EPA-600/9-76-011         •'
           This document has not been
           submitted to NTIS, therefore it
           should be retained.
  PROCEEDINGS OF THE1
   FIRST WORKSHOP ON

      SAMPLING
   GEOTHERMAL
     EFFLUENTS
          HELD ON
       OCTOBER 20-21,1975

          AT THE
     ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
      & SUPPORT LABORATORY
       LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
           PRO

-------
                                             EPA-600/9-76-011
                                             May  1976
       PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST WORKSHOP  ON
            SAMPLING GEOTHERMAL EFFLUENTS

                 October 20-21, 1975
                  Las Vegas, Nevada
                     conducted by
   Monitoring  Systems Design and Analysis Staff
Monitoring  Systems Research 6 Development Division
  Environmental  Monitoring and  Support Laboratory
                  Las Vegas, Nevada
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Region 5 Library (PL-12J)        V
                   77 West Jackson Blvd., 12th Floor
                   Chicago, IL 60604-3590
       U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND  DEVELOPMENT
  ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND  SUPPORT LABORATORY
              LAS VEGAS, NEVADA   89IIk

-------
                              DISCLAIMER
     The responsibility for the technical accuracy and clarity of the
manuscripts included in these proceedings has been placed solely upon
their authors.  Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
                                    ii

-------
                            FOREWORD
     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contends that the
first step in any viable assessment program is to obtain samples
under standard conditions with quality-assured methods.  Without
this first step, the balance of the examination for pollutants is
of questionable value.

     In October 1975, the Agency's Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory in Las Vegas held an initial workshop on geothermal
energy development.  The purpose of this first workshop was to generate
that necessary exchange of ideas and knowledge needed  in developing
a set of standard geothermal sampling methods with assurance of quality
in the methods.  The goal of this effort was the formation of a recog-
nized Standard Sampling Method Handbook.  The response to this first
workshop was encouraging, leading us to strongly believe that the
goal is attainable.

     The Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas
wishes to take this opportunity to express its appreciation and
gratitude to those organizations and persons who gave so freely
of their time and resources to make this first meeting a success.
                                   George B. Morgan
                                      Di rector
                              Monitoring Systems Research
                               and Development Division
                              Environmental Monitoring and
                             Support Laboratory - Las Vegas
                                 i i i

-------
                             LIST OF ATTENDEES
Gordon W. Allen
R. J. AUmendinger
Jon Baldwin
J. Allen Bell
Richard Bell
J. E. Biesecker
H. K. Bishop
R. L. Booth
E. W. Bretthauer
J. Cardinal!!
J. B. Cotter
D. Christoffersen
E. Crecel ius
A. Crockett
Gene Culver
S. Dermengian
Y. Echstein
G. Edwards
T. D. English
D. Fach
J. Fleiner
R. C. Fowler
J. Fruchter
D. B. Gil more
P. H. Gudiksen
W. R. Hail
R. P. Hartley
F. B. Henderson,  I (
M, H, Hyman
L. S. Ischlnger
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Chevron Oil Company
Allied Chemical Corporation
Las Vegas Valley Water District
VTN Corporation
U.S. Geological Survey
San Diego Gas & Electric
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State of Nevada Division of Water Resources
U.S. Energy Research & Development Adminis.
Union Oil Company
Battelle Northwest Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oregon Institute of Technology
Geothermal Energy Magazine
Hydro-Search,  Inc.
Halliburton Services
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
U.S. Navy
Geonomics, Inc.
Mechanics Research, Inc.
Battelle Northwest Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
W. A, Wahler & Associates
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Frederiksen Engineering Company
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                      iv

-------
D. James
E. A. Jenne
Joel  Jobst
R. Kaufmann
R. C. Kent
J. J. Koranda
P. Kruger
J. T. Kuwanda
J. La Fluer
V. W. Lambou
S. LeGore
J. D. Ludwick
A. MacTavish
J. R. McBride
L. B. McMillion
N. Melvin
D. E. Michels
M. J. Miles
J. A. Neil son
M. F. O'Connell
L. B. Owen
S. Porter
G. D. Potter
M. G. Reed
A. J. Regis
W. D. Riley
D. Robertson
J. A. Rogers
L. Schieler
E. A. Schuck
R. C. Scott
D. W. Shannon
D. Shirley
F. E. Smith
A. J. Soinski
U.S. Energy Research 6 Development Adminis.
U.S. Geological Survey
Edgerton, Germeshausen & Greer, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Stanford University
Rogers Engraving Company, Inc.
Burmah Oil & Gas Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Parametrix, Inc.
Battelle Northwest Laboratory
Mechanics Research, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Aerojet Nuclear Company
Desert Research Institute
Ecoview Environmental  Consultants
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chevron Research Company
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Battelle Northwest Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Battelle Northwest Laboratory
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
U.S. Fish £ Wildlife Service
LFE Corporation

-------
R. E, Stanley
R. T. Stearns
R. W. Steele
A. Stoker
R. Tin]in
A. C. Trakowski, Jr.
E. Wahl
E. F. Wehlage
E. A, We11 man
R. N. Wheatley
D. W. Wheeler
G. B. Wiersma
R. Williams
H. Wollenburg
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
U.S.  Energy Research 6 Development Adminis.
Parametrix, Inc.
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
General  Electric-TEMPO
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Occidental Research & Development Company
Consultant
BWR Associates
Union Oil Company
Burmah Oil & Gas Company
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
University of Denver Research Institute
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
                                      VI

-------
                        CONTENTS

Papers marked with * were not received in time to be included
in this publication.
Foreword                                                 i i i

List of Attendees                                         iv

Session I

     Geothermal Energy Development                         1

         Dr. Paul Kruger
         Civil Engineering Department
         Stanford University
         Stanford, California


     Geothermal Effluents, Their Toxicity and
     Prioritization                                       36

         Dr. Leroy Schieler
         Senior Project Scientist
         Woodward-Clyde Consultants
         San Francisco, California
     The Need for Standard Sampling Methods and
     Sampling Preservations

         Mr.  Robert L.  Booth
         Technical Advisor
         EMSL-Cincinnati,  Ohio
     Quality Assurance

         Mr. ErichBretthauer
         EMSL-Las Vegas
         Las Vegas,  Nevada
     The Need for Defensible Data

         Mr.  James A.  Rogers
         Office of General  Counsel
         EPA, Washington,  D. C.
                              VI I

-------
Session I I
     Some Problems Involved with Sampling Geothermal        67
     Sources

         Alan K. Stoker and William D. Purtymun
         Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
         Los Alamos, New Mexico
     Drill Stem Testing and Sampling of Geo-Pressured       97
     Brines

         A. G. Edwards and J. M. Montgomery
         Halliburton Services
         Duncan, Oklahoma
     Application of Oil Well Sampling Technology to
     Geothermal Fluid Sampling

         Dr. Marion G. Reed
         Chevron Research
         San Francisco, California
     The Salinity Profile of the East Mesa Field as
     Determined from Dual Induction Resistivity and
     SP Logs

         R. T. Littleton and E.E. Burnett
         U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
         Boulder City, Nevada
     Field Sampling of Radioactive Geothermal Effluents     126

         Arthur J. Soinski, David E. Claridge
         and Rodney Melgard
         LFE Corporation
         Richmond, California
     Sampling Hot Springs for Radioactive and Trace
     Elements

         Harold A. Wollenberg
         Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
         Berkeley, California
                            VIII

-------
                                                            Page
Session I I I
      Pacific Gas and Electric's Geothermal Sampling
      Techniques

          Gordon W. Allen
          Pacific Gas and Electric Company
          San Ramon, California
      Union Oil Company of California's Geothermal          165
      Sampling Techniques

          D. J. Christoffersen, R.N. Wheatley, and
          J. A. Baur
          Union Oil Company of California
          Brea, California
      Brine Sampling and Analysis Techniques in Support
      of Corrosion and Scaling Studies in the Imperial
      Va11ey

          P. Needham, W. Riley and A.  Murphy
          U.S. Bureau of Mines
          College Park, Maryland
      Geothermal Sampling Procedures at the Raft River
      Project

          Jon Baldwin
          Allied Chemical Corporation
          Twin Fal1s, Idaho
      Atmospheric Discharge Sampling While Drilling
      Geothermal Steam Wells

          M.  H.  Hyman and G. R.  Fox
          Frederiksen Engineering Company
          Oakland, California
      Sampling a Two-Phase Geothermal  Brine Flow            181
      for Chemical  Analysis

          J.  H.  Hill  and C. J.  Morris
          Lawrence  Livermore Laboratory
          Livermore,  California
                           IX

-------
                                                             Page


Session IV


     Approaches to Interpreting Environmental Data            204
         Donald E. Michels
         Aerojet Nuclear Company
         Idaho FalIs, Idaho
     Sampling and Preservation Techniques for Waters          218
     in Geysers and Hot Springs

         James W. Ball, Everett A. Jenne, and
         J. M. Burchard
         U.S. Geological Survey
         Menlo Park, California

-------
                                                            SGP-TR 9
                     GEOTHERMAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
                               Paul Kruger
                      Civil Engineering Department
                           Stanford University
                          Stanford,  California
*
 based on reports prepared during Leave of Absence  1974^75 with the
 National Science Foundation and the Energy Research and  Development
 Administration.

-------
                              INTRODUCTION




     The Nation has embarked on an aggressive program to develop its




indigenous resources of geothermal energy.  For more than a decade,




geothermal energy has been heralded as one of the more promising forms




of energy alternate to oil and gas for electric power generation, but




during the last fifteen years, the total capacity in the U.S.  has




reached 502 MWe, about half the size of a single modern nuclear power




plant.  And yet, the United States, especially its western and Gulf




coast states, is believed to possess a vast resource base of geothermal




heat at depths up to 3 to 10 km.  Many estimates of these potential  re-




sources suitable for the production of electric power have been pub-




lished and they range over a spectrum of more than a factor of 100.




This variation suggests that the potential is essentially unknown.




     Table 1 gives a range of published forecasts for the year 1985  and




the equivalent potential in number of 1000 MWe power plants and in oil




consumption in millions of barrels per day.  In view of the estimated




construction of about 200 to 250 nuclear power reactors by 1985-90,  the




pessimistic forecasts clearly show that the contribution of geothermal




energy to the Nation's energy supply may indeed be small.  The optimis-




tic forecasts represent more than 157o of the total electric power re-




quirements estimated for the year 1985.  The Task Force for Geothermal




Energy, in the Federal Energy Aministration Project Independence Blue-




print report of November 1974, established a national goal for 1985  of




20,000 to 30,000 MWe, the latter value representing an equivalent en-




ergy supply of one million barrels of oil per day.  This goal was

-------
GO
UJ
CD
GO

       a.
       CD
           a:
           o
CD
CD
CD
  >
CD
CD
 I

CD
CD
CD
 •\
CSI
00
CD
CD
CSI
oo
          I

         CO












r— 1

UJ
_J
rt
<
—































CD
LU
CD
•
OO
ZD

U_
CD

1—
!5^
LU
s:
Q_
CD
	 1
LU
>
UJ
a

Q£
CD
u_
	 1
~
^ ^~ x
j^
Q£ ^
UJ I-
mi •"^
1— 0

Q 0.
Z <


u >-
•-• tD
or a:
1— LU
o -z.
LU LU
	 J
LU
































CO
cc.
o
1-
o
z <
« LU
rv**
h-
z a:
LU <
_J LU

> O
>-• ID

a ~~
LU


CD

1

CD
CSI












^j-

1
CSI





CO
1-
1— 1
z


LU
"^g
^r~

CD
CD
CD
i-H

.
O

s_x































o
l»4
1-
a.
2:

CO
2
OV


1-

LU
1
^
>
i_i
^t
a»
LU


^^j
t~™i
i

f>»^
_
CD








^^
i— I

CD

1
f^
CD

CD


^
^
Q

_l
Cfl
OQ

£
CD
t— |


	 1
»— «
CD

LU
O



-------
clearly a compromise between what is worth a national effort and what




might be realistically achieved.  The potential for adding or replacing




the equivalent of some 25 nuclear power plants or for conserving one




million barrels of oil per day should be an adequate incentive for the




Nation to accelerate the development of a viable geothermal industry.




     A puzzling enigma appears.  If the potential resource base of geo-




thermal energy is so vast, why has significant utilization not occurred?




The entire U.S. production of electric power from geothermal resources




occurs at one location, the Geysers in California, where over a 15-year




period starting in 1960, generating capacity has grown from 12 MW sup-




plied by Unit No. 1 to the total of 502 MW attained with the startup




of the 106-MW Unit No. 11 in May 1975.  The Geysers is the largest geo-




thermal electricity generating station in the world.  The entire world-




wide capacity of electric power generation by geothermal resources is




slightly more than 1000 MW, the equivalent of the capacity of a single




modern nuclear power plant.




     Utilization of geothermal fluids for thermal energy in the U.S. is




almost negligible.  And yet throughout the country, fossil fuels are




consumed in large quantities to boil water for heating and electric




power generation, both at very low thermal efficiency.  Some countries




already use geothermal fluids for its thermal energy, notably Iceland,




where municipal heating is an important utilization.  Several countries,




responding to increased public awareness that future supply of fossil




fuel may be very limited, are examining the potential use of indigenous




thermal waters for industrial and municipal heating.




     How is this enigma to be solved; how is the United States (and




other countries) endowed with potentially-bountiful geothermal resources

-------
going to develop these natural resources as a significant contribution



to its energy supply?  The attainment of a national goal to contribute



an equivalent of one million barrels of oil per day from geothermal re-



sources clearly requires accelerated development of a geothermal industry



capable of providing 20,000 to 30,000 MW of electric power and thermal



energy in the next ten to fifteen years.  And this objective will require



a national effort to accelerate and coordinate development in three



parallel tasks:  (1) the discovery, proving, and extraction of geothermal



resources to provide a significant supply of hydrothermal fluids for


                                                  12
direct utilization and to produce more than 5 x 10   kWh of electricity



over the amortization period of the investment in resource development



and power plant construction, (2) the technology to convert the resources



as found in its various natural forms and qualities into electricity,



and  (3) the removal of unnecessary institutional constraints to the



rapid development of a cost-effective and environmentally-acceptable



industry.



     A major factor which helps create the enigma of vast resource base



and little utilization is the variability of geothermal resources.  The



geothermal energy cycle, although simple compared to other alternate



energy sources, is actually complex in that geothermal resources occur



in many types of geologic, thermodynamic, hydrodynamic, and chemical



quality.  As a result, the major problems in the energy cycle vary by



type of resource.  Table 2 lists the key aspects of the cycle from



exploration to utilization that must be evaluated for each type of



resource.



     Several general reviews of the state of the art of geothermal en-



ergy resources and technology are listed in the Bibliography.  One is

-------
                TABLE 2
PROBLEM AREAS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
        GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CYCLE

  VARIABILITY OF GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
  LOCATION OF SUBSURFACE RESERVOIRS
  RESERVOIR EVALUATION
  EXTRACTION TECHNOLOGY
  CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY
  POTENTIAL FOR MULTIPLE UTILIZATION
  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONTROL
  LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS

-------
 the proceedings of the 1970 United Nations symposium on the development

 and utilization of geothermal resources.  Another is the 1973 compila-

 tion of an Ad Hoc Working Group convened by UNESCO.  A general introduc-

 tion to geothermal energy is the proceedings of the American Nuclear

 Society conference on geothermal resources, production, and stimulation

 held in 1972.  Among other compilations of papers on geothermal energy

 are the proceedings of the second and third Ail-Union conferences on

 geothermal energy organized by the Scientific Council for Geothermal

 Investigations of the USSR Academy of Sciences.  Translations of these

 proceedings are not generally available, but much of-the technical con-

 tent is given in the Soviet papers of volume 2 of the United Nations

 Symposium and in the ARPA reviews of Soviet literature in geothermal

 energy.  The proceedings of the Second United Nations Symposium held

 in San Francisco in May 1975, adds another major contribution to the

 literature of geothermal energy.



                          GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
                                                                      f\f
     The upper 10 Ion of the earth's crust may contain more than 3 x 10

 cal of heat, a resource base readily classified as vast.  However, much

 of this energy is too diffuse to be exploitable as an energy source.

 Geothermal resources may be defined as localized deposits of geothermal

 heat concentrated at attainable depths, in adequate volumes, and at tem-

 peratures sufficient for commercial exploitation.

     The only geothermal resources presently used for electric power

 generation are high-quality hydrothermal convective systems which con-

 tain high-enthalpy geofluids suitable for transferring the geothermal

heat to the surface for direct use in low-efficiency steam turbines.

-------
Unfortunately such resources have been discovered at only a few places




on earth.  More than 75% of the world's geothermal electric power capac-




ity results from vapor-dominated hydrothermal systems which produce dry




or super-heated steam for direct conversion.  The remaining capacity re-




sults from high-temperature, low-salinity, water-dominated hydrothermal




systems in which the geofluids are flashed on production, and only the




separated steam is used for electric power generation.  The liquid frac-




tion is either wasted or reinjected into the ground.  These systems are




commercially less desirable because only a small fraction of the water




flashes to steam, thermal efficiencies are low, and plant operational




problems are more severe.




     Liquid dominated hydrothermal systems are expected to be many times




more abundant than vapor-dominated hydrothermal systems.  Moderate-to-




high salinity hydrothermal resources may be more abundant than low




salinity resources.  And other types of geothermal resources, such as




hypersaline brines, geopressured fluids, volcanic and magmatic deposits,




and impermeable hot-rock massives, which are not yet commercially ex-




ploitable, may be even more abundant than the currently exploited hydro-




thermal resources.  Thus the answer to the utilization enigma may lie not




so much with the magnitude of the resource base, but more with the abil-




ity to locate suitable concentrated deposits of geothermal heat and the




technology to extract the energy in quantities which are economically and




environmentally feasible.




     Although estimates of the geothermal resource base are available,




the magnitude of the potential reserves is not yet well defined.  The




location of underground deposits of geothermal heat, especially where
                                 8

-------
 thermal manifestations are not visible at the surface, is a difficult




 task.  Over one million acres of "hot spots," areas of known geothermal




 energy, were  identified as early as  1967 by the U.S. Department of the




 Interior  in designated Federal lands in five western states as having




 current potential value as geothermal resources.  An additional 86 mil-




 lion acres of land  in thirteen states were designated as prospectively




 valuable  for  geothermal resources.  Since then several other inventories




 of known  geothermal resource areas (KGRA) have been compiled.  A current




 assessment of U.S.  geothermal resources has been completed by the U.S,




 Geological Survey and a summary of the resource base, by resource type,




 is given  in Table 3.




     Exploration for geothermal resources has been undertaken by industry




 on private lands, and through the Federal Leasing Act of 1970, on Fed-




 eral lands by competitive and non-competitive leasing under supervision




 of the Bureau of Land Management.  Although total values are difficult to




 ascertain, it is estimated that about 100,000 acres on Federal public




 lands and about 200,000 acres on Federal Indian lands were under lease




 for geothermal exploration in mid-1975.



     Resource  exploration and assessment of potential reservoirs of




 geothermal energy are made by the variety of earth science methods




 listed in Table 4.  Details of these methods are available in the general



 references listed in the Introduction.   The final phase of geothermal




exploration is the drilling of exploratory wells.  It is from these




wells that data for evaluating the suitability of the resource as a pro-




duction reservoir are obtained.   Major factors in the economics of ex-




ploration and production of geothermal  fields are the success of

-------
                        TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE BASE OF THE UNITED STATES*
                                                         -1 Q
                               ESTIMATED HEAT CONTENT (10  CAL)
                                  IDENTIFIED       POTENTIAL
HYDROTHERMAL CONVECTION SYSTEMS
  VAPOR-DOMINATED (STEAM)                26              50
  HIGH T - HOT WATER (T > 150°C)        370           1,600
  MOD T - HOT WATER (90° - 150°C)  	345           1,400
     TOTAL                              740           3,000

HOT IGNEOUS SYSTEMS
  MAGMA AND HOT ROCK                 25,000         100,000

GEOPRESSURED BASIN PART OF
  REGIONAL CONDUCTIVE SYSTEMS        10,920          44,000

TOTAL RESOURCE BASE                  36,660         147,000
*
 FROM D, F, WHITE AND D, L, WILLIAMS, EDS,, ASSESSMENT OF
 GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES - 1975, U, S,
 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 726, 1975,
                              10

-------
                     TABLE 4
          GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION METHODS

EXPLORATION SURVEYS
    AIRBORNE
       AEROMAGNETIC SURVEY
       THERMAL INFRARED SURVEY
GEOLOGICAL
       TECTONICS AND STRATIGRAPHY
       RECENT FAULTING
       DISTRIBUTION AND AGE OF VOLCANIC ROCKS
       THERMAL MANIFESTATIONS
HYDROLOGIC
       SURFACE DISCHARGE OF GEOFLUIDS
       TEMPERATURE OF FLUIDS
       CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLUIDS
       GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
       METEOROLOGY
GEOCHEMICAL
       CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
       Si02 CONTENT
       NA-K-CA RATIOS
       ISOTOPIC COMPOSITION OF HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN
GEOPHYSICAL
       GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
       HEAT FLOW
       ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY
       SEISMIC ACTIVITY
EXPLORATION HOLE DRILLING
    RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS
       TEMPERATURE-DEPTH PROFILE
       PRESSURE-DEPTH PROFILE
       LlTHOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY
       PERMEABILITY LOG
       POROSITY LOG
       FLUID COMPOSITION
                           11

-------
techniques available for surface exploration of potential resources and



exploratory drilling of potential reservoirs.  Improvements and novel



methods for reducing costs in these two initial phases of the geothermal



energy cycle are thus of great importance.  In order to achieve the goal



of providing an equivalent of one million barrels of oil per day by geo-



thermal resources, it is evident that exploration for geothermal re-



sources, especially hydrothermal, must receive a very high priority by



the U.S. energy resource industry.



     The magnitude of hydrothermal resources required can be estimated



from the following calculation for a 100 MWe generating plant operating



with flashed steam of 555 kcal/kg (1000 Btu/lb) heat content.  The re-



quired geofluid production rate for a hot-water system yielding 107o



steam on flashing with a thermal efficiency of 20 percent, would be



7.75 x 106 kg/h (1.7 x 107 Ib/hr).  The amortization of the 100 MWe



plant over a period of thirty years would require a total production of


        12
2.1 x 10   kg hot water, and a mean reservoir porosity of 10 percent


                                                         3
would require a geothermal reservoir volume of about 2 km .  At a 50



percent condensation efficiency, the plant would discharge a hot water


                         3            7
supply of about 100,000 m /d (2.5 x 10  gpd).



     For a national capacity of 20,000 MWe,  these values are multiplied



by a factor of 200.  Thus reservoirs supporting 200 units of 100 MWe



generating plants must be located.  These reservoirs will produce about

        Q

1.5 x 10  kg/h of hot water.  For a mean well production flow rate of



250,000 kg/h a total of 6,000 production wells will be needed, and for


                           2
a mean spacing of 100,000 m /well (25 acres/well), a total reservoir


              82          5
area of 6 x 10  m  (1.5 x 10  acres) of geothermal resources must be
                                   12

-------
 found.  It is evident that if hydrothermal systems are to provide the




 nation with 20,000 MWe, very high priority for resource exploration and




 assessment is indeed required.






                          UTILIZATION TECHNOLOGY




     Utilization of geothermal energy varies with the quality of avail-




 able resources.  It has been noted that the present geothermal industry




 has focused on high quality hydrothermal resources.  Extraction and con-




 version technologies for dry-steam reservoirs are sufficiently advanced




 to be commercially attractive.  Conversion technologies for hot-water




 resources are more complex, and for hot brines, geopressured basins, and




 hot dry rock formations, they are even more complex; commercial utiliza-




 tion is still further away.  Since these latter types of resource hold




 great promise, technology to exploit them must be developed.




     Stimulation of geothermal energy production can be achieved by re-




 search and development to  (1) increase the modes of resource utilization,




 (2) improve energy conversion technology, and  (3) provide advanced




methods of energy extraction.  Increased efficiency in each of these




 three aspects of the geothermal energy cycle is attainable.




     Development of a geothermal field generally involves the geofluid




 characteristics, steam separation and gathering facilities, turbine and




 generator equipment, cooling systems, and condensate disposal methods.




 Such development presupposes that electric power generation is the sole




purpose of the field development.  It may turn out, however, that for




many geothermal reservoirs, non-electric utilization of the resource may




make the reservoir economically feasible, with significant conservation




of fossil and nuclear fuels.  Several modes of utilization of geothermal
                                 13

-------
resources are listed in Table 5.  Hydrothermal fluids with temperature




or enthalpy too low for economic electric power production may be use-




ful for water or mineral sources and for industrial, agricultural, and




municipal heating.  However, since major interest in geothermal energy




is for the production of electric power, combined or total utilization




may help make many geothermal reservoirs submarginal in power production




alone become economically feasible.  The possibility of building a com-




munity around a geothermal resource, with municipal heating, an industrial




park of process firms requiring hot water and concomitant electric power




production appears feasible.  Thus, research for methods stimulating




geothermal resource utilization in all forms is well warranted.




     General methods for producing electricity from geothermal fluids are




summarized in Table 6 and are described adequately in the several cited




references.  The choice of a conversion cycle is generally dependent on




the thermodynamic and chemical properties of the geofluid.  Present com-




mercial plants utilize low-salinity hydrothermal systems with steam or




water at temperatures above about 200°C in the single-stage direct steam




turbine conversion system.  To utilize lower temperature fluids, inves-




tigations are underway to develop other conversion systems; among these




are multiple-flash low-pressure steam turbines, single and multiple




stage binary cycle systems, and hybrid systems combining these two.




The binary system appears to be the most promising for utilization of




geofluids with temperatures between 100°C and 200°C.  However only one




experimental facility, the Pauzhetka station in the Kamchatka peninsula




of the USSR, has been constructed to date.  The binary system most




likely to be successful in the U.S. will require a downhole pump to




prevent flashing, a heat exchanger which can operate without excessive

-------
               TABLE 5
   UTILIZATION OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION
     DIRECT USE OF DRY STEAM
     FLASHING OF HOT WATER TO STEAM
          SURFACE FLASHING
          IN-SITU FLASHING
     BINARY AND HYBRID CYCLES
     INNOVATIVE SINGLE-WELL CONVERTERS

DIRECT USE OF THERMAL WATERS
     AGRICULTURE
     AQUICULTURE
     SPACE HEATING
     INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING
     MEDICAL THERAPY

BYPRODUCTS
     MINERAL EXTRACTION
     WATER RESOURCES
                     15

-------
                     TABLE 6
         TYPES OF GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANTS
      HEAT SOURCE
DRY STEAM
HOT WATER (T >180°C)
HOT WATER (T <150°C)
HOT WATER
     (MODERATE SALINITY)
HOT BRINE (PRESSURIZED)
HOT BRINE (FLASHED)
  GENERATION MODE
STEAM TURBINE
STEAM TURBINE
BINARY CYCLE

HYBRID CYCLE
BINARY CYCLE
IMPACT TURBINE
HELICAL SCREW EXPANDER
BLADELESS TURBINE
                          16

-------
corrosion and deposition, and & circulation system which allows for re-




injection of the geofluids for environmental control purposes.




     Several types of downhole pumps are under development, involving




design concepts which use  (a) in-situ heat to operate a closed steam-




generator-turbine to drive the pump, (b) a high-speed, high-temperature




high length-to-diameter electric-motor driven pump, or  (c) a hydraul-




ically driven unit with hydraulic power from the surface.  Heat exchanger




concepts include fluidized sand beds to enhance heat transfer rate and




maintain clean surface, and  liquid-liquid systems with direct contact




of  immiscible fluids, tray-tower contactors, or subcritical or super-




critical power cycles.




     Flash and binary systems are useful in large power plants having




capacity in excess of 50 MWe.  They require complexes of multiple-well




field development and extensive networks of gathering lines.  Innovative




conversion systems are under development in which small power plants, in




sizes of 1 to 15 MWe, may be installed at individual wells.  These sys-




tems may involve a total flow concept in which both the thermal and




kinetic energy of the geofluid is used for production of electricity.




     One of these is the impulse turbine, in which the thermal energy is




converted to kinetic energy through a converging-diverging nozzle, and




the high-velocity output drives a hydraulic impulse turbine operated at




low pack pressure.  Calculations indicate that a large unit (e.g.,




220 MWe) might be feasible for the Salton Sea geothermal brines, which




contain as much as 230,000 ppm total dissolved solids.  The material




handling problems of such brines are indeed enormous, but the dissolved




solids may also represent a source of valuable minerals, such as lead,




manganese, and copper, if they can be processed economically.






                                  17

-------
     Another total-flow concept is the helical rotary screw expander




which expands the vapor from hot saturated liquids by continuous pres-




sure reduction in the expanding screw, in essence creating an infinite




series of flashing stages.  A small 62.5 kV prototype model was tested




successfully with moderate salinity geofluids with indications that it




can accept the total flow of untreated brines.  Still another concept is




the bladeless turbine, in which a series of closely-spaced disks are




rotated by viscous drag exerted by geofluids introduced by a nozzle.




The device seems simple and self-cleaning, but the overall efficiency




may be small.




     Increased extraction efficiency represents a major means to stimu-




late geothermal energy production, especially for non-hydrothermal reser-




voir systems.  Calculations show that hot-water reservoirs contain a




larger amount of available energy than steam-filled reservoirs under the




same reservoir conditions because of the much larger mass of water; but




in either system, the heat contained in the rock formation is much




larger than the heat in the fluids.  Thus recovery of the formation




heat would be of major economic significance.  Extraction of formation




heat must be a non-isothermal process, which can be achieved either by




flashing geothermal liquids to steam within the formation or by recycl-




ing colder fluids back into the formation.  Laboratory investigations




and theoretical calculations of reservoir models are underway to deter-




mine the extent of heat extraction from fractured reservoir formations.




     The natural extraction efficiency of energy from impermeable hot




dry rock formations is extremely small.  And yet hot dry rock in the up-




per 10 km of the earth's crust represents a major potential resource of







                                    18

-------
geothermal energy.  The volumetric energy extractable from hot dry rock,



calculated for average expected properties and possible technical extrac-


                                            9       3
tion efficients, is of the order of 1.2 x 10  kWh/km  of fractured rock,


                                                        3

equivalent to a volumetric power extraction of 1.4 MW/km  for one century.



The technical challenge is the ability to fracture such volumes of hot



rock massives and achieve an extraction efficiency of the order of



10 percent.



     Fracture stimulation methods are useful for many types of geothermal



reservoirs.  In vapor-dominated systems, stimulation may restore declin-



ing pressure or connect dry holes in commercial steam fields to producing



sections.  In liquid-dominated systems lacking sufficient productivity



for economic power generation, fracture stimulation may provide larger



wellbore diameter for increased flow rate, greater surface area for heat



transfer, or restore porosity or permeability around wells having depos-



ited silica, calcite, or other precipitated minerals.  In dry geothermal



systems, stimulation is needed to provide large fracture volumes for



heat transfer to an artificial convective extraction system.



     Several fracturing methods are under study; these include hydraulic



fracturing, thermal stressing, and chemical and nuclear explosive frac-



turing.  Hydraulic and explosive fracturing methods have already proven



successful in stimulation of natural gas reservoirs.



     Experiments to evaluate the potential for hydraulic and thermal



stress fracturing for recovery of geothermal energy from hot dry rock



formations are underway.   In this concept a large diameter vertical



crack is created hydraulically at the bottom of a boreholde in the geo-



thermal formation.  A second hole is drilled to intersect the upper part

-------
of the fracture, and a pump is used to initiate artificial heat-




extraction circulation.  It is hoped that pumping can be discontinued




if a natural convective circulation is achieved.  The major technical




problems are the attainment of. a vertical crack of about 2 km diameter




with sufficient fracture area, the creation of additional fracture




area by thermal stress of cold water injection, and the ability to




achieve a natural convective circulation without undue losses of




water, especially in arid regions.  Calculations indicate that under




favorable conditions, the system might provide an average power of




about 100 MW (thermal) for twenty years.






                          INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS




     Although much remains to be done in locating adequate reserves




and developing adequate technology to meet the goals for exploiting




the Nation's geothermal resources, there is great confidence that these




will be achieved.  These problems involve advances in physical research




and technology.  Institutional problems however, also exist.  Such




problems are complex; they involve public acceptance, vested interests,




historical precedents, existing regulations from other resources, over-




lapping jurisdictions, and economic and financial factors.  These prob-




lems are often more difficult to resolve than are engineering problems,




and they may in the long run be the major constraints to an accelerated,




but orderly development of geothermal resources.  The solutions to many




institutional problems may require broad public interaction, changes in




regulations and legislation, and perhaps changes in traditional invest-




ment and marketing procedures.
                                   20

-------
     Economic factors affect all forms of energy supply; they involve




total capital costs per installed power unit and operational costs per




unit of energy production.  For geothermal energy, both of these cost




factors are strongly dependent on the specific characteristics of indi-




vidual reservoirs and the size of the installed power plant units.




Important capital costs include the investments for exploration, drill-




ing and completion of wells, gathering lines and waste handling systems




for all utilizations.  For thermal energy applications, they also in-




clude the distribution system, and for electric power production, they




include the power plants and the transmission network.  The production




costs are influenced by the cost of capital, operations and maintenance,




and plant utilization factor.  In the United States, additional costs




must also be added for environmental pollution control.




     Factual cost data for geothermal electric power production in the




United States are available only for the Geysers field.  The electric




utility purchases steam from only one supplier, but has negotiated to




purchase steam for future plants from additional suppliers.  In the




development of future geothermal power stations, an option exists for




an integrated operation from exploration to power production in contrast




to the traditional roles of an electric utility purchasing steam or hot




water from an independent supplier.  The general effect would be an in-




creased investment cost per kilowatt hour of energy.




