global scale. Availability of the pumping system directly affects the
availability of a geothermal power plant. In terms of economics, high production rates are the
key. The ultimate goal is the movement of heat. Unlike oil and gas reserves that can be banked,
a non-producing geothermal well is a non-producing asset. As the depth to resource increases,
the need for higher power to drive the heated fluid to the surface increases. Concomitantly the
cost of deployment, retrieval and service also rises. Lower cost deployment and systems that can
endure long service life are critical to higher availability time. ESPs can be deployed five to seven
days quicker than lineshaft pumps. This is a savings of $17,000 to $23,000 per well. Mobilizing a
drill crew and replacing a pump with today’s commercial offerings is a one-week proposition.

Evaluation
A broader assessment of geothermal and the market opportunity were taken in order to
support the design of an incentive prize. These questions undertook the theme of “Is a pump
the most important technical need for geothermal, what about sensors?”, “What is the market
demand for such a pump?” “Where would such systems be installed?” To that end several
topics were review.

Source: SMU Geothermal Lab

9
 Renewable
Energy Assessment
In considering geothermal (or any renewable energy) it is necessary to look at three components;
namely, resource, technology and economics. This study is more limited and explores one
technology - a pump and its impact on geothermal power development economics.

For example, our acknowledgement and focus on the resource estimate is limited to
temperature and depth, and how such a pump would affect the economics only for the
purposes of developing economic estimates.

Assessments and analysis by industry, the Department of Energy National Labs and academia
have identified three broad technical areas that need to be resolved if EGS is to advance. While
important, and currently the focus of major geothermal programs, they are not well suited for
an incentive prize. They are 1) drilling, 2) power conversion and 3) reservoir technology. Within
the category of reservoir technology are pumping systems, sensors, and the art of managing
the well field. From the MIT Report:

Drilling technology – both evolutionary improvements building on conventional

approaches to drilling such as more robust drill bits, innovative casing methods, better
cementing techniques... and new methods of rock penetration will lower production costs. 

Power conversion technology – improving heat-transfer performance for lower-

temperature fluids, and developing plant designs for higher resource temperatures to the
supercritical water region would lead to an order of magnitude (or more) gain in both
reservoir performance and heat-to power conversion efficiency. 

Reservoir technology – increasing production flow rates by targeting specific

zones for stimulation and improving downhole lift systems for higher temperatures … to
improve heat-removal efficiencies in fractured rock systems, will lead to immediate cost
reductions by increasing output per well and extending reservoir lifetimes.

Drilling
Current oil and gas industry knowledge and success in drilling is not high enough to overcome
the drilling challenges in geothermal. While the oil and gas industry has achieved great
depth (>12,000 meters), and managed to drill into temperature (>600°C), it has not done so
successfully in a combined manner in hard, fractured (geothermal resource rich) rock. It is
important to note that the bulk of drilling costs are site specific. Access, site development, and
geology are costs determined by each site. Commodity, energy, and drill crew costs also vary.
In collaboration with industry, the U.S. Department of Energy efforts to reduce drilling costs by
50% were only partially successful in that they achieved cost reductions of 20%.

10
Power Conversion
One of geothermal’s fundamental weaknesses is its low energy density. Low energy source
temperatures (geothermal resources are from 85 to 450°C) result in lower maximum work, with
potential through the fluid’s availability or exergy, compared to combustion of hydrocarbons or
nuclear (1,000 to 1,500°C). This is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, which
no prize challenge could overcome.

Maximizing the efficiency of power conversion for low temperature resources is a critical
technology path. The engineering focus here is to increase power conversion to 60% or more,
which requires further investments in R&D. These efforts will improve heat-transfer steps
by minimizing temperature differences and increasing heat-transfer coefficients, and by
improving mechanical efficiencies of converters such as turbines, turbo-expanders, and power
plant pumps.

Reservoir Challenges
Within reservoirs, the MIT study identified five major resource development challenges that are
art and practice related. They are 1) flow short circuiting, 2) a need for high injection pressures,
3) water losses, 4) geochemical impacts, and 5) induced seismicity.

The importance of sensors downhole should not be undervalued. The MIT report identified
their importance, and the DOE research agenda frequently reflects it. The needs here are
reliable, and operable tools exist to measure temperature, pressure, flow rate, and natural
gamma emissions. They must be capable of surviving in a well at temperatures of 200°C or
higher to provide long-term monitoring. Here again, military and space applications will be
both the beneficiaries and suppliers of such solutions.

High-temperature instrumentation for borehole imaging and other purposes is a key

technology deficiency. Though tools exist that can perform satisfactorily for short periods,
instruments capable of collecting data in place for protracted periods (i.e., days to years)
for well stimulation and, more importantly, for reservoir operation and management
remain elusive. Until methods for reliable zonal isolation are available for high-temperature
applications at high differential pressures, all stimulation attempts, including mini-fracs, will be
limited to open-hole or low-temperature applications.

11
 Pumping System
Requirements & Challenges
Pumping systems lie at the heart of geothermal systems. The interest is for systems that can
operate beyond the current depth, temperature and power outputs.

Superconducting Motors The long-term goal of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Geothermal Technologies Program is to
produce pumping systems capable of producing flows greater than 80 l/sec from engineered
As alternatives to Copper Superconducting motors
are AC synchronous motors that employ HTS (high reservoirs at a depth of 10,000 meters and temperatures of 300°C. This capability is necessary
temperature superconductor) windings in place if the MIT vision of 100,000 MWe by 2050 is to be achieved.
of conventional copper coils. They are capable of
generating higher magnetic fields resulting in a In the next ten years, DOE seeks more realistic goals. The MYRDD lays out a clear and
significant space savings – critical to downhole expansive geothermal R , D &D strategy. Most of the work focuses on reservoir identification,
pumps. They can match the power output of an development and stimulation if commercialization is to be demonstrated. In the area of
equally rated conventional motor with as little as
“Interwell Connectivity Barriers” pumping systems feature prominently. They also speak about
one-fifth the size and weight
the shortcoming of such pumping systems; “downhole pumps capable of withstanding EGS
These motors are also more efficient. A 1% gain conditions while sustaining sufficient EGS flow rates do not yet exist”. From the MYRDD 2009
on a 500 hp ESP running continuously would to 2015, DOE sets the targets for pumping systems (note how increase in power output is a
result in a 43 Megawatt hours of electricity function of depth of operation):
savings per year. This is important in power
generation when one is concerned about the
parasitic load of the pump. • By 2012, improve the performance of downhole pumps, especially ESPs, to operate at
temperatures of 250°C, mass flow rates up to 80 l/s, setting depth as great as 1 km for
Additionally, these motors would have
well bores 6 5/8 to 10 5/8 and operating at pressures up to 200bar.
significant impact in the large industrial motor
market – which currently consumes 70% of
• By 2015, improve the performance of downhole pumps, especially ESPs, to operate at
the manufacturing energy in the U.S. These
temperatures of 275°C, mass flow rates up to 80 l/s, setting depths as great as 2 km for
large electric motors are used in pumps, fans,
compressors, blowers, and belt drives deployed by well bores 6 5/8 to 10 5/8 and operating at pressures up to 200bar.
utility and industrial customers, particularly those
• By 2020, improve the performance of downhole pumps, especially ESPs, to operate at
requiring continuous operation. These motors are
common in large process industries such as steel temperatures of 300°C, mass flow rates up to 80 l/s, setting depths as great as 2 km for
milling, pulp and paper processing, chemical, oil well bores 6 5/8 to 10 5/8 and operating at pressures up to 200bar.
and gas refining, mining and other heavy-duty
applications. An emerging area is transportation
applications, particularly naval and commercial
ship propulsion, where size and weight savings
will provide a key benefit by increasing design
flexibility and opening up limited space for other
uses.

It is estimated that the worldwide addressable

market for large industrial motors is over $1.2
billion annually.

12
 Pumping Systems Today
Geothermal pumps today are divided into two classes, lineshaft and electric submersibles
(ESPs). Lineshaft pumps are limited by depth and power, but because the motor is isolated
at the surface, it does not incur temperature issues. ESPs allow for greater depth and
greater power output. Their limitation is the electric motor. At elevated temperatures, the
electronics degrade. Containing the electronics in a dry environment is a further challenge in
environments of elevated temperatures and pressures.
Esp Failure Analysis
ESP System Component Percentage of Several submersible pump manufacturers offer pumps for high-temperature service. However,
(Primary Failed Item) total failures they do not meet the temperature, lift, and flow control requirements of the geothermal
Assembly (non-specific) 1 industry. Currently, pumps available are rated to 240°C (464°F) and 440 gpm (~28 l/s) and
Cable 21
218°C (425°F) and 1500 gpm (~95 l/s). Today’s high temperature pumps only operate for 6 to
Sensor 1
Gas Handler 1 12 months before replacement.
Motor 32
Pump 30 Current pump offerings today with regard to lineshafts are at the maximum capacity of shaft
Intake 4 torque. Current lineshaft pumps have maximum power outputs at 800HP, some achieving
Seal/Protector 10 1,100 HP. Submersibles can achieve significantly higher outputs and would readily be replaced
Other 1 in existing wells if there were sufficient flow. A new lineshaft pump coming on line by Ormat
Source: Wood Group in Brawley, California is being set at a depth of 655 meters (1,805 feet) and pumping 136 l/s
(2166 gpm) with a power of 1,112 Horsepower.

Ceramic matrix
composite insulation
CTD is developing ceramic matrix composite
electrical insulations for high temperature
operation. This new insulation for ESP
motors and cables is based on CTD’s
NANUQ™ high temperature heater products
which have shown stable operation at
temperatures as high as 850°C for more
than 1 year. These insulations are expected
to provide significantly improved high-
temperature electrical performance as
compared to currently-used polymer
insulations and provide a considerably
longer life expectancy in the geothermal
environment.
Current pump offerings today with regard to ESPs are limited to three major pump companies
Baker Hughes Centrilift, Schlumberger Redda, and The Woods Group.
ESP systems also eliminate the need for ancillary pumps, improve efficiency since there is no
lineshaft drag and can be installed in deviated wellbores. The specialized high-temperature,
high horsepower, ESP system has achieved over 1,000 days run time.
Recently the CTD Company, and the Woods Group received funding to develop and
demonstrate Electric Submersible Pump (ESP) motor coil designs that utilize proprietary
inorganic insulation materials. These materials can be applied to motor coil winding
conductors using conventional motor fabrication processes and provide superior electrical
performance at elevated temperatures. Schlumberger is working on extending the internal
operating range of Electrically Submersible Pump (ESPs) to 338°C in both geothermal and the
increasingly hotter Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD).

