Geothermal Reconnaissance at the Mo Duc and the Bang Sites, Vietnam

submitted to:

Research Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources (RIGMR)

by:

Electric Power Development Co. Ltd. (J-Power)

December 2006

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. Site description 2.1 Mo Duc site 2.2 Bang site 2.3 Geochemical model 3. Preliminary potential estimation 3.1 Methodology 3.2 Calculation of the potential 3.3 Summary of Results 4. Work program of exploration 5. Recommendation 6. Reference

3 5 5 6 14 19 19 19 21 25 31 32

1. Introduction Messrs. Shigetaka Nakanishi and Shigeo Tezuka from J-Power, experienced geothermal reservoir engineer and geologist, visited Vietnam from October 29 to November 6, 2006, by taking an opportunity that Research Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources (RIGMR) asked to visit. The scientists and engineers of RIGMR (especially Mr. Nguyen Tien Hung and Mr. Nguyen Thac Cuong) assisted us considerably by accompanying at almost all the meetings and in the field excursion. The field excursion was carried out at following two geothermal fields: Mo Duc site, Quang Ngai Province: November 1, 2006 Bang site, Quang Binh Province: November 2, 2006 In order to understand a level of study and situation for development of geothermal resources in Vietnam, we had a series of meetings with representatives from the following authorities concerned: - Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) Research Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources (RIGMR) Dr. Nguyen Xuan Khien Director Dr. Tran Tan Van Vice Director Mr. Vo Xuan Dinh Senior Geologist Mr. Nguyen Tien Hung Geologist Mr. Nguyen Thac Cuong Hydrogeologist - Ministry of Industry (MOI) Department of Energy and Petroleum Mr. Nguyen Tuan Anh - Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Quang Binh Province Mr. Nguten Xuan Tuyen Director Mr. Nguyen Thanh Tinh Vice Director Mr. Tran Ngoc Soan Head of Mineral Resources Dept.

Based on the field excursion and discussions between RIGMR and J-Power, basic scheme of a next-step project and future actions of both parties were mutually confirmed. This document is the short report of field excursion of the two geothermal sites (Mo Duc site and Bang site) including the preliminary resource assessment based on our experiences, and the proposal of future work / investigation program,

submitting to RIGMR in order to help RIGMR to realize the next-step feasibility study.

2. Site description In order to confirm the field situation, we visited two promising geothermal sites (Fig.2-1). The field excursion was carried out as follows; Mo Duc site, Quang Ngai Province : November 1, 2006 Bang site, Quang Binh Province : November 2, 2006 2.1 Mo Duc site - Mo Duc site is located at Quang Ngai Province in the central Vietnam. The site is located 20km south from Quang Ngai city. The site is in the rice field. - Mo Duc site is divided into two areas, the South area (Thach Tru) and the North area (Tu Son). Distance between both areas is about 1.5 km. - High temperature hot springs flow out at these two areas (Fig.2-2). - Cretaceous granitic rocks (Hai Van Complex) are distributed widely around Mo Duc site, and are overlaid with Quaternary sediments (30-50m thick). - There is no distribution of Quaternary young volcanic rocks, besides the partial distribution of the Pliocene basalt sheet which is located more than 10 km away from the geothermal manifestation. According to the RIGMR, there is a record that an eruption of submarine volcano occurred in 1924 at far eastern part from the Mo Duc area under the sea. - The geothermal manifestation seems to be related with NNW-SSE fault which hot springs are distributed along. Viewing the topography, small ridge of offset can be obviously confirmed. - There is no well data in Mo Duc site. 2.1.1 Geothermal manifestation at South area (Thach Tru) - Two hot springs are recognized in this area. They flow out with small bubbling gas. Silica sinter makes a small mound (Fig.2-3, Fig.2-4). - The flowing temperature is 82.7C, pH is neutral, the water type is Na-Cl type, and total flow rate is 90 L/min (Hong, 1995). - Reservoir temperature can be estimated by using chemical equilibrium between water and various minerals, and will be shown in latter part. - Artificial ponds are made by local people, and hot water is gathered to flow tank by drain and pumped to nearby spa complex (Fig.2-5).