     Data for costs of recently-construeted power plant units at the




Geysers are sparse, but estimates for the original plants range from




about $100 to $150 per kW.  Production costs were estimated at about




7 mill/kWh of which about 3.5 mill/kWh was the price of the purchased




steam.  These estimates included a cost of 0.5 mill/kWh for injection





                                   21

-------
of water condensate as a disposal method.  With escalation of drilling,




construction, and environmental reporting costs over the past few years,




these cost values are not useful for estimating costs of new facilities,




especially for reservoirs which do not produce dry steam.  Recent esti-




mates indicate installation costs may range from $500 to $700 per kW




and operating costs for binary conversion systems of the order of 20 to




40 mill/kWh.  These costs, of course, are hypothetical, and more precise




costs will be generated as other major reservoirs and plants are devel-




oped and operated.  A large uncertainty in the total cost is the fixed




exploration cost for the resource, which is independent of plant capac-




ity, and the average drilling costs of the production,' dry, and injection




wells.  Computer models to evaluate the relative importance of these re-




source and utilization costs are under development.




     Because of large uncertainties in the technical costs of explora-




tion and drilling, conversion efficients, and stimulation techniques,




and because of the rapid escalation rate of these costs, it is difficult




not only to estimate costs on an absolute basis, but even to compare




costs of other forms of electric power generation.  Besides the costs




affected by these technical factors, other factors more social in




nature must be considered.  Among these are public acceptance and govern-




ment stimulus for accelerating the development of geothermal energy in




relation to other energy sources, the interpretation of compliance with




the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, and the availability




of investment capital for development of geothermal resources and elec-




tric and thermal power plants.  These socio-economic factors may require




much public and government deliberation before general philosophies are




widely accepted in practice.







                                  22

-------
     Although geothermal energy is considered to be one of the least pol-




luting of the many forms of energy available, it should be assumed that




the public will insist that the environmental impact of producing geo-




thermal energy in all of its natural and stimulated forms, be thoroughly




investigated in accordance with NEPA and any additional requirements




under state and local legislation.  Furthermore, in addition to environ-




mental impact, it is also evident that assessment will be required of




the operational aspects of the various types of resources which affect




personnel safety and plant maintenance.




     In the evaluation of a benefit-risk analysis, geothermal energy is




expected to compare favorably with respect to other energy resources,




especially when viewed over the entire fuel cycle.  Since geothermal




energy must be utilized or converted in the vicinity of the resource,




the entire "fuel cycle" from reservoir to transmission is located at one




site.  This is in contrast with material fuels in which the cycle in-




volves mining, storage, refining, transportation, reprocessing, and




waste disposal, many or all of these at different locations.  Further-




more, increased utilization of geothermal energy may result in a cor-



respondingly reduced demand for material fuels in short supply, such as




natural gas, oil, coal, and uranium.  And still further, geothermal




fluids may provide byproduct sources of water with reduced demand for



cooling water.




     Geothermal energy, nevertheless, has its array of potentially




deleterious environmental impacts.  A list of potential environmental




impacts is given in Table 7.   A review of the more important ones has




recently been completed in a workshop sponsored by the National Science






                                 23

-------
b
                   CO  CD

               «  CO  •—i
               LU  <  _l
               J- CJ3  _J  O

              00  o:  2  2


               °  *  o  £
               LU O  Z  I—

                   Q  5  Q
                                    LU
                                    CO
                                                a
                                                3
                                                CO
                                                LU
                                           oo
                         o  =~r

                         LU  a:
                         co  LU
                                            LU
                                           cr:
                                                     CO
                                                     LU
                                                     CO
                                                             co  e>
                                                             LU  O
                                                             C3  _J
                                              o:
                                              o
                                                       LJ
                                                                          o:
                                                                          o

LU
fe


PO
         UJ
co
Q
CO  ^J

25
CO Q
        3   e
        Q-   H
                           OO
                           LU

                                            CO

                                            o
                     o  z

                     Q_  (_3

                     ?  H
                                                         S  [if  ^


                                                         8  IS
                                                        O  LU  p—|
 CO

 £
 co
 (—I
en
                                                                 LO
                                                            00
                                                                              O
                                                                                  CO
                                                                                  O
                                                                          •-•  O
                                                                         is: o_
                                                                                 CO
                                                                              2  co
                                                                              LU  LU
               •—• fsl
                            Q-   CO


                           °   d
                            O   LU
                                        I
                                       cS
                                        o:  a.
                                                     CO
                                                     LU
                                  i
                                                        OJ
                                              UJ   CO
                                              ~)   CL
                                                                  CO
                                                                  LU
                                                                                  o   •—
                                                                                  S   £
                                                                              gat
                                                                              U_  CO  eC
                                                                      CO      •—'
                                                                      LU      h-
                                                                    O
                                                                                       LU
                                                                                      00

-------
Foundation  (see  [7] in Bibliography) as the basis for a program to sup-




port research for baseline data and technology for monitoring potential




impacts and controlling actual hazards.  The major impacts include




gaseous emissions, liquid waste disposal, and geophysical effects such




as seismicity and subsidence.  Other concerns involve thermal releases,




surface water contamination, land use planning, cooling water consump-




tion, and visual and noise pollution.




     An array of legal problems associated with geothermal resource




development also exists.  These have been reviewed in another workshop




sponsored by the National Science Foundation (see [8] in Bibliography).




     The legal problems of geothermal resources begin with resource




definition, which varies from state to state.  For example, in Cali-




fornia geothermal resources are defined as "the natural heat of the




earth, the energy--which may be extracted from naturally heated fluids--




but excluding oil, hydrocarbon gas or other hydrocarbon substances."




This definition leaves open the question whether geothermal resources




are legally defined as water, mineral, or gas resources, and results in




large uncertainty with respect to Federal, state, and local jurisdictions.



On the other hand, the State of Hawaii considers geothermal resources as




minerals, whereas the State of Wyoming has declared them water resources.




As water resources, they would be subject to the very complicated set of




state laws concerning water rights and regulation.  As minerals, they




would be subject to mining laws and such problems as ownership, depletion




allowances, and write-off of intangible drilling costs.  Geothermal re-




sources have already been classified in court decisions in different




ways.  In one case a U.S. District Court in San Francisco treated the
                                    25

-------
Geysers geothermal resource as "nothing more than superheated water" and




therefore not a mineral, but in another case, the resource was held to be




a gas within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code provisions for de-




pletion allowance and intangible drilling costs.




     Ownership rights is also a serious institutional problem.  The Fed-




eral government has given some 35 million acres of land to the home-




steaders, States, and railroads, but generally reserved the mineral




rights to the Federal government.  However some State grants included




mineral rights and thus many problems exist in the ownership aspects of




Federal and State lands under the leasing of these lands for geothermal




energy development.  Land utilization for geothermal resources also




comes under the jurisdiction of local governments, except for resources




on State or Federal lands.




     Other institutional questions at the State level include the acreage




level for commercial development, the need for long-range financial and




land use planning, and the overlapping of State regulatory agencies with




each other and with jurisdictions of local governments for permits, li-




cences, taxation, and especially environmental control.  The latter may




be affected at the Federal, State, regional, county, or city government




levels.  For example, in some areas, authority may be divided between




such agencies as a Regional Land Development Commission and a County Air




Pollution Control Board.




     The institutional aspects of licensing and regulation of power




plants is very complicated; they cover the spectrum from Federal to local




jurisdictions.  Regulations already exist with respect to the exploration,




drilling and operation of water and mineral wells in all states.  The
                                  26

-------
extension  to geothermal wells should be relatively simple.  Yet the need




to satisfy the provisions of NEPA and any specific State environmental




requirements may make geothermal resource development a slow process.




For example, in California, the State Lands Commission, before it can




lease any  lands under its jurisdictions, must make a finding at a public




meeting  that the lease will not have significant detrimental environ-




mental effect and must prepare an environmental impact report available




to the legislature and the public.  The corresponding problems of en-




vironmental impact from geothermal resources in private lands are not




yet fully  resolved.




     Once  the field is developed to the point where a utility contracts




to purchase the resource and construct a power plant, other regulatory




agencies come into the picture, such as the Federal Power Commission and




corresponding state and local agencies.  Site selection and environ-




mental analysis criteria are becoming of major importance in power plant




licensing  for all types of energy resources and their effect on geo-




thermal energy development will probably be determined by solution of




these problems on a generic basis, rather than specifically for geo-



thermal energy alone.




     Institutional problems thus involve many social, legal, environmen-




tal, and economic questions.  The problems become more complex for land




use planning when geothermal resources span Federal, state, and private




lands.  They involve capital investment problems for geothermal develop-




ment which may be considered to be high-risk and involve long-delay times




until they become income producing.  They involve inter-industry arrange-




ments when multi or total utilization is needed to support economic
                                   27

-------
development of electric power generation, thermal power heating, desal-




ination and mineral recovery.  And they involve multi-government arrange-




ments in the realms of regulation, licensing, and environmental control.






                      NATIONAL.GEOTHERMAL PROGRAM




     Although significant growth of the one natural steam field in the




United States has occurred since 1960, it has become apparent that a




major national effort of industrial development supported by Federal




stimulation is needed to develop the potential of geothermal resources




in its several forms as an alternate energy source.  Early efforts to




achieve a coordinated Federal program for the support of research and




development were undertaken by an informal Interagency Panel for Geo-




thermal Energy Research.  From these efforts evolved a 5-year program




whose objective was the rapid development of a viable geothermal in-




dustry for the utilization of geothermal resources for electric power




production and other products.  The goals and plans for this program




were prepared by the Interagency Task Force on Geothermal Energy under




direction of the National Science Foundation in the Federal Energy Ad-




ministration "Project Independence Blueprint" (see [9] in Bibliography).




The task force evaluated two alternate strategies.  The first was




"business-as-usual" which assumed continuation of current policies af-




fecting levels of geothermal production.  The second was "accelerated




demand" which assumed specific changes that would result in a more rapid




expansion of potential production.




     The task force estimated  that under the "business-as-usual" assump-




tions, electric power capacity could reach 4000 MWe by 1985 and perhaps




59,000 MWe by 1990.  The corresponding numbers for the "accelerated






                                   28

-------
demand" assumptions were 20,000 to 30,000 MWe by 1985 and 100,000 MWe by




1990.  These latter values were adopted as the primary goal of a pro-




posed National Geothermal Energy Research Program, which was directed




towards  (1) providing the necessary technological advances to improve




the economics of geothermal power production, (2) expanding the knowledge




of recoverable resources of geothermal energy, and  (3) providing care-




fully researched policy options to assist in resolving environmental,




legal, and institutional problems.




     The major research funding agencies which contributed to the task




force program were the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of the




Interior, and the National Science Foundation which served as lead




Federal Agency.  The status of the research carried out under support




from these agencies is described in the proceedings of a conference on




research for the development of geothermal energy resources (see [10]




in Bibliography).




     During 1974, two acts of Congress resulted in a marked change in




direction for the national development of geothermal energy.  The first




was PL 93-410, the Geothermal Energy Research, Development, and Demon-




stration Act of 1974, which established a Geothermal Energy Coordination




and Management Project.  The Project was given responsibility for the




management and coordination of a national geothermal development program




which included efforts to:  (1) determine and evaluate the geothermal




resources of the United States; (2) support the necessary research and




development for exploration, extraction, and utilization technologies;




(3) provide demonstration of appropriate technologies; and  (4) organize




and implement the loan guarantee program authorized in Title II of the




Act.




                                   29

-------
     The second law was PL 93-438, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,




which established the Energy Research and Development Administration,




ERDA, with responsibility as lead Federal agency for activities related




to R&D of all energy sources.  The Act abolished the AEC and trans-




ferred the geothermal development function of the AEC and NSF to ERDA.




On January 19, 1975, ERDA assumed responsibility for the national pro-




gram of geothermal energy development.  It has also assumed direction of




the Geothermal Energy Coordination and Management Project which has com-




pleted the Final Report required by PL 93-410 (see [11]).  In addition,




ERDA, in response to Congressional requirements and internal needs, pre-




pared a comprehensive R,D&D plan (see [12]) for developing energy tech-




nology options.  The geothermal section of the plan built upon the




predecessor plans of the Task Force for Geothermal Energy and the Geo-




thermal Project and has based the goal for the national program on the




rational given in Volume 2 of the Plan.




     The objectives being considered in the ERDA program for geothermal




energy include methods to stimulate the industrial development of indige-




nous hydrothermal resources to provide the Nation with 10,000 to 15,000




MW of electric power and thermal energy during the 1985 to 1990 period




and to develop new and improved technologies for cost-effective and




environmentally-acceptable utilization of all types of geothermal re-




sources as a long-term alternate source of energy.




     The strategy of the program which might accomplish such objectives




would be to accelerate industrial development of the nation's geothermal




resources by  (1) coordinating efforts for exploration and assessment




of geothermal resources necessary to establish reserves by 1978-1980




which can support production of 20,000 to 30,000 MW of power,





                                   30

-------
 (2) demonstrating near-term and advanced technologies needed to utilize




many  types of geothermal resources in a cost-effective and environmentally-




acceptable manner, and  (3) fostering rapid development of a viable geo-




 thermal  industry by appropriate incentives, timely reduction of institu-




 tional impediments, and direct participation of the private sector in




development and demonstration of geothermal energy technology.




     Although EKDA assumes overall responsibility for effective manage-




ment and coordination of Federal geothermal activities, the scope of the




Federal  program includes the efforts of many Federal agencies.  The




Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 authorized the Department of the Interior to




lease Federal lands for geothermal resource exploration, development, and




production of energy and useful byproducts (such as methane, desalinated




water, and valuable minerals).  The leasing program is conducted by the




Bureau of Land Management which is responsible for selecting lands for




lease and holding lease sales and the U.S. Geological Survey which




classifies the lands by appraised value.




     The U.S. Geological Survey's geothermal research program is focused




on the characterization and description of the nature and extent of the




geothermal resources of the United States.  The output of the U.S. Geo-




logical  Survey's program is the determination of the magnitude of the




geothermal resource base on a national and regional basis.  The Survey's




program  includes development of exploration technology, methodology for




estimating energy potential of geothermal systems, environmental effects




of geofluid withdrawal, and geochemical aspects of reservoir permeability.




     Some of the problems that have retarded the delineation of the




Nation's geothermal resources through the leasing of public lands include







                                  31

-------
the lack of reliable information regarding suitable resources, even on




lands classified as KGRAs, insufficient requirements for early explora-




tion and development of leased lands, and legal problems involving owner-




ship and control of use of geothermal resources.  Under a national




program, coordinated effort by ERDA and the Department of the Interior




would help to accelerate the establishment of geothermal reserves by




the resource industries.  Potential actions include  (1) accelerated




estimation by the U.S. Geological Survey of the available resources by




geologic type, (2) improved technology for resource exploration and




assessment and for reservoir evaluation,  (3) easing of leasing impedi-




ments by better methods for designating KGRAs and establishing minimum




acceptable bids, (4) incentives for early development of leased lands,




and  (5) recommendations for legislation  to resolve legal uncertainties




pertaining to geothermal resources.




     The second part of the strategy for  the Federal program would cen-




ter on ERDA efforts for demonstration of near-term and advanced systems




for resource utilization, development of  supporting research and tech-




nology, and execution of the Federal loan guarantee program.  Demonstra-




tions of utilization technology could occur as  (1) commercial-scale




demonstration plants to provide the public sector with operational ex-




perience with full-scale electric power plants capable of generating




energy at design production cost under pertinent environmental and




institutional conditions, (2) pilot-plant facilities to prove technical




feasibility, provide preliminary economic data, and provide capability




for testing new and improved extraction and conversion systems for




electric power production, and  (3)  field test  facilities to  improve
                                   32

-------
reservoir assessment  technology, evaluate reservoir characteristics and




performance, test and evaluate energy extraction and conversion components




and processes, evaluate material compatibility with geothermal fluids,




and test environmental control technologies.  A supporting research and




development program could provide for development of hardware systems,




components, processes, and control techniques for installation in the




demonstration facilities and field testing of reservoir evaluation tech-




nologies for the range of resource types.  Supporting research and devel-




opment program could also provide advanced research and technology to the




geothermal industry and its supplier and support industries for improved




productivity and utilization.




     Implementation of the Loan Guarantee program should be coordinated




with the Bureau of Land Management's geothermal leasing program and




ERDA's research, development, and demonstration program.  The program




could involve venture capital companies, reservoir developers, and lease




holders to maximize the impact of the loan program in stimulating early




development of commercial electric and thermal power facilities.  The




Loan Guarantee program might be used primarily for income-producing




projects, such as field development and power-plant construction.




Smaller industrial firms could benefit from guaranteed loans by gaining




access to necessary private capital.  Regulations and procedures govern-




ing the implementation of the loan guarantee program are currently being




drafted in coordination with other Federal agencies, such as the Small




Business Administration and the Economic Development Administration.




Approved regulations and operating procedures setting forth specific




information requirements to be met by the applicant and criteria govern-




ing the approval process should be widely publicized as early as possible.





                                   33

-------
     The third part of the strategy of the Federal program would involve




several Federal agencies, notably the National Science Foundation, in-




volved in assessing environmental, legal, and institutional problems of




advanced energy technology under its RANN program, the Environmental




Protection Agency, involved in .environmental emission standards, moni-




toring, and control technologies, and the Federal Energy Administration,




involved in institutional aspects of the national energy situation.




     With the mutual efforts of the Federal program and the geothermal




industry, the attainment of the National electric and thermal energy




goals for geothermal resources could add a significant alternate energy




source to the national economy before the end of the present century.

-------
                              BIBLIOGRAPHY

 1.    Proceedings, United Nations Symposium on  the Development  and Utiliza-
      tion of Geothermal Resources,  Geothermics,  Special  Issue  No. 2,
      2 volumes, 1970.

 2.    H. C. H. Armstead, ed.,  "Geothermal  Energy:  Review of Research and
      Development," Earth Science Series No.  12 (UNESCO,  Paris, 1973).

 3.    P. Kruger and C.  Otte,  eds., "Geothermal  Energy:  Resources, Pro-
      duction, Stimulation"  (Stanford University Press,  Stanford, 1973).

 4.    Scientific Council for  Geothermal Energy, USSR Academy of Sciences,
      "Geothermal Investigation and Utilization of the Heat  of  the Earth"
      (Nauka, Moscow,  1966).

 5.    Scientific Council for  Geothermal Energy, USSR Academy of Sciences,
      "Study and Utilization  of the  Deep Heat of the Earth"  (Nauka,
      Moscow, 1973).

 6.    Informatics, Inc., Recent Soviet Investigations  in  Geothermy
      ARPA-1622-3, May, 1972,  and Soviet Geothermal  Electric Power Engi-
      neering, ARPA-1622-3, December,  1972.

 7.    Proceedings, Workshop on Environmental Aspects of Geothermal Re-
      sources Development, National  Science Foundation Report No. AER
      75-06872, 1974.

 8.    Proceedings, Conference  on Geothermal Energy and the Law, National
      Science Foundation Report No.  NSF-RA-S-75-003, 1975.

 9.    Federal Energy Administration, Project Independence Blueprint,
      Final Task Force  Report, Geothermal  Energy, November,  1974.

10.    Proceedings, Conference  on Research  for the Development of Geo-
      thermal Energy Resources, National Science  Foundation  Report No.
      NSF-RA-N-74-159,  1974.

11.    Energy Research and Development  Administration, Definition Report:
      Geothermal Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program,
      ERDA-86, October, 1975.

12.    Energy Research and Development  Administration, A National Plan for
      Energy Research,  Development and Demonstration:  Creating Energy
      Choices for the Future,  ERDA-48, 2 volumes, June, 1975.
                                   35

-------
            GEOTHERMAL EFFLUENTS, THEIR TOXICITY AND PRIORITIZATION
                                  by


                             Leroy Schieler
                        Woodward-Clyde Consultants
                        San  Francisco, California
     Exploitation of geothermal resources is hampered by a lack of under-


 standing of  the basic  chemical interactions and toxicity hazards associ-


 ated with  the  gaseous  and  aqueous effluents characteristic of various


 geothermal areas.  The objective of this paper is the evaluation of the


 relative hazards of the various effluents in both liquid- and vapor-


 dominated  fields in terms  of concentration and chemical toxicity effects.


 Many chemical  species  must be considered in evaluating liquid-dominated


 systems, but only a few volatile species are significant in vapor-dominated


.systems.   This is a direct consequence of the thermodynamic equilibria


 established  among the  chemical elements over the wide range of temperatures
                                             >

 encountered  in various geothermal areas.  Vapor-dominated systems are


 lacking the  aqueous phase  required for dissolving water soluble salts.


 Since  water  is present as  steam rather than as liquid, vapor-dominated


 systems tend to be lower in total dissolved solids  than liquid-dominated


 systems.   Volatility is the primary transport mechanism in vapor-dominated


 systems.



     As might  be anticipated from the preceding discussion, gas phase


 effluents  are  present  in higher concentrations in vapor-dominated systems


 than in liquid-dominated systems.  In the predominately vapor-dominated
                                      36

-------
systems, such as The Geysers and Lardello, over 98 percent of the gas is



steam.  The remaining 2 percent is composed of gases including primarily



hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, ethane, nitrogen, and hydrogen.



Since water is a condensible gas at ambient temperatures,  it is not



normally listed although it is initially .present in the gas phase.



Typically only the noncondensible gases are listed as in Table 1.





     Data for The Geysers are typical of the vapor-dominated systems



which account for approximately 5 percent of the known geothermal



resources.  Wairakei is typical of the majority of the remaining 95



percent of the geothermal areas.  Although the absolute concentrations



of the noncondensible gases are quite different for the vapor- and



liquid-dominated systems, the ratios are generally similar for those



major species which are involved in the same chemical equilibrium



systems.  Carbon dioxide and water react to form carbonic  acid which, in



turn, can liberate hydrogen sulfide from metal sulfides.   The complex



chemical equilibria involving these and other species are  temperature



dependent and can be expected to be linear only over a narrow tempera-



ture range.





     Ammonia, nitrogen, and hydrogen are involved in another chemical



equilibrium reaction system by virtue of the following thermal dissociation:



                         2NH  ^=^  N_ + 3H
                            O       £     £•


Hydrogen is  also contributed by the dissociation of water.
                                    37

-------







^2
OH
Ci
UJ
^c

(X
jjj
^^
5?
2

s
o
s
§
P-,
co
UJ
^?
<:
o
w
1-3
CO
l_l
CO
z
p
^4
8
z
o

^
i~4

fn
0)
X
0)
e?











0)
<



•
X
rt
us









c
g
«£«






o
1





w
rt
13


O O LO rH 00 IO O
•^t O • rH
VD
CM O t ** CM VO
CM VO Ot O IO IO
CM CM rH 1 rH
to


O O t-» O> O 00 to
O O "* rH VO IO rH
vO VO Tj- O VO CM
•\ «s •* *\
rH O rH' rH
to







t
10 O to to CT> VO rH
C7l rH t—4
CM






f~\
/— \ •
• f^l
O 01 rH IO
rH CJ rH 1 1' 1 CM 1 1
tO rH
o o
• •
o o
V^* IM*




vO
co CM n- ac to

rH
*
0
CM
1
10
rH
0)
S
5
~

M
G
O
•P
W
0
CQ
^
3
(X,
<
tW
O
bo 10
C £
•H CT>
J..1 . 1
+•* r™i

5 3
rH CM

-------
Thus, ammonia and nitrogen tend to occur at a ratio of about 10 to 1.




Hydrogen ratios appear to be variable since hydrogen is contributed by




two major sources, water and ammonia.






     These constant ratio characteristics provide a valuable generalization




for estimating the relative toxicity hazards of specific geothermal projects




or areas on the basis of limited data.






     The two noncondensible gases listed in Table 1 which present the




greatest potential hazard are hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.   Both exceed




the maximum allowable concentrations by factors which cannot be ignored.




The relative hazard of radon 222 and associated daughter products will be




considered later.  The global greenhouse effect associated with the




evolution of carbon dioxide will not be considered because the magnitude




is small compared with combustion sources.






     Ammonia is primarily an upper respiratory poison.   Inhalation of  1000




ppm causes irritation of the eyes and upper respiratory tract with coughing,




vomiting, and redness of the mucous membranes of the mouth,  nose, lips,




and pharynx.  Higher concentrations cause swelling of the lips and eyes,




temporary blindness, restlessness, tightness in the chest, frothy sputum




indicating pulmonary edema, and weak, rapid pulse.  In geothermal operations




ammonia is not likely to present a direct toxicity hazard except possibly




in the immediate vicinity of the power plant.  Ammonia toxicity risk is




always small compared to that of hydrogen sulfide since it occurs at a




much lower concentration..  Atmospheric dilution would reduce the ammonia




effluent levels to acceptable values very rapidly.





                                    39

-------
     On the other hand,  ammonia docs present  indirect  hazards  which  have




not received much attention to date in the  evaluation  of geothermal




hazards.   Ammonia is a base which reacts  with acids  such as  hydrogen




fluoride, sulfur dioxide,  and hydrogen sulfide to form the corresponding




salt.  The resultant particulates are lower respiratory poisons  which




are generally more toxic than the original  reactants and which,  in




addition, may settle out in given geographical areas depending upon




local meteorological conditions.   For example, ammonium sulfate  par-




ticulates are approximately 5 times as toxic  as sulfur dioxide.   This




is the basis for current concern and the  basis for consideration of




possible standards for sulfates.   As is the case with  many air pollutants,




there is insufficient available evidence  to prove that air pollution per




se produces disease, but there are many indications that air pollution can




aggrevate symptoms of pre-existing disease which may then prove  fatal.




Human beings with cardiovascular or respiratory disease appear to be




particularly vulnerable.  It is believed, however, that a particulate  such




as ammonium sulfate, not only has an adverse  effect by itself, but is




even more toxic when inhaled along with other common air pollutants.  This




synergistic effect of particulates formed from ammonia effluents may be a




valid factor to consider in complying with requirements of the Significant




Deterioration Act.






     In addition to the human health hazards, the environmental  impact




on plant and animal species sensitive to  changes in ammonium ion con-




centration and pH are likely to be significant.  It has been postulated,

-------
for example, that the surface waters in some gcotherraal areas are neutral




whereas equivalent waters in adjacent areas are slightly acid because of




ammonia liberated from gcothermal operations.  Continuous operation could




result in a shift in species distribution.   Intermittent operation could




result in a periodic change in pH which might have more significant




environmental impacts.






     The most noticeable geothermal effluent is hydrogen sulfide.  The gas,




which has a characteristic rotten egg odor even at very low concentrations,




is known to cause irritation to the eyes and respiratory tract as well as




deleterious effects to the nervous system of humans exposed to it (Ref.




1,2).  In the immediate vicinity of the geothermal area, the hydrogen




sulfide concentration far exceeds the maximum allowable concentration




levels set by OSHA', federal, and state standards.   The ambient air levels




arc high enough to fall within the concentration range where serious




health effects and death have been well documented.  Atmospheric dilution




and possibly efficient scrubbing systems must be depended upon to reduce




the ambient air levels to acceptable levels.  Since geothermal operations




are conducted in remote areas, adequate atmospheric dilution is easily




achieved.   On the other hand, atmospheric hydrogen sulfide emissions do




pose a significant industrial hygiene hazard to workers in the immediate




area.  The fact that the OSHA limit of 20 ppm is exceeded by orders of




magnitude cannot realistically be ignored.   Hydrogen sulfide also has a




major environmental impact on water quality as will be discussed later.

-------
     Hydrogen sulfido is much more toxic than is commonly realized.




More concern is directed toward the odor nuisance than the health hazard.




The human health and physiological effects of exposure to varying concentra-




tions of hydrogen sulfide are presented in Table 2.   As can be seen,  the




maximum concentration of 1600   ppm reported for The Geysers could result




in death after only a brief exposure.   The average value of 222 ppm




reported for The Geysers is clearly within the range of serious health




effects.  Even the relatively lower hydrogen sulfide levels characteristic




of liquid-dominated geothermal areas are well within the .range of potential




health hazard effects.  Compliance with the 0.03 ppm limit set by




California and other states will be difficult except at large distances




from the geothermal site (Table 2).






     As with most toxic chemicals, there is a wide variation in the




individual response to hydrogen sulfide.  It is well documented that




persons who have consumed alcohol within the past 24 hours as well as




psychotic or neurotic personalities are at high risk with respect to




hydrogen sulfide.  This is a majority rather than a minority of the




American population (Table 3).






     Alcoholics or individuals who have consumed alcohol within 24 hours




of exposure have been overcome by unusually small concentrations of




hydrogen sulfide (Ref. 3).  Alcoholics may constitute a hypersusceptible




population.  Persons having psychiatric problems are a poor risk at any




hydrogen sulfide level.  Individuals with schizoid or paranoid tendencies

-------



















































0"
U4
Q
P-,
{/)
pj
u
o

Q

5*

C/i
rH

0
X
£2

o
X


•

O
CJ
















(/)
^

O


rH
rt
M
«

Q}
10

S
•p
MH
03

rt
•H
_f\
O
«> X
rH 3 PL,
rH & O
(D -H P
§ S ri
 •>
C C
0)  -H -H
f^ £• P P
oj Q) nj cd
tO (O P P
•H •!-( -H
»•< tl J J, t J
fj T*I M rn
pi O fn fn
•H -H
H W
O 10 (U 0)
T3 0 X X
O J W PJ







0
tO rH IT)
6 1 O rH
*v. rH r-l rH 1
bO • 1 O
S O O rH rH
V


f^
VO
0 • 0
1 vO O
fx. f^» 1 rH
VO vO l^ I
B| O O VD t-^
p^ J • • • •
pj O O O vO
V




rH
f>
•H
to
to
0


•t
Jj
^
o
X

rH

C
•H
r"t
P
•rH


G
O
•H
^j
rt
•p
•H
fH
fH
•H 10
fH
X 3
fH 0
O X
p
rt oo

•H
PL, PI
(/) -H
Q) f~*
fH P
•H
*X3 ^
C
rt X
4-*
0 Oj
X ^
P-3 *T3






O
O
to
i
o
tn
rH





O
0
(N
1
O
O
rH




crj
(D
P: o
PH-H
w B
X 
X (/>
P fH
> O

P! ^
O 00
•r-l rt
-P
rt X
P P
• rl -H W
fH S f-l
fH 3
•H X O
P X
X rt
fH (U 00
O 'O I
p ^
Crj rrj
fH C P!
•rH rt -H
O^ f*j
to •• P
C) fl) 'H
fH bO S
ri

C fH P
rt fn o
O O
O 6 M-i
X 
X •«
bO
•H -a
rH C
to rt






o
o
f^
1
o
o
LO





t^
vO
^f
1
^>
to
to






pj
•H
X
P
•H
^

X
•p
rt
(L)
rrj

*
fH
3
O
X
i—H

C
•H
X
4-)
•H
S

to
g
o
p
o.
1


O
•H
£3
O
P
(O
X to
10 fH

P O
X X
bO
•H 00
rH 1
CO ^"






o
o
o>
1
o
o
f^.





o
o
VO
1
(•^
vO
«^































*





fH
3
o
X

rH

C
•H
X
p
•H
V

X
•P
rt

Q





O
o
•«*
rH
1
0
o
o>





^
to
o>
1
o
o
vO





-------






















CO
2
O
H
_3
:D
OH
O
a,
CO
r-i
CrS

3C
CJ
(— 1
X

w
Q
r— 1
ft ,
,-J
ITD
co

2

1
oi
Q
KJ
O
43
tf
H






^*
H
<£
Q

CJ
2
r- 4
H
OS
o
O-,
OH
co
























co
"D
[-•H
<£
C— t
CO

:c
1






C
i— 1
t-H
1— 1

^^
^
O

rt

• H
ft
OJ
OS






rt
O
f-l
ft
+j
^J
o

13

X
w






(D
^
• H
(rt
O
f*\

4-)

43

13
(D
4->
C
0
|
O
0

4_)
o
z

























rt
• H
1
.
















13
0)
4-1
C
0

O
•8
rH
r-l
0










to
?H
3
O
43

«^-
(M

4_)
to
rt


•t
r-l
0

O
0
iH
.
















13
0
^j
c
0
E
3
O
O
13
r—t
i-H
0











W
o
•H
4_>
O
fH
3
0
2

•v
to
o
•H

O
43
O
X
OH





•












r-H
0)
•H
trt
!H
0
O
.p
c
o
u














0

3

O

r^t
0

T3
0

cti
ft
0
OS






-------
become markedly worse following exposure.   Neurotic individuals  have




developed innumerable bizarre symptoms,  many of which  remain for a long




time as after-effects of the exposure (Ref.  3).






     Other persons at high risk are those  with respiratory illness,  eye




infections, and anemia.  Although it is  not well documented, the magnitude




of additional risk could relate directly to the exposure of persons  with




respiratory illness to sulfur dioxide.   Persons with anemia are  presumed




to be at high risk because hydrogen sulfide is known to r^eact rapidly with




oxyhemoglobin of the blood and thereby  interfere with  the body oxygen




transport system.






     Hydrogen sulfide is extremely toxic and is as  rapidly fatal as




hydrogen cyanide.  Although it is a caustic irritant which reacts with




the mucous membranes of the respiratory  tract, the  maior and more serious




toxic effect is paralysis of the respiratory center.  The potential  victim




is deprived of a warning since even low  concentrations paralyze  the




olfactory nerve.  The principle route of absorption of hydrogen  sulfide




into the blood stream is through the lungs.   High hydrogen sulfide con-




centrations cause almost instant paralysis of the entire central nervous




system.  Dissolved hydrogen sulfide exists only momentarily in the blood




stream.  It reacts with the oxygen of oxyhemoglobin to form thiosulfate




and sulfate almost instantaneously.  Hydrogen sulfide  is prevented from




accumulating in the body or acting as a  cumulative  poison by the very




rapid detoxification process.  Slow intravenous injection of several

-------
times the lethal close of sodium sulfide has no apparent effect whereas

a rapid injection of a much lower dose is fatal.   (Ref. 4,5).