13

Pump and Motor Issues
Cabling
One area of possible focus is cable deployed
pumps. Pumps of this type would reduce
or eliminate the need for casings, thus
resulting in reduced drilling costs. They
would also allow for multiple pumps to
be set in series, thereby obviating the
combined power and temperature challenge
identified as the biggest obstacle. Cable
seals are a primary point of concern. Not
surprisingly, cable costs increase with the
depth of the pump. In some cases, cable
costs can be 30% of the pumping system.
Cable deployed pumps are common in other
applications, and some have proposed cable
deployed geothermal pumps as a means
of shortening deployment time as well as
reducing casing costs.
Lineshaft Pumps
Operators have had lineshaft pumps operating at depth for periods approaching ten years
(generally five years). These systems typically have a power output of 800 horsepower, but in
some cases, 1,100 horsepower has been achieved. Limitations in shaft torque hinder power
output. Industry operators show great interest in the potential of a product offering in the 1,500
horsepower range. One operator said that such a pump would be “huge” in terms of impact to
power output per well. Additionally, the absence of casing oil would not affect heat exchangers.
ESPs
ESPs are prolific in the marketplace, and at ambient temperatures they have shown great
success in their ability to operate at high power for long periods of time. The systems are
manufactured in stages reaching 10 meters in length for transport purposes, and are assembled
on site in sections of motor, seals and impellers. Some ESPs have reached 40 meters in length.
However, in high temperature environments the systems electronics have not fared well.
Electric motors face significant deterioration of efficiency and longevity at elevated
temperatures. Motor companies have long explored the upper temperature ranges of motors
for research and academic purposes. However, most motor installations can easily be modified
to include a temperature cooling mechanism.
Downhole environments are limited in space and accessibility. Further compounding this are
the elevated temperatures of the geothermal reservoir. Copper windings begin to display
plasticity and material creep at elevated temperature. Copper’s electro-magnetic properties are
well known and highly valued in most motor categories (many metals are measured against it
in what is known as the International Annealed Copper Standard)
At elevated temperatures electronics degrade and motor efficiency declines. Once beyond
200°C, a host of technical problems begin to affect the efficiency and lifetime of a motor.
Polymers encounter a temperature range that alters their performance. Thermal shocks in
the form of rapid temperature drops are significant in their impact because of the difference
in shrinkage rates and material response. Furthermore, gases coming out of solution due
to temperature drops negatively impact a motor. The simple analogy is like a scuba diver
surfacing too quickly and getting the bends.
The argument for higher power is clear for both hydrothermal and EGS. The industry interest
in replacing lineshaft pumps with ESPs is not just due to the limitations of depth, but because
ESPs have high power output.
14
 High temperatures yield higher power outputs. This is a basic outgrowth of the second law
of thermodynamics and Carnot’s Law of Efficiency. The following example demonstrates this
clearly. A mass flow rate of 20 l/s from a 200°C reservoir will generate 1 MW of electricity.
pump here
A reservoir at 250°C would only need a flow of 8.5 l/s to produce an equivalent amount of
power. At 400°C, though fluids would be operating in a challenging supercritical state, a 15 l/s
flow would yield 10MW.

5,800
42,000 490
30,000

10,000
3,900
970

38,000

3,000 14,000

540

510

9,000 Current installed capacity in region

530
Potential capacity in region

Resources at depths beyond 1100 feet (need the correct lineshaft limit) are not workable
for lineshaft pumps. ESPs are then sought. However, because of their depth they face both
temperature and power needs.

Development scenarios of EGS postulate that the first targets of opportunity will be on the
margin of existing hydrothermal fields in areas with sufficient natural recharge (but in need
of stimulation and pumping), or in oil fields with high temperature water and abundant data,
followed by field efforts at sites with above-average temperature gradients. These high-grade,
high-temperature areas will serve as the field development to demonstrate and lower EGS
costs. Which leads us to turning and looking at the resoures and the estimates.

15
 Resource
Hydrothermal power is the current focus of resource exploitation worldwide. Explored and
developed for electrical production for over a century, there is a somewhat greater degree of
certainty on the size and scope of the resource compared to EGS. As of early 2009, there is an
ESP system saves 5-7 days or $17,000  installed capacity 2,958 MW with an additional 6,937 MW in the planning and development
to $23,800 per instalation vs. line shaft stage. California and Nevada account for 97% of the U.S. In the United States, the projections
pump system are in the area of 25,979 MW according to the 2008 USGS Circular.

Globally, resource estimates are less sure, but it is believed that an additional 100,000 MW lies
untapped, with these hydrothermal resources located along the “Ring of Fire” and at many
sites currently not served by baseload electricity.

For hydrothermal, the biggest impact will come in tapping currently inaccessible resources,
those in the 190 to 220 C range.

Globally, resource estimates are less authoritative. The global hydrothermal potential according
to the International Geothermal Association (IGA) are around 150,000 MWe. These resources
are located around the “Ring of Fire” and at many sites currently not served by baseload
electricity.

EGS estimates do not exist beyond the United States. The seminal 2006 MIT study
conservatively estimated a 100,000 MW potential in the continental United States. These
resources are far more prolific geographically, though in general their temperatures and depths
are less favorable compared to hydrothermal. However, near term development of EGS is
targeted to some very high temperatures resources (approaching 280C). These sites offer the
best temperature differential and power conversion rates for energy developers. Only after
these sites are developed will the focus turn to the more prolific resources that are lower in
temperature.

16
 GIS Analysis
An analysis was performed of known geothermal resources and their proximity to transmission
lines and communities committed to green power. It shows that there are 22 known high
value geothermal sites within 10 miles of major electric transmission corridors in the Western
United States that are within 50 miles of cities committed to U.S. Conference of Mayors
Geothermal Sites and Transmission Grids -Accelerating the Commercialization of Geothermal Energy-
Climate Protection Agreement.
!
)HUQGDOH
%HO
OLQJKDP

( YHU
(GP RQGV
6HDW WHO
HW
W

6DPP DPLVK
Getting electric power to urban centers is a major challenge for renewable energy. Not only
7XNZLOD

is the existing transmission grid overtaxed, it is also incapable of resolving the dispatchability
$ XEXU
Q
7DFRPD 6SRNDQ
H
7XPZ DW
HU

! !
0LVVRXO
D

9DQFRXYHU
3RUWOD
QG
*UHVKDP
!
!!
shortcomings of wind and solar. Urban areas require 24/7 electric availability not only for
/LQFRO
Q
&LW\
%L
OLO
QJV

industrial and residential demand but for mass transit, water and wastewater conveyance and
%R]HPDQ

&RUYDO
OLV !

! !! %HQG
( XJHQH

!
!!
! !
6XQ
9DOO
H\ !
public safety. Geothermal energy is emerging as an energy source of interest because of its
!

! !
! 3RFDW
HOOR
!
!
low carbon footprint, small surficial requirements and 24/7 availability. Physically expanding
! ! ! ! !
$UFDW
D
!

!! ! !
!
!
!
!
the electrical transmission grid is a financial and political challenge. Current efforts are
! ! !
! ! !

3DUDGL
VH
! !
! ! !! ! !
!!
! ! !

! !! !
!
! !
6DOW
�/DNH
&LW\ 3DUN
&LW\
!!
on integrating “smart grid” technologies, tools and techniques to maximize. Undeveloped
!! ! ! !
!! !! !
6SDUNV

resources proximal to transmission corridors are of interest to developers, energy regulators

5HQR %RXO
G HU

! ! !!
! ! ! ! !
'H QYHU
*OHQZRRG

!D 6SULQJV

!!
6DQW 6DFUDPHQWR
5RVD : HVW
�6DFU
DPHQWR

!
3HWDOX
PD

!
! ! ! !
and communities interested in green jobs.
6DQ 9DOOHMR

! ! !
5DIDHO
5LFKPRQG
/D ID\HWWH 6W RFNW
RQ

! !
6DQ�)UDQ
6RXW K� FLVFR
6DQ

!! !! !
)UDQFLVFR
5HGZRRG� &LW\
6XQQ\YDOH
6DQ�-RVH 0D PP RW
/ DNHV
K! !!
0R UJDQ
+LOO
! !
6DOL
QDV
'X UD
QJR
!

As part of a grant from the Lemelson Foundation, a GIS analysis was conducted mapping
9LVDOLD
7XODUH

! /D V
9HJDV 7DRV
+HQGH
UVRQ
$WDVFDGHU R
0R UUR
�%D\
6DQ� /XLV

!
geothermal resources in the Western United States with major transmission corridors. Known
2E LVSR

6DQW
D�
)H

%XOO
KHDG
&LW\ )ODJVW
DII
$OEXTXHUTXH
6DQWD :L QVOR
Z
%DUEDUD

high potential geothermal sites identified from the Western Governors Geothermal Taskforce
0R RUSDUN
7KRXVDQG
2DNV /RV 6DQ
$ QJHOH
V %HUQ DUGLQR
&KLQ R <XFDLSD
7RUU
DQFH 5LYHUVLGH
6DQW D�$QD
,UYLQH +HPHW
/DJXQD�+LOO V

! !!
Report were mapped. Each location was then evaluated for its proximity to transmission
9LVW
D %XFNH\H

! !! ! !
3KRHQL
[

!
*R RG\HDU * LOE
HUW 5XLG
RVR
6DQ

!! ! !! !!
'L HJR
&KXOD
9LVW
D

!
$ODPRJRUG
R

!!!
!
lines. 57 of the known sites are within 10 miles of a major transmission corridor. Additionally,
/D V

!
&UXFHV
7XFVRQ

Click to enlarge – high resolution map

%L
VEHH

a spatial analysis of climate protection cities and geothermal sites was conducted. The
Geothermal Sites Within

!
50 Miles of Climate Protection
Agreement Cities
Mayors of these cities have made commitments to meeting Kyoto targets through a range of
!! Other Geothermal Sites
50 Mile Buffer of Geothermal Sites
Transmission Lines
mechanisms, one of which is renewable energy.
! Climate Protection Agreement Cities
Other Cities
:
A modest 50 MWe power project will $QDO
\VLV
�DQG�&D
UW
RJU
DSK\�E
\
Climate protection cities are defined as those cities which have signed on to the
� �� ���

! &2 5( �*,6�//& 0LOH

V

generate 263 temporary jobs (primarily !