- The spa complex which is located at about 100m from hot springs was opened in 2001. The geothermal water is used for swimming pool and bath. - The owner of the spa complex drilled shallow well (16m depth) in order to obtain cold water. However, hot water flew up from the well (temperature; 40C, flow rate; 3-4 L/min approximately, and chemical component; unknown). 2.1.2 Geothermal manifestation at North area (Tu Son) - It is located 1.5km NNW from the South area. - One hot spring is recognized in this area. Flow outlet is covered by concrete pipe, and hot water is lead to three ponds. It seems that local residents use the hot water for bathing (Fig.2-6). - The flowing temperature is 54C, pH is neutral, the water type is Na-Cl type, and total flow rate is 20-30 L/min (approximately). 2.1.3 Comparison of South area (Thach Tru) and North area (Tu Son) - Geothermal manifestation of South area (Thach Tru) is greater and more active than that of North area (Tu Son), e.g. flow temperature, flow rate and existence of siliceous sinter. - Because of lack of subsurface data, it is difficult to assess the geothermal potential precisely.

2.2 Bang site - Bang site is located in Quang Binh Province in the central Vietnam. The site is located about 40km south east from Dong Hoi city. The site is located in a sparsely-populated mountainous area (Fig.2-7). - Upper Ordovician-lower Silurian sedimentary rocks (sandstone, siltstone) are distributed widely around Bang site. - Pliocene-lower Pleistocene basalt is distributed partially at 5km northwest from Bang site. While we could not deny that the basaltic rock activity is the heat source of Bang site, it seems too old to act as the heat source of the geothermal system. - According to the document given from RIGMR, there are three geothermal manifestations (zones) at Bang site. We visited only one site (the A zone of the document) of the three manifestations.

2.2.1 Geothermal manifestation at Bang site - A lot of high temperature hot springs are distributed in about 25 m 50 m area along small riverbed (Fig.2-8, Fig.2-9). - Silica sinter (or Travertine) makes a small mound (1-1.5m diameter). - Hot springs flow out accompanying the H2S gas smell. - The flowing temperature is 98.3-100.7C, pH is neutral, and the water type is Na-HCO3 type. - Reservoir temperature can be estimated by using chemical equilibrium between water and various minerals, and will be shown in latter part. - There is a shallow artesian well (Fig.2-9(4)). The drilling depth is 25m (casing pipe set at 14m depth). The flowing temperature is reported as 105C (Flynn, T., et al., 1997). - The precise flow rate of this well is not measured. It seems to be 20-25 L/min approximately, based on our observation of the condition of water pumping up. - The hot water is pumped up by tank track (that we observed), and transported to the factory to be bottled as mineral water by Cosevco Bang Co. The company develops around this area as recreation facilities recent years.

Bang (Le Thuy)

Mo Duc

Fig.2-1 Promising geothermal fields in Vietnam

Fig.2-2 Map of Mo Duc Site

9

Fig.2-3 Panoramic view of Thach Tru area (Mo Duc site). (Red arrows indicate the flowing points.)

Fig.2-4 Enlarged view of Thach Tru area (Mo Duc site). (Red arrows indicate the flowing points.)

Fig.2-5 Spa Complex (Mo Duc site).

10

Fig.2-6 Panoramic view (left) and enlarged view (right) of Tu Son area (Mo Duc site). (Red arrows indicate the flowing points (not well). Green arrow indicates flow out.)

11

12

(1)

(4) drilling well

(3) (2)

Fig.2-8 Panoramic view of Bang site. (Red arrows indicate the flowing points.)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Fig.2-9 Enlarged views of each flow points. (Each number of photograph correspond to the point on Fig.2-8)

13

2.3 Geochemical model 2.3.1 Reservoir temperature estimation Some geothermometers such as silica (Fournier, 1973) and Na-K-Ca geothermometers (Fournier and Truesdell, 1973) are generally used to estimate reservoir temperature. In this report, we estimated the reservoir temperatures by geochemical equilibrium approach using the computer program, SOLVEQ (Reed and Spycher, 2002). The chemical data used for the calculation are listed in Table 2-1. Aluminum concentrations of hot spring waters in both sites are assumed as 0.1 mg/L because they are not measured. Saturation index of the water with respect to each mineral is calculated every 20C as shown in Figs. 2-10 and 2-11. Saturation index is defined as log Q/K, where Q is the ion activity product and K is the equilibrium constant. If saturation index is near zero at a certain temperature, there is a possibility that the water is saturated with respect to the mineral. That is, if many saturation indices are zero at a certain temperature, the temperature could indicate reservoir temperature. The reservoir temperature of Mo Duc is likely to be around 160C as shown in Fig. 2-10. If Aluminum concentration is lower than 0.1 mg/L, it is calculated to be lower than 160C. On the other hand, the saturation index lines of the Bang water do not concentrate at a certain temperature. It means that the geothermal water is not be in equilibrium with respect to minerals. It might be due to CO2 degassing when discharging, dilution of shallow groundwater and the other disturbances. The above geothermometry might not indicate a proper reservoir temperature at the Bang site. Gas geochemical approach might be useful for such a geochemical system mentioned below.