     Systemic toxic effects result from absorption into the blood stream

at a rate faster than it can be detoxified.  This results in exposure

of the central nervous system to the toxic effects of unoxidized hydrogen

sulfide.  The precise mechanism by which hydrogen sulfide exerts its

toxic effects has not been firmly established, but it is generally agreed

that enzyme inhibition results from the formation of sulfides  of numerous

cations.  This reactivity removes enzyme metal cofactors required for

optimal activity.  This effect lias been well established in laboratory

investigations on numerous respiratory enzymes (Ref.  6,7,8) but has not

been conclusively demonstrated in the body (Table 4).


     Radon 222 is a radioactive gas which occurs  in trace amounts in the

noncondensible gases of geothermal effluents.  The question of the
                                            (
relative radioactivity hazards associated with geothermal power plants is

currently a topic of lively discussion.  The discussions center around

three major points:

          • What is the concentration of radon 222 in the geothermal gas

            phase effluents?

          • What are the concentrations of the radon 222 daughter products

            in the groundwaters?

          • What is the radioactivity hazard of radon 222 and its daughter

            products relative to those of uranium 238 from nuclear power

            plants?


                                      46

-------
Table 4.  TOXICOLOGY OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE
            Reacts with oxyhemoglobin to form thiosulfate or sulfate
          • Tolerance depends on oxygen content of blood
                 Physical condition,  hyperventilation,  alcohol,  asthma
          • Detoxification is rapid
                 Dose vs.  rate
                 Permanent vs.  temporary effects
                 Subjective symptoms
          • Lower respiratory poison
                 Humidity
          • Not a cumulative poison

-------
     The reasons for the uncertainty regarding the adequacy of the gco-




thermal experimental data and the subsequent interpretation of the signif-




icance of the data are illustrated in Table 5.






     The emissions that accompany the disintegration of a radioactive




element depend upon the rate at which the disintegration proceeds.  This




is commonly expressed in terms of the half-life of the radioactive




clement.  For example, radium atoms show some 3 million times the activity




of uranium atoms.  This factor will have a different value for each radio-




active element and will be large for those elements whose radioactivity is




slight.  A given amount of radium 226 will disintegrate into radon 222




at a rate that will remain practically constant over a period of several




months because of the.comparatively long half-life of radium 226.  When




formed, the radon 222 atoms will start to disintegrate into polonium 218




at a rate that is proportional to the number of radon atoms present and




their tendency to disintegrate.  At first this rate is slow since only a




few radon 222 atoms have been formed.  As radium 226 atoms continue to




decompose, the number of radon 222 atoms disintegrating per unit time




increases.  Eventually, the rate at which radon 222 atoms are disintegrating




will become equal to the rate at which they are being formed from radium




226.  Tlien the amount of radon 222 will remain constant.






     In such a series of radioactive elements in equilibrium, the amounts




of each will remain constant.

-------
Table 5.  PRINCIPAL DECAY SCHEMO OF THE URANIUM ELEMENTS

ELEMENT
Uranium
Thorium
Protactinium
Uranium
Thorium
Radium
Radon
Polonium
Lead
Bismuth
Polonium
Lead
Bismuth
Polonium
Lead
MASS NUMBER HALF-LIFE
238
234
234
234
230
226
222
218
214
214
214
210
210
210
206
4.5xl09
24.1
69
2.5xl05
8.3xl04
1.62x10
3.82
3.05
26.8
19.7
1.64x10
25
4.85
138
Stable
years
days
sec.
years
years
3
years
days
min.
min.
min.
-4
sec.
years
days
days

ENERGY
(MEV)
4.2
0.19,0.10
1.18,2.31
4.76,4.71
4.68,4.62
4.78
5.49
6.00
0.65
1.65,3.17
7.68
0.017
1.16
5.30
-
RELATIVE HAZARD*
(a) (B)
1
(380)
(l.lxlO7)
1.8xl04
5.4xl04
2.7xl06
4.3xlOU
7.7xl014
(4.9xl05)
(6.6xl05)
9xl020
(1)
(1880)
1.2X1010
-
*assuming equal radiation energy levels

-------
     Human illness duo to industrial exposure to radon 222 and its



daughter products is well documented.  Radiation from radon 222 and its



daughter products in metal mines in Joachimsthai, Czechoslovakia was



found to be the cause of a sharp rise in lung cancer in 1949.   Similar



increases in the incidence of lung cancer have been reported in the



United States uranium mining and milling industry (Ref.  9) and in



fluorospar mining (Ref.  10).





     Both concentration and half-life must be considered in assessing the



relative radiation hazard of radon 222 and its daughter products in geo-



thermal operations.  This is always true; it is not unique to the geothermal



situation.





     For example, radon 222 is 4.3 x 10   times as hazardous as uranium


                                       20
238.  Similarly, polonium 214 is 9 x 10   times as hazardous as uranium



238.  The following type of example illustrates the basis for current



concern and uncertainty regarding the potential hazards associated with



radioactive emissions from geothermal operations.  Assume that equivalent



radioactivity hazard criteria are applicable to both nuclear power plants



and geothermal power plants.  The limit for uranium concentration at the


                                                   3

site boundary is usually taken to be 0.05 mg./meter .  If radon 222 is



4.3 x 10   times as hazardous as uranium 238, then the equivalent maximum



allowable radon 222 concentration would be 0.05 / 4.3 x 10   or approxi-


         -13
mately 10    mg.  Although the methodology in this example is correct,



the conclusion is open to question because radon gas is not accumulated in



the human body as is the case for uranium.  However, if the same methodology

-------
is applied to polonium 218, a radioactive daughter product of radon 222,



the logic is totally correct and the comparison of relative hazard is



valid.  In the case of polonium 214, the equivalent maximum allowable


                                    20          -23
concentration would be 0.05 / 9 x 10   or 5 x 10    mg.





     As can be seen from Table 5, the same situation is  true in varying



degrees for all of the other daughter products of radon  222.  All  are



relatively more hazardous than uranium 238 in varying degrees.





     In this radiochemical hazards analysis no distinction has been made



between the relative hazards of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation or the



energy levels of the specific radioisotopes.  Relative hazard ratings



have been subdivided and treated separately in Table 5 but cross-comparisons



were not attempted.





     Externally, alpha particles do not penetrate the skin.   However,  when



given off internally after ingestion or inhalation,  they produce serious



damage because the energy content is completely absorbed.





     High energy beta rays can penetrate the protective  layers of  the skin



but usually do not reach deep-seated organs when delivered externally.



When ingested or inhaled, they often produce more wide-spread damage than



alpha emitters.





     This type of analysis suggests that a thorough  examination of the



concentrations of radon 222 in the geothermal non-condensible gas  phase
                                    51

-------
as well ns the concentrations of the other non-volatile daughter products




in the aqueous phase may be warranted.   This is not a simple problem.




Many of the daughter products of radon  222 are present at concentration




levels far below the levels detectable  by conventional analytical methods.




Only the most high]y sophisticated chemical and radiochemical trace metal




methods arc capable of yielding significant results.






     In all geothcrmal operations, but  particularly in those involving




liquid-dominated fields where the volume and concentration of the geothermal




fluids is high, water quality problems  related to total dissolved solids




and dissolved heavy metals is a major problem.  Although the absolute




concentrations of the individual trace  elements may vary within a given




area, the ratios of the constituents are generally similar.   The concen-




tration of the solution is the primary  variable.   The composition of the




solution is relatively constant (Table  6).






     These are valuable generalizations to keep in mind during the sampling




and analysis of geothermal waters and associated trace metals.  For example,




assume an initial sample of the initial composition and dilution as given




in Table 7.






     The extent of dilution determines  the sample size and analytical




method required to determine the chemical composition.  In the case of




very diluted geothermal fluids, valid chemical analysis of the trace




metal content can be achieved only by use of the most sensitive analytical




methods or by sufficient sample concentration prior to analysis.  Much of




the uncertainty related to assessing the toxicity hazard of geothermal
                                        52

-------
        Table 6.  GEOTHERMAL FLUIDS
                  • Chemical Composition Varies With




                       • Temperature, pressure




                       • Geology



                       • Vapor- vs.  liquid-dominated








                  o Within a Given Area



                       • Absolute concentrations vary



                       • Ratios of constituents are similar
Table 7.  HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF DILUTION EFFECT

COMPONENT

Na
Cl
Mn
6
Pb
F
Hg

Initial
300,000
300,000
2,000
800
400
20
0.01
CONCENTRATION, PPM
Dilute 1/lk Diluted 1/1M
300 0.3
300 0.3
2
0.8
0.4
0.02
_ _
                                    53

-------
fluids stems from the practice of reporting "nil"  as  the  concentration  of




a trace metal without specifying the lower limit or accuracy of  the




analytical method.   As can be seen from Table 7, the  conclusions regarding




toxicity are quite different depending on  the particular  set of  data  used.



These data may be adequate for preliminary engineering design but are



inadequate for toxicity evaluation.






     Engineering data of this type are given in Table 8.   As can be seen,




it is difficult to evaluate the potential  hazard for  most of the heavy



metals.  Taking lead as an example,  numerical data are reported  only  for  the



most concentrated brine from the Niland area.  This presentation of data



leads to the conclusion that lead may be a toxic hazard at Niland but



not at The Geysers or Cerro Prieto.   As will be shown later, this is  not



necessarily a valid conclusion.






     In most cases, evaluation of relative toxicity hazards requires




consideration of worst case conditions and an assessment  of average



operating conditions and the probability of occurrence.  A worst case



example for the Imperial Valley area is presented  in  Table 9. This



Table lists the maximum value reported for each chemical  species in any



geothcrmal well in the area.  This is an unrealistically  severe  worst



case example from the point of view of environmental  assessment  of the



Imperial Valley area.  The probability of-any one  geothermal well having



all of the listed high concentrations is very low. This  type of presenta-




tion was chosen because it permits presentation of all of the potentially



toxic chemical species in a single table.

-------
Table 8.  COMPOSITION OF CGOTI1CRMAL FLUIDS (Rcf.  11)

Component
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Lithium
Magnesium
Strontium
Barium
Rubidium
Cesium
Iron
Manganese
Lead
Zinc
Silver
Copper
Silicon dioxide
Chlorine
Boron
Fluorine
Sulfur
Total dissolved
solids
Ammonium
Bicarbonate
Parts
The Geysers,
California
.12
.10
.20
.002
.06
.10
--
—
--
—
—
--
—
--
--
.50
20.00
.10
.10
7.10 (sulfate)

28.38
236.0
775.0
per million by
Cerro Prieto,
Mexico
5,610
1,040
321
14
Negative
28
57
__
--
--
--
--
—
'Trace
Trace
--
9,694
12
Trace


17,000


weight
Niland,
California
53,000
16,500
27,800
210
10
440
250
70
20
2,000
1,370
80
500
--
—
400
155,000
390
--


259,000



-------
Table 9.  TRACE METALS IN GEOTHERMAL FLUIDS - A WORST CASE EXAMPLE*

Water
Component
Silver
Arsenic
Barium
Cobalt
Chromium
Cesium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Manganese
Lead
Rubidium
Antimony
Tin
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bromide
Iodide
Ammonium
Nitrate
Fluoride
Boron

Max. Cone
(ppm)
3
15
570
0.4
1.8
22
10
4200
0.008
2000
400
168-
0.5
0.65
740
1.5
6
970
146
22
570
35
18
745

Public Supply
(mgm/1)
0.001
0.05
1.0
-
0.05
-
1.0 (taste)
0.3(taste)
0.002
0.05
0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
S.O(taste)
-
-
0.5
10.0
1.4-2.4
-
(Irr. 0.75-2.0)
TLV 3
Rel.Haz. mgm/m
3,000 X
150 X 0.25
570 X 0.5
0.5
36 X 0.1
_
10 X
14,000 X
4 X 0.1
40,000 X 5.0
8,000 X 0.2
-
0.5
-
-
0.1
0.1
194 X
-
-
1,140 X
3.5 *
8-13 X 2.5
-
(373-1000X)
Air
Rel.Haz.
_
300 X
5,700 X
4 X
90 X
-
-
-
0.4 X
2,000 X
10,000 X
-
5 X
-
-
75 X
300 X
-
-
-
-
-
36 X
-

*Geothermal Wastes and the Water Resources of The Salton Sea Area, Dept.
 of Water Resources Bulletin No. 143-7 (February 1970).
                                  56

-------
     Maximum concentrations of each species  are evaluated in terms  of




relative hazard with respect to public water supply and air quality




criteria.  In a complete study, all applicable criteria would be



evaluated in a similar manner.  The relative hazard was calculated  by



dividing the maximum concentration observed  by the appropriate limit.



This gives a number which indicates how much any given value exceeds the



maximum allowable concentration.






     Manganese, lead, and silver appear to be potentially, the most



serious water toxicity hazards on the basis  of this set of data.  The



other components such as arsenic, barium,  chromium, ammonium ion,



nitrate, and fluoride cannot be ignored but  relatively speaking are a



lesser hazard than manganese, lead, and silver which occur at much



higher concentrations.  Boron is essentially nontoxic to humans but is



toxic to plants.  Although any mercury is  bad, the relatively small



concentrations indicated by these data indicate that it may be a lesser



problem relative to some of the others. The question of mercury toxicity



limits is currently a subject of active concern; the ultimate assessment



in geothermal operations will be determined  by the established regula-



tory limits as well as by more accurate analysis of geothermal fluids



and gases.






     Chronic manganese poisoning has not been as extensively investigated



as lead and mercury, but the physiological effects are similar to those



of the other heavy metals.  Manganese is primarily a central nervous
                                   57

-------
system poison.   It affects the large ganglion cells  of the  cortex  and



the mid-brain.   The symptoms are acute anxiety,  compulsive  behavior,



hallucinations, and physical disorientation.






     Silver poisoning was common at the beginning of the  century from




the inclusion of silver compounds in cosmetics.   Although fatal  poisoning



is not a likely possiblility, continued exposure to  soluble silver salts



leads to a permanent blue-black discoloration of the skin and eyes.



Although soluble silver salts may cause local corrosive effects, they



are not likely to produce systemic effects  because silver ion is precipi-



tated by protein and chloride.






     The physiological effects of other potentially  toxic water  pollutants



will not be discussed in this paper.  The reader is  referred to  "Handbook




of Poisoning" by Robert H. Driesbach, Lange Medical  Publications,  Los



Altos, Calif, for an excellent source of toxicological and  physiological



information in summary form.






     When evaporated to dryness as in waste disposal areas  or from



spillage in work areas, the dust and particulate matter may produce an



air quality problem.  Generally, the inhalation  of dust and particulates



is a more serious human health hazard than  direct ingestion.  For  this




reason, maximum allowable concentrations in air  as well as  in water



should be considered.
                                    58

-------
     It is significant to note that the relative hazards in air are not




the same as in water.  The particulate components most hazardous with




respect to inhalation are lead, manganese,  and barium.  Several others,




including fluoride, vanadium, thallium, chromium, and arsenic,  would be




considered to be at dangerous levels if they were encountered in urban




air samples.  As was the case for noncondensible gases and radon radio-




active decay products, it is important to consider the relative toxicity




hazard both in terms of industrial hygiene where the primary consideration




is safety of workers and in terms of the safety of surrounding  com-




munities after dilution or scavenging.






     The sulfur cycle presented in Table 10 summarized the chemical fate




of hydrogen sulfide in the environment.  It is converted to sulfur




dioxide, sulfur trioxide, sulfuric acid, or particulates within a matter




of hours or, at most, a few days.  The particulates are metal sulfides




or metal sulfates.   The mere fact that hydrogen sulfide values  drop to




low levels within a short time and distance from the geothermal site




does not necessarily mean that the hazard is less.   The nature  of the




hazard has been transformed to that of the new chemical species.






     In summary, it is appropriate to discuss the potential health




hazards associated  with geothermal power plants in a broader perspective.




Hydrogen sulfide is a chemically reactive gas.  It will not remain in




the form of hydrogen sulfide for long time  periods as shown in  Tables




11 and 12.
                                  59

-------
Table 10.  SULFUR CYCLE
     AIR POLLUTION
                 0,
Sun
        H0
                   _*. so.
so
                     H2so4
     CONCENTRATION MECHANISM
          H2S + Metals
 Metal Sulfides
 (NH4)2S,PbS,
                                                ,  HgS etc.
     WATER POLLUTION
          Metal sulfide   j   OH-       no reaction
          Metal sulfide   |   H+	^    metal ion |     +
                                    60

-------
































*
to

J^
U)

fe
0,
w

1—3
^*
s
w
s
o

r n

(i,
0
S
<•
ix

S
§
t-«l
H
S

•
i-H
i-H

<1>
r-l
JO
rt
H









/*— N
E
P.
ft

*?.
d
i— i
H

Ct
H

u3
^
8







I
oi
CQ
H- 1

hH
|~^
O*
w
















J
hH
H
h- 1
Z
n













Q
H
CQ
•-< >-
CtJ CQ
H

c3
C_)









0
ij HH
< H
r ^ .__.
J^* c/D
y o

w ^-_
i-J O
W U



to o oo to
1 t IO t/5 ^ LO
CM r-t CM CM




















t*-- O) CM \O
 O Tf M 1 1
CM rH -3-


















to to
3C tC
Z Z
- C/5 "CM
CM CM CM O
a: E z u











,_^
r-l
s^^*
CM CM CM tO Tt
33 W Z 0 O 0

CM





1
pj
O
O T3
C C
o rt
C

10 CM
h Z •
S) S §
X ft H
U/ (ij DO
0 0
CM f-(
(U m a.
W)
rt - j-i
f^ _to Z ^
Co ft
6 6
c ft o
fn •"*>-.
0 0 f-i
(4-1 rH 4.)
CO
'O *^ *r^
O CMg
•POD
• rt U X
rH CJ

0 ft f-l
r-< ft-H
cd <^
U 0
C CM 4->
O >0 C
•H rt
+J ^ 4-)
•H in 1-1
t/) CM3
O K 10
B B o
o p^ tj
0 ft
0
10 CM T3
rt CM X
W)CM r-H
>— ^ C 3
U 1
•H C -U
6 0 M
C £ S

T3 10 O
Q O O
<1> 0 ,£2
rC O -P
•!-> -H
§ S)Z
•H CM
^ <" Z
,0 1 — (
•H ^Q S
t-l -H ft
•H 10 ft
3 C
CT 0) VO
I-H *^ LO
*
61

-------





















uj

UJ

OH
P
^r*

Q
r-H
X

2
I-H
H
•z.
UJ

,J
tu

j
§
pyj
UJ

H
§


IX,
O
<
u«
H
s!
. .
H
-J


.
CM
i-H

CD
r-H
•8
H






f_^
e
P.
P-

2:
o
i—t
'—t
00
o
a,
~J
u







I
QS
CQ

3
UJ
















, •]
^
HH
H
I-H
I— 1
















Q
Qj
P
1^3
CQ
t-t >-.
Di CQ
H

c5
O








2
O
_J hH
H I-H

H g
afe
nJ O
UJ U

to o ^i-
1 1 IO LT) O
CM tO LO .




















O O) CM \O
o o rr to i


















o
CM
HP*
•> o
tO IO CM
12 IS **
« CO •> CM
CM CM CM O
X X Z U










i-H
^•^
CM CM CM •«*
X CO 2 0 0
CM
X




CD
f" ^
C V)
CO -H
*T^ £
c 
W C
^% TO
O 4-*
CJ r-H
3
W> C
Ctf 0
(H O
CD
> 0
^^
O <~H
x; o
4-> 1
13

o rt
"U O
0) O
+J S:
cd
3 4->
O -H
1 — 1 5
cd
0 O
CM
>~« »J-«
O
•H &,
o to
Ot rH
S CM
O
O (/>
W r-H
co r* i
&o
/ 	 V
O i-H
•H i-H
a 0
P! i-H
*o cd
1 ^ e
c^ c ro
X O fH
4-> -H 00
- tl P
E -H (H
3 W P,
•,H s «
fH P< rH
XI E CD
•H O 4J
I-H O 3
C7* Cd O
UJ W) U
*
62

-------
     Even more important,  a mechanism exists  for the chemical  concentra-



tion of toxic heavy metals as their water insoluble sulfides or sulfatcs.




The particular geographical sites of concentration depend on the meteorology



and hydrology of the region.  In general, both the heavy metal sulfides



and sulfates will remain insoluble and consequently immobilized as  long




as they are in alkaline soils or water.   Thus, although hydrogen sulfide



is not a cumulative poison and is not concentrated significantly in the



biosphere, it indirectly functions as a concentration mechanism.  However,




if the region in which they are accumulated becomes acidic, high con-



centrations of toxic heavy metals and hydrogen sulfide will be released



at some later date.  Geothermal accumulation  areas can become  acidic in



a number of ways including, for example,  diversion of water courses,




inadvertent industrial waste disposal, or intentional addition of chemical



soil additives, such as calcium sulfate.   A significant number of toxic



episodes involving heavy metals and sulfides  have occurred in  this  way.
                                    63

-------
                             REFERENCES




(1)   G.  L.  Waldbatt, Health Effects of Environmental Pollutants,




     C.  V.  Mosby Co., St.  Louis, Mo.  (1973).






(2)   Hydrogen Sulfidc Health Effects  and Recommended Air Quality Standard,




     Illinois Institute  for Environmental Quality Report No.  74-24




     (March 1974).






(3)   G.  A.  Poda,  Hydrogen  Sulfide Can Be Handled Safely, Arch Envir.




     Health .12,  795-800  (1966) .






(4)   H.  W.  Haggard, The  Fate of Sulfides in  the Blood, J.  Biol. Chem.  49,




     519-529 (1921).






(5)   C.  W.  Mitchell and  W. P. Yant, Correlation of  the Data Obtained'




     from Refinery Accidents with a Laboratory Study of H  S and Its




     Treatment,  U.S. Bureau of Mines  Bulletin, 231, 59-79  (1925).






(6)   C.  L.  Evans, The Toxicity of Hydrogen Sulfide  and Other  Sulfides,  Quart.




     J.  Exp. Physiol. S2_,  231-48  (1967).






(7)   S.  Kosmider, E. Rogala, and A. Pacholek, Electrocardiographic and Histo-




     chemical Studies of the Heart, Muscles  in Acute Experimental Hydrogen




     Sulfide Poisoning,  Arch,  Immun.  and Therapeutic Exper. 15, 731-740




     (1967).                            •    .






(8)   S.  Kosmider, Electrolyte  Balance Disturbances  in Serum and Tissues




     in Subacute Experimental  Poisoning with Hydrogen Sulfide, Int.  Arch




     Gewcrbepath 13, 392 (1967).
                                    6/t

-------
(9)   J.  K.  Wagoner,  V.  E.  Archer,  F.  E.  Lundin,  et.al.,  Radiation as  the




     Cause  of Lung Cancer  Among  Radium Miners, New  England  J.  Med.  273,




     181-88 (1965).






(10)  C.  W.  Cooper, Uranium Mining  and Lung  Cancer,  J.  Occupational




     Medicine 10_,  82 (1968) .






(11)  EPA, "Control of Environmental  Impacts from Advanced Energy  Sources,"




     1974.

-------
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE NONEQUILIBRIUM REACTIONS OF I-I^S
PRESENTED AT THE LAKE COUNTY GEOTHERMAL SEMINAR
      The rate of conversion of hydrogen sulfide to thermodynamically stable
end products can be calculated by means of a nonequilibrium air chemistry
computer program. This program is analogous to a photochemical smog model
except that it was written to consider up to 36 elements . Thus,  it has the
capability of considering photochemical reactions  of sulfur species as well as
carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
      This program indicates that hydrogen sulfide is  converted  to sulfur dioxide,
sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid rapidly. The  rate of conversion varies between
3 and approximately 24 hours depending on humidity, temperature and sunlight
intensity. Within the context of geothermal emissions, this means that hydrogen
sulfide with an air  quality standard of 0.04 ppm in California is rapidly converted to
sulfuric acid which does not have an  established legal  limit. It is highly probable
that the rapid conversion of hydrogen sulfide to other products is part of the
reason why field measurements do not detect signifi cant quantities at distances
remote from the site boundary.
                                           66

-------
   LA-UR-75-2335
     UNITED STATES
   ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
  CONTRACT W-7405-ENG. 36
         SOME  PROBLEMS  INVOLVED WITH SAMPLING GEOTHERMAL SOURCES

                                    by

                  Alan  K.  Stoker and William D. Purtymun
                     Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
                        University of California
                              P. 0. Box 1663
                       Los Alamos,  New Mexico 87545
                                 ABSTRACT

          Geothermal  wells must be sampled for a variety of

     purposes including geologic and geochemical interpretation,

     engineering design of facilities, environmental release

     evaluation, and  documentation of baseline conditions.  Basic

     factors  influencing the  choice and application of sampling

     methods  are reviewed including the type of the geothermal

     resource,  the analyses of interest, well production parame-

     ters, utilization processes, and possible sample contamination

     or instability.   Three basic methods of sampling are described

     including  condensation,  phase separation, and use of evacuated

     containers.  Several practical problems experienced by various

     workers  are discussed.  These include the natural variability

     of fluid composition with time, effects of Veil-bore heat

     losses,  effects  of well  flow rate and production time, sam-

     pling locations, laboratory simulation stuj'es, contamination

     by corrosion reactions,  and documentation of hydrologic systems

     possibly connected to the geothermal resource.
                                  67

-------
I  INTRODUCTION






     Discharges from geothermal sources must be sampled



and analyzed for a variety of purposes.  Knowledge of the



physical and chemical nature of geothermal fluids is



necessary for understanding the geologic and geochemical



conditions of the natural resource, for designing equipment



and processes to utilize the resource, for anticipating



and evaluating potential environmental releases or required



controls, and for documenting baseline conditions which



may change during the period of resource extraction.



     The unique aspects of geothermal sources, especially



high temperatures and pressures, impose constraints on the



methods of sampling.  This presentation provides a review of some



factors important in selecting and applying sampling methods



to geothermal discharges.  Some examples of practical problems



are included to suggest sampling difficulties encountered in



certain situations.  The need to collect and use information



about related hydrologic systems is discussed in the context



of a case study.







II  SAMPLING METHODS





     A.  General Considerations



     A variety of sampling techniques have been applied to



discharges from thermal sources.  Finlayson  reviewed



literature on methods for collecting and analyzing volcanic



and hydrothermal discharges.  The basic methods included air
                          68

-------
displacement, liquid displacement, vacuum tubes or flasks,



condensation, and adsorption.  Most of the methods were



applicable to sampling vents, fumaroles, bubbling hot



springs, or other natural openings.  The methods preferred



for collecting steam condensate from geothermal boreholes



involved condensation and the use of evacuated flasks.



Another technique is the separation of liquid and vapor.



     The choice of a sampling technique requires considera-



tion of the type of fluid to be collected and the analyses



which will be performed.  The fluid may be liquid or gas



or a two-phase mixture depending on the type of geothermal



resource and pressure-temperature conditions.  A vapor



reservoir will yield either saturated or slightly super-



heated steam containing some fraction of non-condensable



gases.  A hot liquid reservoir could produce either a



pressurized liquid with some dissolved gases, or a two-



phase flow of steam and entrained water if pressure-



temperature conditions permit flashing.  No natural fluids



will be present in a hot dry rock resource prior to



injection of water, but it will probably contain pres-



surized liquid when operational.



     The analytical methodology may impose constraints on



sampling technique.  Sample size may be important when



analyzing for minor gaseous or dissolved constituents.



Analysis for gases such as C02 and H~S may require pre-



conditioning in the sample container to control solubility.

-------
Some solids such as silica may precipitate on cooling



requiring predilution of the sample.   Constituents with



a propensity for adsorption such as mercury require careful



consideration of materials used in sampling apparatus.



     Effluent streams from a facility using geothermal



fluids may or may not require sampling methods similar



to those used for wells.  For example, the steam-gas mix-



ture from noncondensable gas ejectors could be sampled  by



techniques applicable to steam wells.  Howe.ver, the cooled



condensate from a power plant could be sampled by more



conventional water sampling techniques.



     The possibility of samples becoming contaminated or



otherwise changing after collection requires special pre-



cautions.  Samples may be contaminated during the collec-



tion process by such things as inadequate flushing of



connectors, lines, or containers.  Corrosion reactions  in



the well casing can contribute gases or dissolved mater-



ials.  Formation fluids may be contaminated for some time



after completion by drilling fluids.   Changes in sample



composition can result from precipitation, adsorption,



permeation of gases through containers, radioactive decay,



or chemical reactions between constituents in the sample.





     B.  Examples of Sampling Methods



     Three basic techniques depending on separation of



phases, condensation, and the use of evacuated containers
                           70

-------
have been used to sample fluids from geothermal wells.  An



indirect laboratory simulation technique has been used to



obtain predictive information for a. hot dry rock geothermal



resource.



     1.  Separation of Phases



     Liquid-vapor separation has been employed at the


                                         2 3
Wairakei geothermal field in New Zealand. »   A simple



separator (Figure 1) operating at atmospheric pressure is



used for sampling low pressure (30-40 psig) two phase flow.



A calorimeter is used to measure the enthalpy of the dis-



charge so separate results from steam and water analyses



can be related to concentrations in the total flow.  High



pressure (>100 psig) samples are taken using small Webre



separators (Figure 2) which have very small pressure drops.



Steam samples are condensed in evacuated glass flasks



cooled by water.  The flasks may be partly prefilled with



alkaline solution to absorb CO- and H-S for laboratory



analysis by titrations.  Water samples are collected after



passing the hot pressurized water through a cold-water



jacketed pipe.



     A unique advantage of this method is the capability



to obtain separate samples of the liquid and vapor phases.



Disadvantages include the need for careful control of heat



losses in the equipment so as not to alter the steam/water



ratios.
                            71

-------
1  STEAM
   ^»
              PIPE
    8. V  VALVE TO
    CONTROL  OUTLET
SIGHT  GLASS
   S. S. TUBE
                                 ^HEAVY  LAGGING
                                   ON   SEPARATOR.
                                   CALORIMETER &
                                   PIPEWORK.
                               Ji VTO'lia 3 V
                        Jiflaa-jaafl -^suna aaf
CLIP  TO  CONTROL
    WATER
                                    PIPE  INLET  SET
                                  TANGENTIALLY  TO
                                3  16" DIA.  SEPARATOR.
                         l" PIPE  & T VALVE

                            STIRRING  PADDLE
                                  FLOATING
                                  THERMOMETER
WATER  OUTLET  f ?   r^^'
    COPPER
TUBE  SPIRAL
CONTAINER  WITH  WATER  TO  ACT  AS  CALORIMETER
   FOR  MEASURING   ENTHALPY   OF  DISCHARGE.
    LOW PRESSURE SEPARATOR SAMPLING  APPARATUS
                     FIGURE 1

                          72

-------
                            WEBRE
                   GLASS   FLASK
                WITH  CONDENSATE
TUBING
HIGH PRESSURE SEPARATOR SAMPLING APPARATUS
                FIGURE 2
                      73

-------
    The location at which samples are taken from the well-



head and associated delivery system piping can influence



sample composition.  Differences in steam/water ratios,



pressure, and velocity can all be particularly important



when sampling two-phase flow.  Mahon has discussed such



problems encountered at Wairakei.   Table I (from Ref. 3)



presents data from various sampling points on a wellhead



and by-pass line incorporating an orifice constriction as



illustrated in Figure 3.  The numbered points identify



the sampling locations.  All sampling locations upstream



of the constriction give consistent results.  Downstream



from the constriction, the pressure drops and some water



flashes to steam resulting in reduced CO^/steam ratios at



points 6 through 10.  It is possible to relate the CO- to



total discharge in a consistent manner for all points except



number 7 by knowledge of the enthalpy.  Mahon suggests that



after passing through the constriction a proportion of the



water in the discharge is thrown to the top of the pipe



resulting in poor sampling conditions for some distance



downstream as indicated by the irregularities at points 5,



6, and 7.  About 30 feet downstream, at points 8, 9, and



10, representative steam samples could be obtained but most



of the water was evidently at the bottom of the pipe  (Ref. 3).



     Similar problems can occxir in steam well and steam line



sampling if there are points at which heat losses cause con-



densation.  Each different configuration requires evaluation

-------
          UJ
          CO
          a:
 to

 o
 c

 o
c_>

 to
 to

D_
 I

CC

 Q
 LU|
 I-
 (J
 »«4
 OH
 h-
 (O
 Z
 o
 cc
 UJ
 i!
          u
          CO
                o
                 cv
          < to
          I— UJ  to
          C _l  01
          H O  _J
             s.  o
             «-i c:
        <  to
        UJ  UJ  CO
        I-  _J  UJ
        10  O  _l
        cv—  o
       CD  s:  i—«
                        LT> LH CV rH
                        CC CC- CO CO
                                      CV CV CV CV
                                      CC CC CC CO
                                                      o
                                                      UJ
                                                      Q
                                                      o
                                                      o
                                                      oc
                                                      c
                                                      a.