U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. They are mapped and presented as
ZZZ�FRUH
JLV�
QHW

0D UFK���� �
'D WD���:
HVWHUQ�*RYHU QRU
V�
$VVRFLDWLRQ�*HRWKHUPDO�7DVNIRUFH
5HSRU W��1DW
LRQDO�
5HQHZDEO H
( QHU
J\ �
/DERU DWRU\ ��)
(0 $�

engineering and construction) and 85 actual boundaries as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Geothermal sites are those identified
8�6 ��&HQVXV�% XU HDX

permanent jobs, most within in the 50 mile by the Western Governors Geothermal Taskforce. A 50 mile radius was drawn around the
radius around a resource. At rate of 1.7 jobs geothermal sites. 42 Climate Protection cities are within 50 miles of geothermal sites. These
per MWe developed, geothermal is one localities are proximal for both energy security and job generation.
of the highest job generation capacity of
any baseload capital energy investment. It Geothermal is one of the highest job generators compared to other renewable. A modest 50

produces more local and quality technical MWe power project will generate 263 temporary jobs (primarily engineering and construction)

jobs then power systems requiring and 85 permanent jobs, most within in the 50 mile radius around a resource. At rate of 1.7 jobs

hydrocarbons, and is superior to wind and per MWe developed, geothermal is one of the highest job generation capacity of any baseload

solar. They are great green jobs. capital energy investment. It produces more local and quality technical jobs then power
systems requiring hydrocarbons, and is superior to wind and solar. They are great green jobs.

17
 The economic
impact of a pump
Unlike oil and gas, geothermal power
cannot be banked. Reservoirs must be
actively pumped to generate power. Pump
availability must be 24/7 for an extended
period of time. Replacement and servicing
of pumps is a prohibitive as the pump is
mission critical.
How many jobs will be created from these next generated pumps? At a sale price of $750,000
to $1 Million and a market over 100 units per year will create several hundred jobs. To better
understanding that proposition and the larger market demand of downhole submersible
pumps an analysis
In tandem with the design and technical assessment a pump market analysis was conducted.
GeothermEx, a U.S. based geothermal consulting firm provided some of the analytical support.
The analysis was limited to the U.S. market as global estimates of the geothermal resource base
are less authoritative. Generally, most experts assume that the global geothermal potential is
ten times larger than the U.S.
This analysis looks at the future demand of downhole pumps for geothermal power. The
analysis shows that initial pump sales will be for hydrothermal applications, well before the
EGS market develops commercially. It is estimated that if introduced in 2015 this new class
of pump will approach sales of 482 units per year in 2020 or roughly $350 Million in annual
sales. In the initial 10 to 15 year time horizon, over 95% of these pumps would be installed
in hydrothermal applications which are in need of a robust downhole submersible pump. In
tandem, at a small number of locations, these pumps will be installed in Enhanced Geothermal
Systems (EGS) sites as it is commercialized. When EGS is fully commercialized this market
demand will grow ten fold. The analysis used conservative assumptions such as continued use
of such systems in hydrothermal sites (with a 2%/year decay rate) and modest implementation
of 30,000 MW of EGS by 2050. It is calculated that annual pump sales will be 1,703 units per
year from 2025 to 2050. This assessment did not include SAGD or co-produced fluids, both
consider near term high opportunity markets.
Unlike oil and gas, geothermal power cannot be banked. Reservoirs must be actively
pumped to generate power. Pump availability must be 24/7 for an extended period of time.
Furthermore, the installed specific cost ($/kW) is inversely dependent on the fluid temperature
and mass flow rate. Said simply, higher temperature and higher flowing wells have lower
capital cost per MW developed. As an example, installed capital cost for surface conversion
plants start at $2,300/kWe for 100C resource temperature and decrease to $1,500/kWe for
400ºC resource.
Currently, downhole pumps are limited in their ability to operate in temperatures greater
than 190ºC (375F). The industry seeks a pump capable of operating in the 190ºC – 220ºC
range (375F – 430F) to develop hydrothermal resources (above this temperature hydrothermal
sites self produce steam and pumps are not needed). Enhanced Geothermal Systems will be
deployed in even higher temperature ranges (approaching 280ºC (536 F).
18

If power output could be increased from 4
MW to 5 MW in a single well it would reduce
the number of wells needed by two for the
average 50 MW geothermal field.
In the 190 to 220 C range it is possible to
project a 10% increase in power output of a
pumped well vs. a non-pumped well. In this
limited temperature range, the installation
of a pumping system would pay for itself in
2 years.
With these pumps, new high temperature hydrothermal resources in the 190ºC to 220ºC
range will become available for development. These high temperature resources have the best
economics. Current geothermal sites will replace existing pumps with these systems because of
power output and increased time to failure. Most importantly, EGS will have a critical tool for
the development of geothermal reservoirs.
The impact on levelized cost is the single most important determinant that will effect broad
adoption and installation of technology in current and future geothermal sites. It is incumbent
to demonstrate how such a pump would change such costs. Chapter 9 of the MIT study
extensively reviews EGS economics. Using GETEM (Geothermal Electric Technology Evaluation
Model) developed by Princeton Energy Resources and MIT’s EGS for Windows allowed the
MIT panel to review key factors effecting the levelized cost of electricity. GETEM is robust in
that it allows the user to control 80 different variables and adjust for current technology and
technological advances. In this model both technical and economic factors can be controlled.
These variables cover resource characteristics, drilling costs, well field construction, power
plant technology and development of geothermal power projects. A review of the cost models
shows that fluid flow is the single most important factor.
Levelized cost is a function of capital development and operating cost. It is believed that such
a pump will increase flow in some hydrothermal wells, allow for greater depth in others, and
in others allow for greater temperatures to be tapped. If power output could be increased
from 4 MW to 5 MW in a single well it would reduce the number of wells needed by two for
the average 50 MW geothermal field. This is an avoided development cost of $10 Million per
project. The impact to levelized cost would occur in capital cost (reduced drilling cost) and
O & M cost (change in parasitic pumping cost).
The impact to levelized cost occurs in increasing pumping power. Initial pump systems will be
designed to a hydraulic horsepower of 750. Future targets are 1,500. Pumps operating in this
range and capable of increasing flows from 2,500 gpm to 3,750 gpm would begin to hen it
is possible to see a marketable contribution to levelized cost. Analysis by GeothermEx shows
that levelized cost would decrease by $0.005 per kilowatt hour (half a penny per kW/hr).
However, this only happens at power ranges outside of the current pump target. This clearly
demonstrates the value of power over temperature.
Analysis of levelized cost impacts from such a pump are less clear vis a vis temperature.
Above 220ºC hydrothermal wells are self producing. In the 190 to 220ºC range it is possible
to project a 10% increase in power output of a pumped well vs. a non-pumped well. In this
limited temperature range, the installation of a pumping system would pay for itself in 2 years.
19
 Areas MW MW MW MW # of Pumps # of Pumps # of Pumps
Today to 2010 to 2020 to 2050 needed to 2025 to 2050
initially
U.S. Hydrothermal existing 29581 1221 244 4577
(known)
U.S. Hydrothermal under 69372 9915 1,9826 6,49810
development
U.S. Hydrothermal Potential 89463 1,278 2,556 5,75110
(WGA) near term
U.S. Hydrothermal Potential 15,5164 2,216 -0- 8,86211
(WGA) long-term
U.S. EGS short-term8 508 10 206 257
U.S. EGS Long-term12 30,000 6,000 10013 21,00012
Total (pumps) 4,902 42,593

Basic Assumptions
• Time to Replacement on pumps; 3 to 5 years. For this analysis we will assume that pumps
last five years (optimistic).

• Output per well; 7 MW for hydrothermal, 5MW for EGS. In general, hydrothermal systems
produce 5 MW per well. EGS is projected to produce 2-5 MW.

Initial Base-Case Values [see Table 9.4]
14
Levelized Cost of Electricity [c/kWh]
Specific Assumptions
1. MW Today: Extracted hard number from last GEA report. While 2958 is the total number
of MW produced, most of this is shallow resources producing high power output (in some
cases 25 MW per hole). It is known that the number of pumps is 100 line shaft and 22
ESPs. Assumption is that all lineshafts will be replaced by ESPs.
2. GEA most recent analysis of capacity underdevelopment. To come online within the next

13 few years. Would not install new ESP pump until 2015.
12
3. WGA analysis. Near term resources. Assumption that they will come on line by 2020.
11

10 4. WGA Analysis. Long Term resources. Assumption that they will come on line between
2025 to 2050 in a staggered rate of 3,000 per 5 year horizon. With a five year to failure
9
assumption they are a total of 9,000 pumps.
8
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
% Change From Base Case 5. Assumes 7 MW per well for hydrothermal.
Drilling & Completion Cost Thermal Drawdown Rate
Stimulation Cost
Surface Plant Capital Cost
Bond Debt Interest Rate
Equity Rate of Return
6. Assumes pump life of 5 years. 991 pumps replaced once = 1,982
Flow Rate/Production Well % Bond vs Equity Debt

7. Assumes decay rate of existing hydrothermal by 25% by 2050.

Source: MIT

20
8. Most estimates place EGS development by 2015 to be limited. A modest 50 MW
(probably DOE sponsored sites) is assumed. Pumps would be replaced once by 2025.

9. Total pumps to 2025.

10. Assumes 10% decay rate of well fields over 25 years.

11. Assumption that they will come on line between 2025 to 2050 in a staggered rate of
5,000 MW per 5 year period.

12. MIT EGS assumption is 100,000 by 2050. Assume 30% success for 30,000 MW total
developed by 2050. Staggered rate of 1,000 MW per year developed from 2020 to 2050.
Assumes 1 pump per 5 MW and five years to failure.

13. 2025 EGS estimate is placed at 500MW. 100 pumps estimated.

In the next ten years the hydrothermal market will continue to expand and drive the
pump market for ESPs. In doing so it will provide a commercial market for a pump whose
performance and role in commercializing EGS is critical. Without a robust ESP, researchers will
not be able to tackle the larger EGS challenge of reservoir stimulation and management.

GeothermEx, a U.S. based geothermal consulting firm provided some of the analytical support.
The analysis was limited to the U.S. market as global estimates of the geothermal resource base
are less authoritative. Generally, most experts assume that the global geothermal potential is
ten times larger than the U.S.

Assumptions were drawn from the seminal MIT Geothermal Report, Sandia National
Laboratories Assessment of EGS and the DOE Multi-year Research, Development and
Deployment 2009 – 2015. Baseline data for power development is from the most recent
Geothermal Energy Association Assessments and the Western Governors Association
2006 analysis. New USGS assumptions will be issued in the summer of 2009, but will not
significantly alter the baseline assumptions of power potential in the United States.

21
 MARKET SIZE BEYOND
Hydrothermal and EGS
These pumps would be installed in coproduced resource zones (geopressured zones generally
do not require pumps for production. The overpressure provides the lift). The coproduced
resource has been intensely studied in the Gulf Coast region of the United States, where it is
believed that 6,000 MW could be developed. Power plant capital costs for coproduced fluids
range from about $1,500-2,300/kW. This lower cost is achieved through its existing integration
into the oil and gas infrastructure. These resources range from 150 to 180°C - temperature will
not be the key performance issue, but longevity will.