14

Table 2-1

Chemical compositions of hot spring waters at Mo Duc and Bang. Chemical data are after Hong (1995) and RIGMR (2006). Al concentration is assumed for calculation of saturation index
Unit pH Na K Ca Mg Al Cl SO4 HCO3 SiO2 Geothermometer TSiO2 (adiabatic) TSiO2 (chalcedony) TNa-K-Ca C C C --122 160 115 --182 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Mo Duc 7.49 1260 70.0 347 3.50 0.1 2560 153 61 120 Bang 8.3 157.2 11.7 2.4 0.5 0.1 8.5 19.5 405.7 67.9

5 4 3 2 log Q/K 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 100 TSiO2 (chal)

calcite anhydrite quartz chalcedony laumontite muscovite microcline albit-low

TNa-K-Ca

120

140

160 180 200 Temperature ()

220

240

Fig. 2-10 Relationship between Saturation index and temperature of Mo Duc. : temperatures using general geothermometers

15

5 4 3 2 log Q/K. 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 60 80 100

calcite anhydrite quartz chalcedony laumontite muscovite microcline albit-low

TSiO2 (adia)

TNa-K-Ca

120 140 160 Temperature ()

180

200

Fig. 2-11

Relationship between Saturation index and temperature of Bang. : temperatures using general geothermometers

2.3.2 Geochemical model We have constructed the possible geochemical model as follows, although the available data is extremely limited at present. (1) Mo Duc site Chemical features of hot spring waters in the Mo Duc site are similar to those of seawater. These waters might alter from diluted seawater as mentioned by Hong (1995). In fact, some constituents such as Ca, Mg and SO4 might be lower than expected values from the mixing of seawater with fresh water. Isotopic analyses of hot water and surface water are needed to study the origin of water. It is considered that the water is close to equilibrium with minerals based on saturation indices. The reservoir temperature is ranging from 120C (saturation index of chalcedony = 0) to 170C (saturation index of muscovite = 0). The reservoir temperature is considered to be around 160C most likely from the concentration point of saturation index lines in Fig. 2-10, although some uncertainties are remained. As to heat source, Hung (2006, personal communication) mentioned that volcanic eruption occurred in the sea near the Mo Duc site in 1924. According to Koening (1983), however, the magmatic

16

heat source is unlikely considered due to the relationship between locations of volcanic activity and geothermal manifestations. Heat source has been unknown yet.

Fig. 2-12 Geochemical model of the Mo Duc site (2) Bang site From the geochemical point of view, there is a possibility that the deep reservoir with the NaCl water might exist below the shallow reservoir with the Na-HCO3 water. Mainly CO2 gas might be separated from the deep NaCl water and might be upwelling to the shallow zone. The shallow water might be added with CO2 gas from the deep zone and Na-HCO3 type water with few chloride concentrations might be formed. The temperature of Na-HCO3 water is considered to be 120-130C where some saturation indices tend to concentrate. The water might be distributed at a depth of 100-200m. The water is upwelling along the fault zone and the neutral Na-HCO3 water and CO2 gas are discharging on the ground. The basaltic rocks of Pleistocene - Pliocene are distributed near the Bang site. Heat source of geothermal manifestations at the Bang site could be supposed to be magmatic. Although the above geothermometry might not indicate a proper reservoir temperature at the Bang site, the deep reservoir temperature might be 150-200C from our experiences. The deep reservoir is considered to be the target of geothermal development.

17

In order to gain more geochemical information, gas analysis should be carried out. The methods by DAmore and Panichi (1980) and DAmore and Truesdell (1985) would be useful to estimate the temperature of the deep NaCl type reservoir using gas chemical data.