                                                      to:
                                                         o
                                                         N^
                                                                         c- oo  cr. cr. oo  cr.
                                                                         cv cv  cv cv cv  cv
UJ

OQ
 o.
oo

 o
        a:
        UJ
                  Z  51
                  —  a.
                     a.
                       i^ r-^ o   o  o  c"  cc
                       oo oc •=:-  cr oc oc  cc-
                                                        cx^ c*  cc cr  c>j
                                                        cxi r-^. CD .=r LT\
                                                                               cr  a:  ^
                                                                               T-H  tn oc
                        CSICVJCXCMCSlCNJCVJCNJCMCSlt-Hi-H
                                                                       •—I  i—I CM CM  CXJ
 Q
 UJ
cu

to
 to
 UJ
 u.
 o
 U
 LU
 _l
 UJ
OO
        UJ
        a:
        ^> s~*
        to  o

        LU  (O
        0£  Q_
       (-1  >»x
        0
        a.  z
        2:  •-
        <  o
       oo o_
                        cocsccrcrcriccrc
                        o. cr  OC'  esc. oo co co oc
                                                                                                X.
                                                              crcrcrocoocooccccc  o
                                                              •3" i"  -3" C^i CV  C>J CV CV  CV  CQ

                                                                                                o:

                                                                                                UJ
                                    75

-------
WELL HEAD .
1
'3~
i

;
i
s
.4'.
L-i-f
i
•- fl — •
2
i r

;
i
1— R' — J
!* VALVE
f
t
•_,., ... «?/| ,„. , , ,-
t f

4_
1
JXL o ^ ; os 90
\
<» —
I
\
~ff
j » i
4 ORIFICE
\GATE VALVES

J U
7 10

-

SILENCER
II
— *LwEiR BOX
•
                         SAMPLING LOCATIONS
                             FIGURE  3
                                   76

-------
of factors that could degrade the representativeness of the
sample.
     2.  Condensation
     Sample condensation is accomplished hy directing a
portion of the discharge through a condenser to completely
convert steam to liquid or reduce the temperature of water
so no flashing will occur.  The condenser may be a coil of
metal tubing, such as aluminum or stainless steel, immersed
in a container of water or ice or a finned air heat exchanger,
At the outlet of the condenser the liquid and noncondensable
gas portions can be collected and handled in different ways.
               4
Barnes, et al.,  collected the liquid in plastic bottles.
Some portions were filtered and then acidified for analyses
of cations or left untreated for analyses of other components,
Noncondensable gases were collected by displacing condensed
water from plastic syringes, and the sealed syringes were
transported to the laboratory submersed in the condensate to
avoid gas diffusion through the plastic.  The gases were
analyzed by gas chromatography.
     Alternatively, the output of the condenser can be
directed to an interconnected sampling train.  The train
could include containers for accumulating the condensate,
others partly prefilled with alkaline solution for removing
C02 and HLS or lead acetate solution for reacting H2S»
a flask for collecting remaining noncondensable gases.
                           77

-------
     The basic method is applicable to single-phase or two-
phase flows where total discharge analysis is of interest.
An advantage of the method is that almost any desired size
of sample can be obtained.  If gases are separated in the
field the possibility of reactions prior to analysis is
reduced.  Cooled liquids are immediately available for
field determinations of critical parameters such as pH.
Disadvantages include the need for considerable equipment
and availability of cooling water or ice in the field.
     3.  Evacuated Containers
     Evacuated containers can be used for sampling total
discharge.  An evacuated pressure cylinder can be connected
directly to a tap on the wellhead or delivery line (Fig-
ure 4).  A "T" fitting with a valve and bleed line permits
purging of air from the connecting line and fittings.  The
sample size can be controlled by the time allowed for flow
into the container, or by inducing additional condensation
in the container through cooling with water.  Certain pre-
cautions are necessary.  Tf pressure equilibrium is reached
between the container and delivery line, continued condensa-
tion of steam can displace non-condensable gases out of the
container.  If the inlet to the container is at the bottom,
liquid may be able to drain back into the connecting line.
As the sample cools, the contents of the cylinder will be
at less than atmospheric pressure requiring tightly sealed
fittings to avoid atmospheric contamination.

-------
             DELIVERY LINE
              TAP ON DELIVERY LINE
                   1/4  PRESSURE TUBING
             WELLHEAD
                                   ,T- COUPLING WITH VALVE
                                      TO BLEED SAMPLING
                                      LINE
                                     STEEL SAMPLE
                                     CYLINDER
EVACUATED CYLINDER SAMPLING APPARATUS
                FIGURE
                       79

-------
     Non-condensable gases can be removed from the con-
tainer for analysis by direct pumping or by introducing
inert carrier gases to strip dissolved gases from the
liquid.  The liquid portion of the sample can be drained
after pressure equilibration.
     The technique has been applied to single-phase liquid
or vapor flow with reproducible results. '    For two-phase
flow reproducibility was poor, possibly because of the
constantly decreasing flow rate through the connecting line
as pressure builds up in the container.
     The technique has the advantage of being simple to use
in the field.  Disadvantages include possible reactions
before laboratory analysis.  The use of metal cylinders may
be problematic when corrosion reactions are possible or
when minor elements are of interest.  Without induced con-
densation, the sample size may be small, making some
anslyses difficult.
     4.  Laboratory Simulation
     The Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Source Demonstration
experiment being conducted by the Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory presents a unique problem to source sampling.
The geologic system from which energy is to be extracted
contains no naturally present fluids.  Two holes are to
be completed at a depth of about 3000 m (10,000 feet) in
granitic basement rock and connected by hydraulic fractur-
ing.  Then water will be circulated in a pressurized loop
                          80

-------
to extract heat from the 200°C. formation.
     Thus it is necessary to resort to simulation studies
in the laboratory to obtain an indication of dissolved
materials that will be dissolved by the circulating fluid.
     Cores from the zone to be fractured were taken during
drilling.  These rock samples have been used in both flowing
and non-flowing laboratory experiments at the pressure and
temperature conditions expected to occur during the in-situ
circulation experiments.  Preliminary results indicate that
there will not be any evolution of gases.  Dissolved con-
stituents are apparently subject to change with time because
of differential dissolution rates for various mineral types
and because of reprecipitation of certain compounds con-
                                          7 8
trolled by complex geochemical equilibria. *   The labora-
tory simulation results will provide an indication of what
materials may be of importance in planning waste disposal
operations and environmental monitoring.

Ill  Factors Affecting Fluid Composition During Sampling

     A.  Natural Variability
     An indication of the possible importance of natural
variability in fluid composition is implicit in data for
sequential samples taken from steam wells during different
periods.  Figure 5 shows the time dependence of three
constituent ratios measured in five samples collected
during a 24-hour period.   The flowrate of the well was
                        81

-------
              .SHORT TERM  VflRIflBILITY
   2-2
2-
    t'8-
e
a:
a:
oc
a:
a:
or
QJ


O
Q_


O
O
     i -
   0-8-
                 LEGEND


                RflDON/CONDENSflTE

                METHflNE/CONDENSFITE

                RfiDON/METHflNE
   0-4-
   0-2-
   I	-1
              5       10       15       20

                    RELATIVE TIME (HOURS)
                        FIGURE 5



                          82

-------
constant within about 1.5% of the average during the period.
The total variation of the Rn/Condensate ratio was about
10%, or roughly twice the standard deviation of about 4%
expected for individual measurements.  The ratios of
CH./Condensate and Rn/CH. each cover a range with a factor
of about 2 between the lowest and highest values.  Indivi-
dual measurements had standard deviations of about 15%.
                    4
     Barnes, et al.,  reported a difference in C02 and CH.
contents of samples from steam wells taken 7 days apart.
The ratio of CC>2/CH4 varied by a factor of almost 5 for one
of the wells.
     A longer test reported by Kruger and Umana  showed
variation in the Rn/condensate ratio measured in 18 samples
collected during a 20-day period.  The left-hand portion of
Figure 6 shows the dependence of the ratio with time while
the steam well was flowing at a constant rate of about
100,000 kg/hr (^200,000 Ib/hr) .  The extreme A/-alues are
about 28% lower and 32% higher than the average.
     These few examples are sufficient to indicate that
variability of fluid composition may be a significant
consideration when establishing a sampling program for
many constituents in geothermal fluids.  Variability may
be due to inhomogeneities in the reservoirs, geochemical
changes, or geologic and hydrologic changes.

     B.  Well Production Conditions
                         83

-------
     I,  Well Flowrate
     The radon content of geothermal steam discharges can
change significantly at different flowrates.  Referring
again to Figure 6, it can be seen that the Rn/Condensate
ratio was higher during the 20-day period when the flow-
rate was about 100,000 kg/hr 0200,000 Ib/hr) than during
the 28-day period after the flowrate of the well was
dropped to about 50,000 kg/hr 0100,000 ib/hr).   Following
a transient, the average Rn/condensate ratio measured in
the last 5 samples was about 50% of the average measured
in samples collected at the higher flowrate.  Kruger and
Umana  suggest that this flowrate dependence of the Rn/Con-
densate ratio may be explained by different flowtimes which
permit different decay periods for the radon, or by differ-
ent emanating power in the different flow volumes swept out
around the well bore at the two rates.
     It is possible that similar effects may occur for other
non-condensable gases or for dissolved constituents.  One of
the authors has observed an increase in the concentration of
some trace elements in water wells when they are pumped at
lower rates.  A possible but as yet unverified explanation
is that certain zones in the aquifer with different chemical
and hydrologic characteristics contribute varying proportions
of the total flow at different drawdown conditions.  Similar
variations may be important for geothermal wells.

-------
     LONG  TERM VflRIflBILITY  flT TWO'RflTES
   32
   30
en
   28-
   24-
OQ
or
o
o
O
a
or
   16-
   12-
   10-
   8-
-5   0
            LEGEND

          RflOON/CQNQENSflTE
          PLO/JRRTE: aooo LB/HRI
                i    r
                            i    i    i   i
                                               L 200
                                                  CJ
                                                  f-
                                                  cn
                                                  ce:

                                                  o
                                               - JOO
                10   15  20  25   30   35   40

                  RELATIVE TIME  (DflYS)
45   50   55
                    FIGURE 6
                        85

-------
     2.  Wei1bo re Heat Losses



     Heat losses from the wellbore can cause condensation



of steam and thereby increase the proportion of non-condensable



gases.  This effect is of most consequence at low flow rates



where the velocity in the wellbore will permit the condensed



fluid to drain under the influence of gravity,,  These con-



ditions have been observed in steam wells flowing at so-called



"bleeding" rates.  For example, measurements of radon content



in the discharge of one steam well at various times yielded



Rn/Condensate ratios ranging from one to two orders of



magnitude higher at bleeding rates (estimated at about 2,500



to 5,000 kg/hr O5,000 to %10,000 Ib/hr) than were observed



after several hours of performance tests (at rates of about



30,000 to 60,000 kg/hr (^60,000 to ^120,000 Ib/hr)„5  In the



same sets of samples CCK/Condensate ratios were as much as



three orders of magnitude higher and CH./Condensate ratios



were as much as two orders of magnitude higher at bleeding



rates compared to those observed after several hours at the



performance test rates.



     Thus it is clear that, at least in the case of non-



condensable gases, measurements made at flow rates where



heat losses are proportionally large may not be representa-



tive of conditions at typical production rates„



     In some situations it may be possible to make theoret-



ical corrections for condensation due to heat Iosses0



Relations developed for predicting and evaluating effects
                            86

-------
of heat losses during injection of hot fluids for oil

        Q
recovery  can be modified to predict heat losses from


geothermal wells.


     3o  Well Production History


     The length of time a well has been produced can be


an important parameter affecting the concentrations of


some constituents observed in the discharge.  Changes in


some non-condensable gases to condensate ratios have been


observed on both short and long time scales.  During six


pressure drawdown tests of steam wells measurements of


Rn/Condensate ratios and CH,/Condensate ratios in sequen-


tial samples fell into a repeated pattern.   An example of


the data obtained from these tests is presented in Figure 7,


Within about 1 hour after starting this test the values of


the Rn/Condensate and CH./Condensate ratios dropped by


about 1 order of magnitude from the values observed in


bleeding rate samples taken just prior to test initiation.


(This phenomenon has already been noted as due to the


buildup of noncondensables in the wellbore at the low


bleeding rate.)  In the time interval between 1 hour and


about 4 to 6 hours after starting the test, both ratios


decreased by about 50%.  After that, generally constant


value of the Rn/Condensate ratio was observed through the


end of the tests which lasted about 6 to 10 hours  and in


one test which lasted 16 hours.   The data for CH./Conden-


sate and Rn/CH. ratios showed more variability.
                           87

-------
     PERFQRMflNCE TEST  COMPONENT  RflTIOS
  100
   10-
or
or
CD
o:
or
o:
or
    i-
o
o
  0-1
                             I \
                             t \
                             t  \
                            /  \
                            I   \
                                  LEGEND

                                 RflDON/GONDENSPITE

                                 METHflNE/CONDENSflTE
    -2
0     2      4      6      8      10     12

  TIME PROM STflRT OP TEST (HOURS)
                      FIGURE 7


                        88

-------
     In addition to being fairly constant after about 4



hours, the Rn/Condensate ratios did not appear to depend



significantly on the flowrate during the short-term draw-



down testsc   In one series of three drawdown tests where



the maximum flowrate was 56% higher than the minimum, the



average Rn/Condensate ratio at 4 or more hours varied by



about 4%.  In the second series, the maximum flowrate was



about 10% higher than the minimum, but the average Rn/Con-



densate ratio at 4 or more hours varied by about 13%.



This contrasts with data on Rn/Condensate ratios observed



over a period of many days, as shown in Figure 6, where



there is an apparent dependence on flowrate.  Figure 6



suggests that there may be a period of several days fol-



lowing a marked change in well flow rate before an approxi-



mate steady-state condition is achieved.  In the case of



radon, this may be partly due to the time required to



establish radioactive equilibrium between the transport-



ing fluid and the effective emanating power of the forma-



tion,,  For other non-condensable gases or dissolved con-



stituents similar patterns may occur and it would seem



necessary to investigate such possibilities carefully when



planning sampling schedules.



     On a longer time scale, Ellis   notes that the con-



centration of gas in steam from steam fields tends to



decrease with time.  At Wairakei, salinity as measured by



chloride did not change more than 2% in 15 years.  In
                           89

-------
systems of lower permeability concentrations are more

   -  u-,  10
variable«,


     4.  Corrosion Reactions

                    4
     Barnes, et al.,  note that hydrogen released from


water during the oxidation of well casings may constitute


a large fraction of the total noncondensable gas in steam


well  discharges.  They report hydrogen volume percents


ranging from 50 to 73%.  Such reactions occur at approxi-


mately constant rates and thus would contribute a much


smaller proportion of H~ to the noncondensables at higher


flow rates.


     Dissolved constituents could also be introduced by


corrosion reactions and their significance would generally


be expected to be related to flowrate.  The importance of


any contaminants is, in part, dependent on the types of


analyses performed.  It may be possible to analyze for the


contaminant and make suitable corrections, as in the case


of hydrogen0  However, some other substances, such as iron,


may react chemically and alter the sample irreversibly.,




IV  DOCUMENTATION OF HYDROLOGIC SYSTEMS RELATED TO GEO-

    THERMAL RESOURCES



     Problems arise in identifying the presence and chemical


characteristics of water overlying geothermal resources as


most exploratory holes are drilled with fluids  (water and/or


mud)  for cooling and cutting removal from the test hole0
                           90

-------
Most, if not all, states require well or test hole construc-



tion to prevent the mixing of potable or fresh water by non-



potable or highly mineralized water penetrated by the hole.



Thus it becomes necessary to initiate a testing program de-



signed to evaluate the water resources at the site or use



indirect methods of investigation to evaluate possible con-



tamination of fresh water aquifers with highly mineralized



fluids.



     Indirect methods are generally employed due to lower



costs.  Careful collection of data can yield good results.



A regional reconnaissance of the ground water is made by



inventorying existing wells and springs that furnish water



for domestic, municipal, industrial or agricultural use.



In this way the depth, thickness, and chemical quality of



the water bearing rocks are determined.  This data can be



extrapolated to the exploration site.  Lithologic and geo-



physical logs of the test hole are necessary to confirm



the extrapolated data.



     Monitoring the chemical quality of the drilling fluids



can aid in evaluating the penetration of an aquifer con-



taining highly mineralized water.  Preliminary field deter-



minations are made with conductance cells and can be supple-



mented by laboratory analyses of selected constituents



(e.g. SO,, Cl, or TDS)„  The monitoring of increases or



losses of the circulation fluids are also indicative of



potential aquifers during drilling operations0  Collection
                            91

-------
of water samples, though they may in part be contaminated



by drilling fluids, can be obtained by packer tests, bailing



during periods of lost circulation, or from the discharge



line when air is employed as a cutting carrier.



     At the LASL Dry Rock experiment, a regional reconnais-



sance was made of the surface and ground water and its



chemical characteristics.    During drilling of GT-2, a



fresh water aquifer occurred at depths of 125 to 137 m in



volcanic rocks.  In the underlying sediments, ten potential



aquifers occurred between depths of 137 and 560 m, with a



main zone of saturation occurring at depths of 560 to 730 m



above the granite.



     Interpretations were based on the results of the re-



connaissance, lithologic and geophysical logs, and water



samples collected and analyzed when circulation losses



occurred or when air was substituted for water-mud as a



circulation fluid»  Monitoring of the quality of circula-



tion fluids indicated a general increase in IDS and



chlorides in the sediment section which was con-



firmed by the water samples collected.  In the granite



section, total uranium in the fluids increased from <1 to



60 yg/lo  The sample of water from a fracture  zone  in the



granitic rocks  (identified from geophysical logs) collected



during a packer test, contain a total uranium  concentration



of 125 ug/1,12
                           92

-------
     Thus, indirect methods can he used to estimate quality



of water as well as hydrologic characteristics during dril-



ling operation.  This data is of value to determine well



construction (casing schedules), to meet state criteria, and



to establish a monitoring network for evaluating environmen-



tal effects of geothermal development.








V  CONCLUSION






     Many factors must be considered in the design and



execution of a geothermal source sampling program and in



the interpretation of the results.  The composition of



samples taken from a well may vary with factors such as



heat losses in the well, the flowrate, the production



history, and as a result of contamination introduced by



corrosion reactions.  All of these problems suggest that



the most representative samples will be obtained when the



well is operated at conditions close to those of actual



production and after a long enough time to ensure that



steady-state conditions have been reached for the con-



stituents of interest.



      The content of some materials encountered in geo-



thermal fluids may fluctuate on both short and long time



scales„  The nature of such fluctuations must be understood



for each situation in order to plan a sampling program with



statistical validity,,
                           93

-------
     Additional possibilities for variability and uncer-



tainty related to sampling methods and sampling locations



must be examined to preclude adverse effects on results.



Where several alternative sampling techniques and analyti-



cal methods may be applied to measuring a given constituent,



it would be desirable to have some intercomparison studies



performed before adopting a standard or preferred method.



     Ceothermal source sampling must include techniques



such as laboratory simulation in order to obtain predic-



tive information for systems which do not contain natural



fluids.  leothermal sampling programs must consider the



need to document related hydrologic systems with some



potential for connection to the geothermal resource.

-------
 REFERENCES;


 1  J. B. Finlayson, "The Collection and Analysis of Volcanic
    and Hydrothermal Gases," in Geothermics, Special Issue No. 2_,
    Proc. U.N. Symposium on the Development and Utilization""!^ ~~
    Geothermal Resources, Pisa, 1970, Vol. 2, Part 2, nr> 1344-1354

 2  A. .T. Fills, W. A. J. Mahon, and T. A. Ritchie, "Methods of
    Collection and Analysis of Geothermal Fluids," Second Edition,
    C^emistrv Division, Department o^ Scientific and Industrial
    Research, New Zealand, Report No. C.D. 2103 (.Tulv, 1975).

 3  W. A. J. Mahon, "Sampling of Geothermal Drillhole Discharges,"
    in Mew Sources of Energy, Proc. of the Conference in Rome,
    AugusT Zl-31, 1*F5~1, Vol. II Geothermal Energy T, pp 269-
    277 (1964).

 4  I. Barnes, M. F.. Hinkle, J. B. Papp, C. Heropoulos, and
    W. W. Vaugh, "Chemical Composition of Naturally Occurring
    Fluids in Relation to Mercury Deposits in part of North
    Central California," U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1382-A
    (1973).

 5  A. K. Stoker and P. Kruger, "Radon Measurements in Geothermal
    Systems," Stanford University, Stanford Geothermal Program
    renort SGP-TR-4 (January, 1975).

 6  P. Kruger and A. Ilmana, "Radon in Geothermal Reservoir
    Engineering," paper presented at I.A.E.A. meeting on
    Application of Nuclear Techniques to Geothermal Studies,
    Pisa, Italy, September  8-12, 1975.

 7  J. P. Balagna,  Jr., R. W. Charles, and C. C. Herrick, "Lab-
    oratory and Numerical Studies of Water-Granite Interactions
    at Elevated Temperature and Pressure," Bulletin of the New
    Mexico Academy of Science 15:2, 21-2 (1975)

 8  J. P. Balagna,  Jr., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, personal
    communication,  July 1975.

 9  H. J. Ramey, Jr., "Wellbore Heat Transmission," Trans, of
    the AIME, Journal of Petroleum Technology 205, 427-435
    (April, 1962).

10  A. J. Ellis, "Geothermal Systems and Power Development,"
    American Scientist 63:5, 510-521 (1975).

11  W. D. Purtymun, F. G. West, and W. H. Adams, "Preliminary
    Study of the Quality of Water in the Drainage Area of the
    Jemez River and Rio Guadelupe," LASL Report LA-5595-MS
    (April, 1974)
                               95

-------
12  W. n. Purtymun, F. H. v.rest,  and  R.  A.  Pettit, "Oology i
    Ceothermal Test Hole GT-2  Fenton 'Hll  Site,  Tuly, 1974,'
    LASL Renort ].\- 5780-M.S  (November,  1^74).
                               96

-------
  DRILL STEM TESTING AND SAMPLING OF GEO-PRESSURED BRINES

                             By

           A. G. Edwards and J. M. Montgomery,
	Halliburton Services, Duncan, Oklahoma	


                         ABSTRACT


     Technology and equipment are available today for obtaining

samples and reservoir data on geo-pressured and most geo-thermal

wells.  The ultra-deep search for hydrocarbons has fostered develop-

ment of subsurface equipment capable of withstanding pressure dif-

ferentials of 10,000 psi at 500° F.  This equipment has been

successfully used in a limited number of geo-thermal wells but has

seen wide uses in the oil field.  In addition to obtaining samples

of the formation effluents, the following formation characteristics

can be calculated: Static Reservoir Pressure, Indicated Flow Capa-

city, Transmissibility, Average Effective Permeability, Damage Ratio

Theoretical Potential with Damage Removed, and the Approximate Radius

of Investigation.


                       INTRODUCTION


     Drill Stem Testing is a temporary completion of a well to

gather data.  As early as 1963, Drill Stem Testing (DST) equipment

was being used to evaluate geo-thermal wells in the Salton Sea.

On one of these open hole tests the bottom hole temperature was

450° F at 5000 feet.  Sub-surface samplers were not available at

that time; however, the desired data was gathered.  The Key to this
                            97

-------
test and other deep hot tests was a new (in 1963)  rubber compound



for packer elements.   Laboratory tested to 10,000  psi differential



at 500° F this compound is standard today in oil field applications.






     Many deep-hot-high pressure DST's have been run since 1963.



Conditions in some instances have been extremely severe.  Equipment



and techniques used for these tests will be discussed.






                         EQUIPMENT






     Four options are available today to those wishing to test



and/or sample geo-pressured or geo-thermal reservoirs.  Well condi-



tions and the type data desired usually dictate the type equipment



used.






     Figure 1 illustrates a typical string of 'open-hole' tools



used for Drill Stem Testing geo-pressured or geo-thermal wells in



the open-hole (uncased hole).  This is standard equipment for Drill



Stem Testing in oil field applications.  For geo-thermal wells



where the Bottom Hole Temperature is expected to be in excess of



350° F, the tools are dressed with special high temperature seals



and packer elements.   Reference number one gives a detailed des-




cription of each item in this string.






     Figure 2 shows the equipment schematically.  Since the packer



is larger in diameter than the other tools, a portion of the well-



bore fluids enters the string through the anchor perforations and
                              98

-------
                       FIGURE   1

OPEN   HOLE  SINGLE  PACKER  TEST
                       -DRILL  PIPE
                    •*—HOLLOW PIN IMPACT
                        REVERSE SUB
                        (RILL PIPE OR DRILL COLLARS
                        DUAL CLOSED IN
                        PRESSURE VALVE
                       -REVERSE CIRCULATION PORTS
                       -HANDLING SUB 8 CHOKE
                        ASSEMBLY (OPTIONAL)
                    -«—HYDROSPRING  TESTER
                    _TB
lY-PASS PORTS
                        IT. PRESSURE RECORDER
                    i    (A P TYPE)


                    H—HYDRAULIC JAR


                        VR SAFETY  JOINT
                        BY-PASS PORTS
                         AXPAND SHOE PACKER
                         SSEMBLY
                       -ANCHOR PIPE  SAFETY JOINT
                       -FLUSH JOINT ANCHOR
                       -HT 500 TEMPERATURE
                        RECORDER
                        IT. PRESSURE RECORDER
                        (BLANKED OFF)


                             99
                              FA

-------
passes through the center of the packer.   This fluid then exits



through bypass ports in the VR Safety Joint and Hydro Spring Test-



er as shown in Figure 2-a.





     While going in the hole, the Hydrospring's valve is closed



so the drill pipe will be empty when it reaches bottom.   When the



testing string reaches the  bottom of the  hole, a portion of the



drill pipe weight is applied to the string.  This weight expands



the packer element out against the wall of the hole, isolating



the well bore fluids from the interval to be' tested.  As shown in



Figure 2-b, this also closes the bypass ports; and after a brief



time delay(normally 3-5 minutes), opens the valve in the Hydro-



Spring Tester.  The formation effluents then enter the test string



through the perforations in the anchor pipe.





     After the formation is flowed the desired length of time,



clockwise rotation of the drill pipe closed the Dual CIP Valve,



as shown in Figure 2-c, allowing the formation to repressure the



area around the well bore.





     When the formation has had time to develop a build-up pressure



curve, the drill pipe is again rotated clock-wise.  This moves the



Dual CIP Valve to the second flow position, as shown in Figure 2-b.





     Following the second flow period the drill pipe is rotated



clockwise to close the Dual CIP Valve to develop another build-up



curve.  Figure 2-c illustrates this position.
                               100

-------
                                                                                                              <
                                                                                                              u.
       h-
       co
       HI
       h-
       UJ
       I-
       co
       cc
       D

       LLJ
       -J
       o
       I
t;x>>Xx>Xx<>^xWXx<^/^V/ANW^>^
^^^/^^/,^^/^^Z^^
^^y^:^>^<^>^^;%<<^^
LJLJ   LU
CC   Q.
z>   a
o     ,
                                                                                  cr o
                                                                                  o —i
                                                                                  u- o
      CC
      (D
                                                                                 S
                                                                                 u- P
      LLJ
      O
      <
      CO
      CO
      O

      D
                                                                                    CD  „	.
                                                                                    5  o
                                                      101

-------
     After the final closed-in-pressure period, the drill pipe



is raised, closing the Hydrospring's Valve and opening the bypasses



to equalize the pressure differential previously existing across



the packer as shown in Figure 2-d.  After a brief pause the pipe



is raised further releasing the packer.  A bar is then dropped



through the drill pipe to open the Hollow Pin Impact Reversing Sub



as shown in Figure 2-e.  With the reversing valve, drilling fluid



is then pumped down the annulus and back up the inside of the drill



pipe to safely remove  the formation effluents.





     As shown in Figure 2-f, the reversing valve drains the drill



pipe on the trip out of the hole. Fluid enters the bypass ports



and exits through the Anchor Pipe perforations to bypass the pack-



er.





     When the formation is unconsolidated, or the hole has already



been cased, a string of tools similar to those shown in Figure 3



are used for Drill Stem Testing a geo-thermal or geo-pressured re-



servoir.  Tools from the VR Safety Joint upward are the same as



those illustrated in Figure 2 for testing in the open hole.  The



prime difference when testing inside casing (commonly called a



'Hookwall Test') is the Packer.





     The packer for Hookwall Testing is a casing packer having



slips that grip the casing  (when activated) to support the drill



pipe weight necessary to expand the packer elements and operate
                             102

-------
FIGURE   3  -   HOOK  WALL  PACKER  TEST
                            TUBING

                            IMPACT REVERSE SUB
                            TUBING
                            DUAL CLOSED IN PRESSURE
                            VALVE
                            REVERSE CIRCULATION PORTS
                            HANDLING SUB 8 CHOKE
                            ASSEMBLY
                            -HYDROSPRING TESTER
                            -BY-PASS PORTS
                            -B.T. PRESSURE  RECORDER
                            (AP TYPE)
                            -BIG JOHN HYDRAULIC JAR
                            -VR SAFETY  JOINT
                          —BY-PASS PORTS
                         H-RTTS TESTING PACKER
                    t±
                            -COLLAR
                            -PERFORATED TAILPIPE
                           -B.T. PRESSURE RECORDER
                            (BLANKED OFF)
                            H.T.-500 TEMPERATURE
                            RECORDER
                                  103
                                                            FA

-------
the other tools.  With the casing packer the slips make it un-



necessary to set the string on bottom.  Operating sequence is



similar to that described above for an open hole test.





     Effluent samples can be trapped down hole at final flow



pressure and returned to the surface for analysis.  This analysis



can either be done at the wellsite (in oil field applications)



or the tool can be taken to the laboratory for a more exacting



analysis.  The sample chamber is simply attached to the lower end



of the Dual CIP Valve and is operated by the.Dual CIP Valve.  As



shown schematically in Figure 4, the sample is trapped when the



Dual CIP is rotated to the final closed-in-pressure position.





     A new tool has opened up two new types of formation evalua-



tion, a Limited Entry Type Open Hole Test and a Limited Entry Type



Hookwall Test.  Operationally the two types of tests are similar.



Equipment wise the only difference is in the type packer used.





     The Limited Entry Type Test was developed as a sampling tech-


                                                   2 "•?
nique for deep, hot, hydrogen-sulfide environments. »  Consider-



able time was spent in seeking special seals for this hostile en-



vironment. ^ Design criteria for this tool was to sample hydrogen



sulfide reservoirs where the bottom hole pressure could be as high



as 24,000 psi and the bottom hole temperature might be 450° F.  To



meet these specifications the system shown in Figure 5 was developed,
                             104

-------
oc
111
                                                                                             o

                                                                                             CO
                                                                                               _
                                                                                             > ID
                                                                                             UJ O
                                                                                             cc a:
a.
o
                                                                                             Z CO
                                                                                             LZ o
                                                                                                   a>
DC
O
<
Z
o
cr
LU
CL
O
LU
DC
D
g
u.
                                                                                             Li CO
                                                                                             Z .O
                                                                                             —
                                                                                             o
                                                                                                   o
                                                  '05

-------
Page Six - Drill Stem Testing and Sampling of Geo-Pressured Brines





To date this equipment has been used on two tests, one offshore



and one inland.   These tests indicated that this is an operation-



al system.





     For testing geo-thermal or geo-pressured reservoirs, all



tools, except the Expansion Type Double Sampler, will be standard



tools dressed for high temperature applications.





     Key to the  limited entry sampling technique is the new Ex-



pansion Type Double Sampler.  This tool is capable of trapping



two bottom hole  samples and bringing them back to the surface for



analysis.   The sample chambers expand as the tool is brought out



of the hole in order to reduce the sample pressures for safer hand-



ling at the surface.  Expansion of the chambers, plus the reduction



in pressure due  to the temperature change, normally provides a sur-



face pressure in the chambers equal to 40 to 60% of bottom hole



pressure.   Figure 5 is a schematic of the Expansion Type Double Sam-



pler.  The tool  is open so that the drill pipe fills with drilling



fluid as the tools are run in the hole.  A description of a typical



operating sequence describes the other advantages of the system.





     Since the tool string is open ended, the drill pipe fills with



well bore fluid as the tools are run in the hole.  Once on bottom,



prior to setting the packer, the drill pipe is partially displaced



with a light fluid such as water or diesel, as shown in Figure 5-a.



The amount of water or diesel placed in the drill pipe is just
                             106

-------
IO

LJJ
cc

o
S
tf
o
o
                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    g

                                                                                                    5
                                                                                                    OL,
                                                                                                    CO
                                                   »7

-------
enough to clean out the rat hole (below the packer) and get the
formation material up to the sampler.   If the formation pres-
sure is low, it may be necessary to put a greater amount of cushion
in the drill pipe to further reduce the hydrostatic head.   Nor-
mally 10 to 20 barrels of cushion is adequate.   With the cushion
in the drill pipe the packer is set.  The weight applied to the
packer activates the hydraulic time delay in the Sampler.   After
a brief time delay, the Sampler closes off the  inside of the tool
and opens the two sample chambers so that all the flow passes
through the chambers.  The surface equipment valves can then be
opened and the cushion slowly flowed out of the drill pipe as shown
in Figure 5-b.  The cushion is directed to a measuring tank so that
the amount of formation material entering the system is carefully
controlled.  When all the cushion has been recovered, the surface
equipment valve is closed and the drill pipe is raised to the free
point to close the sample chambers.  Raising the drill pipe auto-
matically moves an 'Indexing J1 within the tool to the next position
so that the drill pipe weight can be placed back on the packer
while the sample chambers remain closed.  With the sample chambers
closed, the center of the tool is open as shown in Figure 5-c.
While the surface equipment is closed, a closed-in-pressure can be
taken to obtain additional reservoir data.  With the special hy-
draulic hold down packer the formation fluids can be pumped back
into the formation.  If the formation material cannot be pumped
                             108

-------
back into the formation, the packer can be unseated and the re-



covery reversed out.  As the tools are withdrawn from the hole,



the sample chambers expand, reducing the pressure inside to approx-



imately 40-60% of bottom hole pressure.  These expanded sample



chambers can then be separated from the tool string and one drain-



ed on location.  This gives a quick preliminary idea of the type



materials present in the formation while the other sample is being



transported to the laboratory for a more thorough analysis.





     The Expanding Type Double Sampler permits the operator to use



the limited entry type technique to obtain samples of the formation



material early in the program.  In hardrock formations this tech-



nique can be used to determine if  standard material liners can be



used, or if exotic liners will be required because of hydrogen sul-



fide.  In unconsolidated  formations, the tool allows the operator



to obtain samples of the formation materials so he can determine



if special tubing will be required because of hydrogen sulfide or



if it will be safe to test with the drill pipe.





                      TEST PROCEDURE





     The Key to obtaining maximum data from the Drill Stem Test



is the procedure.  Each test will react differently due to pre-



vious activity during the drilling operation, formation charac-



teristics ,etc.  Because of these differences, 'cook-book1 test



procedures are not practical. The length of the flow and closed-
                             109

-------
in-pressure periods should be selected at the well site, based



on surface reactions of the well during the test.   As a general



rule-of-thumb, low permeability formations require longer flow



and closed-in-pressure times than high permeability formations.