Tar sands, heavy crude oil and natural bitumen deposits are hydrocarbon resources whose
extraction would rely heavily on high-temperature pumps. While conventional crude oil reserves
globally are 1.0 trillion barrels, there is an estimated 5.4 trillion barrels from this poorer quality
hydrocarbon. Currently, recovery of oils from these resources involving Steam Assisted Gas
Other Sectors to Benefit Drainage (SAGD) has proven successful at very high temperatures (220°C). These pumps do not
from High Temperature have high horsepower (~200HP), but their operational success leads many pump experts to
Motors believe that scaling up to higher power outputs in this temperature range is quite possible.

• Electric Motor Market

Beyond the energy sector, there is also a need for high temperature electric motors. The
• Electric Cars Electric Cars (lighter motors) automotive industry’s quest for an electric car would be advanced by this innovation, as it will
• W
 ind Turbines lead to lighter motors. Defense and aerospace interest would likewise be due to the frequent
(ability to run hotter and lighter) high-temperature and high-pressure environments in which their systems operate.
• All Electric Naval Ships
Currently, the U.S. government is establishing a large loan guarantee program for renewable
• Defense Applications
energy systems. Coordinating the financing and purchase of 50 to 100 pumps would be a $25
• High Altitude Motors
to $100 million investment. It would be necessary to create a special-purpose finance entity
• Thermocouples to arrange and coordinate the advance market commitment. This entity would be subjected
• Ceramic Coated Wires to strict financial controls, heavily audited and possibly owned and co-ordinated by a federal
agency or its designated fiscal agent.

22
 THE PRIZE
> RATIONALLE FOR THE PRIZE 01
> PRIZE FUNDAMENTALS 05
 RATIONALE FOR THE PRIZE
Introduction
Prize competitions are often seen as a silver bullet. Yet it is rare that the mix of a challenge
and prize is well meshed. A global education prize is hard to imagine, for example, when we
know that the solution involves smaller class sizes, high teacher salaries, and more parent
involvement. No prize could deliver such a solution.

Technical prizes, however, can be effective in galvanizing interest, focusing new ideas and new
members on a problem, thereby resulting in breakthrough innovation. Properly structured,
technical prizes with commercial upside (such as the Automotive X Prize and the Space
Prize) can draw private research and development investment well beyond the traditional
government scientific grant.

Such potential exists with geothermal energy today. It exists because geothermal is a maturing
and demonstrated power source with significant upside. Granted, it faces a unique set of
challenges, which must be overcome to breakthrough and become part of the U.S. energy
paradigm. But most of these challenges will be achieved with lateral technology transfer from
the oil and gas sectors (in the areas of tracers, drilling, and subsurface exploration). Innovators
in the oil and gas sectors must be brought on board to contribute their industry expertise.

Geothermal energy is oil and gas’s lesser cousin. Oil and gas out competes geothermal by
100, or in some cases, 1,000 to one in terms of investment, drill rigs, geologists, and research
programs. But the marketplace, and more specifically, energy developers are not ignorant
of geothermal’s value. If the levelized cost can be understood and reduced, its low carbon
footprint and high baseload availability make it a very attractive energy source.
Installed capacity current & potential (in MW)
Today, geothermal resource production relies primarily on lineshaft pumps, which are limited
160,000 in their depth and power output, or electric submersible pumps, which are limited in their
Installed capacity Additional potential
140,000 lifetime and temperature tolerance. For EGS to succeed, improving such systems is a base
120,000
100,000
requirement. Pumps function at the heart of geothermal systems. This shortcoming is so
significant that its characterization in the Department of Energy’s Multi-Year Research,
MW

80,000
60,000 Development and Deployment Plan (MYRD&D) is cure, they “….do not yet exist.”
40,000
20,000
Industry experts already acknowledge the lack of a robust pumping system. If a pump existed
0
North Asia Europe Africa Oceania Latin World today, it would replace over 120 lineshaft pumps operating throughout the western U.S. simply
America America &
Caribbean on the basis of its benefit in power output. More importantly, if EGS is to harness resources
Source: IGA, Bertani from high temperatures at greater depths such a pump is mission critical.

24

Prize Fundamentals
The real incentive to the competition
will come in the form of Advance Market
Commitments (AMCs) that will assure the
sale of 100 pumping systems for installation
and deployment in existing hydrothermal
systems and EGS sites under development.
The Prize
The Foundation for Geothermal Innovation is in the process of developing “The Global
Geothermal Challenge”, a broad geothermal industry incentive prize focused on solving a
discrete technical challenge while re-invigorating an industry and energy that will be part of
the planet’s energy platform for millennia to come.
To be launched in 2010, the prize will award a prize purse of several million dollars provided by
the private sector to the team (or teams) that can meet specific technical targets.
Creating a Geothermal Prize
The remaining work is taking a prize to launch and creating a compelling competition that
will draw teams and inspire innovation. Prize competitions have several basic components
and distinct phases of execution. The initial tasks include creating industry support for the
project, soliciting their assistance in the competition design and asking them to serve as the
competition’s judges and ultimately, its customers.
Prizes can deliver change, but they work best when addressing a well-defined problem. The
McKinsey Report “And the winner is” identified seven key areas where incentive prizes create a
shift in thinking. All of these areas are of interest to geothermal:
• Identify Excellence (bringing the best talents and technology to the challenge at hand)
• Influence Public Perception (attention grabbing, a prize will help geothermal overcome its
position as “the forgotten renewable” and increase market demand)
• Focus a Community (rallying a broad community of engineers, technologists, energy
developers and policy analysts to apply their skills and focus)
• Identify and Mobilize New Talent (with the Geothermal Intelligentsia now retiring, new
blood is needed)
• Strengthen
 a Community (a prize competition will act as a rallying point with which to
build a sustainable problem-solving community and ensure extended innovation)
• Educate and Improve Skills (byproducts of the competitive process, a prize will
educate the public about geothermal and renewable energy while improving the skills
of the participants)
• Mobilize Capital (prizes attract capital, many times the prize purse amount, to motivated
competitors and into the service for resolving the problems targeted, creating powerful
leverage to solve intractable issues)
25
It is not enough to simply create a prize. It must be distinct, draw numerous competitors and
have a strategy, implementation plan and learning model. The plan and its implementation
are more important than the prize purse itself. The near term work is to create a prize
platform with clear ground rules, respecting intellectual property, creating media awareness
around competition and executing the project faithfully. McKinsey refers to it as the “prize
architecture.”

Fortunately, a geothermal pumping system is well suited to a prize competition. The state of
the geothermal industry, the technological challenge of a pump, and its economic impact on
reducing levelized cost all coalesce around the creation of a geothermal prize.

What is the structure of a geothermal prize?

The proposition is an incentive prize to accelerate the commercialization of geothermal energy.
To transform geothermal, it must meet the needs of hydrothermal and drive EGS. To succeed it
must be:

• Achievable
• Conforming to the laws of physics
• Economically feasible
• Capable of being Manufactured
• A stretch (so as to validate the prize purse and spur innovation).
• Impactful for an industry - the hydrothermal proposition is not enough. Geothermal
needs to be more than 5% of the U.S. energy budget. To achieve that EGS is needed.
• Attract new professionals to the field.

Can this prize be achieved? The participants at the Lemelson meeting largely felt so. Prize
solutions need to be broadly applicable and reproducible. Nothing about the requirements
violates the law of physics. Individually, such criteria have been met in other industrial sectors.
The greatest concern, the temperatures at which motors can operate, is well within a feasible
target (220°C by the Participants, probably 275°C in the final prize design). Research by GE
in the early 1970s had motors operating in the 700°C range. What needs to be achieved is
integrating all of this into a 13 3/8-inch diameter system and delivering it a sales price in the
range of $750,000 to $1 million dollars.

For prize competitions to succeed, they need a high number of competitors. Limiting the
competition to the three major pump companies would not spur any competition beyond
what already exists. Furthermore, these companies see the temperature challenge as real,
but limited to their other product needs (most oil and gas applications are not at elevated
temperature – power and sensors are).

26
Advance Market Commitments
A prize purse alone will not be enough to induce the major pump companies to participate in a
prize competition. Offering an advance market commitment of 50 to 100 pumps will be critical
to drawing interest.

AMCs are effective mechanisms to capitalize production and achieve economies of scale.
There are frequent examples of AMC’s in biofuels. In the prize space, one example is the light
bulb with major commitments by the utilities. In the case of geothermal it is necessary to
have an AMC that stimulates but does not overwhelm the sector. If the AMC was a majority
of the global demand there would be no market incentive beyond the first production run.
Fortunately the demand well exceeds that. However, given the projected market size of EGS
over the next 15 years (15 to 500 MW) an AMC focused on just EGS alone would be both
insufficient and stymie any further market need.

Fortunately, the hydrothermal market can utilize such a pumping system and absorb sufficient
market demand to make an AMC worthwhile.

The AMC would focus on identifying customers and arranging sale of pumping systems to
be available in 2015. Geothermal operators have already signaled an interest in such pumps.
Securing commitments, assuring production and delivery in a timely fashion will not only
accelerate the geothermal sector, it will minimize the financial exposure for the potential
pump manufacturer.

The Media Challenge

A pump installed at depth offers little telegenic attractiveness. However, the surficial
manifestation of geothermal resources and the resource development does. Geothermal
energy is not sexy. Transmission–wise, it is grid-friendly and it has a reputation as reliable
baseload with high availability. But it suffers from a lack of social appeal.

Good prizes can change that.

Volcanoes and hot springs dot the earth in plenty of beautiful locations. Alligator farms
in the Rocky Mountains, garlic drying facilities and district heating are simple but highly
communicable examples of geothermal energy in action. Conversely, preserving national parks
and respecting sacred sites are priorities for the future of geothermal. With EGS, resource
development will take us away from volcanoes and hot springs. Environmental preservation,
resource siting and development are all areas that may attract media attention. It is possible to
use a media focus on what we are preserving by extending geothermal's reach.

27
 Phase I of the Prize
Geothermal Visuals The goal of Phase 1 is for teams to innovate. During the initial phase competition the goal is
• Hot Springs to have prize competition requirements that draw as many participants as possible. Over 60
teams signed on to the automotive prize in its initial stages.
• Volcanoes
• Aqua-culture To that end, the initial phase of the competition will have a limited technical focus – an
• Agriculture electric motor capable of operating at elevated temperatures. The applicants will be limited
• District Heating to university teams and their partners. University departments (e.g., Mechanical Engineering)
may form alliances with other academic departments, start-ups or existing manufacturers. The
• Industrial Heating
team lead will be an academic institution and the prize purse will be awarded to an academic
• Cascading Energy Use
institution. How they wish to structure themselves shall largely be left open. The prize criteria
will state that universities clearly acting as fronts for manufacturers will be discouraged.

