Processed seismic data (SEG-Y format) and TIFF images for the 2007 Isa-Georgetown Deep Crustal Seismic Survey (L184), acquired by Geoscience Australia (GA) under the Onshore Energy Security Program (OESP), in collaboration with the Queensland Geological Survey. Stack and migrated images and data are included for lines 07GA-IG1 and 07GA-IG2 as well as CDP coordinates and maps. Raw data for this survey are available on request from clientservices@ga.gov.au

The Habanero Engineered Geothermal System (EGS) in central Australia has been under development since 2002, with several deep (more than 4000 m) wells drilled into the high-heat-producing granites of the Big Lake Suite to date. Multiple hydraulic stimulations have been performed to improve the existing fracture permeability in the granite. The stimulation of the newly-drilled Habanero-4 well (H-4) was completed in late 2012, and micro-seismic data indicated an increase in total stimulated reservoir area to approximately 4 km². Two well doublets have been tested, initially between Habanero-1 (H-1) and Habanero-3 (H-3), and more recently, between H-1 and H-4. Both doublets effectively operated as closed systems and excluding short-term flow tests, all production fluids were re-injected into the reservoir at depth. Two inter-well tracer tests have been conducted since 2008, to evaluate the fluid residence time in the reservoir alongside other hydraulic properties, and to provide comparative information to assess the effectiveness of the hydraulic stimulations. The closed-system and discrete nature of this engineered geothermal reservoir provides a unique opportunity to explore the relationships between the micro-seismic, rock property, production and tracer data. The most recent inter-well tracer test occurred in June 2013, which involved injecting 100 kg of 2,6 naphthalene-disulfonate (NDS) into H-1 to evaluate the hydraulic characteristics of the newly-created H-1/H-4 doublet. Sampling of the production fluids from H-4 occurred throughout the duration of the 3-month closed-circulation test. After correcting for flow hiatuses (i.e. interruptions in injection and production) and non-steady-state flow conditions, tracer breakthrough in H-4 was observed after 6 days (compared to ~4 days for the previous H-1/H-3 doublet), with peak breakthrough occurring after 17 days. Applying moment analysis to the data indicated that approximately 56% of the tracer was returned during the circulation test (vs. approximately 70% from the 2008 H-1/H-3 tracer test). This suggests that a considerable proportion of the tracer may lie trapped in the opposite end of the reservoir from H-4 and/or may have been lost to the far field. Flow capacity:storage capacity plots derived from the H-1/H-4 tracer test indicate that the Habanero reservoir is moderately heterogeneous, with approximately half of the flow travelling via around 25% of the pore volume. The calculated inter-well swept pore volume was approximately 31,000 m³, which is larger than that calculated for the H-1/H-3 doublet (~20,000 m³). This is consistent with the inferred increase in reservoir volume following hydraulic stimulation of H-4.

This service is for the 'OZTemp Interpreted Temperature at 5km Depth' image of Australia product. It includes an interpretation of the crustal temperature at 5km depth, based on the OZTemp bottom hole temperature database and additional confidential company data.

Processed seismic data (SEG-Y format) and TIFF images for the 2009 Rankins Springs Extension Seismic Survey (L188), acquired by Geoscience Australia (GA) under the Onshore Energy Security Program (OESP), in conjunction with the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSWDPI). Stack and migrated data are included for line 09GA-RS2, as well as CDP coordinates. Raw data for this survey are available on request from clientservices@ga.gov.au

The Geoscience Australia (GA) building located in Symonston, ACT utilises one of the largest GSHP systems in the southern hemisphere. It is based on a series of 210 geothermal heat pumps throughout the general office area of the building, which carry water through loops of pipe buried in 352 bore holes each 100 metres deep and 20cm in diameter. The system is one of the largest and longest operating of its type in Australia, providing an opportunity to examine the long term performance of a GSHP system. A 10-year building review conducted in 2007 estimated that the system had saved about $400,000 in electricity costs. When comparing energy performance in the annual 'Energy Use in the Australian Government Operations' reports, the GA building has maintained energy performance and targets that might normally be expected of a general office administration building. This is significant given the requirements to provide additional fresh air to laboratories and 24/7 temperature control to special storage areas. The energy savings can be attributed to the GSHP system and other energy efficient design principles used in the building.

Within the Central Australian region, nominally constrained by 22.5oS 134oE and 31.5oS 144oE for this study, lie several systems of stacked basins beneath the extensive Mesozoic Eromanga Basin. Remnants of Proterozoic basins are largely inferred from gravity, unexplored, and are not everywhere differentiated from an extensive cover of the lower Palaeozoic Warburton Formation. This sequence is the central link between the contiguous Amadeus, Officer and Georgina Basins, and the Thomson Fold Belt. Since the Carboniferous, the region has largely experienced intracratonic sag and has accumulated continental sediments, including thick coal measures, with intermittent tectonism and uplift. In late Early Cretaceous, marine conditions briefly invaded this subsiding region, but continental sedimentation resumed in the Late Cretaceous. Tectonism occurred in the Tertiary with basin inversion and subsequent formation of the Great Artesian Basin. In the Cainozoic, the region is again in subsidence and accommodating fluvial and aeolian sediment slowly into the Eyre Basin. The preserved depocentres of the Carboniferous-Permian-Triassic Cooper, Pedirka-Simpson, and Galilee Basins are spatially separate, although all contain comparable, largely organically-mature continental coal measure sequences.