Fig. 2-13 Geochemical model of the Bang site

18

3. Preliminary potential estimation 3.1 Methodology To estimate the recoverable heat energy reserves in the promising sites, we have applied a calculation technique usually used in early exploration stage. This method is a volumetric reserve estimation approach introduced by U. S. Geological Survey (USGS, 1979), modified to account for uncertainties in some input parameters by using a probabilistic basis (Monte Carlo simulation). The volumetric component of the calculation consists of reservoir area, reservoir thickness, rock porosity, and reservoir temperature. Each of these components, considered to be an average for the reservoir as a whole, is assigned an estimated minimum, estimated most-likely and estimated maximum value, based on surface exploration data and conceptual model of the resource. Each set of three values is assigned by Monte Carlo method to triangular probability density distribution, which is sampled using a random number generator during iteration calculation. If the most-likely value is omitted from the input, then sampling is done along a horizontal distribution between the minimum and maximum values. 3.2 Calculation of the potential (1) Mo Duc site The values assigned herein are as follows. - Reservoir Temperature The reservoir temperature is assigned based on the geothermometries (see chapter 2.3). Minimum: 120C, Most-likely: 160C, Maximum: 170C - Reservoir Area There is no geophysical and drilling data in the site. We must estimate the extension of geothermal reservoir taking account of only geological data, topography and geothermal manifestations. We assumed as follows: Minimum: 1.0km2, Most-likely: 1.5km2, Maximum: 2.0km2 - Reservoir Thickness The reservoir thickness is a very important parameter for volumetric reserve estimation approach. But there is no drilling data in the site. We assumed the reservoir thickness according to that of other geothermal fields. Minimum: 500m, Maximum: 1500m - Rock Porosity The assigned value is used in general.

19

Minimum: 3 %, Maximum: 7 % - Recovery Factor USGS (1979) used a recovery factor of 0.25 for reserve estimates of hydrothermal convection systems. We assumed a horizontal probability density distribution between 0.10 and 0.25 for a recovery factor. Minimum: 10 %, Maximum: 25 % <Fixed value> - Specific Heat of Rock Matrix and Density of Rock Matrix Both values are assigned based on representative values, 0.972 kJ/kgC and 2500 kg/m3. - Rejection Temperature Rejection temperature is assigned based on the average annual ambient temperature (25C) of both sites. - Utilization factor A utilization factor of 0.40 for the binary cycle power generation system is assigned from USGS (1979). - Plant Capacity Factor A value of 0.9 is used, which is typical of modern geothermal power plants. - Power Plant Life The power plant life of 25 years is the most commonly value. - The result of volumetric reserve calculation in the Mo Duc site is showed in Fig. 3-1. The geothermal energy reserve of 6.6 MW and 4.5 MW/km2 (50% probable) is estimated. (2) Bang site The values assigned herein are as follows. - Reservoir Temperature The reservoir temperature is assigned based on the geothermometries (see chapter 2.3). Minimum: 120 C, Maximum: 200 C - Reservoir Area There is no geophysical and drilling data in the site. We must estimate the extension of geothermal reservoir taking account of only geological data, topography and geothermal manifestations. We assumed as follows: Minimum: 1.0km2, Most-likely: 2.0km2, Maximum: 3.0km2

20

- Reservoir Thickness The reservoir thickness is a very important parameter for volumetric reserve estimation approach. But there is no drilling data in the site. We assumed the reservoir thickness according to that of other geothermal fields. Minimum: 500m, Maximum: 1500m - Rock Porosity The assigned value is used in general. Minimum: 3 %, Maximum: 7 % - Recovery Factor USGS (1979) used a recovery factor of 0.25 for reserve estimates of hydrothermal convection systems. We assume a horizontal probability density distribution between 0.10 and 0.25 for a recovery factor. Minimum: 10 %, Maximum: 25 % <Fixed value> - Specific Heat of Rock Matrix and Density of Rock Matrix Both values are assigned based on representative values, 0.972 kJ/kgC and 2500 kg/m3. - Rejection Temperature Rejection temperature is assigned based on the average annual ambient temperature (25C) of both sites. - Utilization factor A utilization factor of 0.40 for the binary cycle power generation system is assigned from USGS (1979). - Plant Capacity Factor A value of 0.9 is used, which is typical of modern geothermal power plants. - Power Plant Life The power plant life of 25 years is the most commonly value. - The result of volumetric reserve calculation in the Bang site is showed in Fig. 3-2. The geothermal energy reserve of 9.3 MW and 4.9 MW/km2 (50% probable) is estimated. 3.3 Summary of Results - The results of volumetric reserve calculation for the both sites are shown in Figs. 3-1 and 3-2.