Phase 2 of the Prize

Phase 2 will focus on team demonstrations. The teams that demonstrated success in Phase
1 would advance to Phase 2. During this phase the major pump companies would enter
and join the competition. Only 3 or 4 teams would likely advance to this phase. Phase 2
will be expensive and extensive. Corporate and federal partnerships will be necessary. Most
importantly, access and use of a geothermal site will be critical.

One method currently envisioned would involve the use of a new geothermal site being
developed but not yet on-line. As some fields have ten plus holes for resource extraction, the
initial holes could be used for testing as the remaining are drilled. After the competition, the
resource would be turned over to the developer for normal operation.

During Phase 2, testing and demonstration will take place in actual geothermal wells. The
teams will be required to deploy their pumps, operate them and demonstrate their resilience to
a series of stresses (primarily thermal shocks).

To participate in Phase 2, the teams would have to provide at least two or three units for
testing and submit a detailed manufacturing plan. During Phase 2, it is believed that the major
pump companies will align themselves with university teams. While the initial university teams
may be able to design a high-temperature motor and design a manufacturing plan, the ability
to actually fabricate test pumps for deployment at depth may be beyond their reach.

During Phase 2, the teams that demonstrated success with a robust electric motor would be
allowed to partner with a major pump company and submit a system for field-testing.

In considering alternative pumping systems beyond electrical submersible pumps, it may be

wise to allow some non-conventional solutions a venue to submit systems during Phase 2 for
testing and demonstration. These candidates would have to provide at least two complete
pumping systems that meet the deployment, power and operational requirements.

28
  Recruiting Teams
Potential Teams and During the Lemelson Meeting, participants were asked to name entities that could possibly
Institutional Stakeholders be part of such a process (see box). However, previous prize competitions have demonstrated

• Sandia National Labs that unlikely contestants display some of the best innovation. By structuring Phase 1 with a
discrete manageable challenge – a motor challenge - the number of possible teams expands
• Baker Hughes Centrilift
significantly. If the prize requirements were specific to an ESP in Phase 1, it is likely that only
• Woods Group ESP
the major pump companies would engage.
• Schlumberger Redda
• GE
• Siemens
• Goodgrich Flow
• Flowserve Byron Jackson
• Purdue University
• University of Wisconsin
• Idaho State University
• Texas A & M
• Argonne National Labs
• Idaho National Labs
• Oak Ridge National Labs

29
 THE
LEMELSON MEETING
> INTRODUCTION 01
> TECHNICAL DISCUSSION 02
> TEMPERATURE 05
> FLOW RATE 05
> MOTOR 05
> D
EPLOYMENT 05
> EFFICIENCY 05
> TESTING PROTOCOLS 05
> CONCLUSION 05
INTRODUCTION
Once the need for a new pump was identified as the technical shortcoming for the geothermal
industry, and well suited for an incentive prize, it became necessary to convene a panel of
experts to define the technical scope and parameters of a competition and to build out
support and buy-in for such a prize from industry insiders.

Through a grant from the Lemelson Foundation, a one-day design meeting was held at the
Stanford Faculty Club in tandem with the annual Stanford Geothermal Reservoir Engineering
Workshop. Twelve participants and five observers were recruited from the geothermal industry.
The three major pump companies were invited to attend, and accepted. Second to pump
experts in importance were plant operators, those most challenged by pumps, but also the
key customers that will ultimately purchase such a device. The focus of the meeting was on
geothermal ESPs, anticipated difficulties in developing, testing and marketing such pumps, and
the proper structuring of competition that would be open, fair, and successful in developing a
new generation of geothermal ESPs.

Prize creator Lawrence Molloy solicited suggestions from throughout the industry for
participants. A solicitation for attendees was posted in the GRC newsletter. Karl Gawell from
the Geothermal Energy Association and Curt Robinson of the Geothermal Resource Council
submitted names. Ms. Susan Petty also offered a wide range of names that best covered
the industry. Mr. Charles Baron of Google and Ms. Alexandra Pressman of the International
Geothermal Partnership for Technology were also forthcoming. In total, over four dozen
candidates were evaluated and interviewed to serve as participants. Only three experts
declined to attend, solely due to scheduling conflicts. A full list of participants and observers
and their respective bios is included in the Appendix.

A facilitator was recruited to coordinate and move the group through the day. Joel Renner, a
retired career scientist with Idaho National Engineering Laboratory was contracted through the
Foundation for Geothermal Innovation to lead the discussion. A list of topics and parameters
was sketched out by prize creators Michael Lindsay and Lawrence Molloy.

The pump and motor should be required to:

• Be deployable through 13 3/8 inch (~34 cm), 72 pound casing
• Be Capable of operating in 200 - 225°C (~395 - 437°F) geothermal fluids
• Have a flow of at least 60 l/sec (~950 gpm)
• Operate with at least 300 psi
• Maintain 750 hydraulic horsepower
• Operate reliably without failure for 3 years, and
• Be able to operate at a variable rate of flow

31

Design criteria:
• Diameter
• Pumping capability
• Serviceability/lifetime
• Variable flow rate
• Operating temperature
• Ability to withstand thermal stres
Technical discussion
Evaluation criteria:
• A
 bility to monitor downhole
performance and health of the pump
• Ease and time required for
deploymentServiceability/lifetime
• Efficiency
• Capital cost
• A
 bility to manufacture and
market the pump
Technical discussion at the meeting focused on the design criteria for a successful ESP, as
opposed to the specifications for such a pump. Specifically, the meeting focused on such
elements as the size of the pump, its pumping capacity, and operation rather than the
materials and design of components. The panel also formulated a list of criteria that the
pumps must meet, as well as a list of criteria on which to evaluate the pump.
The panel’s implicit working assumption was that the solution is a next-generation ESP.
However, some have questioned this proposition as the need is moving heat which allows for a
broader solution universe. Some have interest in employing novel methods such as subsurface
steam drive system. The testing criteria need to allow for testing downhole systems, not just
electric motors in systems that are capable to work at depth. Currently, the thinking trends
toward an ESP solution, but the prize design will be criteria that cast a broader spectrum of
opportunity in an effort to spur innovation. Much like a patent application, the design and
description must be accurate, correct and respectful, while claiming as broad a patent position
as possible. As this was one of the first meetings to design the prize, the working assumption
at this point and the focus of the panel is on ESPs. The remainder of this technical section will
reflect that.
In convening the group, the attendees were prepped ahead of time with some basic design and
evaluation criteria for an ESP.
After spirited discussion, the panel made the following recommendations for a geothermal
ESP. The pump and motor should be required to:
• Be deployable through 13 3/8 inch (~34 cm), 72 pound casing
• Be Capable of operating in 200 - 225°C (~395 - 437°F) geothermal fluids
• Have a flow of at least 60 l/sec (~950 gpm)
• Operate with at least 300 psi
• Maintain 750 hydraulic horsepower
• Operate reliably without failure for 3 years, and
• Be able to operate at a variable rate of flow
32
Pump Diameter
The pump-motor must be deployable through 13 3/8 inch (~34 cm), 72 pound casing.

Editors Note: The panel believed, rather than specifying a maximum diameter and length for
the motor and pump combination, the prize should specify a specific casing size. They further
noted that pumps currently exist that will fit into 8” casing, but that they are not capable of
operating in geothermal systems. The key trade off in pumping from depth is drilling costs vs.
diameter. Wider diameters are key for flow (flow increases as a square of the diameter) but
more expensive to drill. Sufficient flow is critical for power output and to prevent cooling
(<40 l/s from depth would result in cooler liquids). A non-deviated hole needs to be specified,
but is generally not a concern. Some ESPs are exceeding 30 meters in length (100 feet plus)
but encounter limited deployment challenges in most well holes.

Editors Note: The target diameter is unresolved. DOE’s MYRD&D sets ranges from 6 5/8 to 10
5/8. This is with mass flow rates of 80 l/s and an operating pressure of 200 bar. The current
consensus is that the prize will target a broader diameter because of the larger flow capacity, a
key trade off with narrow diameter systems.

Temperature
The pump must be capable of operating in 200 - 220°C (~395 - 437°F) geothermal fluids

Editors Note: Temperature was quickly identified by the meeting participants as between
200-220°C. However, post meeting follow up quickly highlighted grave concern with this
temperature. One industry expert labeled such a temperature target as “inadequate”. Currently,
major companies do offer ESPs capable of this temperature, albeit at lower power outputs.
It appears that in developing such a pump the technical trade-offs are between power and
temperature. Pump companies are willing to focus on one but not both. However, for EGS
to succeed both temperature and power challenges must be overcome. A literature and
product review quickly demonstrates that electric motors can achieve substantially higher
temperatures.

EGS experts seeks temperatures in a range approaching 275°C. While few resources exist
at this level, they will be the first resources developed (higher temperature is higher power
output).

33

Thermocouple
In research by CTD Materials, high
temperature resistant wire that is flexible
can be fabricated eliminating the need
for separate ceramic insulators. Ceramic
material having a co-efficient of thermal
expansion substantially similar to that of
wire can be annealed directly to the surface
of the metal forming an impervious scratch
resistant and flexible layer.
Flow rate
The pump must provide at least 60 l/sec (~950 gpm) flow, operate with at least 300
psi, and maintain 750 hydraulic horsepower.
Editors Note: The panel focused a great deal of effort on deciding the flow and motor
power needed for an EGS pump. Ultimately they focused on the hydraulic power. The panel
believed that it was not sufficient to specify a flow rate for the pump, without considering the
hydraulic power available from the motor-pump system and the operating pressure.
The panel also discussed the expected differences in operating in hydrothermal systems
and EGS. They expect that flow rates in EGS will be lower, perhaps by as much as a factor
of two, compared to hydrothermal. EGS pumps may require setting at greater depths than
hydrothermal systems of about the same temperature. So while flow rate for EGS may be
lower, the depth from which the liquid must be lifted is greater. It is the classic trade off in any
pump; flow vs. head.
For example, in one hydrothermal example presented by Paul Spielman from Ormat, they were
utilizing an 800 horsepower pump with a flow of ~220 l/sec (3500 gpm) at 160°C. In contrast
the panel believes that early EGS may be limited by the reservoir to producing 1500 gpm (~95
l/sec). MIT and Sandia studies ultimately target 125 l/s as the upper range for EGS. Initial EGS
development will be a lower flow rates (in some cases as low as 20 l/s).
As a baseline, 400 - 450°F (204 - 232°C) pumps are available but they have limited power and
can provide only about 600 gpm. Tar sand developers in Canada utilizing the steam assisted
gravity drainage (SAGD) method and have been running 800 shaft horsepower pumps at 200 -
225°C for up to a year.
ESPs are available that run for about a year at 200°C (395°F), 750 psi and pump about 100 l/
sec (~1585 gpm). However, the panel believes that for successful deployment of ESP, they will
need to run reliably for two to three years without replacement.
Sensors
Specific sensors should not be required. However, the motor and pump should be
capable of measuring the performance of the pump and its health.
Editors Note: The panel discussed various measurements that should be made both at the
surface and at the pump and motor. The panel believed that such measurements should include
temperature of the motor and the geothermal fluid, pressure above and below the pump,
vibration, motor amps and the surface flow rate. The panel did not believe that the “prize”
should specify specific measurements. However, they did suggest a requirement that sufficient
measurements be made, so the operator can sense the “health” of the ESP and have some
forewarning of ESP failure.
34

The Lateral Technology
Shift from Oil and Gas
The importance of the lateral technology
shift from oil and gas is not fully realized or
appreciated by those outside of the geothermal
sector. Technically similar, geothermal is dwarfed
by an industry and infrastructure geared
towards oil and gas. The nature of the resource
is subsurface, and it requires extensive resource
mapping and exploration.
Globally there are over 1 million oil and gas wells.
ESPs are installed in 12% or roughly 120,000
wells. For geothermal, less than 1,000 high
temperature wells exist. A great number are self-
producing with line shafts adding the final lift.
Less than 100 ESPs are operating in geothermal
environments. But to access more resource that
will have to change.
Additionally, there are approximately 2000 drill
rigs exploring and developing new oil and gas
reserves. On the geothermal side that number is
approximately 20.
While similar, the temperature and resource
challenges of geothermal do not make for a
straight forward lateral transfer of technology.
Like oil and gas, geothermal resources are found
in sedimentary rock. However, the current
resource focus is on those in igneous and
metamorphic – a different petrological challenge.
Lastly, once at the surface, the geothermal
resource must be used immediately. Its energy
(a temperature differential) must be captured,
harnessed and converted to electricity. This is
quite different from oil and gas, which can be
banked, stored and transmitted;, however, are
dependent on the international market price
fluctuations.
Motor
The pump should have the ability to produce at various flow rates. 60Hz will be made
available at various AC voltages at the surface. The contestants will be responsible for
their power off-take system.
Editors Note: The panel did not believe that a means of adjusting flow rate should be
specified. The flow and depth range dictates these constraints. How it achieves those needs
should be left open to allow for innovation. Some solutions may involve variable speed drives
(VSD). The contestants may have to provide a transformer for the field test. The necessity of
a VSD depends on the solution offered. VSD features increases costs. For example, a lineshaft
pump with a VSD is ~$580K while an ESP will cost $450K base with an additional $200K for
the VFD. Motors can cost up to 40% of the total pump package. As depth increases, the cable
cost can climb significantly, raising the overall unit cost to become 30% of the total pump cost.
Deployment
The competition should not specify a deployment time or method. However,
the deployment should not take more than a week from starting the gun to
full operation of the ESP.
Editors Note: Discussion on this topic was distracted by a larger theme of availability and
length of service as well as thermal cycling. Therma cycling involves back flushing a pump
with cold water to stimulate the fractures in the well field. This is a high stress event on
the electronics of a motor system. Additionally, there is significant variability in rates of
contraction of material during cooling, leading to leaks and pump failure. If a pump is capable
of a long operating life, the deployment time is less important. The group focused on a three-
year service life. One week of deployment over a three-year life is 99.4% availability. Generally,
the issue of availability is focused around a number of 95%. This second number is both more
realistic and allows for alternative solutions.
The panelists thought that the prize administration should not specify how the pump goes
from surface to reservoir. However, it should caution the contestants that the pump would
have to withstand the temperature stress of deployment and operation. Furthermore,
deployment may divert from the traditional method of running in on pipe. Deployment may
occur with coiled tubing or cable (common in other sectors). The eventual prize advisory board
should also specify a setting depth for testing the pump, and they may also want to specify
an availability limit, i.e., the time it takes to begin operation after deployment, and the time
required repairing or replacing a pump. This specification may be used in the evaluation of the
contestants, but should not be a contest requirement.
35

Insulation
Research into insulation will focus on
metal alloys and ceramics, materials
that demonstrate good performance
characteristics at high temperature.
Deposition of ceramic material (as an
insulating material) is being explored
using a variety of techniques including; 1)
chemical vapor deposition, 2) electron beam
evaporation, 3) physical vapor deposition, 4)
plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition, or
4) ion enhanced electron beam evaporation
GE motor operates at
725°C in 1971
The possibility of a high temperature motor
was demonstrated to 725°C using a nickel
clad silver palladium wire. The cathode
leads were designed to resist corrosion
and temperatures up to 1000°C as part of
research in the early 1970s on fuel cells.
The upper limitation of the electric motor
occurred when the silicon iron rotors
ferromagnetic properties passed their Curie
Temperature becoming paramagnetic and
ceased to have magnetic forces capable of
driving a motor
Efficiency
Efficiency should be a scoring criterion not a pass/ fail specification.
Editors Note: The preferred method of measuring ESP efficiency would be the hydraulic
power delivered by the pump versus the electrical energy required to run the pump. The
efficiency should be in the neighborhood of 95%, the efficiency of currently deployed
equipment.
Cabling
The contest requirements should only specify general operating conditions and not
specify the type of cable.
Editors Note: The cable needs to be chemically stable at that reservoir temperature and with
the fluid chemistry. The chemistry of geothermal systems will influence the material choices
for the ESP and its associated cabling. Some hydrothermal systems have rather corrosive
fluids. Elevated temperatures further exacerbate the situation. Hydrothermal systems contain
chloride, sulfate and carbonate as the principal anions and sodium, calcium, and potassium as
the principal cations. Hydrothermal systems may also contain H2S, CO2, and more rarely HCl.
All systems will be saturated with SiO2. However, EGS is likely to contain less saline water than
hydrothermal systems. Cable failure is therefore a significant and well-documented concern.
It is a challenge faced in other pump situations, and is a major research focus in the oil and
gas sector.
Serviceability/Repair time
The contest should require a time to failure of three years for each ESP.
Editors Note: The topic of serviceability and repair time was completely recast by the group.
Operators of geothermal fields generally run their pumps to failure, and pumps are replaced
rather than repaired in the field. In this context, serviceability became a moot issue, and the
performance characterization of [ned quote] “time to failure of three years” became a focus of
the prize. Availability of sensors to forewarn of failure would allow the operator to prepare for
replacement. It is within this characterization that availability was discussed, and the group
agreed that the pumps should have an availability factor of 95%.
Capital cost
The contest should not specify a capital cost but should use both the capital and
operating costs as a judging factor.
Editors Note: The cost needs to consider are: the capital cost of producing the prototype, the
expected manufacturing cost for production runs, and the operating cost. Pumps need to be
affordable. It is reasonable to expect that unit prices will be in the range of $750K to $1 Million.
36

The Lemelson meeting highlighted testing as
a major challenge in designing an effective
incentive prize. Incentive prizes prefer
short, low cost, validating and clear testing
parameters for final judging. Longevity of
service is a key factor for a downhole pump
and the preference is for a long testing
protocol to demonstrate service lifetime.
Manufacturability
The prize should require a statement of “Will sell x units at $y.”
This should be a Phase 2 requirement.
Editors Note: Since the prize developers hope to establish a new field-ready pump rather
than prototype equipment, the panel suggests that pump developers selected for second
phase testing should be required to agree to produce a specified number of units at a specified
price prior to field testing of the ESP. In addition, they will need to provide a manufacturing
plan and have secured a capable manufacturing partner, something for which the prize
administration will provide assistance.
Testing Protocols
Testing procedures of competing pumps may exceed one year to demonstrate market
viability to operators. Deliberations at the meeting suggest that there should be at
least two testing phases. 1) In laboratory testing of most candidate submissions, and 2)
field tests of the three or four best pumps.
Editors Note: The Lemelson meeting highlighted testing as a major challenge in designing
an effective incentive prize. Incentive prize call for short, low cost, validating and clear testing
parameters for final judging. Longevity of service is a key factor for a downhole pump, and
the preference is for a long testing protocol to demonstrate service lifetime. Consensus was
clear that because of the depth of the equipment, long operational service life in extreme
geothermal environments will require testing procedures that will be technically challenging.
Fundamentally the testing environment requires an autoclave. Building a pump capable
autoclave on the surface, or deploying and monitoring a pump at depth is expensive. Next
steps in developing the prize would necessitate finding a clear solution and programmatic
design that would meet the need.
The panel spent considerable time discussing testing of the ESPs. Three factors weighed heavily
in that discussion:
1. The ideal length of time and the cost of a three-year field test of pump reliability,
2. the availability of a geothermal site to test multiple pumps, and
3. The lack of laboratory facilities for testing a pump.
The panel considered alternatives to long-term, in-field testing in order to shorten the
evaluation of pumps and to reduce the cost. To that end, the panel suggested a two-phase
approach. Phase 1 would include testing of the pumps in a laboratory setting, and the second
phase would test only the best three or four pumps in the field. However, laboratory testing
is also problematic, since facilities are not currently available that can test a motor and pump
assembly under geothermal conditions.
37

Possible Testing Protocols
• T hree-year straight testing in a
developed geothermal well
• O
 ne-year straight testing with
multiple thermal shocks
• V arious thermal shocks at initial
phases of testing
• R
 epeated deployment, retrieval
and system re-starts in various
geothermal wells
Initial testing of the pump might be possible in a municipal water well or a mine dewatering
well. Alternatives to laboratory testing in an autoclave might involve testing of a pump with
the motor shrouded to allow buildup of heat around the motor. Since the most problematic
portion of the ESP is the motor, perhaps, the motor could be tested with a load other than a
long pump assembly. However, size may still be a limiting factor.
Phase 2 would include field tests of the three to four pumps that provided the greatest value
during the Phase 1 testing. The group believes that the pumps must be stressed during the
Phase 2 testing, and suggested that the pumps be cycled on and off once a month during the
first year of testing.
Of particular concern is developing a test cycle that will assure the pumps operate reliably
for three years. Testing could be accelerated by running the pumps at a higher than specified
temperature over a shorter time period. The panel also discussed the option of testing a
currently available ESP at a higher temperature than the “prize” temperature to determine
its time to failure and then comparing that failure time with the failure time of a high-
temperature pump operating at the same higher temperature. The panel did not believe that
either test method could be used to accurately scale pump operation at the prize’s specified
temperature over 3 years.
The panel also cautioned that testing of a prototype pump might not provide the same results
as the testing of a production-run pump. The prize panel should develop some mechanism to
assure that the prototype equipment is representative of pumps that will be produced during
normal operation. The panel also mentioned that testing only one pump of each type might
not be sufficient.
The panel believes that ESPs should operate reliably for three years in geothermal operations.
Furthermore, they understand the difficulty in testing pumps over an extended period. An
extended testing period delays evaluation and award of the prize. Extended testing will be
expensive unless a geothermal operator is willing to absorb the operational costs as part of
their production costs.
38
Conclusion of the
Lemelson Meeting
TIn the context of the prize goals, the meeting participants were successful in shaping the
design parameters of a high temperature pumping system for geothermal environments. While
there were numerous helpful discussions, a few which will continue to be resolved over the
course of 2009 like testing, perhaps the biggest value of the day’s proceedings was the survival
and strengthening of the prize concept as it made it through the gauntlet of geothermal
experts in the room.