In either case, the flow periods must be long enough for the well



to clean up and to draw the reservoir down.  The first flow



period must be long enough to remove the 'super-charge' so that



meaningful data can be collected.  Wells that flow to the surface



should be flowed long enough to reach a semi-steady flow rate



and that rate should be measured.  If reservoir data is desired



from wells that do not flow to the surface, the well should not



be permitted to die; i.e., it should not be flowed until the back



pressure created by the hydrostatic head is approaching reservoir



pressure.  Surface indications of a well killing itself is ob-



vious in the bubble bucket.





     On deep Drill Stem Tests it is sometimes necessary to put



a light fluid(commonly called a cushion), such as fresh water or



diesel oil, in the drill pipe to help protect the drill pipe



against the collapse pressure created by the drilling fluid in



the annulus.  These cushions can offer both advantages and dis-



advantages depending on the type formation being evaluated.





     On high permeability wells capable of producing at high



rates, a full cushion helps provide better well control, assuming



the formation pressure is adequate to overcome the hydrostatic
                            110

-------
head of the cushion.  When testing very hot formations where salt



water is used as the drilling fluid, cushions can provide a back



pressure to help prevent flash separation of the drilling fluid



(rat-hole fluid) as it passes through the reduced diameters of



the tools.   Should this flash separation occur, the precipitants



could plug the tools aborting the test.  Where a cushion is not



required to protect the drill pipe, but flash separation is a



possibility, a gas cushion can be used.  The gas cushion, usually



nitrogen, can be slowly bled-off at the surface permitting forma-



tions not capable of producing against a liquid cushion to flow.





     When testing unconsolidated formations a cushion is bene-



ficial as it will create a back pressure on the formation the in-



stant the Hydrospring opens.  With out the back pressure, the face



of these formations tend to 'explode', when the well bore pressure



is reduced as the Hydrospring opens, plugging the tools and some-



times the hole.





     Low permeability formation tests, on the other hand, are



usually hindered by cushions.  This type formation normally re-



quires longer flow and closed-in-pressure periods.  The addition-



al back pressure of the cushion will require even more time to



clean up the well and sufficiently draw the reservoir down.





                        CONCLUSIONS





     Equipment and technology are available today to Drill Stem
                            111

-------
Test and sample most geo-pressured and geo-thermal wells.   Proper
testing procedures and techniques will gather the data to  make
an evaluation of the economic feasibility of a well.

     Preplanning of the test should include adequate  lead  time for
the service contractor to obtain the special high temperature seals
and packer elements.  These items are not normally stocked so that
they will be fresh for each application.
                            112

-------
                        REFERENCES
1.   Edwards, A.  G.;  Winn, R.  H. ;  "A Summary of Modern Tools and
    Techniques Used in Drill  Stem Testing", presented at the
    Dedication of the U.  S. East-West Trade Center, June 14-17,
    1973; in Vienna, Austria.

2.   Montgomery,  J.  M.;"Drill  Stem Testing and Sampling of Deep
    Frio and Wilcox Reservoirs";  presented at the "Geopressured
    Geothermal Resources  Conference"; June 2-4, 1975 in Austin,
    Texas.

3.   Edwards, A.  G.;  "Offshore Evaluation of Hydrogen Sulfide
    Reservoirs", presented at the Fourth Annual Convention of
    the Indonesian Petroleum Association", June 2-3, 1975; in
    Jakarta, Indonesia.

4.   Montgomery,  J.  M.; Gaskins,  J.F.; and Coleman, J. E.;
    "Exploratory Reservoir Evaluation for Sour Gas or Crude";
    Presented at the Sour Gas and Crude Sumposium, November
    10-12,  1974; in Tyler, Texas.

5.   Edwards, A.  G.  ; West, E. R.; "Obtain Accurate Data From
    Deep Formation Tests"; World Oil, October, 1974, pg.104-109.

6.   Olson,  C. C.; "Technical  Advancement-Four Decades of DST",
    presented at the Eighth Annual Logging Symposium of the
    Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, June 12-14, 1967,
    at Denver, Colorado.
                           113

-------
                   ALliim PROFILE OF THE EAST MESA FT ELL-
       AS DEIERMTVED FROM P/uAL INDUCTION RESISTIVITY AND SP LOGS

                 Ey R. T. Littleton and E. E. Burnett
                      U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
                         Boulder City,  Nevada
                             October 1975
In a water dominated geothernal reservoir such as the East Mesa Field or,
if you prefer, a high temperature ground-water reservoir, it is practical
to obtain the general dimensions of dissolved mineral concentration by
interpretation of dual induction resistivity logs and self-potential logs.
Values so obtained may be substantially greater or less than those obtained
by laboratory analyses of water samples from the same zones.  Therefore, it
is necessary to establish calibrating coefficients by borehole sampling and
laboratory analyses.

In the East Mesa Field,  a useful method of obtaining representative fluid
samples is by drill stem testing during drilling.  The saturated sand
teds as deep as 7,590 feet in the East Mesa Geotherinal Reservoir produce
readily under drill stem testing.  In a 35-minute period, we may obtain a
column of water that extends to within a few hundred feet of land surface;
in fact, we would flow vater at the surface on most drill stem tests but
for blocking the tool with sand.  We obtain a good flush of the sand for-
mation tested as indicated by the bottom hole temperature obtained by
maximum recording thermometers run with the drill stem testing tool.  The
temperature we obtain is very near equilibrium and invasion has been over-
come.  Determination of the temperature profile several weeks after com-
pletion of wells shows that near equilibrium conditions were reached during
the drill stem test by the production of formation fluid.

Our procedure for deriving salinities from logs is as follows:  We first
make a lithologic interpretation using the natural gamma ray log, the SP
log, and the resistivity log (see Figure 1).  Using these three logs, we
are able to pick the tops and bottoms of individual sand beds with confi-
dence.  The next step is to draw the clay or clay-shale line on the SP log.
Then we draw a sandline wherein we give greater weight to the thick sand
bed deflections than to the thin sand bed deflections.  We then read a
value of static SP deflection for each sand bed which is the difference
between the clay-shale baseline and the sandline in millivolts.  Next we
pick resistivity values in OHM-meters for each permeable bed, which is sand
or sandstone in the geologic environment of East Mesa.  Our methodology is
to pick a shallow resistivity value and a deep resistivity value.  In
picking these values, we give considerable weight to that portion of the
curve which suggests the most permeable part of the sand.  Our shallow
reading presents the flushed zone and our deep reading represents the
unflushed zone.  Values of SP and resistivity obtained are inserted in
formulae described in logging company manuals.

-------
              GEOTHERMAL TEST WELL
                      MESA  6H
 JP CURVE LOST  CIRCULATION ZONE. 7300-7450
 ->j   k-
10 MLLIVQIJS	GEOLOGY
                                                       Figure I
                           RESISTIVITY CURVES OHM-METERS
                           KEY
                               SANU
                            c1 CLAY-SHALE
SHALLOW RESISTIVITY
DEEP RESBTIVITY
MEDIUM RESISTIVITY

-------
The results of oar computations of total salinity on the logs of two shal-
low wells, one in the. Yum a Valley and one at the Lasc Mesa Heothermal
Station, are shown in Figures 2 and 3.  The well in Yuma Valley was
drilled to test foundation conditions for a desalting plant site.  The
logs depicted or. the slide include a geologiTl's log based upon drilling
character and an SP curve and two resistivity curves.  This well is
screened from 50 to 85 feet and was pump tested and water samples were
obtained.  Electrical conductivity of the sampled interval according to
laboratory analysis is 2,270 p/m, according to the SP curve is 3,660 p/is,
and according to the two resistivity curves is 2,000 p/n.

An SP log of a water supply well at the geothermal site on East Mesa indi-
cates a high mineral concentration in sand at the water table and a sharp
decrease in concentration in the thin sand bed below the first thick clay
bed (Figure 3).  The higher salinity in the first sand is indicated by the
stronger SP deflection in the first sand than in the second sand.  Pumped
water from two shallow sand-point observation wells nearby, one completed
in the upper sand and the second completed in the lower sand, confirm what
the SP log indicated even though the values computed by the conventional
formula differ substantially from the laboratory values.  In order to
obtain a perfect match, it would be necessary to account for all the fac-
tors that influence the SP curve including differences in the basic chemi-
cal makeup of the formation water and the drilling inud filtrate and stray
electrical currents emanating from forces outside the borehole.

A general trend of the salinity profile throughout some 8,000 feet of
strata is computed from the dual induction logs and SP logs of geothernal
Well Mesa 6-1 (see Figure 4).  Both the self-potential and resistivity
curves show broad zonations through the interval measured.  The resistivity
curve shows mineralization of less than 5,000 p/n down to a depth of
1,450 feet.  From 1,450 feet to 6,100 feet + is 5,000 to 6,000 p/ra gener-
ally but locally approaching 9,000 p/m.

Four drill stem tests were made during the drilling of Mesa 6-1.

Laboratory analyses of fluid samples obtained indicated the following total
dissolved solids:  7,620 p/n fron 2,505 to 2,601 feet depth; 5,720 p/n in
the interval 4,445 to 4,480 feet; 1,850 p/m from 5,557 to 5,607 feet depth;
and 12,620 p/n from 7,292 to 8,030 feet depth.  With respect to the latter
interval, we have considerable evidence that most of the fluid probably
came from the lost circulation zone between 7,300 and 7,400 feet depth.
Below 7,300 feet we cannot corroborate our methods and computations with
drill stein test data.

We have no airtight explanation for the reversal of the curves but are dis-
posed to state that there was such heavy mud loss that neither the resis-
tivity nor the SP curves sensed the in situ formation water.  The geologic
terrane penetrated apparently has fracture permeability which permits deep
mud invasion.  Drilling below 7,100 feet, the hole took mud continuously.
Large quantities were lost between 7,300 and 7,400 feet requiring the set-
ting of a cement plug to regain circulation so that we could continue

                                  116

-------
                            YUCCA  DESALTING PLANT SITE
                                     YUMA, ARIZONA
                                  PR-12 Y  TEST HOLE
                                     RESISTIVITY  CURVES
                 Figure 2
   4O
   90
-  190
-200
- 280
- MO
-3SO
-400
                               MOTE'-  REaSTMTY OF
                                     MUD FILTRATE AT 77°F.
                                     * 4.44 OHM-METERS
   SLOTTED/
   SECTION >
   50'- W1 \
                         40

                         90
                                                                       PUMPED
                                                                       WATER
                                                                       EC '2270
                                                                       MICROMH08/CM
                                                                       AT 77°F
                                                                       (LAB.)
COMPUTED EC AT
so-ae' -2000 MICROMHOS
f*R CEWT1METER AT 77* f.
(FROM RESISTIVITY CURVES)

COMPUTED EC AT
gO-S5'» 3MO MKMOMH08
PfR CENTMETEN AT 77* F.
(PMM » CURVE)
                                                                                   00 -
                        100 -
                        200 -
                                                                                  ISOO-
                                                                                   380 -
                                                                                   4OO-
                                           17

-------
-  o
                        WATER SUPPLY WELL   6-1S2
                 EAST  MESA GEOTHERMAL WELL SITE
         SP LOG WATER QUALITIES COMPARED  TO PUMPED  WATER QUALITIES
              FROM  OBSERVATION WELLS 6-IMI AND 6-IM2
                                                         LOG
                                                                      Figure 3
                                  SP CURVE

                                     10 MV-»|
- ro
— 40
- 90
— 60
                      COMPUTED EC=69O4 MlCROMHOS/CM
                     COMPUTED EC
                     »3700 MlCROMHOS/CM
                                            0-LAND SURFACE
                                               :D
   OB. WELL
   6-IMI
LAB EC= 19,130
LAB PPM=II,295
                                                             39
                                                             43
                                                         DOB. WELL
                                                         6-IM2
                                                     LAB EC*«70
                                                     LAB PPM-3496
                                                             651/2
— 70
GROUND-WATER  TEMPERATURE - 90° F. TO I008F.
           NOTE.  Although eh* BQQfotH *Mlltloo differ eeMi4«r«bly
                 tha p«MB«4 laboratory oaalysod o.oalltlo*,  ebo oooD«roClv«

                 tho «poor MM is ladleoe«l by tho CT log  to bo ooMldorobly
                 •oro Mlloo than tho lovor BOM, *hleh im  eoafinod by tho
                 loborotory
                                     118

-------
                      WATER
QUALITY
MESA  6-1
PROFILE
                                                                                    Figw*
             WATER QUALITY IN P P
           0    5,000  IQooo 15.000
                                           WATER QUALITY tN PPM
   0   5«o IQnoo
                                                                          WATER QUALITY IN PPM
-2.='
                                                              6*°° r
                                                        OST
                                                       4443-4480
                    SELF POTENTIAL
                                                                   EZ3
                              - 5.000
                                                DST
                                               7292-8030
                                              .3 t2,«2OPPhL
                         0 ST
                       Z5O9-2«OI
                      TOST52O PPH
   0    5ooo  ICXoo I5.ooo
            WATER OUAL1TY IN PPM
                                           WATER (
                                         KEY
                                       SAND •••
                                                                        0    5x»o  IOU ISooo
                                                                          WATER QUALITY IN PPM
                                           11'

-------
vlrillinp, to the r.arpet depth of 3,000 feet.  Wr ended up with fresh :nud
not only in thi: bore-hole but al.so with a s-.-bstannial »,u3i:-t.ir.v In the frac-
tured terrane.  Wt_ are unable to place nuch confidence in the values
computed below 7,300 feet for two reasons.  One, the value of the raid
filtrate resistivity used for the calculation may not be co~rect; and, tw, ,
deep mud invasion of the fractured terrane may have biased the computations.
The computed salinities may reflect a mud-soaked formation rather than the.
saline character of the natural water that was indicated by the drill stem
test.

With respect to the low salinity of 1,850 p/m in the interval 5,557 to
5,607 feet, we computed a total salinity of about 4,009 p/m from the resis-
tivity curves of the dual induction log.  V.'e hava no satisfactory explana-
tion for this difference.

Ve have also computed the salinity profile throughout about 6,200 feet of
strata in Mesa 31-1 which was drilled in the cooler part of the East Mesa
geothermal field (see Figure 5).  The two salinity curves computed fvom the
resistivity and self-potential logs more or less parallel each other as was
the case in Mesa 6-1.  Also, the resistivity values computed are lower than
the self-potential values and more nearly fit actual formation conditions
based upon our meager data from drill stem tests.  The match between the
drill stem test and results computed from the resistivity curves of the
dual induction log are good.  Laboratory analyses of water from drill stem
test interval at depth 4,333 to 4,395 feet gave a total dissolved solids
ranging from 2,000 to 2,500 p/m.  We computed 2,000 p/m from the resistiv-
ity curves.  In the drill stem test interval 5,656-5,696 feet, not shown on
Figure 5, laboratory analyses of samples gave total dissolved solids rang-
ing from about 1,900 to about 2,220 p/m.  We computed about 1,300 p/m from
the resistivity curves.  The levels of mineral concentration in the water
throughout the reservoir profile are substantially less at Mesa 31-1 than
at Mesa 6-1.

A comparison of salinity profiles as computed from geophysical logs of
three East Mesa geothernal wel]s shows a common pattern (see Figures 7, 8,
and 9).  To a depth of 6,000 feet, three salinity zones seem recognizable.
Little information is available above 1,900 feet.  Zone 1 is from 1,000 to
about 2,000 feet in which salinities of 2,000-3,000 p/m seem to prevail.
Zone 2 is an irregular zone from 2,000 to about 4,000 feet in which salini-
ties of 2,000-5,000 p/m seem to occur.  Zone 3 is from 4,000 to 6,000 feet
in which water of about 2,000 p/m prevails.  Mesa 6-1 (Figure 4) seems to
indicate a fourth zone beginning shortly below 6,000 feet in which water in
the 10,000 p/m range occurs, although there is confusion about the water
salinity below 7,300 feet.  A comparison of the Bureau of Reclamation wells
with apparent salinity profiles of other deep wells in the area but outside
the East Mesa Anomaly suggests similar zonations in the water quality
profile.
                                   120

-------
                    QUALITY



                    MESA   31-1

;• lau*Lirv M FPN


 Zooq  Jowl  ^ooo  Oooo Owe Tooo   Ho
                                                      PROFILE
                                                                                       £»,
                                                       tv *-•£
                                                         c"   r:
I000 __!.. _
                                                    3BOO-- -.	-
                                                    4 BOO _^ _ -_ _ ^
I BOO-  ~ —
                   S'
                                S£LF POTENTIAL PPM

                                                   Jy"0; .
                                                       £4,-*.-
                                                    5900 r
                                                                   /
                     Oooo  4ooo  dooo  Dooo  1

                      •ma OIMUTV IN PPM
                                I        .        I     I     I     I   '  I     I



                               Oooo             looo  2_ooo  3ooo *Tood  Oooo  Oooo

                                        I                 Mm *IMLITf  ih PPM
                                        121

-------
        SP CURVE
        GEOTHERMAL TEST WELL
               MESA 31-1
                                                             Flgurt t
      HP-
         8 MILLIVOLTS
+   DRILL STEM TEST  4333-4397
          OCOL09Y
 — 4300
w»
2
>3
•d-
X
  — 4390
  — 4400
                                   RESISTIVITY CURVES
                                   OHM-METERS—-*
                             KEY
                                 9ANO
                                 CLAY-SHALE
                                     SHALLOW NCMTtVITY
                                     DEEP nuttnvmr
                                 122

-------
                                         COMPUTED CURVES  OF  LOG

                                                    MESA  5-1
                                                                                            Figure 7
            WATER
            QUALITY
FORMATION
  FACTOR
POROSITY
 SONIC
DENSITY
CEMENTATION
  FACTOR
     1000
5000
GOOD
                                                    123

-------
                                               COMPUTED CURVES  OF   LOG

                                                          MESA  6-2
                                                                      Figure 8
                WATER
                QUALITY
FORMATION
  FACTOR
PflROSIH
 SONIC
DENSITY
CEMENTATION
  FACTOR
         3000
    1000
   2000
* 3000
    4000-
    5000
    6000
                                                                                                 20
                                                                                       FiCIOl

-------
                                         COMPUTED  CURVES OF  LOG

                                                    MESA  8-1
                                                                    Figure 9
            WATER
            QUALITY
FORMATION
  FACTOR
POROSITY
 SONIC
DENSITY
CEMENTATION
  FACTOR
6000
                                                    125

-------
                                                                         Environmental Analysis
                                                                         Laboratories
                                                                  CORPORATION

                                                                       TLW-6147

       FIELD SAMPLING OF RADIOACTIVE GEOTHERMAL EFFLUENTS*

                                     by

                               Arthur J. Soinski
                               David E. Claridge
                               Rodney Melgard


                              LFE Corporation
                     Environmental Analysis Laboratories
                             2030 Wright Avenue
                         Richmond, California   94804
                                 ABSTRACT

       A sampling program for radioactive effluents from The Geysers geothermal
power plant is described.  Radon-222 was sampled both in the non-condensable
fraction of geothermal steam and in the atmosphere.  A variety of solid and liquid
matrices, including steam condensate,  cooling tower sludge, soil, and grass, were
sampled and analyzed for 226Ra and 2i°Pb.  The three radioactive isotopes 222Rn,
22%a, and 2-^^Pb are members of the naturally-occurring 238y radioactive decay
chain.

       Stack sampling techniques were applied to the collection of steam, and a
simple sampling train was constructed to separate  and collect the condensable and
non-condensable fractions.  Collection techniques for selected solid and liquid
matrices are described.  Two complicating factors in the sampling and analysis
program are  addressed:  the collection of atmospheric samples for radon from a
local source in the presence of the natural background and the long term temporal
variation in the emission rate of contaminants from a geothermal field.

       The sampling and analytical methods used are capable of detecting 222Rn,
       and 2-^Pb at environmental concentrations  that are below the allowable
maximums set in State of California regulations.
                                     126

-------
                                                                         Environmental Analysis
                                                                         Laboratories
                                                                   CORPORATION
                                                                          TLW-6147
       FIELD SAMPLING OF RADIOACTIVE GEOTHERMAL EFFLUENTS

I.     INTRODUCTION
       A monitoring program lor radioactive effluents from The Geysers Geothermal
Power Plant, Sonoma County, California, was conducted during the summer and
fall of 1974.  The State of California has set maximum allowable concentrations
for the naturally-occurring radionuclides 222Rn in air and 226Ra and 210Pb  in
water.  The purpose of the program was to determine if these allowable concen-
trations are exceeded. The primary goal was to measure the concentration of
222Rn in power plant emissions.  Secondary goals were to measure atmospheric
   Rn concentrations and to measure the concentrations of 22^Ra and 2l^Pb in
solid and liquid matrices including steam condensate, drilling mud, cooling tower
sludge, surface water, soil, and vegetation.  Soil,  water,  and vegetation  samples
were collected both at The Geysers and in surrounding communities.
       Radon-222, 226Ra,  and 210Pb are members of the 238U decay chain which
is shown in Table 1.    Uranium-238 is present in igneous  and sedimentary rocks
                                                            (2)
at average concentrations of 1.2 to 3.9 ppm (parts per million); v ' however, values
                                                              (3)      9*^8
between 0. 03 and 120 ppm have been reported for certain samples. v '  The ^°°u
decay chain involves eight alpha decays and six beta decays (weak branches  to other
products are not shown) before the stable element 206pb terminates the chain.
       Radon-222, historically called radon, is unique in that it is the only  gas
      Q O Q
in the ^00u decay chain.  It can diffuse out of soil minerals into the soil gas and
then across the soil surface-air interface into the atmosphere.  The mean radon
exhalation rate is 0. 70 atoms/cm2- sec  or 40. 0 x 10~18 Ci/cm2- sec.' '  The
concentration of radon in ambient  air over the continents ranges from 0. 03 to 3. 0
pCi/1 with an average value of 0.1 pCi/1.    Radon in ambient air at The Geysers
has three major sources:  the surface soil, geothermal steam, and natural fumaroles.
Our study emphasized the latter two sources of radon.
       Radon itself presents minimal health hazards; but its daughter products
are chemically reactive when formed, and they readily attach to other particles
in the atmosphere.  Some of these particles can be  retained in the lung following
                                        127

-------
                                                                           Environmental Analysis
                                                                           Laboratories
                                                                    CORPORATION
 inhalation.  When the attached radioactive isotopes decay, their decay energy is
 deposited in lung tissue.  Of special concern are the short-lived daughters 218Po,
 214Eb, 214Bi,and214p0.<6>
        Because of its relatively long half-life of 1600 years, 22%a in soil can be
 regarded as an essentially constant source of radon to the air.  Lead-210, with a
 22 year half-life,  blocks the decay chain, at least over the time scale both of our
 sampling and of developed emissions at The Geysers.  The presence of 210Pb in
 environmental samples at a level above natural background is an indicator of the
 long term radiological impact of a geothermal power plant.
        Site selection techniques are discussed in the next section.  Sample collection
 techniques are presented in Section III. Problems unique to geothermal fields are
 described in Section IV. The sampling methodology cannot be  separated from the
 analytical methodology; therefore, selected methods are described briefly in an
 appendix.

II.     SITE SELECTION RATIONALE
       Selecting the sampling points for 222Rn emission measurements was straight
forward.  A schematic of a typical power  generation system at The Geysers is
 shown in Figure 1.  The well bore is vented directly to the atmosphere both during
the drilling stage and during power plant shut down.  During normal plant operation,
the particle separators, the pressure relief valve, the off gas ejector above the
condenser,  and the cooling tower are sources of 222Rn emissions.  Steam flows
through the turbine and into the condenser where it is condensed by direct washing
with cooling water„  The condensate  is then used to wash additional steam. Essentially
all of the 222Rn,along with other non-condensable gases, is removed from the con-
denser by the off gas ejectors, and these gases are released to the atmosphere
through a stack approximately 20 to 30 m  (60 to 90 ft) high.  Therefore, the off gas
ejector stacks were expected to be the most significant emission source.  A small
fraction of the 222Rn dissolves in the scrubbing water and is transported to the
                                                                  k
cooling towers where the large volume flow of cooling air strips out the radon and
then dilutes it upon release to the atmosphere.   The radon concentrations both in
the air above the cooling towers and  within the cooling tower therefore were expected
to be low.
                                       128

-------
                                                                   fcsS^ Environmental Analysis
                                                                   9*   '  Laboratories
                                                                   CORPORATION
       Ambient air samples were collected where meteorological conditions and/or
 topographical features indicated that higher than average radon concentrations might
 exist.  Locations frequently occupied by plant personnel and off-site population
 centers were also sampled. The on-site and surrounding area sampling locations
 are shown in Figure 2.  Because the winds are predominantly westerly, sampling
 sites were selected at low points along the Mayacmas Mountains ridge line east
 of The Geysers.  On-site sampling locations included the Union Oil Shop, the
 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Camp, points downwind of Thermal 4 (a free-
 venting well), power plant control panels, 'and the inside of the condensers (which
 are entered occasionally during plant shutdowns). The closest population centers
 are the sparsely populated  communities in Cobb Valley, Lake County, which is
 below and east of the Sonoma-Lake County line.  Air samples were collected in
 several of these communities as well as in Cloverdale which is west of The Geysers
 and served as a control.
       Most of the steam condensate is reteasedas water vapor from the cooling
 towers, and approximately 20% is re-injected into wells.  A  much smaller fraction
 is discharged to the ground from particle separators and condensate traps.  Con-
 densate samples were collected below particle separators, below condensate traps,
 and in both the  cooling towers and off gas ejectors.  Water samples were collected
 in creeks at a time of the year when flows are low but when the relative contri-
 butions of fumaroles and steam condensate to the flows are high. Drinking water
 supplies  were sampled both at The Geysers and in surrounding communities.
       Soil and vegetation samples were collected in the same general locations
 as the  ambient air samples described previously. Vegetation samples were obtained
 of the predominant growth types, usually introduced wild grasses, encountered at
 each location.  Soil samples were collected nearby from   sparsely vegetated areas
 in order  to facilitate separation of soil  from vegetation.   Sludge samples were
 collected in the cooling tower basins.

 HI.    SAMPLE COLLECTION
       The sampling train used for collection of steam  is shown in Figure 3. The
total volume of the tubing is approximately 1 liter.  The stainless steel probe was
 inserted  into the flow stream in such a  way that only steam passed through the
collection train; the high steam flow rates made this simple to achieve.  The ice
chest was  filled  with  wet  ice to  condense  the steam  in  the  glass
 coil.    The  condensate  trap forces non-condensable gases up into
the  collection bag.   The  system  was purged and equilibrated
                                   129

-------
                                                                           Environmental Analysis
                                                                           Laboratories
                                                                    CORPORATION
without a collection bag attached for approximately 10 min.  or until 10 to 20 cm^ of
condensate had passed through the system.  Collection was then initiated and continued
until 1 to 2 liter of non-condensable gas had been collected in a Tedlar bag. The con-
densate, which had been collected in a bottle,  was returned to our Richmond facility
for ^lOpb and 226^a analyses. The gas was analyzed in a field  laboratory for the 3.8
day half-life 222]^ by means of counting in a Lucas cell.   The emission concentration
of radon was calculated from the  known volume of gas counted, the volume of  gas collected,
and the steam volume sampled (which was calculated  from the volume of condensate
collected).
      Several natural fumaroles were sampled for radon using a modification  of the
sampling method used for steam.  A 20 cm (8 inch) pyrex glass  funnel was placed over an
area at each fumarole where natural gaseous venting was active. .The funnel was "sealed"
by placing mud around the bottom edge.  From the top  of the funnel's stem a  polyethylene
tube was attached which connected directly to the condensing coil from which the non-
condensables were collected in the usual manner.  The collection system was  equilibrated
prior to sampling.  Water condensate collected on the walls of the polyethylene tubing
and refluxed continually back into the glass funnel,  but it was assumed that equilibrium
was achieved and that the condensables collected were properly  ratioed to the  non-
condensables.
      Ambient air samples were collected at a height of between 1 and 2 m (3  to 6 ft)
above ground level.  Ambient  air was pumped  into a Tedlar bag using either a hand
pump or a portable mine safety type personal pump.  In most cases an integrated sample
of 2 liter volume was collected over a period of  10 minutes.
      Cooling tower exhaust was sampled using  the ambient air technique. Off gas ejector
                                                            /Q \
exhaust was sampled using standard stack sampling techniques/ '  Samples were collected
through a standard sampling port in the ejector exhaust pipe.
      For soil samples a circle of earth of 2 to 4 m (6 to 12 ft) in diameter was selected.
The top 2. 5 cm (1 inch) of soil at several locations in the shape of a "T" within the circle
was removed with a flat-bottomed shovel.  The soil was placed in wide-mouth plastic
bottles.  At the laboratory,  the soil was dried at 110° C, the gravel fraction was sieved
out, and an aliquot was taken by successively removing alternate sections of the soil
pile.
                                          130

-------
                                                                         Environmental Analysis
                                                                         Laboratories
                                                                   CORPORATION
        Grasses were cut off at ground level and placed into large plastic bags.  In
 sampling trees and bushes, only the outer leaves were removed.
        Water samples were collected in previously cleaned 1 liter polyethylene
 bottles. No special preservation techniques are required for    Ra or 210Pb in
 water.  The collection bottle was rinsed a minimum of three times with the water
 prior to actual sample collection.  Surface water samples were taken by immersing
 the entire bottle.  For  low flow systems, care was taken not to disturb mud or
 sediment.   Drinking water and steam line condensate were collected by holding a
 bottle within the flow.  Instructions for sampling water are given in both an
 Environmental Protection Agency Publication^ ' and an ASTM Book of Standards. *  '
 The EPA publication is a handbook for  monitoring industrial wastewater, but it is
 an excellent introduction to water sampling and analysis, especially over an
 extended time frame.

 IV.     SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS
        The first problem that  we will discuss is the sampling of ambient air for
 radon.  The atmospheric  222Rn  concentration  away from point sources
 is a function both of meteorological factors such as wind velocity, the temperature
 profile, and barometric pressure and of soil conditions such as temperature and
 moisture content.  A 1 to 2% change in barometric pressure produces changes in
    222                         (11)
 the    Rn flux of from 20 to 60%.v  ' A drop in soil temperature to below  freezing
                                                                 (12 13)
 or saturation of the soil with water will decrease the emanation rate.v   '     The
 importance of these factors to the design of the sampling program depends upon
                         opo
 the relative importance of    Rn released from geothermal fluid compared to that
 released from soil within the air basin, the purpose of the monitoring program,
 and the accuracy of the results desired.  If the program purpose is to assess the
 environmental impact of a geothermal development, then a methodology to  dis-
•tinguish a local source in the presence of a variable background must be designed.
        The purpose of LFE Environmental's program at The Geysers was  to
 determine if California state standards for 222Rn in air and for 226Ra and  21°Pb
        (14)
 in water     were  being exceeded due to the operation of the  generating station.
 The  maximum allowable environmental concentrations for these radionuclides in
 air and water are shown in Table 2 (there are no concentration limits set for soil
                                      131

-------
                                                                          Environmental Analysis
                                                                          Laboratories
                                                                   CORPORATION
by the State of California).  These are total concentrations consisting of the natural
background component plus the contribution of any local source.  These allowable
concentrations can be compared with our detection limits which are given in Table  3.
For the purposes of this table, the detection limit is defined as that concentration
which will yield an integrated number of radioactive  decay counts
that has a counting error of ± 10%.  Numerous definitions of detection limit exist, *  '
and therefore one  must be  careful in making comparisons between the results from
different analytical laboratories. Our detection limits are well below the California
standards,and therefore the sample sizes and analysis methods used were suitable
for the intended purpose.  The analysis methods used are capable of counting these
radionuclides at concentrations several orders of magnitude above  the detection
limits.
       The variability in the soil emanation rate and the effect of meteorological
factors on the radon concentration in an air basin present the possibility of collecting
samples at  times and  places such  that  samples that  are not representative of
average concentrations  and normal variations are collected.  In order to assure
state  officials that our results would not be below the annual average concentrations,
our sampling program was conducted at a time of the year when soil emanation rates
would be expected to be high; that is, in the late summer  and early fall when the
soil is dry  and winds are calm. The conditions prevailing at the time of sampling
were  documented  in  order  to support the validity of the results.