21

Mo Duc site

3.2 MW, and 2.3 MW/km2 (90% probable) 6.6 MW, and 4.5 MW/km2 (50% probable) 3.6 MW, and 2.2 MW/km2 (90% probable) 9.3 MW, and 4.9 MW/km2 (50% probable)

Bang site

- Bang site may be more promising than Mo Duc site. The geothermal potential of both sites are small relative to the geothermal promising area of other countries. - Cuong et al. (2005) estimated the geothermal resources in Mo Duc site and Bang site as 23MW and 21MW. Their resource estimations are two to three times as large as that of our estimation. It might be because that we have selected the parameters in more pessimistic manner in this study, since we believe that conservative estimation will be required at the early exploration stage. - It must be emphasized that an estimate of reserves using the volumetric method does not imply any guarantee that a given level of power generation can be achieved. Before a given level of generation can be realized, exploratory wells capable of extracting the heat from the rock by commercial production of geothermal fluid must be drilled and tested.

22

[Input parameters]
Variable Parameters Reservoir Temperature (C) Reservoir Area (km2) Reservoir Thickness (m) Rock Porosity (%) Recovery Factor (%) Fixed Parameters Specific heat of rock matrix Density of rock matrix Rejection Temperature (C) Utilization factor Plant Capacity Factor Power Plant Life (years) 0.972 2500 25 0.40 0.9 25
100 90 The cumulative probability [%] 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Minimum

Most-likely

Maximum

400 350 300 250 200 150 100

[Mo Duc site]

120 1.0 500 3 10

160 1.5 (kJ/kgC) (kg/m3)

170 2.0 1500 7 25

NUMBER

50 0 22.323.4 21.222.3 20.121.2 1920.1 17.919 16.817.9 15.716.8 14.615.7 13.514.6 12.413.5 11.312.4 10.211.3 89.1 9.110.2 6.98 5.86.9 4.75.8 3.64.7 2.53.6 1.42.5

MAXIMUM ELECTLICAL POWER [MW]

[Results] MW 90% Probable 50% Probable 3.2 6.6 MW/km2 2.3 4.5

6.58

Fig. 3-1 Probabilistic calculations of geothermal energy reserves in the Mo Duc site.
23

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

MAXIMUM ELECTLICAL POWER [MW]

[Input parameters]
Variable Parameters Reservoir Temperature (C) Reservoir Area (km2) Reservoir Thickness (m) Rock Porosity (%) Recovery Factor (%) Fixed Parameters Specific heat of rock matrix Density of rock matrix Rejection Temperature (C) Utilization factor Plant Capacity Factor Power Plant Life (years) 0.972 2500 25 0.40 0.9 25
100 90

Minimum

Most-likely

Maximum

450 400 350 300 NUMBER 250 200 150 100

[Bang site]

120 1.0 500 3 10

2.0 (kJ/kgC) (kg/m3)

200 3.0 1500 7 25

50 0 43.545.7 41.343.5 39.141.3 36.939.1 34.736.9 32.534.7 30.332.5 28.130.3 25.928.1 23.725.9 21.523.7 19.321.5 17.119.3 14.917.1 12.714.9 10.512.7 8.310.5 6.18.3 3.96.1 1.73.9

MAXIMUM ELECTLICAL POWER [MW]

[Results] MW 90% Probable 50% Probable 3.6 9.3 MW/km2 2.2 4.9

The cumulative Probability [%]

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

9.26

Fig. 3-2 Probabilistic calculations of geothermal energy reserves in the Bang site.
24

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 MAX IMUM ELECTLICAL POWER [MW]