This is a paper submitted for the 29th NZ Geothermal Workshop, presenting information about the geothermal industy in Australia, the impediements the industry faces and Geoscience Australia's role in reducing the geoscience-related impediments. Paper abstract is as follows: Australia's emergent geothermal energy industry is growing rapidly, with 29 geothermal companies currently prospecting for Hot Rock and hydrothermal resources. The Hot Rock model in the Australian context comprises a thick sequence (>3km) of low-thermal conductivity sediments overlying deeper high-heat-producing granites. Until now, the key datasets available to industry to guide their geothermal exploration have been a map of crustal temperature at 5km depth, and heat-flow data. Both datasets suffer from regions of low data density and heterogeneous data distribution. The Australian Government has provided Geoscience Australia with funding for an Onshore Energy Security Program (OESP). Established as part of the OESP, a new Geothermal Project will generate precompetitive geoscientific information for geothermal explorers through two major activities: mapping heat across Australia, and developing a geothermal information system. The Australian Government has also awarded several renewable energy and start-up grants to the geothermal industry since 2000, and is currently funding the preparation of a Geothermal Industry Development Framework (GIDF). The GIDF aims to support the industry by developing strategies to ensure that technical, economic and regulatory obstacles are tackled in a coordinated way.

The thermal conductivity dataset is from the Geothermal Energy Project's thermal conductivity database. It contains thermal conductivity value for rocks sampled from minerals and stratigraphic wells across Australia. Currenlty there are 405 measurements from 45 drill holes in the database. Access to these drill holes and samples has been provided by mining and exploration companies and state surveys. Samples have been measured for thermal conductivity by either Geoscience Australia or by Hot Dry Rocks Pty Ltd (HDR) using the divided bar apparatus.

Hot Rock exploration and development has progressed rapidly in Australia in the last decade. A wealth of pre-competitive geological data acquired by government surveys and mineral and petroleum explorers is available in Australia, but heat flow data specific to geothermal exploration is sparse. A methodology is presented that sets out the key parameters required in Hot Rock exploration. Mappable practical proxies corresponding to these parameters can utilise existing geological datasets. Australia has an enviable amount of geological data that is publicly available, and this can be used to show that many parts of the continent are attractive Hot Rock exploration areas.

Australia's hot rock and hydrothermal resources have the potential to fuel competitively-priced, emission free, renewable baseload power for centuries to come. This potential and the risks posed by climate change are stimulating geothermal energy exploration projects in Australia. Extracting just 1 percent of the estimated energy from rocks hotter than 150°C and shallower than 5,000m would yield ~190 million PJ or about 26,000 times Australia's primary power usage in 2005. This figure does not take into account the renewable characteristics of hot rock, nor the resource below 5,000m. To year-end 2007, thirty-three companies have joined the hunt for geothermal energy resources in 277 licence application areas covering more than 219,000 km2 in Australia. Companies are targeting resources that fall into two categories: (1) hydrothermal resources in relatively hot sedimentary basins; and (2) hot rocks. Most exploration efforts are currently focused on hot rocks to develop Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) to fuel binary power plants. Roughly 80 percent of these projects are located in South Australia. The basic geologic factors that limit the extent of hot rock plays can be generalised as: - source rocks in the form of radiogenic, high heat-flow basement rocks; - traps defined by favourable juxtaposition of low (thermal) conductivity insulating rocks to radiogenic heat producing basement rocks; - heat-exchange reservoirs under favourable stress conditions within insulating and basement rocks; and - a practical depth-range limited by drilling and completion technologies (defining a base) and necessary heat exchange efficiency (defining a top). A considerable investment (US$200+ million) is required to prove a sustainable hot rock play, and demonstrate the reliability, scalability and efficiency of EGS power production. The proof-of-concept phase entails the drilling of at least two deep (>3,500m) hot holes (one producer and one injector), fracture stimulation, geofluid flow and reinjection and heat exchange for power generation. Compelling demonstration projects will entail up-scaling, including smooth operations while drilling and completing additional Hot Rock production and injection wells and sustained power production, most probably from binary geothermal power plants. Australian government grants have focused on reducing critical, sector-wide uncertainties and equate to roughly 25% of the cost of the private sector's field efforts to date. A national hot rock resource assessment and a road-map for the commercialisation of Australian hot rock plays will be published in 2008 by the Australia federal government. Play and portfolio assessment methods currently used to manage the uncertainties in petroleum exploration can usefully be adapted to underpin decision-making by companies and governments seeking to respectively push and pull hot rock energy supplies into markets. This paper describes the geology, challenges, investment risk assessment and promising future for hot rock geothermal energy projects in Australia.