       The second consideration is the long term temporal variation in the emission
rate of contaminants from  a geothermal field.  Geothermal  effluent rates at Warakei,
New Zealand, have been relatively constant over the short term, but they have been
                                                                                /•l c\
variable over the long term exhibiting first increasing and then decreasing behavior.
We are not aware  of any emission rate data in the literature for The Geysers  geo-
thermal field.  Therefore, it is difficult to determine the frequency at which an
emission source should be sampled for either radon or other potentially hazardous
pollutants  such  as hydrogen sulfide.  The recommended frequency  of sampling
over the short term  is a question that is best answered after a preliminary survey
has been conducted.  A cost-effective field sampling protocol that will produce
defensible  results can then be formulated.
                                      132

-------
                                                                          Environmental Analysis
                                                                          Laboratories
                                                                   CORPORATION
V.     CONCLUSION
       Three radionuclides in the 238U decay chain, 222Rn, 226Ra,  and 210Pb,
are possible environmental contaminants resulting from the utilization of geothermal
resources for electricity production.  A monitoring program was conducted to assure
that the concentrations of these three  radionuclides in the environment at and near
The Geysers do not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations set by State
of California  regulations.   Methodologies for the sampling of 222Rn in
both steam and the atmosphere and for the sampling of 226Ra and 210Pb in solid
and liquid matrices were developed.   Standard stack,  ambient air, water, vege-
tation, and soil sampling techniques are applicable for the intended purpose at
The Geysers Field.  It should be kept in mind, however, that steam from this field
is relatively free of contaminants. Effluent sampling elsewhere-probably will
require modifications of the sampling train described.
       Atmospheric  radon  sampling presents special problems because both the
geothermal resource and the soil are  sources of radon.  The background atmospheric
radon concentration is a function of a  number of  topographical, meteorological, and
soil variables.  The  relative importance of these factors depends upon the purpose
of the monitoring program.  The conditions prevailing at the time of  sampling should
be documented both as a standard operating procedure and in order to facilitate the
interpretation of possible anomalous data.
                                     133

-------
                                                                          Environmental Analysis
                                                                          Laboratories
                                                                    CORPORATION

                                 APPENDIX I
                        ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

A.     RADON ANALYSIS
       Radon,  in either non-condensable gas or ambient air, was determined by
                                 (17)
means of counting in a Lucas cell.v  ' A Lucas cell is a simple instrument consisting
of a glass or metal chamber of approximately 100 cm3 volume that is coated on  the
inside with ZnS scintillator and a flat glass bottom.  Scintillations caused by alpha
particles are viewed and counted through the uncoated flat window by means of a
photomultiplier tube.  The Lucas cell and the associated electronics are of sufficient
durability to be used in the field in the back of a pick-up truck.
       A potential interference in the radon determination is the. presence of    Rn,
historically known as thoron, which is a member of the 232^ decay chain, another
naturally-occurring decay chain.  Thoron has a short half life of only 55 seconds;
therefore if the filling of the Lucas cell is delayed for at least 20 minutes following
collection, the thoron has decayed to a negligible quantity.  The air is filtered prior
to introduction  into the Lucas cell in order to remove  radon's particulate  daughters
some of which are also alpha emitters. The cell is filled with a known volume of
gas, the scintillations counted, and the data analyzed by a computer program which
subtracts background and converts the net counts of radon plus radon daughters  to
the radon decay rate at the time of collection.
       The  Lucas cell detection efficiency was determined by de-emanating radon
from  an aliquot of a National Bureau of Standards 226Ra  standard.  Carrier gases
used were helium and also a mixture of non-condensable gases obtained from a well
at The Geysers.  Counting efficiencies for alpha emitters are typically 70%.

B.     RADIUM-226 ANALYSIS
       Radium-226 in water is determined by counting the daughter radon  in a
Lucas cell.  Water is filtered to remove solids, acidified,concentrated, de-
emanated,  sealed and stored for 10 to 20 days to permit the radon to grow in.
The radon is then de-emanated into a Lucas cell for counting.

-------
                                                                           Environmental Analysis
                                                                           Laboratories
                                                                    CORPORATION
       Soil and vegetation samples are analyzed in the same manner as water
samples after dissolution steps.

C.     LEAD-210 ANALYSIS
       The solution from the de-emanation apparatus is acidified with nitric acid
and equilibrated with lead carrier.   Lead is precipitated and redissolved in a series
of steps in order to remove various impurities.  Lead is finally precipitated as
lead sulfate, mounted on a counting planchet,  and the 210Bi daughter is beta counted
periodically over a period of one month.  Corrections for counting efficiency and
source thickness are made.
                                                                          Environmental Analysis
                                                                          Laboratories
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                  to*™*™*
      The authors are grateful to Mr. William Beeman who directed the field sampling
program and modified both sampling equipment and sampling procedures in the field
to the specific requirements of our monitoring program.
      Mr. Joel Robinson of Union Oil Company and Dr. Doug P. Serpa of Pacific Gas
and Electric  Company provided helpful suggestions during the course of our sampling
program.
                                       135

-------
                                                                         Environmental Analysis
                                                                         Laboratories
                                                                   CORPORATION
                        REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES

 *Sampling and analyses funded by the Union Oil Company,  Los Angeles,  California.


 1.    Adapted from C. M.  Lederer, J.  M. Hollander,  and I. Perlman, Table of
      Isotopes, Sixth Edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967).

 2.    M.  Eisenbud,  Environmental Radioactivity, Second Edition (New York:  Academic
      Press, 1973),  p. 170.

 3.    W.  M. Lowder and L.  R.  Solon, "Background Radiation, " U.S.  Atomic Energy
      Commission Report NYO-4712 (1956).

 4.    M.  H. Wilkening, W. E. Clements, and D. Stanley, "Radon-222 Flux Measurements
      in Widely Separated Regions, " in The Natural Radiation Environment, edited by
      J.A.S. Adams, W.M.  Lowder, and T. F. Gesell, Report CONF-720805 (1972),
      p. 717.

 5.    W.  Jacobi and K.  Andre, "The Vertical Distribution of 222Rn, 220Rn and Their
      Decay Products in the Atmosphere, " J. Geophys. Res. 68, 3799 (1963).

 6.    International Commission on Radiological Protection,  ICRP Publication 6
      (Oxford:  Pergamon Press, 1964).

 7.    E. Segre, "Radioactive Decay, " in Experimental Nuclear Physics, edited by
      E. Segre"  (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959), Volume III, p. 1.

 8.    cf,  e. g., I. H. Davis, "Sampling Probes for Duct or Stack Sampling, " in Air-
      Sampling Instruments,  Fourth Edition  (Cincinnati:  American Conference of
      Governmental Industrial Hygienists,  1972), p. L-l.

 9.    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Handbook for Monitoring Industrial
      Wastewater  (1973).   (Available from  Technology Transfer, U. S. EPA,
      Cincinnati, OH   45268).

10.    Standard D3370-75T:  Sampling Water in 1975 Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
      Part 31,  Water (Philadelphia:  American Society  for Testing and Materials,  1975).

11.    W.  E. Clements and  M. H. Wilkening,  "Atmospheric Pressure  Effects  on 222Rn
      Transport Across the Earth-Air Interface." J. Geophys.  Res. 7J), 5025 (1974).

12.    J. E. Pearson and G.E. Jones, "Emanation of Radon-222 from Soils and its Use
      as a Tracer," J. Geophys. Res.  7_0,  5279  (1965).

13.    H. Israel, M.  Herbert, and  G. W. Israel, "Results of Continuous Measurements
      of Radon and its Decay Products in the  Lower Atmosphere, " Tellus 18,  638 (1966).

14.    California Administrative Code, Title 17,  Chapter 5, Subchapter 4.
                                        136

-------
                                                                            Environmental Analysis
                                                                            Laboratories
                                                                     CORPORATION
15.    L.  A. Currie, "Limits for Qualitative Detection and Quantitative Determination, "
       Anal.  Chem.  4£,  586 (1968).

16.    R.  C. Axtmann,  "Environmental Impact of a Geothermal Power Plant, " Science
       187,  795  (1975).

17.    H.  F. Lucas, "Improved Low-Level Alpha-Scintillation  Counter for Radon, "
       Rev.  Sci. Instrum.  28, 680 (1957).
                                      137

-------
                                                                                             Environmental Analysis
                                                                                             Laboratories
                                                                                    CORPORATION
TABLE 1   URANIUM-238 DECAY CHAIN
Isotope
Uranium-238
1 «
Thorium-234
1 "
Protactinium-234
1
Uranium-234
1 «
Thorium-230
Radium-226
1 "
Radon- 222
1 " •
Polonium-218
1 «
Lead-214
1 »
Bismuth-214
I »
Polonium- 2 14
1 <*
Lead-210
1 >
Bismuth-210
I ^
Polonium-210
1 "
Lead-206
Half- Life
4.5x 109 yr

24.1 d

1.17 min

2.48 x 105 yr

8. Ox 104yr
1.6x 103 yr

3.825 d

3 . 05 min

26.8 min

19 . 7 min

164 usec

22 yr

5.02 d

138.3 d

Stable
                                                 138

-------
                                                                     Environmental Analysis
                                                                     Laboratories
TABLE 2  MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS FOR 222Rn, 226Ra, AND
          210pb IN AIR AND WATER AS SET BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARDS
                                          Concentration Limit
                                               (pCi/1)

                                           Air          Water
222^                                      3.0

226Ra                                      0.003         30

210pD                                      0.004        100
                                                                   I* Environmental Analysis
                                                                     Laboratories
TABLE 3 DETECTION LIMITS FOR 222Rn,  226Ra, AND 210Pb IN AIR, WATER
         AND SOIL
                                  Detection Limit
                                  (pCi/1 or pCi/kg)

                               Air     Water    Soil
222Kn
226^
210pb
0.1 3.0
0.1
4.0

10
200
                                       139

-------
FIGURE  i  SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM  OF  THE TYPICAL  SYSTEM
             AT THE GEYSERS.
                                                   OFF GAS EJECTOR
                                                            COOLING
                                                              TOWER
               PARTICLE SEPARATORS,
                                                               EXHAUST
I                                                                AIR 8
                                                                WATER
                                                                VAPOR
                   GROUND
               .WELL BORE
REINJECTION
 WELL
        RESERVOIR
           RESERVOIR

-------

-------

-------
         SAMPLING HOT SPRINGS FOR RADIOACTIVE AND TRACE ELEMENTS*
                          Harold A. Wollenberg
                      Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
                        University of California
                       Berkeley, California 94720


                              INTRODUCTION

      The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is conducting a program to define
parameters for assessment of geothermal resources, and to develop and
evaluate techniques to measure these parameters.  Field activities, pre-
sently underway, combine interrelating geological, geophysical and geo-
chemical studies, leading eventually to choices of sites for deep test
holes.  As well as furnishing valuable information on the nature of a
potential resource, geochemical  data provides a baseline upon which the
effects of future geothermal developments may be compared.
      To date, most of our studies have been centered in northern Nevada
where high regional heat flow, numerous hot springs, and available govern-
ment land combine to furnish satisfactory field test sites.   A regional
heat flow map, Fig. 1, shows the Battle Mountain High, an area where heat
                        -2    -1
flow exceeds 2.5 ycal  cm   sec  .   Figure 2 illustrates a cutaway model of
a geothermal system considered typical of those associated with basin-and-
range fault zones.   The fault zone furnishes a pathway for meteoric water
to percolate deeply into a region of high geothermal gradient, forming a
convecting system which occasionally surfaces as a hot spring.
 Work performed under the auspices of the U.  S.  Energy Research and
 Development Administration.
                                  143

-------
Highest regional heat flow
                                                 Scale
                                          0               500km
                                              Heat flow of 1.5 or less
                                          /*  1.5 HFU contours
                                          |§  Heat flow of 2.5 or greater
                                                            XBL735677
               Figure 1.

-------
Figure 2.



    145

-------
                  SAMPLING FOR MAJOR AND TRACE ELEMENTS
      In our geochemical program, water samples are obtained for laboratory
radiometry, x-ray fluorescence analysis for major elements (Si, Na, K,  Ca,
Al, Mg, and S), and neutron activation analyses for trace elements.  Collec-
tion methods were devised to retain all solid material, including that
which precipitates.  Major-element data furnishes chemical geothermometry,
based on silica-and alkali-element ratios.   Besides establishing natural-
background baselines, radio- and trace-element contents of hot and cold
spring waters, as well as of country rock,  may help illuminate the pathways
of meteoric water as it flows from its terrestrial origin into hydrothermal
systems, and eventually into springs and wells.
      Various types of springs sampled are  illustrated on Figs. 3, 4, and 5:
a hot pool at Big Sulfur Hot Springs, a warm pool at Leach Hot Springs, and
a pool below a cold spring east of Kyle, respectively.  (Cold springs are
sampled because they may represent the groundwater which enters the fault-
zone hydrothermal systems.)  To a limited extent we have attempted to
directly sample blowing wells, as shown on  Fig. 6.  Chemical geothermometer
temperatures from these samples have compared well with reported measured
subsurface temperatures.
      Frequently, we sample  muddy  seeps,   where  only  a  small  flow
of water wells up between the cattle hoofprints.  At these springs, a 1/4"
diameter tygon tube is inserted directly into the flow, and water is drawn
with a hand-operated vacuum pump as shown on Fig. 7.  Instead of passing
into a bottle, the water can also be drawn  directly through a 0.45 micron
cellulose acetate filter, whose apparatus is shown on Fig. 8.  Therefore,
water can be introduced to the filter either directly from the spring,  or
by pumping from a bottle in the field or laboratory.  Normally,- 500 ml

-------
                                                          CO
                                                           (-1
                                                           D
                                                           60
                                                          •H
147

-------
Figure 4.



   148

-------
149

-------
                                                           t>0
                                                          •H
                                                          Pn
150

-------
                                                                           r^

                                                                            0)


                                                                            bO
                                                                           •rH
151

-------
                                                                      oo

                                                                      0)
                                                                      ^
                                                                      D
                                                                      W>
                                                                      •r-l
152

-------
                                   -3-
Nalgene bottles are used to collect and store the samples.  These field
sampling techniques, and laboratory analytical methods and results, are
                                            •
described in detail in papers by Bowman et al. (1974, 1975), and Hebert
and Bowman (1975).
      In the field or laboratory, drops of filtered water are evaporated
onto a lexan disc, with a fixing solution, for subsequent x-ray fluorescence
analysis.  (After the x-ray fluorescence analysis, the lexan can be irradi-
ated, cleaned and etched for determination of the water's uranium content.)
Evaporation in the field is shown on Fig.  9, and the resulting disc on
Fig. 10.
      For H2S determinations, a silver disc is placed in an unfiltered ali-
quot of each water sample.   The disc is later analyzed for sulfur by x-ray
fluorescence.  Figure 11 shows the response of x-ray intensity to FLS by
this method.
      Filtered samples for neutron activation  analysis are obtained by eva-
porating the water directly from the Nalgene bottles (at 80°C) in the labor-
atory.  The resulting residue is incorporated  with a plastic binder into a
pellet, and irradiated along with standards in a research reactor at  the
University of California, Berkeley.
      Some results of the neutron activation method are illustrated on Figs.
12 and 13; Fig.  12 illustrates the contrast in uranium contents of hot and
cold spring waters, and Fig.  13 the levels of  some trace elements in pools
of differing temperature at Buffalo Valley Hot Springs.

                          RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS
      Prior to sampling, a  gamma survey of the spring area is conducted
using a portable NaI(T£) detector, shown on Fig.  14.  Samples for
                                    153

-------
                                                       
-------
                                                        60
                                                       •H
155

-------
 1000
   100
    10
Q_
Q_
 CVJ
   O.I
  0.01
                   •BEOWAWE
                    KYLE
                              LEACH
                                     BUFFALO
             1000   100      10       I
                     X-Ray intensity
nn
  O.I
                                          XBL747-3624
                    Figure 11.


                      156

-------
  URANIUM  (PPB)
Hot  and  Cold Springs


5

4


£
CL
&3
£
3
"c
o
Z>
2

1

















h















-K,,,
1 &m
	 ». • L.CU1
C
&





C
•M»








H
"

m
^
1

•\
UL
1



















u.

































C






















C








i











i


H
H H T
T T i
Z\














C
I



%
1





































C
s
, m , Rf>n\A/n\A/f
DC\/WwwV\
l_













C




C
E





H
HT!C
T i • •
"



— f- Buffalo— *i




C













I
























H H H H C
Figure 12.





1
57


-------
              BUFFALO HOT SPRINGS
300
200
100
          Sodium (PPM)
6?
150
100
 50
      Barium (PPB)
Lit
      Antimony (PPB)
200
 150
 100
 50
        Cesium (PPB)
     65°
30
20
10

40
30
20
10
                           Chloride (PPM)
                          rrrr,
65'
                               HZ,
                                 Tungsten (PPB)
                                     277
60
40
20
-
-
777
i-t-U
.

J777
rap^^

777
I2ii^)

                           60
                           40
                           20
                                Bromide
                    200
                     150
                     100
                     50
                            Rubidium (PPB)
     65'
        73f
                     Figure 13.
                        158

-------
Figure 14.
    159

-------
laboratory radiometry are usually collected by scooping  the  spring  water
directly from the pools into Nalgene  bottles.   This  minimizes  radon loss
which might occur if the water were drawn  through  the filter system.
Bottle lids are immediately taped, and samples transported to  the labor-
atory for gamma-ray pulse-height analyses.   The time of  sampling  is care-
                                                     222
fully noted, to account for the radioactive decay  of    Rn (3.8-day half-
life) between sampling and gamma counting.   With a reasonably  short
interval between sampling and counting, sensitivity  of this  method  is  of
                                            222
the order of a few tens of pCi per liter of    Rn.  Along with spring
waters, spring wall sinter, tufa, and muck are collected, for  subsequent
laboratory gamma-ray analyses.  This  provides  comparison of  the contents
                                           222
of radium and other radioelements with the    Rn content of  the water.
      A sampling system for radon emanating in and around a  spring  system
utilizes alpha-track detectors.  This method integrates  radon  emanation
over a long time period, minimizing short-term fluctuations  in response
to changes in atmospheric conditions.  The detectors are inverted plastic
cups with specially treated dielectric alpha-sensitive plastic wafers
attached inside, as shown on Fig. 15.  They are placed,  each in an  approx-
imately 0.5 meter deep hole, then covered.   After  several weeks'  exposure,
the cups are retrieved, detectors removed, etched, tracks counted,  and
normalized track densities calculated.  This service, used primarily by
the uranium industry, is provided by  Terradex  Company in Walnut Creek,
California.  Resulting track densities in  the  vicinity of Buffalo Valley
Hot Springs, are shown on Fig. 16, and point out the sharp variations  in
radon emanation at that site.  Figure 17 illustrates the contours of radon
emanation over a broader area of Buffalo Valley.  More detailed descriptions

                                   160

-------
TRACK ETCH RADON DETECTOR
           Figure 15.
            161

-------
 30
 X
High Rn
 zone
                    Hot  Springs
                     \Area

                      \
                                                          N
49°
1
0
1
0
1
500
Feet
i
150
Meters
1
1000
1
300

      30
      X
   USGS
  Drillhole
  49
                                            225
                                               -Spring, temperature °C
                                             x - Detector, tracks/mm2



                                       Buffalo  Valley Hot Springs

                                       Radon  Detector Array
                                                      XBL74I2-8379
                            Figure 16.


                              162

-------
     *•«
• \
                            Figure 17.
                                163

-------
of radiometric methods and results are provided in papers  by Wollenberg

(1974a and b, 1975).


                                 SUMMARY

      The techniques described briefly here have proved successful  in obtain-

ing samples of hot and cold spring waters for x-ray fluorescence,  neutron

activation, and radiometric analyses.   These sampling methods require

only lightweight, portable field apparatus, and do not involve lengthy

collection procedures.  Good flexibility in field operations is necessary

to accommodate the widely varying conditions of temperature, flow,  and

accessibility encountered at the different spring sites.


                               REFERENCES

Bowman, H., A. Hebert, H. Wollenberg and F. Asaro, 1974, A detailed chemical
      and radiometric study of geothermal waters and associated rock forma-
      tions, with environmental implications; Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
      Report LBL-2966.

Bowman, H., A. Hebert, H. Wollenberg,  and F. Asaro, 1975,  Trace, minor, and
      major elements in geothermal waters and associated rock formations
      (north-central Nevada); for Proceedings of Second United Nations Geo-
      thermal Symposium, San Francisco.

Hebert, A., and H. Bowman, 1975, Non-dispersive soft x-ray fluorescence
      analyses of rocks and waters; for Proceedings of Second United Nations
      Geothermal  Symposium, San Francisco.

Wollenberg, H., 1974a, Radioactivity of Nevada hot-spring  systems;  Geo-
      physical Research Letters, v. 1, no. 8, p. 359-362.

Wollenberg, H., 1974b, Radon alpha-track survey of a potential geothermal
      resource area; Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-3225.

-------
                  UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA'S GEOTHERMAL

                            SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

                                   by
                 D.J.  Christoffersen, R.N. Wheatley, and J.A. Baur

Introduction

     The purpose of this paper is to describe the procedures used by Union

Oil Company to sample and analyze produced geothermal steam for total compo-

sition.

     As is the case in any analytical problem, representative, accurate

sampling is essential to the problem solution.  Sampling produced geothernal

steam is no exception to this rule.  We are dealing with a sample matrix

which is mainly water and analyzing for gaseous and other compounds some

of which are highly soluble in water and some of which are relatively

insoluble.  The usual components of geothermal steam, in addition to water,

are shown in Figure 1 and the sampling and analysis for these compounds is

described below.

Sampling Apparatus

     Our sampling train is shown schematically in Figure 2 and photographically

in Figure 3.  This system is used for two purposes.  First of all it is used

to obtain an accurate measure of the "non-condensible" gas content — necessary

for total composition calculations.  Non-condensible gases being defined in

this case as those compounds which remain in the vapor phase after passing

through a 0°C condenser and water contact.  Included are small amounts of relatively

water insoluble compounds such as hydrogen, nitrogen and methane and also a

portion of water soluble gases such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and

ammonia.  Secondly, the train is used to obtain representative samples for

analysis.

     For determining the non-condensible gas content of steam, the sample

system is set up on location and the insulated container holding the
                                        165

-------
Union Oil's ... Techniques









condenser coil is filled with ice water and the condenser disconnected from




the sample train.  The condenser coil is connected to the steam line via a




by-pass valve by means of a 25-foot flexible, stainless steel tubing using




appropriate fittings at both ends.  The by-pass valve is positioned to vent




with no flow to the condenser and the sample port valve on the steam line is




fully opened.  After flowing steam through the connecting tubing for sufficient




time (usually 10 to 15 minutes) for the tubing to come to temperature, steam




is valved to the disconnected condenser until a condensate flow rate of about




50 ml/min is obtained.  Approximately one liter of condensate is purged




through the condenser.  This allows the condenser system to come to an




equilibrated condition and also cleans the tubing of any possible residue




or contamination from prior samplings.




     Wet test meters must be properly equilibrated to prevent absorption of




gases such as carbon dioxide for accurate volume measurements.  This is done




by attaching the equilibrated condenser to the sample train and< passing the




non-condensible gases through the wet test meter for 10 to 15 minutes.  The




condenser is disconnected from the sample train.  The collection bottle is




replaced by a tared one-quart bottle and the wet test meter reading is noted.




The condenser is quickly attached to the sample train by neans  of rubber




tubing and actual sampling begins.  Sampling continues until the collection




bottle is filled or 3 to 4 liters of non-condensible gas volume is reached.




The condenser is then disconnected from the train and the non-condensible




gas content of the steam determined from the weight of water collected and




the volume of gas measured after appropriate corrections for temperature




and barometric pressure.
                                       166

-------
Union Oil's ... Techniques









     The condenser system is then maintained in equilibrium and used for




collection of analytical samples.  Sampling bottles containing appropriate




chemical fixing reagents for collection of reactive compounds are inserted




in place of the condensate collection bottle.  A gas sampling cylinder is




placed between the bottles and the wet test meter for sampling non-reactive




gases.  Analysis samples are described in detail below.




     There have been cases where equipment such as described here has not




been available for field use.  In these instances we have used an improvised




method substituting measurement of the volume of non-condensible gases by




water displacement in a graduated cylinder and collection of non-condensible




gases using the device shown in Figure 4.




Collection of Analytical Samples and Their Analysis




     Gas samples are collected in 250-ml glass cylinders by the procedure




described above.  The composition of the gas is determined by a Union Oil




mass spectrometry- method accurate to ±2% relative or ±0.1% absolute.,




whichever is greater.




     For the determination of ammonia a quart bottle containing a weighed




volume (approximately 200 ml) of 0.1N hydrochloric acid and 4 drops of




methyl orange is inserted in the sample train in place of the condensate




bottle.  Condensate and gas pass through a glass frit immersed in the




solution quantitatively removing ammonia from both phases.  Sampling continues




until approximately 200 ml of condensate has been collected and the bottle




is then removed from the train for weighing and analysis.  The analysis




procedure consists of making the solution alkaline, distillation into boric




acid followed by titration with standard hydrochloric acid.
                                       167

-------
Union Oil's ... Techniques






     For the determination of hydrogen sulfide, a 1-quart bottle containing


a weighed volume (approximately 100 ml) of 15% neutral cadmium sulfate is


placed in the sample train.  Condensate and gas contact this solution after


passing through an immersed glass frit and hydrogen sulfide is quantitatively


removed from both phases.  Sampling continues until approximately 100 ml of


condensate have been collected.  (A second "check flask" of cadmium sulfate


in series can be used to make certain there is no H2S carryover.)  The
                                                  /

bottles are then removed from the train, weighed, and analyzed.  The analysis


procedure consists of adding excess standard iodine, acidifying and back


titrating with standard thiosulfate.  Take care to include any cadmium


sulfide adhering to the glass frit in the analysis.


     Samples for carbon dioxide analysis are obtained by placing two one-quart


bottles containing weighed volumes (approximately 200 ml each) of IN sodium


hydroxide in series in the sample train to quantitatively remove carboti


dioxide from condensate and gas.  The inlet to each bottle is a glass frit


immersed in the solution.  After collection of approximately 100 ml of


condensate, remove the bottles from the sample train, weigh and analyze.


The analysis procedure determines carbon dioxide by acidification with


sulfuric acid, evolution, absorption on ascarite, and weighing the ascarite.


     A summary of the analytical methods used is given in Figure 5.


Calculations


     The calculations required are relatively straightforward and proceed


as follows:  The weight percent of collected non-condensible gases is


derived from the measured volume of gas, average molecular weight of the


gas as determined by mass spectrometry and appropriate temperature,
                                     168

-------
  Union Oil's ... Techniques





  pressure corrections  (i.e., the actual weight of the non-condensible volume)


  compared to the same number plus the condensate weight.  Similarly the


  volume percent of the non-condensibles is calculated by comparing the


  corrected volume of non-condensibles to this same volume plus the calculated


  gaseous volume of the condensate.


       The weight % of inert (as opposed to collected) non-condensibles


  methane, hydrogen, nitrogen and argon is calculated from their mass spec-


  trometrically determined concentrations in the gas phase, measured gas volume,


  and known molecular weights compared to the determined total sample weight.


  Similarly the total sample basis concentrations of chemically analyzed


  absorbed ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide are calculated from


  determined concentrations, known sample weights and relationship of condensate


  to total sample weight from above.


  Additional Comments


       The sampling scheme described is one which is used on a "dry" brine-free


  steam.  In those cases where the produced steam has a high dissolved solids


  content, exactly the same procedure is used except that a separator is used


  to remove brine ahead of the sampling train.  Figure 6 is a photograph of
V

  such a separator in action in the field.


       Figures 7 and 8 are photographs of our sampling vehicle and a field


  laboratory at The Geysers field in California's Sonoma County.
                                       169

-------
 FIGURE 1  -  Components Sought in Steam Compositional Analysis
      COMPONENTS SOUGHT  IN
STEAM  COMPOSITIONAL  ANALYSIS
          AMMONIA
          CARBON  DIOXIDE
          HYDROGEN
          HYDROGEN  SULFIDE
          "INERT" GASES
          METHANE
          NITROGEN
          FIGURE 2  -  Steam Sampling Apparatus
              STEAM SAMPLING APPARATUS
  FLEXIBLE
   LINE
        EXCESS STEAM
         VENT
NON-CONDENSIBIE
 GAS COLLECTOR
              CONDENSER
                      COLLECTORS
                      CONTAINING
                      REAGENTS
                                           TO
                                         ATMOSPHERE
                                     WET TEST
                                     METER
                     170

-------
               FIGURE 3  -  Steam Sampling Apparatus
             FIGURE  4   -  Collection of Air Free Gas Samples

             COLLECTION  OF  AIR  FREE  GAS SAMPLE
   FROM
CONDENSER
                                      GAS COLLECTOR
TO  METER
    OR
GAS BURET
                                     WATER
                                    DISCHARGE
            GAS SEPARATOR
                                 171

-------
           FIG. 5 - Analytical Methods - Summary
             ANALYTICAL  METHODS
NON-CONDENSIBLE  GASES -  MASS SPECTROMETRY
AMMONIA - DISTILLATION
HYDROGEN  SULFIDE  -  IODIMETRIC
CARBON  DIOXIDE  - ACID  EVOLUTION
              FIG. 6 - Baca, N.M.,  Steam Well
                        172

-------
    FIG.  7  -   Sample  Truck  &  Gear
FIG. 8  -  Field Laboratory at Big Geysers
                  173

-------
                                                           FREDERIKSEN ENGINEERING
                      Atmospheric Discharge Sampling While
                      	Drilling Geothermal Steam Wells
                    by M. H. Hyraan and G. R. Fox, Frederiksen
                       Engineering Co., Consultants, Oakland, Calif.
          Presented at "Workshop on Sampling Geothermal Effluents"
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                       Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratory
                       Las Vegas, Nevada
                                October 21, 1975
ABSTRACT
During the final phases of drilling live geothennal steam wells, considerable
amounts of particulate (rock dust) and vapors are discharged.  Abatement of
particulates, gases and noise has been accomplished with water injection ?.nc
utilization of centrifugal separators.  A special method of sampling for
particulates while drilling, even when active steam formations are encountered,
has been proved to be successful.  The sampling train employed is also useful
for source testing of hydrogen sulfide, mercury vapor and ammonia.

ABATEMENT OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND NOISE
At a depth determined by the geologist for each steam well, a switch is made by
the drilling operator from drilling with mud to drilling with compressed air.
Air at several hundred psig pressure is forced down into the well and helps bring
up cuttings which travel (with any steam that is encountered) to the surface and
then horizontally in a blooie line.  The period of air drilling may be frrm a few
days to a few weeks depending on drilling problems and how uucb steam is

-------
                                                           FREDERIKSEN ENGINEERING
 encountered.  During that time, a heavy emission to the atmosphere of rock dust
 would occur if the blooie line were left open and the emission were not abated.
 However,  the particulate can be easily abated by injection of water into the
 blooie line and the addition of a water/gas separator at the end of the blooie
 line.  This separator also serves as a noise muffler.

 Figure 1  shows how the well, blooie line and separator are connected.  Currently
 at The Geysers area in northern California, the separator/muffler design
 frequently employed has a tangential inlet, thereby providing a centrifugal
 separation of particulate and water droplets from the steam and nonccntlerisable
 gases.  At some point in the blooie line the velocity of the steam and gases is
 similar to that in the throat of a Venturi scrubber.  Thus, the blooie line, with
 water injection, and the muffler act similar to a Venturi scrubber with a cyclonic
 separator as used for industrial stack scrubbing.

 Currently experiments are underway to find the best water injection point(s) in
 the blooie line; to determine the optimum water injection rate; to prove whether
 water can be recycled from the sump normally adjacent to the drilling rig.  Water
 injection affects particulate abatement and abatement of certain gases such as
 hydrogen sulfide.   In general, the higher the water rate, the better the noise
 reduction.

 PARTICULATE SAMPLING
Our first testing of a geothermal steam well to be undertaken while the well was
being drilled using compressed air injection was done by EPA Method No. 5.  In
 this method a sampling probe is inserted into the stack, and the sample is with-
 drawn into a small cyclone separator followed by a flat, paper-thin filter in a
                                        175

-------
                                                           FREDERIKSEN ENGINEERING
heated box.  The filter is followed by a series of wet impingers, a dry trap, a
vacuum pump and a gas flow meter.  This method did not work very well, because
the filter tended to plug.

More recent testing has been successful using a method similar to that of the
San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD).   In this method
the filter thimbles utilized are made of glass packed with plugs of fiberglas
wool, and inserted into the inside of the stack.  This type of filtering has bt?^n
demonstrated to be generally non-plugging.  By having the thimbles in the stack,
we are assured that the filtering is occurring at stack condit?.ons of temperature
and moisture content.  Figure 2 shows a sampling train assembly that can be used.

Achieving isokinetic sampling conditions with a cyclonic separator/muffler is
very difficult.  Ideal isokinetic conditions are where the velocity of the. gases
rising in the stack is equal to the velocity entering the sampling nozzle, which
is oriented to face upstream against the gas flow.  Hov;ever, when a cyclonic
separator is employed the gas has a spiral flow pattern.  Therefore, we have
suggested to one of the well developers at The Geysers area that their new
separator/muffler design includes straightening vanes within the stack.  If this
installation is accomplished accordingly, subsequent tests will show whether the
velocity of the gases in the stack can be monitored more accurately.  If so, the
rate of sampling can then be. adjusted to match the stack velocity at each point
in the stack where the sample probe is inserted.

SEPARATOR/MUFFLER DESIGN
The first separator/muffler utilized had a main body diameter of.7 feet.  This
proved inadequate for wells discharging hundreds of thousands of pounds per hour
                                        176

-------
                                                            fREOERIKSEN ENGINEERING
 of steam,  and entrainment  of  mud  droplets out  the  top  of  the  stack was  very
 heavy.   Recent designs,  using a 10-foot main body  diameter, are  proving to be
 very  good  for de-entraininent  for  the wells most  recently  tested.

 In the  design of  separator/mufflets, consideration also has to be  given to the.
 ability to dismantle  and easily move the apparatus from well  to  well  as the
 drilling of new steam wells progresses.  The separator/muffler also has to have
 provisions for resisting erosion  caused by fast-flowing steam and  rock  dust.   The
 worst wear points  should have extra thick steel.   Provisions  should also be made
 for keeping the separator/muffler clean, since drilling mud is sticky and tends
 to build up.   Normally if  sufficient quantities  are always injected into the
 blooic  line while  drilling is in  process, the apparatus will  stay  clean on the
 inside.  If the water injection is interrupted from time  to time,  then  it. is
 advisable  to  have  a second source of water injected into  the  bottom area of the
 separator/muffler.

 SAMPLING OF GASES  AND OTHER CONSTITUENTS
 In some  wells,  in  addition to particulate sampling  we have sampled for  organic
 vapors,  hydrogen sulfide and  radionuclides.  Forthcoming  tests are scheduled  for
 sampling gas  phase emissions  for  ammonia and mercury vapor, with particulate  to be
 analyzed for  arsenic, lead, cadmium and sulfate.  The condensate collected  in the
 impingers will be analyzed in our lab for ammonia,  bicarbonate,  sulfates, chlorides,
 nitrates, calcium, magnesium,  sodium,  potassium, boron, sulfide, fluoride,  iron,
 silicon  dioxide, mercury,  aluminum and conductance.