4. Work program of exploration The resource potential of the Bang site, that seems to be the most promising area for geothermal development in Vietnam, could not be certainly determined because of lack of date on subsurface geothermal structure and actual temperature. Therefore further exploration and investigation are highly inquired to delineate geothermal reservoir conditions and to confirm the feasibility of geothermal development in this area. We propose a specific work program of exploration for the Bang site in this chapter. Figure 4-1 shows a general work flow of exploration for development of geothermal power station. In order to determine the resource potential, we need to confirm the productive reservoir; in another words the subsurface distribution of high temperature and high permeable zone. To achieve the objective, we propose the simplified exploration program at the Bang site as shown Figure 4-2. This program can be divided to two stages; the first stage involves geological, geochemical and geophysical surveys and determination of exploration drilling targets, and the second stage involves well drilling and determination of geothermal potential. First Stage At the Bang site, a geochemical analysis of hot spring was performed in the past, but no gas analysis data. More over, sampling and pre-treatment conditions are unknown. Therefore, at the first step, the complete geochemical study of thermal spring fluid is needed to perform as well as some geophysical surveys, such as DC resistivity survey or electromagnetic survey (for example CSAMT survey). Several points for exploratory drilling may be determined by integrating analysis of these surveys involved geological data review such as fault / lineament analysis. The specification of geochemical analysis may be as follows: - Sampling of hot spring water and gas - The following chemical components should be analyzed: Liquid: pH, Electrical Conductivity, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Cl, SO4, T-CO2 (HCO3, CO3, H2CO3), Fe, Al, B, Br, F, H2S, NH4, SiO2, D, 18O (H2O), 18O (SO4), 13C, 34S (SO4), 3H Gas: CO2, H2S, O2, N2, H2, He, Ar, Ne, 13C - Pre-treatment of the water sample should be performed at the site as follows:

25

Pre-treatment method No-treatment

Sampling volume 1000 ml 1000 ml 5000 ml

Components pH, EC, Cl, SO4, B, F D, 18O (H2O), 18O (SO4), 34S (SO4)
3

HCl treatment: Add about 20 ml HCl (6 N)

1000 ml

Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Al, NH4, SiO2 T-CO2, Br 13C H2S

KOH treatment: Add about 20 ml KOH (6 N) 1000 ml 1000 ml Acidic sample: Add 20 ml of cadmium acetate after addition of 10 ml sodium acetate (20 %) Alkaline sample: Add 20 ml of cadmium acetate after addition of 10 ml acetic acid (20 %) 400 ml

The specification of geophysical survey may be as follows: In the case of DC resistivity survey - At least, 2 measurement lines extending different direction (for example N-S and E-W directions) will be needed. Four measurement lines are preferable. - Length of the measurement line should be 4 km or more; namely the maximum investigation depth (AB/2 of the Schlumberger electrode allay) will be 2 km. - Electrode spacing may be 250m. (Total number of survey points will be 64 for 4 survey lines) - The main output will be resistivity (or conductivity) distribution of each vertical section calculated by inversion analysis. - Interpretation of the resistivity structure. In the case of CSAMT survey - 10 survey lines extending along same direction may be needed, and the line spacing may be 200m. - Length of the each survey line may be 2 km. - Survey point spacing in each line may be 200m. (Total number of survey points will be 100)

26

- Changes in electrical field will be measured at each survey point, while a representative measurement of magnetic field will be commonly used for the each survey line. - The transmitter (the current dipole) should be located fur enough from the survey area. Frequency range of the transmitter will be 8 kHz - 4 Hz. - The main output will be resistivity (or conductivity) distribution of each vertical section calculated by inversion analysis. - Interpretation of the resistivity structure Integrated Analysis - Construct the conceptual model of the Bang geothermal system. The conceptual model should involve the feature of fracture distribution inferred from all of the survey results and available data. - Chose several candidates of exploratory drilling site with the description of the target. Second Stage Exploratory well drilling - Drilling of slim holes (500m 2 holes). Well diameter: about 4 in. - Drilling of large-diameter well (1000m 1 well). Well diameter: about 8-1/2 in. - Well loggings (temperature, pressure, resistivity etc.) - Production and injection tests (pressure transient tests) after completion of each well. - During the production test, flowrates of steam and water, and well head pressure etc. should be measured. - Estimations of reservoir permeability based on the well test results (well productivity and injectivity) - Sampling of the flowing fluid in the production test, and geochemical analysis should be performed by the same manner described above. Integrated analysis - Improvement of geological structure model - Temperature distribution mapping (understanding of reservoir temperature and volume) - Improvement of conceptual model Resource evaluation

27

Re-evaluation of geothermal potential by volumetric method (Uncertainties of the unknown parameters for resource evaluation, such as areal extent of reservoir, reservoir thickness, and average temperature etc., will be reduced, and the parameters will be well defined by exploratory well data at this point)

Preliminary planning of power station and Economic evaluation - Planning of drilling program (target, depth, casing program) based on the productivities of the exploratory wells. - Planning of power generation - Economic evaluation based on future drilling plan and electric power scheme - Future development plan

28

Exploration Stage
Exploration Plan

Geological Survey
Geological Mapping Rock Alteration Study

Geophysical Survey
Gravity survey Electrical survey MT/CSAMT survey Heat discharge survey Remote sensing study etc.