If there was one criticism to be leveled on the organizers by themselves, it was recognizing that
the field of experts participating were perhaps too geothermal centric. External experts from
the electric motor sector and in the area of high-temperature electronics, for example, would
have added value. Existing ESPs use motors wound by the pump companies. Yet the electric
motor market extends well beyond this. The electric motor market is a $2.19 Billion annual
proposition in North America alone. High temperature electronics is a topic of great interest
and research in the defense and aerospace sectors as well as the automotive industry. As this
project progresses, future technical meetings will purposely seek these types of external experts
and, as planned, they will also be engaged in the context of recruiting teams to compete.

Technical considerations also included how to structure the design and evaluation of the
pumps both in a laboratory and a field setting as well as the test procedures required to
evaluate the long-term performance of the pumps in a geothermal environment. After
the technical discussions, the group explored the potential of the pump to assist in the
deployment of additional geothermal resources, the types of partnerships most appropriate for
the competition and the time scale for developing, testing and deploying pumps in the context
of the competition.

Individual phone interviews were also held post meeting with the attendees to solicit their
feedback and design criteria. The issue of temperature (220°C) was consistently identified as
too low. Currently, Woods Group and Schlumberger have low horsepower pumps that operate
at 200°C in the field. Many felt that the pump industry could easily obtain 220°C. More
importantly, operators and EGS experts stated their need of 250 or 275°C. Ultimately, EGS has
targeted an upper limit of resources at 375°C.

39
It appears that working towards a target from the pump industry led to more conservative
temperature numbers than if one solicited the insight from the electric motor industry.
Literature reviews indicate that systems can operate up to their Curie Limit in the 700°C range.
The challenge is hardening systems, fabricating them for diameters less than 12 inches, and
creating electronics packages that can handle the temperature and pressure. An R&D Director
for one of the pump companies stated that high-temperature applications for ESPs are less
than half of one percent of total ESP sales. Given that small market position, they were unlikely
to dedicate design and commercialization resources to such a challenge unless the market
opportunity exceeded $100M annually. They estimated that an annual market of 100 to 200
pumps per year would be a market motivator, well within the aspirations of the prize initiative.

Moving forward the project found and listed some of the Key Findings and Recommendations.
These are in draft form and have not been endorsed by the participants of the meeting.

40
 FINDINGS &
Recommendations
• Development and funding of a geothermal incentive prize focused on a robust down-hole
pump should move forward.

• In creating a prize, the goal must be a breakthrough technology that will allow geothermal
to go beyond hydrothermal. This means allowing EGS to achieve commercialization.

• Prize criteria should be open as possible allowing for creativity in designing technical solutions.

• The only limiting criteria should be pump diameter so that systems can be deployed into
13 3/8 inch holes.

• Diagnostic requirements should include vibration, temperature, and pressure.

• Length of pump life is one of the primary points of interest to developers.

• Power by pump companies is an interest, but a marginal challenge.

• Temperature by pump companies is an issue of reluctance.

• Temperature is of interest by scientists, industry specialists, industry advocates, and most

importantly operators.

• Non-issues for the challenge: deployment, power, sensors, cabling.

• While at the meeting, a temperature of 220°C (435°F) was selected as the target;
however, most participants individually felt that such a temperature was too low for
both geothermal industry needs and in creating a stretch target to inspire innovation.

• Manufacturers make high-temperature pumps (450C?) and high-power pumps

(2000 Horsepower), but not in combined form.

• Higher-temperature pumps are entering the market, but they do not have a sufficient
power output that would stimulate the industry or meet projected EGS needs.

• The high-temperature, high-power ESP market is too small to incite the necessary R & D by
the major pump companies.

• There are only three major pump companies currently offering geothermal pumps: 1)
Baker Hughes Centrilift, 2) Schlumberger Redda, 3) The Wood Group ESP. Byron Jackson
(Flowserve) operates in this arena, but only provides a narrow, 7-inch diameter pump. These
companies currently wind and manufacture their own electric motors.

• Major motor companies such as GE, Toshiba, and Siemens have high-temperature motor
capacity but currently do not provide systems to the geothermal sector.

41
• In assessing the market potential for such a pump, it was widely believed among the
panelists that other high- temperature pump users would also have interest in such a
system and possibly offer a higher market potential. The bulk of these users would be
in the oil and gas sector, such as Coproduced Fluids, SAGD, pipeline boosters and high-
temperature oil wells. Moreover, innovation in high-temperature motors would reduce
system size and cost, thereby creating commercial applications in electric cars, all electric
naval ships, and high-altitude motor applications.

• Levelized cost impact was considered the single most important determinant of the value
of such a pump. Current estimates range widely from 0.5 to 2.0 cents per kWh (electricity).
Further analysis is needed to narrow this band.

• Setting a temperature range was more difficult than expected. The group agreed on a range
from 200 to 220°C (with high power output). However, the industry is already offering
200°C systems. The system concern is the phase transition of polymers in the 225 to 250°C
range.

• Cable Deployed Pumps could offer significant savings. Such systems could be rapidly
deployed and not rely on mobilized drill crews. The absence of tubing strings would reduce
well development costs by ~$100K.

• Testing protocols elicited the greatest concern of a pump prize. Use of a geothermal well
site, lab testing, time of tests and energy were considered too expensive, complicated and
difficult to access. For the targeted temperature range, there is no site developed today that
would be available for protracted tests.

• Thermal Quenching of pumps as a test protocol generated strong interest and concern.
Thermal quenching significantly deteriorates a motor’s performance. The temperature
differential and speed of the quenching are the two biggest concerns. Quenching a well is
possible, but could destroy the well from rubbling in the open-hole section, and has limited
impact on its output. However, the ability of a pump to recover is a great concern.

• Initial quench tests should take place in surface testing so as to demonstrate resilience
before any type of subsurface testing.

Not Discussed:
• High-speed cavitation due to partial pressure of gases above 400°F.

• Cable deployed pumps

• Pumps in series

• Other than electrical submersible pumps (see Box or whatever on the Sperry pump)

42
 APPENDIX
> LEMELSON MEETING PARTICIPANTS 01
> LEMELSON MEETING AGENDA 02

43
Appendix Lemelson Meeting Participants
Jefferson W. Tester
H.P. Meissner Professor of
Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Mike Tupper
Executive Vice President
Composite Technology Development, Inc. (CTD)

Randy Badger Observers

Pump Expert
Charles Baron
AmWest Inc.
Associate, Climate and Energy
Google.org
John Bearden
Director R & D Engineering
Doug Blankenship
Baker Hughes Centrilift
Program Manager
Sandia National Laboratory
Stephen (Steve) Breit
Vice President
Kenneth Davies
Woods Group ESP
Associate
Google.org
A.J. (Chip) Mansure
Independent Consultant
Ray Fortuna
Sandia National Laboratories
Scientist
U.S. Department of Energy
Randy Normann
Geothermal Expert
Jeff Keller, PhD
Permatools
Manager, External Technology Initiatives
GE Global Research
Randy Dorn
Vice President
Patrick Maloney
Alta-Rock
Senior Program Officer
The Lemelson Foundation
Michael Lindsay
Co-creator
Alexandra Pressman
The Foundation for Geothermal Innovation
Secretariat
International Geothermal Partnership for
Lawrence Molloy
Technology
Co-creator
The Foundation for Geothermal Innovation
Subir Sanyal
President
John Pritchett
GeothermEx
Scientist
SAIC

Paul Spielman
Facilitator
Manager of Operations Support Joel Renner
ORMAT Geothermal Consultant

44
Randy Badger is with AmWest in Winnemucca, Nevada. He has been working with high
horsepower pumping applications for the past 20 years. His experience includes both lineshaft
turbines and submersible pumps. His current work involves setting lineshaft turbines at depths
exceeding 2,000 feet. His previous pump accomplishments have included the design and
manufacture of narrow-diameter (2 inch) water pumps (lifting from a depth of 2,000 feet),
lineshaft applications up to 1,200 horsepower, and the design and installation of multiple
series booster pumps at depth within a singular well bore. In the geothermal field, Mr. Badger
has sold and installed 1,000 horsepower units operating in 320°F (160°C) production wells.
Currently, he is working on a downhole generator for use in injection wells at geothermal
power plants.

Charles Baron is an Associate working on Climate and Energy with Google.or g where
he leads their geothermal efforts as part of Google's Renewable Electricity Cheaper than
Coal (RE<C) initiative. Since it's launch in November 2007, Google.org has committed over
$10.8 million to the advancement of Enhanced Geothermal Systems technology through
investments in AltaRock Energy and Potter Drilling, as well as research grants to the Southern
Methodist University Geothermal Laboratory and the Stanford University Geothermal Program.
Charles is an Observer on the Boards of Directors of AltaRock Energy and Potter Drilling.

Prior to Google.org, Charles worked for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Nuclear
Program and interned for the House Appropriations Committee, Center for American Progress,
the U.S. State Department in the Office of the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.
Charles is a graduate of Dartmouth College.

John Bearden is with Centrilift. John joined Borg-Warner Ingersoll Research Center, which
was Centrilift’s corporate research facility, in 1972. While there, he handled projects, which
studied gaseous effects on downhole pumps and resulted in the development of Centrilift’s
Rotary Gas Separator prototype. He transferred to Centrilift (Byron-Jackson Pump) in 1976
as a project engineer and currently serves as Director of R&D Systems Engineering. His career
has involved the design, development, and application of ESP components and systems. He
holds BS and MS degrees in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M University, with the MS
specialized in Turbomachinery and Fluid Dynamics. He has authored the ESP chapter for the
new edition of The Petroleum Engineering Handbook.