 Gases such ar hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and mercury vapor can be sampled  directly
 into impingars as shown in part of Figure 2,  by partially filling the impingers
with the appropriate chemical  reagent  solutions.   Organic vapors and radionuclides
are normally sampled into stainless steel tanks.

                                         177

-------
                                                          FREDERIKSEN ENGINEERING
                                 About the Authors
M. H. Hyman has been Technical Director for Frederiksen Engineering Go.,
Consultants, Oakland, California since 1969,  specializing in plant design,
pollution control, testing, and computer applications.   He previously had
fifteen years of engineering experience in industry.   Ke received a B.S. in
Applied Chemistry from Caltech in 1952 and an M.S.  in Chemical Engineering
from the University of California (Berkeley)  in 1967.  He lectures at local
colleges to engineers on pollution control and on computer applications, and
until recently broadcasted a regular FM series on environmental technology.
Mr. Hyman is registered as a chemical engineer and as a mechanical engineer
and is a member of the American Institute of  Chemical Engineers, American
Chemical Society, National Society of Professional Engineers, and several air
and water pollution control associations.

G. R. Fox is Chief Process Engineer for Frederiksen Engineering where he has
been responsible for process design, environmental control, safety and corrosion
problems since 1971.  He previously had 12 years experience in the oil refining
industry.  Mr. Fox received his B.S. degree from Washington State University
in 1959, and is a member of the Western Gas Processor & Oil Refiners Association.
                                        178

-------
                                                                                  -, rt;i3
                                                                             LJLJ -
                                                                             OOo

                                                                             — o
                                                                             Ck? z
                                                                             LU a.
                                                                             Q "
                                                                             LU 5
                                                                             Qd °
                                                                             U_ ^
W
H
                      iJ
                      w
                      i—i
                      o
                      3
                                                   t*


                                                  I
                          179

-------

                                                                                                                          o,
                                                                                                                          a   .   N
                                                                                                                         w-    §
                                                                                                                          2.     §
    o
    CO
    w

                               o
 o  c;
^IL,
        O   *H  » —*  K'4 M/  *^  r-^% i.
54  C   l*.  f.  -C  nj  VH  r
O  (,   t,  c.  (_. ^^ ,-s r
                                                     r.
                                                     o


                                                          o
                                                          u
                                                          o
                                                          rj
                                                          «-l
                                                          (D
                                                             o  p.
                                         U
                                                                .
                                                             o in
           \t-  in
                          co c\  o  ^ 01
                                                 »."  10
                                                                co

-------
                   SAMPLING A TWO-PHASE  GEOTHERMAL  BRINE  FLOW




                             FOR CHEMICAL  ANALYSIS*









                                   J.  H. Hill




                                  C. J.  Morris









             Lawrence Livermore  Laboratory, University of California




                          Livermore, California  94550
                                   ABSTRACT







      This  report  describes  an  experiment designed primarily  to define  the




 problems associated  with  sampling  the  two-phase  flow in a pipeline of




 geothermal brine.  Analyses reported for 26 samples include  chemical composition,




oxidation potential,  pH, density, and total solids.   Changes in brine




composition as the well operated during a four-week period are evaluated.




The apparatus and techniques used for sampling are described and evaluated.
*This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Energy Research &




Development Administration under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.





                                      181

-------
                                 INTRODUCTION







     When hot, highly saline, geothermal brines are used to generate




electrical power, corrosion and scaling cause serious problems.  Because we




must understand brine chemistry to solve these problems, reliable techniques




are needed for sampling and analyzing the brine.




     At Sinclair //4 well, brine is produced by a flashing mechanism which




gives a two-phase flow in the brine pipeline.  As shown in Fig. 1, several




such systems could exist.  At the time this sampling experiment was designed,




it was not known which system predominated.  Subsequent observations, made




through a sight glass on a two-inch line,  indicate tha't there is probably a




boundary between the two phases but that the "liquid" phase contains entrained




bubbles of vapor and the "vapor" phase contains entrained drops of liquid.




     This  report describes a sampling experiment conducted at Sinclair #4




well in April 1975.  Its purpose was to define the sampling problems, to




evaluate the reliability of samples taken from the pipeline, and to develop




sampling apparatus and techniques.









                                   SAMPLING






     Samples were taken from the 6-inch line about 25 feet downstream from




the wellhead using a sample probe as shown in Fig. 2.  This probe was inserted




into the brine stream through a one-inch valve on top of the pipeline.  The




tip of the probe was positioned approximately 3/4 inch below the top of the




pipe to obtain top ("vapor" phase) samples and about 3/4 inch above the




bottom of the pipe to obtain bottom ("liquid" phase) samples.




     One-liter stainless steel sample bottles were used to collect the




samples.  The bottles were coated with Teflon on the inside to minimize
                                       182

-------
 contact of the brine with the steel.  Bellows-sealed stainless steel valves




 were used to obtain a gas-tight seal on the bottles.  A pressure gauge and




 throttling valve were connected to the outlet of each sample bottle to




 control the pressure drop through the apparatus.  All bottles were flushed




 with N- prior to sampling.




     Sinclair #4 well was started up on March 31, 1975.  So as to permit




 stabilization of flow conditions, the first samples were not taken until




 April 3.  Two samples were taken with the full flow of the 6" line




 discharging into the brine pond.  The other samples, consisting of three




 sets of eight samples each, were taken at weekly intervals with the well




 under restricted flow to investigate the effect of four sampling parameters.




 The sample numbers are coded to these parameters as follows:






 Date of Sampling:                      6" - Samples taken April 3, 1975




                                       1  - Samples taken April 9, 1975




                                       2  - Samples taken April 14, 1975




                                       3  - Samples taken April 23, 1975







 Position of the probe in the pipe:      T - Top




                                       B - Bottom






 Effect of cooling:                      H - Sample was valved off while hot




                                       C - Sample was quenched with water






Orientation of the sample  bottle:      S - Bottle was sideways (horizontal)




                                       U - Bottle was upright (vertical)







Thus,  sample number 1THS denotes a sample taken on April 9 from the top of




 the pipe with the bottle oriented sideways (lying horizontally) and valved




off hot.   The well  operating conditions during  sampling were as follows:
                                      183

-------

Date
4-3-75
4-9-75
Wellhead P
(psig)
220
430
Wellhead T
<°C)
210
239
                                                               Flow





                                                        6" full flow




                                                        2" bypass line




                                                        1/2" nozzle - 1°




                                                        1/2" nozzle-std.




4-14-75             440                 247             2" bypass line




                                                        1/2" nozzle-std.




                                                        1/2" orifice




4-23-75             445                 255             2" bypass line




                                                        1/2" nozzle-std.




                                                        3/4" orifice






During sampling, the throttle valve was adjusted to maintain a 10-Ib.




pressure drop from the pipeline to the outlet of the sample bottle.  Bottles




were flushed for at least three minutes before sampling to remove residual




brine from the probe and N~ gas from the sample bottles.  For samples which




were quenched, the outlet valve was closed and the bottle was flooded with




running water from a 3/4 inch hose for 30 seconds before the inlet valve




was closed.  On samples taken hot, the outlet valve was closed first and




the inlet valve was closed immediately afterward.









                                   ANALYSIS







     All samples were cooled to ambient temperature and returned to the




laboratory for analysis.  When the samples cooled, insoluble components




were precipitated out of the solution to give a three phase system.  Each




of these phases was analyzed separately so that  the composition of the
                                       184

-------
"whole" sample could be reconstructed.





Physical and Instrumental





     Instrumental measurements were made on the samples before the phases



were separated.  Also, some physical measurements were made on the brine



solutions only.  Results for these measurements are shown in Table 1.



     The volume of the liquid phase was obtained by dividing the weight of



the liquid by the density.  The weight of the liquid was taken as the



difference between the weights of the sample bottle full and empty.  The



estimated accuracy of this measurement is ±10 cm .



     The volume of the gas phase is the difference between the volume of the



liquid phase and the volume of the sample bottle.  The estimated accuracy for


                                      3

the volume of the  gas phase is ±15 cm .



     The measurements of pressure, pH, and E  (oxidation potential) were
                                            n


obtained using a pressure cell attached to the sample bottle.  This cell was



a stainless steel unit fitted with a 0-200 psia pressure gauge and with



ports to admit high-pressure pH and E  electrodes.  The cell was first



attached to the sample bottle and flushed with argon.  The sample solution



was then admitted into the cell,  and the pressure, pH, and E,  were measured



at ambient temperature (22°C) .   The pressures given in Table 1 have been



corrected for the volume of the pressure cell and its argon content.   The



estimated accuracy of these results is ±0.5 psi.



     The pH and E,  measurements were obtained with a Beckman pH meter and



with high-pressure (150 psi) electrodes.   The pH electrodes were calibrated



in standard buffer solutions prior to each measurement.


                                                +2   +3
     The E  electrodes were calibrated with a Fe  /Fe   solution with a
          h

                          2
known oxidation potential.    The E  valves given in Table 1 were measured



with a saturated calomel electrode and corrected to the standard hydrogen





                                      185

-------
potential.  The negative voltage indicates a reducing condition in the

solution.  The spread in the values is probably caused,  at least partially,

by reactions between the brine and the sample bottle at  points where the

Teflon lining failed.

     The density of the liquid was obtained by weighing  an aliquot.  The

accuracy of this determination is ±1% of the value.

     The total solids content of the samples was determined by evaporating

an aliquot of the liquid to dryness at 110°C in ambient  air.  The

reproducibility of this determination is ±5% of the value or better.

     The results for the volume of solution in the top samples taken hot

indicate that water vapor condensed in these samples while the bottles were

being flushed with brine.   As calculated from data given in the steam

tables, the maximum amount of water which could exist as vapor in a one-liter
bottle at 240°C and 440 psi is less than 20 cm  (liquid).   The maximum
                                                         3
amount of "liquid" phase brine present is less than 40 cm ,  as calculated

from the total solids content of sample 1THS.  (For this calculation, it

is assumed that the total solids content of the bottom samples represents

the total solids content of the "liquid" phase.)   Thus, the maximum volume
                                                           3
of solution in the hot top samples would be less than 60 cm  if vapor did

not condense when the bottles were flushed.  Therefore, the minimum amount
                                                                  3
of vapor condensed when the bottles were flushed ranges from 10 cm  on sample

1THU to 190 cm  on sample 1THS.  Similar quantities of vapor probably

condensed in the quenched top samples when they were flushed.  However, for

these samples, there is no way to distinguish between vapor which condensed

when the bottles were flushed, and vapor subsequently condensed by quenching.

     During bottom sampling, the concentration of total solids could be

increased by flashing of brine or decreased by condensation  of vapor in the

apparatus.  Because the pressure drop through the  apparatus was held to 10 psi

                                      186

-------
 for each sample, flashing was minimized.  Since it has been shown above




 that vapor did condense in the top samples, condensation probably




 predominated over flashing in the bottom samples.  The amount of condensation




 would depend on the liquid/vapor ratio at the tip of the probe during




 sampling.  Thus, much of the spread in the results obtained for total solids




 on these samples is probably caused by condensation.  The average solids




 content for 12 bottom samples taken under restricted flow conditions is




 289 g/1 with a range of 40 g/1.  Or, if the value for sample 3BHS is omitted,




 the average is 291 g/1 with a range of 20 g/1.  Considering that four




 different sampling techniques are involved, this is very good reproducibility.




 Also, the good agreement between the solids content of the hot and quenched




 samples indicates that there was not much vapor entrained in the "liquid" phase




 of the brine.  Therefore, the higher values shown for total solids content




 in the bottom samples are probably very close to the true values for the




 "liquid" phase of the brine.




     The data shown for the density and total solids content of the 1,2,3




 series of samples indicates that the top samples taken with the flow




 restricted are primarily "vapor" phase samples while the bottom samples are




 primarily "liquid" phase samples.  The corresponding data shown for the two




 samples (6"THS and 6"BHS) taken from the line under full flow conditions




 indicates either that the two phases were well mixed or that the top sample




was taken when a slug of "liquid" phase passed the sample probe.   The total




solids content shown for the 6"THS and 6"BHS samples is marginally higher




than corresponding values for the bottom samples from the other three sets.




This could indicate a small change in brine composition as the well




stabilized and flow conditions changed.  However,  it is more probable that




the higher total solids content in 6"THS and 6"BHS occurred because the




vapor/liquid ratio in the brine was higher under full flow conditions than







                                       187

-------
under restricted flow conditions.  The 6"THS and 6"BHS samples (full flow)




were taken at 220 psig and 210°C while the other three sets of samples




(restricted flow) were taken at about 440 psig and 245°C.  More of the brine




would tend to vaporize at the lower pressure, causing enrichment of solids




in the liquid phase.  If this is the case, the liquid phase nature of sample




6"THS indicates that there was slug flow in the pipeline under full flow




conditions.







Carbon Dioxide and Sulfur







     After the instrumental measurements were made, samples of the gas




phase were taken for mass spectrometric analysis.  Analyses for three




samples are given in Table 2.




     The C0? and lUS in the gas phase were determined by sweeping the gases




from the sample bottles into an analytical train with argon.  The C0_ was




collected on ascarite and weighed as CO .  The H S was reacted with




Pb(C_H_0«)0» solution and weighed as PbS.  Only five samples contained




detectable amounts of S as H S in the gas phase as shown in Table 3.




     Aliquots of the solution were acidified to release CO  and H?S by the




following reactions.






                                C03 + H+ = HCO~




                                HCO~ + H+ = H2C03
                                        = HS
                                HS~ + H+
The C02 and H?S were swept into the analytical train and analyzed as above.




The H?S content for each liquid-phaj




limit  (0.13 mg S/ml) for the method.
The H?S content for each liquid-phase sample was less than the detection

-------
     Precipitates from the samples were analyzed for total S by a combustion




 technique.




     The total C02 and total S assays for each sample were calculated by




 combining  the values obtained for the gas,  liquid, and solid phases.  Results




 are shown  in Table 3.




     It is possible for some free S to be present in these samples.  However,




 the reducing nature of the samples indicates that most of the S should be in




 the sulfide form  (H2S, HS~, S~, or metal sulfide).  Thus, the results for S




 shown in Table 3 probably indicate sulfide  sulfur.  Unfortunately, portions




 of the Teflon coating peeled loose from the inside of the sample bottles,




 allowing sulfide sulfur to react with the stainless steel.  Therefore, the




 values shown in Table 3 are probably low.   The highest values should be the




 most nearly correct, but they could easily be in error by a factor of 2 or 3.




 A comparison of results for the top samples with results for the bottom




 samples indicates that sulfur is present in both the "vapor" and liquid




 phases of the brine.




     The data for CO- indicates that most of the CO- is in the vapor phase




 of the brine as expected.   The difference in concentration of CO- shown for




 the hot top samples and the quenched top samples is caused by fractionation




 of the CO^, which occurred when vapor condensed during the flushing




 operation.  In the top samples, some vapor condensed when the bottles were




 flushed with brine before the outlet valve was closed.   Most of the CO-




 corresponding to this condensed vapor was swept out of the bottle.  Thus,




 the CO- in the hot top samples includes gaseous CO  in the uncondensed




vapor and CO  dissolved in the solution present when the outlet valve of the




bottle was closed.  In the quenched top samples,  the same conditions applied




until the outlet valve on the bottle was closed.   Then, as the bottles were




cooled by quenching,  additional vapor was drawn into the sample bottle and






                                       189

-------
condensed.  Thus, the hot quenched samples contained additional CCL




corresponding to the amount of vapor condensed by quenching.




     Except for samples 2BHS and 2BCS, the results for CO- in the bottom




samples are consistent.  The range of these results together with the




outlying values for 2BHS and 2B.CS is probably caused by differences in the




liquid/vapor mix encountered by the probe during sampling.




     These data indicate that the concentration of gaseous constituents in




either liquid- or vapor-phase samples taken from a pipeline depends on the




sampling technique used and also on the extent of phase separation.  It




may be possible to avoid fractionation of the gases from condensed vapor




by using flow-through sample bottles heated to brine temperature so that




vapor does not condense when the bottles are flushed.  Sampling with




evacuated bottles may also prevent fractionation.  Results from replicate




samples will be needed to evaluate the effect of phase separation.






Cations and Anions






     The salts were evaporated from two samples of brine and analyzed by




spark source mass spectrometry.  This method provides a qualitative




multi-component analysis with approximate concentration levels.  Its main




purpose is to provide information concerning potential scale forming elements




which may be missed otherwise.  Results are shown in Tables 4a and 4b.  The




accuracy of the method used to analyze these samples is ± a factor of 2 times




the concentration for homogenous samples.  However, fractional crystallization




of the salts during evaporation made these samples very heterogeneous.




Therefore, these results should be used only for qualitative purposes.  These




results indicate that several elements such as Ni, Zn, As, Rb, Sr, and Ba




should be analyzed in more detail as possible scale components.  The results




indicate that the concentration of most rare earths is too low for





                                      190

-------
determination directly by emission spectroscopy or x-ray fluorescence




without preconcentration.  They can probably be determined either by one




of the above techniques  (if a preconcentration step is added) or directly




by neutron activation.




     After the phases were separated, precipitates and solutions from five




samples were analyzed separately.  Results are shown in Table 5.




     These results indicate that the precipitates consist primarily of




silica and heavy metal sulfides.  The values for Ca indicate that there may




also be an appreciable amount of CaCO. in the precipitates from 6" THS and




6" BHS.  The accuracy of these results is ±5% of the concentration or




better except for the following:






In precipitates     Na, Al, Ag 	 ±10%




                    S (as previously discussed)




In solution         Ag	±10%




                    Al	±1.0 ppm






     The results from Table 5 were used to calculate the composition of the




"whole" liquid phase samples.  Calculated compositions for the "whole"




samples are shown in Table 6.




     A comparison of the results shown for total solids by summation and by




evaporation indicates that the values obtained by evaporation are biased




high.  This is as expected because water of hydration associated with




chloride salts would not be completely removed at 110°C.  However, the




values obtained by evaporation are within 7% of the values obtained by




summation of the elemental analyses.   Therefore, the evaporative technique




can be used to give a quick determination of the approximate total solids




content for Sinclair #4 brine.
                                      191

-------
                                  DISCUSSION







     Under ideal sampling conditions, the liquid and vapor phases of the




flowing brine would be either well mixed so that a sample would be truly




representative of the whole brine or well separated so that representative




samples could be taken from both the liquid and vapor phases.  Our




observations through a sight glass indicate that this is not the case in a




pipeline where the brine is produced by a flashing mechanism.  A comparison




of the data for two samples taken from the 6-inch line under full  flow




conditions with data for 24 samples taken under restricted flow conditions




indicates that the extent of phase separation is dependent on flow conditions.




     Results  for the total solids content of 12 samples taken from the




liquid phase of the brine showed good reproducibility.  The solids content




of these samples seems to be independent of the sampling techniques used.




These data indicate that samples taken from the liquid phase of the brine




under restricted flow conditions are adequate for the determination of




solid constituents.




     Results for gaseous constituents indicate that the gaseous content of




the samples is dependent both on the technique used to collect the samples




and on the extent of phase separation.  Adequate results can probably be




obtained from samples taken under restricted flow conditions, if fractionation




of the gaseous constituents is avoided and if replicate samples are taken




so that the effect of phase separation can be evaluated.  In addition,




reliable results for H S or total S will require the development of a sample




bottle that will not react with H-S and that will serve at temperatures




above 250°C and pressures above 450 psi.




     Nonreactive sample bottles are also needed to take samples for the




determination of E, and pH.  However, reasonably reliable results for these





                                    192

-------
     values  can probably be obtained using stainless steel sample bottles,  if the

     samples  are analyzed immediately  after they are taken.

          The results  of this  investigation indicate that samples which  are

     adequate for most purposes  can probably be  taken  from pipelines where  there

     is a definite boundary between the  two phases of  brine, even though the

     phases  are not completely separated.   However, the  extent  of phase  separation

     is probably dependent on  operating  conditions.  Also, the  extent of phase

     separation has a  significant effect on sample reproducibility.   It  would

     therefore  be advantageous to take samples from a  steam separator whenever

     possible.

                                   Acknowledgments



      This report is a result  of the efforts of  many participants.  In particular,

we wish to  acknowledge the contributions of H.  DeCoursey, R. G.  Grogan, J. P.

Mahler, E.  S.  Peck, W.  E. Sunderland  and M. C.  Waggoner.
                                          References


    1.    Fulk, M.  M., et  al,  General Chemistry Division Quarterly  Report,

          UCID-15644-75-1,  p.  30  (May 1975).

    2.    Light, Truman S. ,  Anal.  Chem., 44,  pp. 1038-39,  (1972).
               NOF1CK
"I ins report was prepared as an account of work
sponsored by the United States Government. Neither
the United States nor the United States hnergy
Research & Development Administration, nor any
•>l their employees, nor any of their contractors,
.ubcontractors,  or  their employees,  makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility  for the  accuracy,
   Heteness or Usefulness  of any information.
       ippa
       "epre
          'atus,
        product  or  process  disclosed   or
        that  its  ^ use  would not  infringe
                                              "Reference to a company or product
                                              name does  not  imply  approval or
                                              recommendation  of the product by
                                              the University of California or the U.S.
                                              Energy  Research &  Development
                                              Administration to the  exclusion of
                                              others that may be suitable."
          tely-owned rights.
                                                193

-------
Table 1.  Physical and instrumental analyses.
Sample
number
6"THS
6"BHS
1THS
1THU
1TCS
1TCU
2THS
2THU
2TCS
2TCU
3THS
3THU
3TCS
3TCU
1BHS
1BHU
1BCS
1BCU
So In.
vol.
(cm )
600
830
250
70
430
420
200
250
390
370
170
170
350
480
860 '
870
930
910
Gas
vol.
(cm3)
380
150
730
910
550
560
780
730
590
610
810
810
630
500
120
110
50
70
Pressure
(psia)
6.8
6.4
14
14
112
198
10.5
11.0
91
85
11.0
11.5
86
152
6.4
2.1
16
1.3
H
P
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.6
5.3
5.0
—
5.4
5.3
5.1
5.7
5.7
5.3
5.9
5.6
5.2
5.5
5.5
Eh
(volts vs.
Std. H)
+0.18
4O.18
+0.19
+0.16
+0.24
+0.07
+0.19
+0.28
+0.17
+0.17
+0.16
+0.08
-0.08
-0.03
+0.13
+0.17
+0.15
+0.13
Total solids
by evapor-
ation - 110°C
(g/D
300
325
11
11
2.9
3.0
3.3
1.2
0.9
0.7
3.6
4.0
6.2
0.8
290
290
300
290
Density
(g/cm3)
1.19
1.20
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18

-------
   Table 1.  Physical and instrumental analyses (continued)


Sample
number
2BHS
2BHU
2BCS
2BCU
3BHS
3BHU
3BCS
3BCU








So In. Gas E,
n
Total solids
by evapor-
vol. vol. Pressure (volts vs. ation - 110°C Density
33 H
(cm ) (cm ) (psia) p Std. H)
490 490 20 4.8 +0.26
870 110 2.1 5.2 +0.18
860 120 36 4.5 +0.28
920 60 2.6 5.6 +0.16
850 130 3.2 5.1 +0.24
850 130 4.4 5.2 +0.16
910 70 22 5.3 +0.35
900 80 7.8 5.2 +0.16
Table 2. Mass spectrometric gas
(Volume percent)
Sample 1TCU 2BCS
C02 97.2 94.3
CH4 1.7 3.9
N2 0.5 0.5
H2 0.5 0.9
(g/1) (g/cm3)
284 1.18
280 1.18
300 1.18
300 1.18
260 1.18
290 1.18
290 1.18
290 1.18
analysis.3

3TCU
97.0
1.9
0.6
0.4
Excludes HO vapor
                            195

-------
Table 3.  Carbon dioxide and sulfur analysis.
Sample
number
6"THS
6"BHS
1THS
1THU
1TCS
1TCU
2THS
2THU
2TCS
2TCU
3THS
3THU
3TCS
3TCU
1BHS
1BHU
1BCS
1BCU
Soln.
wt.
(g)
712
988
252
70
427
418
200
246
392
374
168
166
352
478
1020
1028
1096
1075
Soln.
vol.
(cm )
600
830
250
70
430
420
200
250
390
370
170
170
350
480
860
870
930
910
Vol.
gas
phase
(cm3)
380
150
730
910
550
560
780
730
590
610
810
810
630
500
120
110
50
70
Total
co2
(g, weighed)
0.32
0.18
1.60
—
—
16.4
1.30
1.37
10.6
9.2
—
1.42
9.8
16.8
—
0.18
0.23
0.23
Total
8 C02
KR liquid
0.45
0.18
6.35
—
—
39.2
6.50
5.57
27.0
24.6
—
8.6
27.8
35.1
—
0.18
0.21
0.21
S
from
H2S gas
Ong)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
—
—
<0.01
0.01
< .01
0.26
0.52
—
<0.01
3.1
1.8
—
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Total
S
mg
Kg liquid
12
9
3
3
2
2
1
0.2
—
—
5
9
10
5
5
—
10
7
                    196

-------
Table 3.  Carbon dioxide and sulfur analysis, (continued)


Sample
number
2BHS
2BHU
2BCS
2BCU
3BHS
3BHU
3BCS
3BCU

So In.
wt.
(g)
578
1028
1017
1084
998
1002
1075
1064

Soln.
vol.
(cm )
490
870
860
920
850
850
910
900
Vol.
gas
phase
3
(cm )
490
110
120
60
130
130
70
80

Total
co2
(g, weighed)
1.60
0.21
1.79
0.27
0.28
0.18
0.23
0.43

Total
g co2
Kg liquid
3.27
0.20
1.76
0.25
0.28
0.18
0.21
0.40
S
from
H2S gas
(mg)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.0l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Total
S
mg
Kg liquid
5
—
8
6
16
3
8
7
                            197

-------
Table 4a.  Composition of "liquid" phase samples by spark source mass
           spectography (sample no. 3BHS).a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
H
He
Li
Be
B
C
N
0
F
Ne
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn



<0.05
92



0.8

Mb
39
0.5
24
<0.08
390
Mb

Mb
Mb
<0.5
<8
<0.8
<8
7500 (M)
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
Kr
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Tc
Ru
Rh
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
4100 (M)b
<0.8
'1200
130
6100 (M)b
<2
5
100
£20
<2

5300 (M)b
4800 (M)b
<2
24
<2
<8

<5
<2
£5
<3
<40
<2
<20
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Sb
Te
I
Xe
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Pm
Sm
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
Tm
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
W
Re
<3
<5
<2

52
2600 (M)b
20
<1
<2
<3

<3
<5
<3
<1
<3
<1
<3
<1
<3
<1
<3
<8
<3
<2
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
Po
At
Rn
Fr
Ra
Ac
Th
Pa
U
Np
Pu
Am
Cm
Bk
Cf
Es
Fm
<2
<2
<3
<3
<3
<2
500
<3






<1

<1








 Results expressed in mg/1.

 Major constituent.
                                    198

-------
Table 4b.  Composition of "Liquid" phase samples by spark source mass
           spectrography (sample no. 4BHU).a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
H
He
Li
Be
B
C
N
0
F
Ne
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn



0.15
140



2

Mb
27
1
9
0.6
270
Mb

Mb
Mb
<0.6
<6
<0.6
<6
1900
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
Kr
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Tc
Ru
Rh
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
1000
<0.6
450
45
2200
<1
3
2700
6
<2

120
3700 (M)b
<1
6
<1
<6

<1
<1
<2
3
9
<1
<15
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Sb
Te
I
Xe
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Pm
Sm
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
Tm
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
W
Re
<3
<1
<2

20
3000 (M)b
15
<1
<2
<2

<2
<3
<3
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
6
£6
<2
<1
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
Po
At
Rn
Fr
Ra
Ac
Th
Pa
U
Np
Pu
Am
Cm
Bk
Cf
Es
Fm
<2
<1
<2
<2
<3
<1
450
<2






<1

<1








1Results  expressed in mg/1.

""Major constituent.
                                        199

-------













X"s
CO
e
o
•H
4J
r-l
O
CO
T3
C
cd

CO
01
4J
cd
•rl
p.
•H
fj

,,
p.

o
CO
•rl
CO

^
T~"1

C
cd
^
CO
a)
r-l
a.
I
CO
0)
CO
n)
P.
1
T)
•H
3
a1
•rl
hJ


1C

a)
rH

cfl
H











to
H
r
NO


to
E
-
vD


CO
C
O
•H p
4-1 X
3 PP
rH CO
O




to
W
PQ
CM




to
as

1-1




01
rH
a
E
frj
to




to
X




to
K
_
NO
B)
a)
4J
rt
4->
•H ;=>
A r-r"
U* ri*
O co
ai
PU


to
M
CM

to
CO
1-1
01
rH
a
E
>
-* o
rH
vO


CM
.
 0
ca


in co 
-------














CO
•
x-^v
cn
•iH
en
rH
Cfl
C
cfl
0)
4J
0
3

4-1
en
C
O
o
01
M
en
cu
i
(X
e
tfl
cn

o)
cn
to
rC
CX
1
•o
•J
•rn
3
CT
•H
0)
rH

tfl
H













13
33
BQ
cn




CO
33
PQ
CN










e/3
33
PQ
rH











CO
in
PQ

'vO






to
33
H
—
\O

4J
a
01
6
01
rH
W


rH
60
e

O rH CN
O r~
O
O

rH
60
e

O rH CN
O r-
O
iH
vO





rH
60
e

O O CN
o ON
0

V0






iH
-*^
60
G

o o cn
o oo
0

f^



rH
60
g

O **O LO
O r-~
O







CO 60 rH
*Z S  rH CN

ON
•

CN O m r~. CN O rH rH rH
oo rH cn
rH



cn

oo•>
H cn Xi
0)
^-1
W 3
32 in
PQ en
in =cu
o i — in m \o v-t
ON | in ^d" CX
CN cn CN 
 01
> a
01 -H
0) 1-1 rJ
x; o xi
u *g
01
0) • -u
en en
3 01 m
CO rH O
O pi
6 i cfl en
CN t^ rH CN rH CO CO
cn i CN CN xi xi
cn cfl 01 ex
1 XI 0)
<• O rJ T3
)-i Xi -H
a, 4-> 3
cr
en M -H
C CU rH
o x:
•H 4J 0)
4-1 O X!
•H 4J
13 01
e x: a
O 4J -H
CJ
O in O o )-i en
O r^ rH CN 60 O ~O
cn I CN CN C 14H -H
cn -H rH
I 4-> CO O

/-. C3 C3 C3
rH x-x -H Cfl CU
^» "^^ CJ ^"s XI S
XI 60 o 60 0) 4J XI
^ ^-^ -H cj a
cn en C )-i -H
-a C cu ex cu 01 P
•HO K ^ M x: c
rH -H 3 0) 60 01
O 4-1 4J 01 UH -H
C/l Cfl CO M <4H XI 60
H rl 3 -H fi
rH O 01 cn 13 01 -H
co cx o) cx cn xi en
4J CO 4J Q O) 0) 3
O>COQ)»j XiOtO
HWQH&< H4-ICJ
^
01
, — 1
e
tfl
CO


-------
Slug flow
Mixed flow
  o o
           o  o ° °  ° °  ° 0°0

0«0"0-§°    O    o   o°0°£
  °o ° o0   o   °
o°o  °o         °
  Oo°ooo o  o  o
                                       o00o0o'
                      0°°00o0o°o°      c
                      o°o°oOo°o°
                     OOP O Q O O O O O
   1  o o o o  °   o
   *0°o00°0°o00° c
    o^o °  o o o
   o°o000o  «
o°o
Separate phases
                          Vapor
                Fig. 1.  Two-phase flow systems.
                           202

-------
                                        00
                                        c
                                        I
                                       co
                                        00
                                       •H
203

-------
             APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING ENVIRONMENTAL  DATA
                           Donald E.  Michels
                        Aerojet Nuclear Company
                          Idaho Falls, Idaho

INTRODUCTION
     The sampling of geothermal effluents presents many intriguing challenges,
but in the end the question will  be asked, "What does  the data  mean?"   Does
it provide a basis for legal prosecution or defense?,  does  it portend  detri-
ment to some biological entity?,  does it provide grist for  intellectual
endeavor? or is it merely another set of numbers in a  report destined  for
oblivion?
     Oblivion is deserved when the sampling fails to correspond in a logical
way with either suspected or actual features  of an environmental  pattern.
The notion of pattern in space or time is crucial to the setup  of any  sampling
procedure.  It is the meager attention sometimes given to patterns that
prompts this presentation.
     The four topics discussed below (superimposed dispersion patterns,
regionalized variables, risk assessment and concepts of impact) at first
seem disconnected, but upon closer reflection can be seen to have a common
underpinning.  Namely, they concern the question, "how can  an obscure  but
non-random dispersion pattern be coped with in the taking of samples and in
using data to convey ideas about environmental conditions?   The first  two of
these topics are statistical but of a viewpoint not commonly used in the
U.S..  The next concerns the mismatch between real environmental  inventories
of contaminants and quantities that are advertised as  dangerous.   The  last
show<: that the scale of pattern we are interested in will determine the very
definition of environmental impact we might construct. ,
                                     20k

-------
    These comments are more general than the geothermal context of this
meeting.  They are stirred by a hope that regulatory objectives now being
formed will be both fair in the legal sense and astute with respect to
physical fact.
                                                \
    Controversy becomes very heated when environmental data is used dif-
ferently by opposing factions in an issue.  Much of the heat is counterpro-
ductive; environmental data should be recognized as ambiguous, especially
in small quantities.  As professionals, one goal is to minimize these ambi-
guities.  It is with that motive also that the following ideas are presented.
SUPERIMPOSED DISPERSION PATTERNS
    A fundamental problem in environmental monitoring is to decide whether
or how much effluent has reached a particular environmental compartment.
The two facets of this problem concern:  (1)  what geographical extent of
the compartment should be sampled, and  (2)  how does effluent material
detected by analysis relate to a postulated source?  Empiricism is required
for both.  Analysis of statistical distributions has been useful in some cases
to answer both facets simultaneously.
    If we consider for a moment a set of samples whose contaminant content
is dominated by a single source, the distribution of values can be charac-
terized by a mean (geometric)concentration and a standard (geometric) deviation,
(The adjective "geometric" is appropriate for log-normal distributions.)
Both the mean and the standard deviation are unique attributes of the source
via the dispersion mechanism.   More generally, a point source of contaminant
will decorate an environmental compartment unevenly with the result that
the contaminant contents in some places will be dominated by the point
source, and in others by factors we call background.  The cases where back-
ground and effluent levels are comparable in magnitude are seldom a large
                                   205

-------
 fraction of the affected  area.   Thus,  the statistical problem is one of
 resolving superimposed  distributions.
     One way of attempting this  resolution is  diagramed  in  Figure 1 which  is
a pair of probability plots^  '.   The  upper plot  shows  the whole  data set
considered as an entity.   But because the data are  not distributed about
a single straight line at  least  one of the presumptions  in  making the plot
does not fit physical reality.   These key presumptions are:
     (1)  The data must  come  from a homogeneous  (single) distribution.
          That is, the best descriptor of the  set is a single mean value
          combined with  a  single standard deviation.
     (2)  The distribution type, Gaussian, log-normal, Weibull,  etc., has
          been chosen correctly  in order to  properly scale  the axes.
     If presumption 2 were violated by the plotting, the outcome would  be  a
 curved array of plotted data rather  than the  sharply  jointed array in  the
 upper plot.  Thus, we test instead for two  superimposed log-normal distri-
 butions.  This is done  by dividing the data into two  groups, recomputing
 percentiles, and replotting  as  in the lower plot.  There are several ways
 to judge whether the division of data, as done, leads to a good way of
 describing physical reality. The smaller sub-set  in  this  case did
 conform to actual estimates  of  a background distribution and the excellent
 linearity shows that at least the data assigned are statistically homogeneous,
 Furthermore, checking the sample locations  for  all the  samples  in the  higher
 value sub-set showed that on a  map they could be separated from the back-
 ground set with a single  simple line.  That is, they  are geographically
 correlated as well as statistically  correlated. One  could have bypassed
 the statistics and drawn  a line on a map of sample locations,  outlining
 the area which contained  the high samples and the  result would  have been
 largely correct.  The advantage of using also the  statistical  plot  lies  in
                                   206

-------
    1000
t/1
a:
O

SE
UJ
a:

I
to
a:
UJ
D-
(XI
UJ
a:
o
     100
      10
                   10      50
                    PERCENTIl.E
90
99
                                          A.
                                          THE JOINTED LINE THROUGH THE PLOTTED
                                          DATA INDICATES TWO DISTRIBUTIONAL
                                          MODES.  THE POSSIBILITY IS REALISTIC
                                          IN CONCEPT SINCE THE SOILS WERE
                                          SAMPLED BECAUSE OF A SUSPECTED
                                          CONTAMINATION ZONE, HENCE SOME
                                          MUST REPRESENT BACKGROUND.
         B.
         SAME DATA AS IN (A) BUT WITH
         PERCENTILES REASSIGNED ASSUMING
         A MIXED DISTRIBUTION WITH LITTLE
         OVERLAP

         THE LOWER VALUE DISTRIBUTION CAN
         BE  INTERPRETED AS BACKGROUND.  THE
         FACT OF CONTAMINATION IS EVIDENCED
         BY PRESENCE OF A DISTRIBUTION MODE
         THAT IS DISTINCT FROM BACKGROUND.

         GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF THE
         CONTAMINATION CAN BE MAPPED BY
         REFERENCING THE SITES IDENTIFIED BY
         THE TWO DISTRIBUTIONS.
                FIGURE  1    Separation of Mixed Distributions
                                         207

-------
reducing the number of data points that have ambiguous levels.   This  is
one example of how to reduce subjectivity in judging which samples  do not
show influence of a suspected source.
ALEATORY VS. REGIONALIZED VARIABLES
    Classical statistics concerns variables which have two properties that
are exemplified by the flipped coin.  (1)  the variable can be  determined
an infinite number of times, at least  in principle and  (2)  the outcome of
one determination is not functionally  related to the outcome of another
determination of the same kind.
    Those two properties are generally absent in environmental  situations.
That is, the effluent material in a single sample is unique in  the  sense
that the identical amount of effluent  should not be expected in a repeat
sample.  Note also that the repeat sample involves a different  portion of the
medium.  Furthermore, the analytical results of multiple environmental samples
taken closely together would be more nearly alike than the analytical results
of similar samples taken over a broader spacing.  That is, the  outcomes
of the individual measures are not independent in the aleatory  sense.
Because classical statistical tests are based on concepts of randomness
and independence, the results of those tests should be interpreted  with
caution in regards to environmental dispersions.
    Regionalized Variable
    In the last two decades mining engineers and geologists largely from
                                                                        (2)
France and South Africa have developed a discipline called geostatistiesv  .
The focus is on ore grades and ore reserves and error estimations for those
values.  There are substantial parallels between dispersions of ore components
and environmental contaminations.  A key concept in geostatisties is the
regionalized variable which  (1)  has  a definite value at each  point of
                                  208

-------
space,  (2)  shows a more or less continuity in its spacial  variation, and
(3)  may show different kinds of zonal  effects.  Generally concentration is
the regionalized variable which is to be studied by measuring its value
at selected points in space and time.
    Variogram
    A principal tool for investigating the regionalized variable across space
is the variogram.   This diagram is essentially (but not exactly) a plot of
apparent standard deviation for concentration versus separation distance of
samples used to compute the standard deviation.  The variogram can take several
forms but they all represent different degrees of continuity of concentration
across space, as shown in Figure 2.
    For a single dispersion it sometimes happens that different variograms
apply to different directions.  These situations can result  either from a
depositional environment which is directionally non-uniform  or from a dis-
persion mechanism that is directionally non-uniform.  Environmentally, the
latter corresponds to atmospheric mixing coefficients that differ downwind,
cross-wind, and vertically.
    All the variograms tend toward an asymptote-like condition at large
separations between samples.  This brings in a concept important to both the
layout of sampling nets and the interpretation of data.   If  the sample spacing
is too small, adjacent samples are quite similar and the detail obtained
for the distribution pattern may be greater than required.  This kind of
overdetermination is somewhat cost ineffective.  On the other hand, if
samples are taken  at too great a spacing some of the space between samples
is poorly represented by any "nearest" sample.  This results in a possibility
that an important occurrence may pass unnoticed.
                                 209

-------
          Figure 2:   Types of Variograms
                         Linear:   The most common;  represents  a
                         simple ideal regionalized  variable.
distance
                         Continuous:  Small
                         range shows a high
                         The thickness of a
variability at short
continuity, for example,
sedimentary bed.
distance
                         Nugget effect:  Distribution is discon-
                         tinuous in small samples, not fully
                         conforming to the ideal  regionalized
                         variable.
distance ->-
                         Random:  A limiting case corresponding
                         to an aleatory variable.
distance
                                210
                                         Adapted from G. Matheron, 1963

-------
    Early in the sampling program a variogram could be constructed from
preliminary data.  Ideally, it would be used to set up a routine sample
spacing that would be sensitive to pre-selected scale of differences between
analytical values.  It may turn out that sample spacing should be different
in different places as well as in different directions.
    This approach can be applied to the technique for taking individual
samples as well as in the setup of an extensive net.  For example a single
scoop of soil, which physically involves only a few square inches of area
may be taken to represent tens of thousands of square feet of geography.
Represent!'vity could be improved by compositing several scoops from an area
of hundreds of square feet that constitute the sample site.   The question
arises, "how much separation between scoops?"  In one situation, soil sampling
for    Cs from fallout*- ' t several 10-cm square samples were taken and the
results used to construct a variogram.  It was found that samples separated
by one meter had a relatively small standard deviation, whereas samples on
a two-meter separation showed a larger standard deviation, about the same
size as for the set as a whole.   Thus, in  compositing, the SCOODS should  hp
separated by more than one meter, but there is not statistical advantage in
having the scoops separated by more than two meters.  Notice that in compositing,
one goal is to submerge the small scale variability by swamping it with
components that are random with respect to that small scale variability
within the sample site.  Contrast that goal with a main objective of a
sampling program - - the taking of (composite) samples in such a way that
non-random variability between sites becomes more apparent that it would be
by any other sample spacing.
RISK ASSESSMENT
    This issue has been contaminated by "Environmental Jitters".   Some
      (4)
peoplev '  feel  that scientists who encourage public fears on the basis of
                                  211

-------
of incomplete or ill-digested evidence constitute  a  serious  environmental
problem.   The reference (4)  concerns  fluorocarbon  aerosol  propellents  and
there are other examples  from cyclamate to  C^.
    There is a point in the  plutonium debate  that  seems  to be  seldom re-
cognized.  The same point occurs  in debate  about other contaminants so the
intent here is not to continue the plutonium  debate, but rather to show that:
(1)  environmental exposures with some similarity  to postulated calamities
have been underway for decades; they  deserve  to  be assessed  in terms of
transfer coefficients between media and populations, and  (2)   numeric
values for transfer coefficients  can  be estimated, at least  in gross aspects
from fairly general data. These  estimates  should  serve  to limit speculation
about how severe a postulated event might be.  Although  this discussion is
limited to plutonium, counterpart calculations can be made for lead, cadmium,
selenium, mercury, radon etc.
    Fallout from weapons testing  prior to 1970,  dispersed about 300,000
curies (7 tons) of Pu-239 and Pu-240^- '.  This amount is large compared to
industrial losses even in serious incidents.   Our  expectations about what
happens to plutonium that escapes from industrial  containment  should be
tempered by what has happened to  the  plutonium from  weapons  fallout.   The
behavior of the plutonium from the two kinds  of  sources  will not be  identical
since, for example, the particle  size distributions  are  not  alike and  the
atmospheric distribution mechanisms  are partly different. However,  the
fallout case can serve as a  reference.  Whether  the  industrial context
suggests a more efficient or less efficient transfer of  plutonium into
people can be estimated from details  about  the industrial context and  how
they contrast with fundamentals of the fallout context.
                                  212

-------
    Autopsies of people from the general  public who were living throughout
the major period of weapons fallout, show that they carried plutonium in
amounts near an average of 5x10"   curies (0.5 picocuries per person)^  '.
From that result, the total amount of Pu  inside living people can be estimated
by multiplying the average burden by the  world population; (0.5 picocuries/
person) times (3x10  persons/world population) = 1.5x10"  curies/world
population.   Thus, of the entire 300,000 curies of Pu in the world environ-
                                      -9
ment, only about five billionths (5x10" ) is actually inside people where
it exposes them to alpha radioactivity.  Thus, a transfer coefficient from
                                                            _g **
environment to human bodies can be crudely estimated at 5x10  .
    In applying this result to the context of malcontainment of industrial
plutonium we should consider three aspects of the  contamination.   First, is
the total plutonium in an installation.  Second, if a release occurs only  a
part of the total plutonium will actually escape into the environment before
cleanup operations repackage what can be  recovered.  Third, of the plutonium
which escapes, only a fraction will actually end up in people.  It is the
size of this last fraction which is of ultimate concern to human  health.
Whatever detriment is calculated to accrue to humanity must be based on
this smallest fraction.
*
 Probably this gives an overestimate since the 0.5 picocurie figure  is an
average based mainly on persons who were  alive throughout the major period
of fallout from weapons.  Younger people  missed the major part of the fallout
episode, however, measurements of the plutonium burdens have not  been included
in proportion to their population.   Including young people in the population
figures of 3xl09 is conservative in the sense that the results of the calculation
will show more plutonium in the world population than what a more refined
calculation would show.
  This value lumps the oceanic and  land inventories of plutonium  but the
distinction is largely irrelevant if most of the population burden was
acquired by inhaling primary fallout, in  contrast  to inhaling fallout re-
entrained from soil or ingestion through  the food  chain.
                                  213

-------
    Many scare comments about industrial  effluents  ignore  the  inefficiency
by which environmental  levels are carried on  to people.  Several  statements
in print say, in essence, that one ounce  of plutonium can  poison  all  the
world population.   Credibility of such statements seems  strained  since  we
do not appear to be seriously poisoned by the 7 tons  already in the  environment.
Distinctions must be made, of course,  between materials  like DDT  which
increase up the food chain and those like plutonium which  decrease.
    More sophisticated estimates of transfer  coefficients  from environment
to human populations can be made.  Some already exist for  specific conditions
of soil content, reetrainment, and other  aspects of environmental pathways^  '.
These kinds of calculations, based on  simple  or complex  assumptions  deserve
to be recognized and used publicly in  describing how  socially  important
decisions could be based on environmental  data.  One  proper goal  is  to
counter scare comments with objective  comparisons between  current dispersions
of contaminants and inducible changes  in  the  patterns.
THREE CONCEPTS OF IMPACT
    Part of the difficulty in laying out  environmental  sampling  (monitoring)
programs is due to obscurity of what an impact is and how  one  quantifies  an
impact by looking at data.  There are  three distinct  ways  of looking at
environmental impact and they require  different techniques for sampling
and data interpretation.  Debates about impact commonly obscure  the dis-
tinctions to the detriment of resolving issues.  These approaches are:
    (1)  Summing emissions from sources,
    (2)  Measuring concentrations of contaminants  in  air,  soil, water or
         biota at distance from the source,
    (3)  Observing the biological effects due to increased levels of con-
         taminants in parts of the ecosystem.
                                  214

-------
The third approach is of ultimate significance, of course, but conclusions
about detriment are seldom timely and early observations are difficult to
present in a convincing way to persons who are sceptical that the cause of
an affliction has been identified.   Furthermore, causes of environmentally
                                           t
induced afflictions are seldom singular and it is difficult to obtain agree-
ment upon which of the causitive factors is most important, especially in
a legal contest.
    The second approach has value to a defensive legal  posture since it
can identify the geographical boundaries outside of which responsibility for
effects can be denied.  The results from this approach  have immense academic
interest to some scientific fields, but even the best work can get a "So
what's new?" response from a person interested narrowly in the third approach.
    The first approach is the handiest for legal applications (especially
prosecution) because sampling and analytical  results are the least ambiguous
of all the approaches.  However, it is sometimes a long environmental path
between a source and a biological effect so that the precise data from the
first approach risk being thoroughly irrevelant.  For example, the chemical
form of an effluent may have a short lifetime in the environment or the
effluent may be a trivial increment to a naturally occurring background.
    I have belabored the distinctions among these three approaches because
the standards of good work in one approach are quite different from the
counterpart standards in other approaches.  Furthermore, persons who narrowly
champion one approach have no logical basis for debate  with a representative
of another approach.  Indeed, there are no reliable logical connections
between the approaches except the trivial  one that emission precedes disper-
sion which precedes biological effects.  Even the principle of mass conser-
vation applies unevenly because most effluents are changed chemically within
the environment.  This is to say that in only a special few cases does the
                                 215                                        ]

-------
 integrated effluent equal  the (incremental  additions  to)  contents  in
 environmental  compartments.
CONCLUSIONS
     Some persons at this meeting have commented about how individualized
the sampling technique must be for different geothermal  sources,  even  of the
same type.   Perhaps this is due to the obscurity of important features of
basic patterns.  In order to establish standard or reference procedures aimed
at regulation of geothermal sources we would be well  advised to first  study
the patterns involved.  In this way, the standardized parts of a  procedure
could be well aimed at particular features which geothermal sources have
in common in their own patterns of behavior or patterns  of dispersion  of their
effluents.   Comparability must be one of the motives  behind setting up
standardized procedures.  Not all components of individual patterns are
equally useful  in comparing one geothermal source with another.  We should
learn which features are important to our purposes, either academic or
regulatory, and then focus the standardization of sampling toward those
features.  The interpretation of geothermal  data must begin before the
samples are taken.
                                  216

-------
                              REFERENCES


1.  D. E. Michels, Log-normal Analysis of Data for Plutonium in the Outdoors:
    in Proceedings of Environmental PlutonTum Symposium, Los Alamos, Aug 4-5,
    USAEL Rpt LA-4756, 1971.

2.  G. Matheron, Principles of Geostatistics,  Econ.  Geol.,  V 58,
    pp 1246-1266, 1963.

3.  D. E. Michels, Analysis of Paired Data,  Sequential  in  Space or Time and
    the Relationship to  Sampling Continuous  Cyclic Distributions,  USAEC
    Rpt.  RFP-2165, Dow Chemical, Rocky Flats  Div., 1974.

4.  R. Scorer, The Danger of Environmental Jitters,  New Scientist,
    pp 702-703,  June 26,  1975.

5.  J. H. Harley, Worldwide Plutonium Fallout  From Weapons  Tests,  in
    Proceedings  of Environmental Plutonium Symposium, 'Los  Alamos,  Aug 4-5,
    1971, USAEC  Rpt LA-4756.

6.  E. E. Campbell, et.  al., Plutonium in Autopsy Tissues,  USAEC  Rpt LA-4875,
    1973.

7.  D. H. Denham, et.  al.,  Radiological  Evaluations  for Advanced  Waste Manage-
    ment  Studies:  USAEC  Rpt BNWL-1764,  Battelle  Pacific Northwest Laboratories
    1973.
                                      217

-------
            Sampling and Preservation Techniques for Waters

                      in Geysers and Hot Springs

                                  by

          James W. Ball, Everett A,  Jenne,  and J. M. Burchard

                           with a section on

                            Gas Collection

                                  by

                          Alfred H,'  Truesdell

                        U, S. Geological Survey
                         345 Middlefield Road
                     Menlo Park, California  94025 .

                               ABSTRACT


     Sampling of geothermal fluids presents unique challenges,  due to

the instability and wide concentration range of many constituents.

Unstable parameters, such as pH, Eh, temperature and dissolved  oxygen.

are determined on-site.  Filtration  of geothermal water is done with

absolute minimum time-delay and exposure of the sample to air,  by

using a portable pump and non-contaminating, all-plastic or all-metal

filter apparatus, for samples for inorganic or organic determinations,
                                                %       •          •
respectively.  Sample preservatives  and their safe,  efficient

transportation are discussed.  Two techniques of geothermal gas

collection are presented along with  details of gas sampling apparatus.
                                  218

-------
            Sampling and Preservation Techniques for Waters



                      in Geysers and Hot Springs



                                  by



          James W. Ball, Everett A. Jenne, and J. M. Burchard



                           with a section on



                            Gas Collection



                                  by



                         Alfred H. Truesdell



                       U. S. Geological Survey

                        345 Middlefield Road

                    Menlo Park, California  94025



                             INTRODUCTION



     Unique problems are encountered in the sampling, preservation



and analysis of geothermal fluids because of the instability and/or



high concentrations of some constituents.  Silica may occur at



concentrations up to several hundred milligrams per litre; therefore,



silica may polymerize during sample storage and not react with



molybdate color forming reagents, or precipitate, with concurrent loss


                                     +3      +2
of coprecipitating elements.  Arsenic  ,  iron   and other variable



valence ions may be rapidly oxidized upon aeration at elevated



temperatures,  precluding valence species  determinations.  Sulfides may



be rapidly oxidized by dissolved oxygen,  and hydrogen sulfide gas is



unstable in the presence of moisture, oxygen, and to a les'ser extent,



ultraviolet light.  The pH may rise rapidly (up to two orders of



magnitude in our experience) due to exsolution of dissolved carbon
                                  219

-------
dioxide, or decrease due to carbon dioxide uptake or hydrogen sulfide


oxidation.


     Due to the greater cost, and the tendency to lowered precision


and accuracy, of field analyses as compared to laboratory analyses,


analyses should be done on site for only those constituents which


cannot be preserved for laboratory analysis.  Exceptions may occur


when knowledge of some parameter is needed to guide subsequent sampling,


and when adequate analytical tools are available.  pH,  Eh, and


temperature are, of course, determined on site.  If necessary,


carbonate-bicarbonate alkalinity can be determined later as long as


the non-carbonate alkalinity is not significant and the pH is also


remeasured (Ellis, et al., 1968; A. H. Truesdell, unpub. data).


Alternatively, immediate alkalinity titration may be difficult because


at the time of sampling even gentle stirring promotes the vigorous


exsolution of supersaturated carbon dioxide resulting in pH increase


(equation 1)


               H+ + HCO~ ^ H20 + C02"K                   1)


even while acid is being added.


     Due to the instability of the dissolved constituents of geothermal


fluids, immediate filtration of the hot water without allowing

                                                  •
degassing of waters supersaturated with carbon dioxide is necessary


(equation 1).  The high concentration of trace elements in the sinter


and.other surficial deposits mandates stringent precautions to avoid


water sample contamination.
                                  220-

-------
     Methods of collection and analysis of geothermal waters have been




published by Ellis, et al.  (1968) and by Presser and Barnes (1974).




Geothermal gas collection and analysis schemes have been described




by Ellis, et al. (1968),  Akeno (1973), and Giggenbach (1976).   The




entire field has been reviewed by Finlayson (1970).
                                    221

-------
                           WATER COLLECTION




ON  SITE ANALYSES




     Determination of  pH and Eh is accomplished elegantly by pumping




sample fluid  (slowly for pH, rapidly for Eh) through an insulated cell




(Fig. 1) containing pH, Eh and temperature probes.  The probes are of




rugged, high-impact plastic construction, and glass electrode membranes




are well protected.  Liquid junctions are of a type highly resistant to




clogging and  fouling,  and the electrodes are usable up to and including




100 C without damage.  A meter with compatible electrodes is used to
          Fig. 1.  Flow-through pH-Eh cell.







measure both pH and Eh.  If equipped with intercept, slope, and




temperature compensation knobs, the meter may be standardized with




bracketing buffer solutions at ambient temperature prior to each




measurement (Sargent-Welch Scientific Co., undated).  Otherwise
                                  222

-------
standardization with buffers at the sample temperature is necessary.




Actual Eh values are calculated later from the EMF value, the half-cell




potential of the reference cell and the temperature.   The lid of the




meter's carrying case (Fig. 2) serves as a sun shield to minimize




temperature changes in the meter.




     Dissolved oxygen is determined by modified Dinkier titration;




manganous sulfate and alkali-iodide-azide contained in sealed pieces




of plastic tubing are added on site.  The samples are thereafter kept




out of direct sunlight.   The sulfamic acid is added just before




analysis, which is carried out as  soon as possible.
                                  223

-------
 SAMPLING


      Due to frequent remoteness of sampling sites,  compact,  lightweight


 equipment is used which may be transported, along with the samples


 taken, in two backpacks (weight £  20 kg each).   The portable pump


 (Fig. 2) used to pump sample water through the  flow-through  pH-Eh cell


 and the filter apparatus,  is capable of delivering  the sample fluid


 from a depth of at least three meters to the_ apparatus with  a head of

                            2
 at least 20 psig (1.4 kg/cm )  for  at least four continuous hours,  the


 most extreme conditions encountered  thus far.
          Fig. 2.  Field setup, showing sampling line, portable pump,
                   flow-through pH-Eh cell, telethermometer and pH meter,



     The polyvinyl tubing through which sample water is pumped is held


in place using a 2.5 cm o.d. sectioned aluminum pole having an

adjustable stainless steel laboratory clamp attached to one end (Fig. 3).
                                   22k

-------
          Fig. 3.  Sampling line in use in hot spring overflow.






The sampling line inlet is weighted to prevent flotation of the  poly-




vinyl tubing.  The effectiveness of the pole for positioning the




sample tubing over a small spouting hot spring is shown in Fig.  4.
          Fig.  4.   Positioning  the sampling line over spring.
                                  225

-------
     The all-plastic filter used (Fig.  5) holds a 0.1 ym 142 mm




membrane between two plexiglass discs sealed with a viton rubber




o-ring; the air is released at the start of filtration using an




integral valve; and the assembly is supported by three polyvinyl




chloride legs threaded into the underside of the bottom disc.  The




two discs are secured together  by     integral, .swing-away nylon




bolts and nuts hinged in the bottom plate.




     Sample fluid is pumped from the source through the filter assembly




into all-polyethylene or glass collection bottles (Fig. 5).  The




membrane may be saved by placing it in an acid-washed petri dish.




Cleaning consists of wiping the inside of the filter with tissue,




rinsing with distilled water, and changing the filter membrane; sample




water from the new site is used to thoroughly flush the sampling line




during pH and Eh measurements; the sampling line is then attached to




the filter and the membrane is flushed with 250-500 ml of sample.
          Fig. 5.  Filtration assemblies.





                                    226

-------
     Samples are collected after on-site analyses are completed.  Samples




for major cations(250 ml), major anions(500 ml), nutrients(250 ml),




sulfide(250 ml), and iron 2/3 and arsenic 3/5(250 ml) are collected




first; then samples for Hg; then samples for trace elements.  Duplicate




samples may be taken for trace constituents.




     Samples for mercury determination are collected in a 250, 500 or




1000 ml borosilicate glass reagent bottle, any of which is compatible




with our mercury analytical system.  The mercury sample bottles are




cleaned with an overnight soaking with chromic acid, rinsed five times




with distilled water and oven dried at least two hours at >200 C




to drive off residual mercury.




     Samples to be analyzed for total dissolved organic carbon are




pumped through a silver filter membrane housed in a cylindrical filter




assembly of stainless steel and Teflon construction (Fig. 6) (Malcolm




and Leenheer, 1973).  The membrane is flushed with approximately 200 ml




sample water; 30-40 ml of filtrate is then collected in a glass bottle




which has been fired at 500 C for six hours and capped with fired




aluminum foil (Malcolm and Leenheer, 1'973).




     An effective way to avoid contamination of the sample water by




surrounding sinter is use of a nylon-reinforced polyethylene ground




sheet.  The operator and all his equipment fit on a 10-foot square




sheet (Fig. 1, 2, 5).
                                  227

-------
Fig. 6.  Organic carbon filtration unit.
                   228

-------
SAMPLE PRESERVATION



     Samples for major cation, iron, and arsenic analysis are



acidified with 2 ml hydrochloric acid/250 ml; samples for mercury



analysis are treated with 10 ml 5% potassium permanganate/400 ml



(Avotins and Jenne, 1975); trace element samples are acidified with



5 ml redistilled nitric acid/1.  The pH of acidified samples is



checked at the end of the day to assure that a pH of <1.2 has been



reached.  The above three preservatives are transported to the field



in standard borosilicate glass ampules, avoiding the risk of



contamination, total loss or injury associated with single-container



storage.  The nitric acid must be stored in an ampule with scored



constriction, as the color-break ring of the standard ampules contains



some trace elements, notably lead, which will contaminate a trace-element
                                        p                   •*


sample.



     Sulfide samples are fixed by sequentially adding 2 ml of 1 M



zinc acetate and 2 ml of 1 M sodium hydroxide/250 ml (Amer. Public Hlth.  Assoc.,



1970).  Since the former solution contains a large amount of zinc, a



frequently determined metal, it is stored in a septum-stoppered bottle



and dispensed with a disposable syringe, both of which are stored in



a zip-lock bag.  Sulfide and dissolved organic carbon samples are



chilled as soon as possible after collection, and held at 4 C until



analysis.   Aliquots for silica analyses are normally diluted 10-fold



at the end of the day of collection, but samples containing >700 mg/1



silica must be diluted immediately (M. Thompson, oral cornrn., 1976).  Nutrient



samples are frozen as soon as possible with dry ice» and kept frozen



until analysis.


                                  229

-------
G/S COLLECTION




     Geothermal gases (other than steam) generally consist of carbon




dioxide with lesser quantities of nitrogen, methane, hydrogen sulfide,




hydrogen, oxygen, C--C, hydrocarbons, and inert gases in approximate




order of decreasing abundance.




     Two methods of gecthermal gas collection have been tested.   One




method, described in more detail elsewhere (Truesdell and Pering, 1974),




utilizes syringes for both volume measurement and gas absorption in




sodium hydroxide, and is particularly suited for partial field analysis.




The other method, in which absorption in sodium hydroxide takes place




in an evacuated bottle, is suited for isotope analysis wherein larger




quantities of gas are required.  In the syringe method, hydrogen




sulfide is fixed by absorption in sodium hydroxide solution followed




by immediate precipitation using cadmium acetate or by eventual total




oxidation to sulfate.  The sodium hydroxide also absorbs carbon dioxide,




greatly reducing the bulk of the gas sample, and the reduction in




volume of gas accurately indicates the ratio of carbon dioxide plus




hydrogen sulfide to other gases.  If cadmium sulfide is precipitated,




the intensity of the yellow color gives a rough indication of the




relative quantity of hydrogen sulfide.




     The syringe apparatus (Fig. 7) is flushed with* spring water and




10 to 20 ml of 3 M sodium hydroxide solution is introduced- into




syringe B.  Gas is drawn into syringe A, its volume measured by noting




the change of position of the plunger and it is pumped into syringe B.
                                   230-

-------
With vigorous shaking of this syringe, carbon dioxide and hydrogen




sulfide are absorbed and the decrease in volume gives a field analysis




for these gases which has been found to be within ± 1% of the amount




found absorbed in the sodium hydroxide.  When 25 ml of residual gas




have accumulated, these are transferred into the evacuated gas bottle.




The procedure is repeated until the gas bottle is full.  Detailed




descriptions of the construction of the apparatus and of its manipula-




tion during sampling are given by Truesdell and Pering (1974).  After




sample collection, half of the sodium hydroxide solution is saved for




carbon dioxide analysis and half is treated with cadmium acetate to




preserve hydrogen sulfide.




     The second method used for gas collection is similar in principle.




50 ml of sodium hydroxide solution is contained in an evacuated gas




bottle.  When the tubing and funnel are flushed with water and filled




with gas, the bottle is attached and opened so that the gas bubbles




through the caustic solution.   The carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide




are absorbed rapidly during shaking.  The collection is complete when




no more gas is absorbed in a reasonable time.  This method is a




simplification of that proposed by Giggenbach (1976) for volcanic •




gases.
                                   231

-------
 Syringe   Syringe
   A        B
 (Pump)   (Caustic)
                           3M
                          NaOH
                                   Handle  indicates
                                   off  direction
                     50ml gas
                     sample bottle
                                     Detail  of
                                     Stopcock
Fig, 7.  Syringe apparatus for gas collection.
                        232

-------
9. 1267
       10-
      11
      12
      13
      14
       15-
      16
      17
      18
      19
       20-
      21
      22
                           REFERENCES

Akeno,  T.,  1973,  Rapid chemical analysis of volcanic gases in geo-

      thernal  fields  (in Japanese):   Jour. Japan Geotherraal Energy
      Assoc.,  v. 10,  no.  1, p.  13-21.

American Public Health Association,  1970, Standard Methods for the

      Examination  of  Water and  Wastewater, 13th ed.: Araer.  Public Hlth

      Assoc.,  Washington, D.  C., p.  336.

Avotins, P. and Jenne, E.  A.,  1975,  The  time stability of dissolved

      mercury  in water  samples  II. Chemical stability:  J.  Environ.

      Qual., v. 4., no.  4,  p. 515.

Ellis,  A. J., Mahon, W.  A.  J., and Ritchie, J.  A., 1968,  Methods of

      collection and  analysis of geothermal fluids, 2nd edition:

      Chemistry Division, N. Z. Dept. Sci., Ind.  Res.  Report CD 2103,
      51 p.

Finlayson, J. B., 1970,  The collection and analysis of volcanic  and

      hydrotherraal gases:   Geotherraics, Special  Issue 2, v.  2, pt.  2,

      p. 1344-1354.

Giggenbach, W. F., 1976, A simple method for the collection and

      analysis of volcanic  gas  samples: Bull.  Volcanol.  (in press).

Malcolm, R. L., and Leenheer,  J. A., 1973, The  usefulness  of organic

      carbon parameters in water quality  .investigations: Proc.

      Inst. Environ. Sci. 1973  Ann. Meet.,  Anaheim,  CA,  p.  336-340.

Presser, T. S., and Barnes, Ivan, 1974,  Special  techniques  for deter-

     mining chemical properties  of peothermal water: U.S.  Geol.  Survey,
                                              233
                                                   U. S GOVERNMENT PIIINTING OFFICE : 1972 O - «7-084
                                                                            66T-IC,

-------
Sargent-Welch Scientific Company,  undated,  Instruction manual for




     Sargent-Welch pH meters:   Sargent-Welch Scientific Company,  23 p.




Truesdell, A. H,,  and Pering,  K. L.,  1974,  Geothermal gas sampling




     methods:  U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File  Report 74-361, 6 p.
                                   234

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Inductions on the reverse before completing)
 1 REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/9-76-011
4. TITLE ANDSU8TITLE
  PROCEEDINGS OF THE  FIRST
  GEOTHERMAL EFFLUENTS
WORKSHOP ON  SAMPLING
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
       1Q76
                                6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
  (Workshop participants)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Environmental Monitoring and Support  Laboratory
  Office of Research  and Development
  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Las Vegas, NV   89111*
                                10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                       EHE624
                                11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                            Proceedings Oct. 1975	
  Same as above
                                14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                 EPA-ORD Office of Energy,
                                 Minerals and Industry
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
       This  is a  compilation of papers  presented at the first  in a series of workshops
  on environmental  monitoring of geothermal  energy development  held on October  20  and
  21, 1975 at the U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring  and
  Support Laboratory  in Las Vegas, Nevada.   The purpose of  this workshop was to gen-
  erate the exchange  of ideas and knowledge  needed to develop a set of standard geo-
  thermal sampling  methods with assurance  of quality in those methods.  Representatives
  of industry, universities, and government  presented 19 technical papers, 12 of which
  are published  in  this document.  Their content and the discussions which followed  the
  presentations  provided guidance for developing a recognized Referenced Sampling
  Method Handbook.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                             c.  COSATI Field/Group
  moni tors
  pol1ut ion
                   geothermal  energy
                   methods development
                 13B
                 UA
                 14B
                 11»C
                 IAD
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
  RELEASE TO PUBLIC
                  19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                    UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------
        .
s

-------