Evidence of indicators Indicator: Financial proposition revenue – Indicator level Level 1 to 2 (CRI 1–6) Rationale As there has been only one completed pilot or demonstration project for this type of resource, there is very limited information on potential revenues for these resources (Level 1). The poor technical performance to date (in terms of the potential energy produced MW/well) has led to a – lack of market confidence (Revenue projections highly discounted by investors Level 2). – Evidence of indicators Indicator: Industry supply chain and skills Indicator level 2 to 3 (CRI 1–6) Rationale The use of adapted oil-field technologies for reservoir development requires a project-by-project approach by EPC providers, with limited experience working in this environment (Level 3), and project developers to procure some elements to their own specifications (Level 2). Supply chains and skills are also dependent on the development of appropriate technologies that will improve the technical performance of these projects. Evidence of indicators Indicator: Pathways to market Indicator level Level 1 to 2 (CRI 1–6) Rationale The technology is at a stage for a technology to move from a promising technical ‘Critical solution to a prospective commercial opportunity.’ (Level 1), and there is some evidence provided by project proponents that is an investment case supported by peer reviewed ‘there business plans with verifiable cost and revenue projected’. Key risks have been identified. Individual projects have been proposed that meet the Level 2 criteria (Commercial trial has identified target market segment for a trial…even if uneconomic...to demonstrate basic commercial performance), although funding mechanisms to bridge the gap between costs and revenue have not been established, or have failed to achieve their goal with companies struggling to raise required equity contributions (e.g. REDP grants to Petratherm and Geodynamics). Evidence of indicators Indicator: Company maturity Indicator level Level 1 (Level 2 at workshop) (CRI 1–6) Rationale The geothermal sector had established the Australian Geothermal Energy Association (AGEA). This industry body was than contract counterparts’ 2). In November 2013, AGEA ‘weaker changed from an industry body to a professional association. Individual project proponents are now left to their own capabilities, with no engagement from established energy players (Level 1).
Evidence of indicators Indicator: Financial proposition – revenue Indicator level (CRI 1–6) Level 1 to 2 Rationale As there has been only one completed pilot or demonstration project for this type of resource, there is very limited information on potential revenues for these resources (Level 1). The poor technical performance to date (in terms of the potential energy produced – MW/well) has led to a lack of market confidence (Revenue projections highly discounted by investors – Level 2). Evidence of indicators Indicator: Industry supply chain and skills Indicator level (CRI 1–6) 2 to 3 Rationale The use of adapted oil-field technologies for reservoir development requires a project-by-project approach by EPC providers, with limited experience working in this environment (Level 3), and project developers to procure some elements to their own specifications (Level 2). Supply chains and skills are also dependent on the development of appropriate technologies that will improve the technical performance of these projects. Evidence of indicators Indicator: Pathways to market Indicator level (CRI 1–6) Level 1 to 2 Rationale The technology is at a ‘Critical stage for a technology to move from a promising technical solution to a prospective commercial opportunity.’ (Level 1), and there is some evidence provided by project proponents that ‘there is an investment case supported by peer reviewed business plans with verifiable cost and revenue projected’. Key risks have been identified. Individual projects have been proposed that meet the Level 2 criteria (Commercial trial has identified target market segment for a trial…even if uneconomic...to demonstrate basic commercial performance), although funding mechanisms to bridge the gap between costs and revenue have not been established, or have failed to achieve their goal with companies struggling to raise required equity contributions (e.g. REDP grants to Petratherm and Geodynamics). Evidence of indicators Indicator: Company maturity Indicator level (CRI 1–6) Level 1 (Level 2 at workshop) Rationale The geothermal sector had established the Australian Geothermal Energy Association (AGEA). This industry body was ‘weaker than contract counterparts’ 2). In November 2013, AGEA changed from an industry body to a professional association. Individual project proponents are now left to their own capabilities, with no engagement from established energy players (Level 1).