Stephen (Steve) Breit is currently Vice President of Technology for Wood Group ESP in
Oklahoma City, OK. He has been in the oil & gas-related industry for the last 28 years. Prior to
joining Wood Group, he was with the REDA Division of Schlumberger/TRW as Director of R&D
Engineering in the Electrical Submersible Pump Division. He has authored and co-authored
over 30 technical papers and articles for SPE and IEEE related to artificial lift equipment and
electrical power systems. Currently, he is on the SPE committee for ESP motor standards and
an Industry Committee on Artificial Lift Selection for Gas Well Deliquification.

45
Kenneth Davies is an Associate with Google.org, where he concentrates on geothermal
and wind technology. Prior to joining Google, Mr. Davies worked at the economic and strategic
consulting firm CRA International specializing in energy strategy, risk and valuation. His prior
experience includes time at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, and Rocky Mountain Institute, where he began his work on energy efficiency and
renewable energy under the tutelage of Amory Lovins. Kenneth holds a B.S. in Mechanical
Engineering and M.Eng. in Operations Research from Cornell University and an M.S. in
Environmental Studies from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Raymond Fortuna is a physical scientist with the U. S. Department of Energy’s

Geothermal Technologies Program. He has been involved with geothermal energy since 1986
and has a Master’s degree in geology. He managed DOE’s Geopressured-Geothermal Research
Program which flow tested highly pressured geothermal wells in Louisiana and Texas and the
Geothermal Resources Exploration and Definition Program, a program to find and evaluate
new geothermal resources in the western United States. He is currently managing R&D
activities for the Enhanced Geothermal Systems Program at DOE.

Jeff Keller manages external technology initiatives for GE Global Research. As a part of his
role, he supports GE Energy Financial Services’ venture capital investment activities, as well as
scouting promising early-stage technologies. His areas of interest and expertise include grid
scale energy storage, enhanced geothermal, efficiency, biofuels, and waste heat recovery. He
holds a PhD in Cell Biology from Vanderbilt University and was an Emmet Scholar at Cornell,
where he received his MBA. Mr. Keller has a B.A. from the University of Virginia.

Michael Lindsay has worked in and around the new venture space throughout the entirety
of his career as a banker, entrepreneur, intrapreneur and consultant, with clients ranging from
first-time entrepreneurs to the top executive tiers of multi-billion dollar enterprises. He has a
rare, substantial understanding of how to design, build, and launch large incentive prizes as
he was recently the Vice President, Prize and Program Development at the X PRIZE Foundation
in charge of developing their prizes in energy, health, medicine, education and venture
philanthropy. Michael is currently a Managing Partner at Proteus Environmental Technologies.
He has a BA from Duke University and an MBA from the Wharton School.

46
Patrick Maloney is a Senior Program Officer at The Lemelson Foundation, a Portland,
Oregon-based foundation that celebrates and supports inventors and entrepreneurs to
strengthen social and economic life. Patrick focuses on the Foundation’s Technology
Dissemination portfolio as well as its program-related investment strategy. As a consultant
at Google.org, he was involved in managing investments that matched Google’s mission in
climate change and international development. Prior to consulting, Patrick worked for Omidyar
Network, making grants and investments in areas of microfinance and emerging technologies.
Patrick entered the world of impact investing while at Barclays Global Investors, the world’s
largest institutional money manager. Patrick began his career with the International Campaign
to Ban Landmines, recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. Patrick holds an MBA from UC
Berkeley and a BS in International Politics from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign
Service.

A.J. (Chip) Mansure is retired from Sandia National Laboratories, where he worked in the
Geothermal Research Department for 15 years. He has been a key person on several Sandia
downhole geothermal instrumentation projects including the successful development and
field-testing of two generations of Diagnostics While Drilling tools. The second generation
was a 225°C tool. His participation included design, materials selection & testing, fabrication
oversight, telemetry & display software, and field-testing. Dr. Mansure is experienced in what
it takes to make a successful downhole geothermal tool. He has a PhD in Physics from Iowa
State University.

Lawrence Molloy is an engineer with over 15 years experience in scouting and

developing clean technologies. Primarily, he has worked with EBARA Corporation, one of
Japan’s largest machinery and environmental engineering companies. He has coordinated two
U.S.-Japan water technology R & D projects as well as conducted technology evaluations and
due diligence on flywheels, bio-fuels and clean water technologies. In the late 1990s, he served
as EBARA’s liaison to the White House U.S. Japan Environmental Technology Partnership. He
also participated on several NREL Industry Forums. He has been a member of the Clean Tech
Network and the Environmental Export Council.

Mr. Molloy was publically elected to the Port of Seattle, where he served as Commissioner.
During his term, the Port had over 2,000 direct employees and a US$ 1.5 Billion capital
budget. With the U.S. EPA in the early 1990s, Lawrence worked in the Strategic Planning
and Management Division, where he was decorated for his work on Civil Rights and the
environment. He has an M.S. in Engineering from Stanford University and attended Colgate
University where he graduated with honors with a degree in Geology.

47
Randy Norman is with Perma Works. Mr. Norman received his undergraduate degree
from the Oregon Institute of Technology and an MS EE&CS from University of New Mexico.
Before starting his own geothermal technology company, Perma Works, Randy had been with
Sandia National Labs for 23 years. He spent 14 years as lead investigator for High-Temperature
Electronics and Fiber Optics for geothermal well instrumentation. Currently, he is working
with others on the SAE- Aerospace Power Electronics Panel in writing Best Practices for
Testing High-Temperature Electronics. Today, Perma Works markets the industries only 250ºC
Barefoot geothermal well monitoring system with plans to introduce a permanent 300ºC well
monitoring system.

Alexandra Pressman works on the Geothermal Technologies Program's international

portfolio. She is the Secretariat for the International Partnership for Geothermal
Technologies. Ms. Pressman has experience working in the renewable energy sectors in the U.S.
and Spain and has a special interest in addressing technical challenges through international
collaboration. Posted at the Department of Energy’s Washington DC headquarters, and
reporting directly to Director Ed Wall, she is a contractor with Sentech. She has a Bachelors
Degree from Connecticut College.

John Pritchett is with SAIC. John completed his formal education in physics at UC
Berkeley in 1964. His primary expertise is the development and application of sophisticated
computerized simulators to describe geothermal reservoirs. Mr. Pritchett has personally
developed several state-of-the-art simulation programs to describe geothermal reservoir
dynamics and related phenomena that are now in use around the world. He is a member of
the Geothermal Resources Council (GRC), the International Geothermal Association, and the
Geothermal Research Society of Japan. He is a recipient of the NRDL Gold Medal for Scientific
Achievement and of the GRC’s Special Achievement Award. He serves on the Editorial Board
of the international technical journal “Geothermics” and on the Board of Directors of the
Geothermal Energy Association, the U.S. geothermal industry’s trade organization.

Joel Renner (Facilitator) has spent most of his career working with geothermal
energy. He was the geothermal lead at the U. S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National
Laboratory (INL) from 1986 until his retirement in early 2008. He began his career with the
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1970. He has participated in several USGS assessments of
the geothermal resources of the United States. Mr. Renner holds a B.A in Mathematics from
Carleton College and a M.Sc. in Geology from the University of Minnesota. A member of the
Geothermal Resources Council, he has received their Joseph Aidlin Award. Mr. Renner is the
first author of the Geothermal Energy chapter in the 2nd edition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers Handbook of Petroleum engineering.

48
Subir K. Sanyal is President of GeothermEx. Dr. Sanyal has worked as a reservoir engineer
since 1969. His expertise includes project financing and management, economic analysis,
property appraisals, reservoir engineering, numerical simulation and training of reservoir
engineers. Dr. Sanyal joined GeothermEx in 1980 as Vice President and Manager of Reservoir
Engineering Services, and became President of the company in 1995. Dr. Sanyal has a PhD
in Petroleum Engineering from Stanford University, and a Master's degree in Petroleum
Engineering from the University of Birmingham (England). He currently serves on the Board
of Directors of the Geothermal Resources Council, and has served on the Board of Directors of
Geothermal Energy Association and the International Geothermal Association.

Paul Spielman is a Manager of Operations Support in the Resource Department of Ormat.

His work includes managing the Operations Support Group; analyzing production trends;
diagnosing well problems; designing well completions, pump installations, remediation work;
and the planning and managing drilling operations. Paul’s career in the geothermal field has
covered nearly a quarter of a century, with some of the industry leaders (Republic Geothermal,
Mesquite Group, Cal Energy, Caithness, Schlumberger, and Ormat). He has worked on power
projects ranging from 190°F co-produced oilfield brine, to 320°F pumped resources, to 660°F+
hot water and steam resources. Paul has a BSME from San Jose State and an MSME from San
Diego State.

Jefferson W. Tester is the David Croll Professor of Sustainable Energy Systems in the
School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Cornell University. He is also the Director
of the Energy Institute in the College of Engineering and Associate Director of the Cornell
Center for a Sustainable Future, with special responsibility for the energy focus of CCSF.
He is an expert in geothermal energy and supercritical fluids for green chemical synthesis.
Until 2008, Tester was the H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT (1980-
2008), Director of MIT's Energy Laboratory (1989-2001), Director of MIT’s School of Chemical
Engineering Practice (1980-1989) and a group leader in the Geothermal Engineering Group at
Los Alamos National Laboratory (1974-1980).

Mike Tupper is the Executive Vice President of CTD. CTD develops novel materials for harsh
environments, including high temperature insulation. He has been intimately involved in the
development, testing and manufacturing of composite materials for more than 20 years. Prior
to CTD, Mr. Tupper earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Columbia University and is a
registered Professional Engineer.

49
 The February 11th, 2009
Lemelson Meeting Agenda
9:00 Welcome by Lawrence Molloy
9:05 Greetings by Patrick Maloney of the Lemelson Foundation
9:10 Introduction to Incentive Prize Design by Michael Lindsay
9:25 Introductions around the Room
9:40 Ground Rules and Goals by Facilitator Joel Renner

9:50 Identification of Limits/Discussion of Design Criteria

• Diameter
• Deployment
• Flow Rate
• Operation
• Sensors
• Efficiency
• Power (AC, DC, VSD) and Parasitic Power
• Cabling
• Serviceability/Repair Time between Service
• Cost
• Manufacturability

12:30 Adjourn for Lunch

1:45 Recasting of Issues
3:00 Testing/Judging Protocols and Metrics

4:00 Market Assessment

• This innovation would open up how many additional MW

• This innovation would lower the production costs by how much
• Identification of possible obstacles

4:30 Assorted Prize Development Open Questions

5:00 Partnerships Discussion

• Rapid ID of possible teams, endorsing organizations, donors, sponsors,

government agencies, locations, etc.

5:15 Conclusion (Renner, Molloy and Lindsay)

• Wrap-up, commitments on draft, next steps

50
51
52