Geochemical Survey
Fluid chemistry analysis for hot springs,

Fracture/Fault Analysis

discharging fluid from wells etc.

Integrated Analysis
Reservoir Structure ? Fluid flow in the reservoir system ? Heat Source / Temperature ? Conceptual modeling of the reservoir

Exploratory Well Drilling

Slim hole drilling Large diameter wells Well logging (Temperature, Pressure,

Resistivity, Fracture distribution etc.)

Integrated Analysis
Refinement of the conceptual model Reservoir Structure / Permeability distribution Fluid flow in the reservoir system Temperature distribution Reservoir numerical simulation (Reservoir evaluation)

Development Plan

Fig.4-1 General process for development of a Geothermal Power Station

29

Geological study

Geochemical study

Geophysical study
- DC resistivity survey - CSAMT survey

-review of geological data -fault / lineament analysis

- Complete Analysis of thermal fluid

1st stage

Integrated analysis and Determine drilling sites

Exploratory well drilling

2nd stage

-Two 500m depth slim holes and -1000m depth hole (Including logging and flow test)

Integrated analysis and Determine the geothermal potential

Fig.4-2 Proposed work program at the Bang site

30

5. Recommendations It is obvious that there are high geothermal potentials in both of the Mo Duc and the Bang site. A geothermal potential of the Bang site seems to be greater than that of the Mo Duc site. The expected plant output, however, could not be determined at present due to large uncertainties of a geothermal resource potential. At the present situation, it is rather difficult for a private power company to decide to invest the geothermal development at this site. We recommend, therefore, to forward exploratory works at the Bang site in order to estimate the geothermal potential (expected plant output of a geothermal power station) more precisely. An exploration program that we recommend is described in Chapter 4. We believe that the work program is highly cost effective, because it consists of a limited but useful geophysical survey, geochemical survey and cost effective drilling programs. In addition, a project scheme of the whole should be considered and clearly configured before start exploration; - Which organization will be the developer? - Whether the electricity will be connected to the national grid or not? and - How will be hot water treated in downstream? etc. These matters have a close relationship with the social circumstances at the field, for example national demand of renewable energy development, location of connecting station of national grid, local needs of heat energy and so on. Therefore, such a social conditions should be investigated as well as subsurface geothermal conditions.

31

6. References DAmore F. and Truesdell A.H. (1985): Calculation of geothermal reservoir temperatures and steam fraction from gas compositions. 1985 International Symposium on Geothermal Energy, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 9, pt. 1, 305-310. DAmore F. and Panichi (1980): Evaluation of deep temperature of hydrothermal system by a new gas-geothermometer. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 44, 549-556. Flynn, T., Hoang Huu Quy, Phan Cu Tien and Schochet, D. (1997): Assessment of the Geothermal Resources of the Socialist Republic Vietnam. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, vol. 21. Fournier, R. O. (1973): Silica in thermal waters: Laboratory and field investigations. In: Proceedings, International Symposium on Hydrogeochemistry and Biogeochemistry, Tokyo, 1970, v.1, Hydrogeochemistry, Washington, D.C.,Clark, pp. 122-139. Fournier, R. O. and Truesdell, A.H. (1973): An empirical Na-K-Ca geothermometer for natural waters. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 37, 515-525. Geological Survey of Vietnam (1996): Geology and Mineral Resources of Le Thuy Quang Tri Sheet. Geology and Mineral Resources Map of Vietnam scale 1:200000. Koenig, J. (1981): Evaluation of the Potential for Geothermal Energy Resources in Vietnam. A report by Geothermex Inc., California. Le Vinh Hong (1995): Some result of assessment on geothermal potential at Thach Tru hot water resource in Quang Ngai province Vietnam. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 1995. Nguyen Thac Cuong, Cao Duy Giang and Tran Trong Thang (2005): General Evaluation of the Geothermal Potential in Vietnam and the Prospect of Development in the Near Future. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey. Reed, M. H. and Spycher, N. (1991): Users Guide for SOLVEQ: A Program for

32

Computing Water-Rock-Gas Equilibria. Dept. of Geological Sciences, Univ. of Oregon. 38pp. USGS (1979): Assessment of Geothermal Resources of United States 1978. Geological Survey Circular 790. United States Geological Survey, L.J.P. Muffler, Ed.

33