Skip to content

Fervo_Project_Cape-4 Stimulation Costs Update #97

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Conversation

softwareengineerprogrammer
Copy link
Owner

@softwareengineerprogrammer softwareengineerprogrammer commented Aug 5, 2025

Description

  1. Adjust Fervo_Project_Cape-4 stimulation cost to $4.6M per well.
    1. Started with baseline stimulation cost of $4M per well based on informal discussions with experts which indicated $2M/well is a significant underestimate and that current rule of thumb is that stimulation costs approximately the same as drilling.
    2. $4M/well baseline cost corresponds to ~$39k/frac stage for 102 stages, which corroborates with high-intensity U.S. shale costs (Baytex Energy, 2024; Quantum Proppant Technologies, 2020), which are the closest technological analogue for multi-stage EGS (Gradl, 2018).
      1. Average Shale Well Cost (Operated; drilling, completion, equipment, and tie-in) = $10.5M (Baytex, p. 16)
      2. "frac stimulation and completion programs, [together] account for up to 70% of total well costs." (Quantum, p. 2)
      3. $10.5M * 0.7 = $7.35M
      4. Assuming ~16m spacing, a 9800 foot lateral requires 187 stages.
      5. $7.35M/187 = $39,270 per stage
    3. The baseline assumes standard sand proppant. The 15% contingency (~$0.6M) accounts for the necessary upgrade to ceramic proppant, which is required to resist mechanical crushing and geochemical degradation (diagenesis) over a 30-year well life at 200°C (Ko et al., 2023; Shiozawa & McClure, 2014).
    4. $4.6M/well aligns closely with with Project InnerSpace's 1 GW data center cost model drilling:stimulation cost ratio of 46%:54% (Yusifov & Enriquez, 2025): image
  2. Removed 15% inflation during construction hedge since we'll consider the unexpectedly-higher stimulation costs to have eaten it. (Inflation during construction is now $59.82M as dictated by 1-year construction time + 2.3% inflation rate)

Documentation

image image

Testing & Verification

  1. Regenerated example result
  2. Updated case study documentation test accordingly
  3. Input/result on web interface: https://gtp.scientificwebservices.com/geophires/?shared-geophires-result-id=0f092c73-1108-4b2c-ad12-d456eead26c7 image

TODO:

  1. Communicate that this is a new version (CHANGELOG entry, or mayyyybe break off as new Fervo_Project_Cape-5 example...)
  2. markdown documentation unit test for stimulation costs: 9785819
  3. double-check project payback period: created separate issue: Remove or clarify SAM-EM project payback period NREL/GEOPHIRES-X#413

…% inflation during construction hedge since we'll consider the unexpectedly-higher stimulation costs to have eaten it. (Inflation during construction is now $58.2M as dicated by 1-year construction time + 2.3% inflation rate)
@softwareengineerprogrammer softwareengineerprogrammer added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 5, 2025
…ailable shale stimulation costs. Update documentation on stimulation cost input.
…ed to shale wells + ceramic proppant premium
…which aligns with drilling:stimulation cost ratio given in (Yusifov & Enriquez, 2025). Update case study documentation test accordingly including parsing of drilling & stimulation per-well and total costs.
@softwareengineerprogrammer
Copy link
Owner Author

Closing in favor of NREL#414. I want to get SME approval on this one before merging it into my fork's main branch (unlike most PRs where I feel confident enough to merge fork PR into main and then cut PR to main repo from my fork)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant