EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: In Section V.B.2. of the FOA (page 39), the Compliance Review states that the "proposal site is located within an area of an existing geothermal lease." Could you please provide clarification and elaborate on this? We have a site that is under federal (DOE) ownership, and have guaranteed long-term access to both the surface and subsurface, and have an established permitting framework. Is the language regarding geothermal leases intended to ensure access only?
Answer 1:

Yes, the language regarding geothermal leases is intended to ensure access to the subsurface and the geothermal resources therein. Applications should include written documentation supporting this claim.

Question 2: In Section V.B.2. of the FOA (page 40), the language regarding "...evidence that the proposed site has a temperature of 175-225C..." Could you please elaborate on what constitutes "evidence"? My question specifically is that our site has several deep wells with measured bottomhole temperatures of over 150C, and an established geothermal gradient that predicts 175C within the depth range specified in the FOA. Does this sufficiently constitute "evidence"?
Answer 2: Bottom hole temperatures together with sufficient supporting data (as documented in the Applicants Appendix B - Site Characterization Data Inventory) to ensure that thermal gradient estimates would result in temperatures of 175-225C within the depth range specified in the FOA would constitute sufficient evidence to meet the Phase 1 Initial Technical Compliance Review criterion. It is expected that as the FORGE project proceeds more definitive evidence is provided of bottomhole temperatures within this range.

Question 3: We have our own NEPA and permitting group, and established processes for permitting large scale activities on federal property. Our management of FORGE would be considerably more effective if we handled all these activities. Can you provide guidance on how NEPA would be handled?
Answer 3:

As the awarding entity for the U.S. Department of Energy, the responsibility for NEPA compliance is with the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). If applicable NEPA documentation exists for the proposed project area, it may be reviewed, incorporated, or adopted at the sole discretion of the NETL NEPA Compliance Officer.

Question 4: In Section I.H. of the FOA (page 17), there is a bullet to demonstrate drilling tool operating for 30 hours in crystalline rock at 200+ degrees C. Can you please provide clarification on the "200+" temperature, specifically on how it relates to the previously stated temperature range of 175-225 degrees.
Answer 4: Milestones listed in Section I. H. Phase 3 - Technology Testing and Evaluation are qualified as "potential milestones." It will be up to the Applicant to demonstrate that their site and approach will meet DOE's objectives for FORGE, such as research and technology testing of high-temperature tools and sensors.

Question 5: Are potential sites in basins of the Basin and Range province (and even the Snake River Plain) eliminated because they have been sites of volcanic and sedimentary deposition since the mid Tertiary? We are looking at a potential reservoir in low permeability intrusives and metamorphic rock which has previously been suggested as an EGS site in the B&R, but it has 2 km of volcanic and sedimentary fill overlying it. Rigorous interpretation sedimentary basins/fill over the sites will eliminate many of the Basin and Range sites.
Answer 5: Under no circumstances will the U.S. Department of Energy consider a site within a hydrothermal field nor a site within a sedimentary target formation. Development within a low-perm crystalline basement or metamorphic rock overlain by sedimentary units would be considered a viable site for consideration under this FOA as long as no stimulation or circulation occurs within the sedimentary unit(s).

Question 6: In Section I.D. of the FOA (page 9), Site Characteristics, the statement is made, "The proposed site must not be within an operational hydrothermal field or sedimentary basin." The successful Australian Habanero EGS project is in the basement beneath the Cooper Basin. Could a site proposed in crystalline basement rocks beneath a sedimentary basin in the US meet the site characteristics for FORGE if all other requirements were met?
Answer 6: Under no circumstances will the U.S. Department of Energy consider a site within a hydrothermal field nor a site within a sedimentary target formation. Development within a low-perm crystalline basement or metamorphic rock overlain by sedimentary units would be considered a viable site for consideration under this FOA as long as no stimulation or circulation occurs within the sedimentary unit(s).

Question 7: In Section IV.C.2.a. of the FOA (page 28), there is some language regarding the site NOT overlie an aquifer with a sole source designation. I'd like some elaboration on this point. Our proposed site is within a basin that contains a sole source aquifer, however, we already have drilling permits and the State regulatory agency (who has primacy) is involved and supportive. No issues are anticipated and the sole source designation does not pose a threat to developing the project. So, my question, Can a site that overlies a sole source aquifer still propose so long as assurances are made that this designation will not be a potential problem in developing the site?
Answer 7: Yes, a site may be proposed that overlies a sole source aquifer. As this constraint is not an Initial Technical Compliance Review criterion, it would not preclude an application from Technical Merit Review. However, the characteristics of the proposed site including proximity to water resources as well as drilling permits and any other supporting regulatory approval documentation should be submitted as part of Appendix B Site Characterization Data Inventory. This information will be evaluated as part of the Technical Merit Review.

Question 8: It is stated in Section III.A.2 that “federal agencies and instrumentalities are eligible to apply for funding as a subrecipient, …” Is there a cost share requirement for a federal agency that acts as a subrecipient?
Answer 8:

For Phase 1, there is no cost share requirement for any entity participating at any level (i.e., Prime Recipient or Subrecipient).
For Phase 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3, there is a 20% cost share requirement. If the federal agency proposed as a Subrecipient is an FFRDC or national laboratory, the cost share requirement is waived for their portion of the project costs.

Please note: a determination of the applicability of the cost share waiver to R&D performers selected in Phase 3 will be made at the end of Phase 2C.

Question 9: Are there restrictions on the prime recipient and/or subrecipients relative to applying for separate R&D opportunities associated with FORGE related research?
Answer 9: There are no restrictions currently in-place regarding the Prime Recipient or Subrecipient applying for the Phase 3C R&D activities. However, in the Project Organization and Project Management section of the Technical Volume, applicants are asked to address procedures for resolving conflict of interest.

Question 10: Will there be a FORGE webinar?
Answer 10:

The webinar will be held on Tuesday, August 5th from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (earlier posted time was incorrect). Registration for the Webinar is available at this link:

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/929838952

Question 11: Stated in proposal: The proposed site must not be within an operational hydrothermal field or sedimentary basin. Why? In Texas there are tight hot sedimentary rocks that have no water and have very similar geophysical/geologic properties to metamorphic and igneous rocks. Because of the existing drilling at the surface there is already most of the necessary infrastructure and improved geologic understanding desired for the FORGE site. If a proposal is submitted in an area classified as sedimentary basin, would it be read for justification of the site or just removed because it is outside the requirements?
Answer 11: The proposal would be read for justification, however, proposals that seek to stimulate sedimentary units as a target formation will not be selected. Development within a low-perm crystalline basement or metamorphic rock overlain by sedimentary units would be considered a viable site for consideration under this FOA as long as no stimulation or circulation occurs within the sedimentary unit(s).

Question 12: I was looking over the announcement to determine whether or not my geothermal project fit the program requirements. My project involves proposed modifications to DOE's Net Zero Ready Home program to include a passive geothermal system (... direct use geothermal). The idea is to evaluate the cost and performance in reducing electrical consumption via ground-coupled heat exchange. I believe that it could be a more effective means of achieving the President's at a much lower environmental impact than fracking. Would DOE consider a project evaluating the cost effectiveness and performance of a ground-coupled heat exchanger for funding?
Answer 12: The intent of this FOA is to identify a viable site and operations team to develop an enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) field laboratory, which will include full-scale well drilling, reservoir stimulation, and a multi-year research and development effort focused on understanding the key mechanisms controlling EGS success, in particular how to initiate and sustain fracture networks in the spectrum of basement rock formations using different technologies and techniques. The objectives of this FOA are to facilitate the design and testing of a rigorous and reproducible approach for developing and sustaining large-scale, economically sustainable heat exchange systems. Because the focus of this FOA is optimization of EGS, proposals focused on direct use geothermal systems will not be considered compliant.

Question 13: Are federal entities (Not FFRDCs, or national labs) required to cost share if they are sub recipients of an award?
Answer 13: Federal entities that are not FFRDC’s or national labs are not required provide cost share on their portion of the project costs.

Question 14: Does the DOE encourage applications from Native American tribes, or do you have permitting or other administrative concerns causing you to not prefer locations on and owned by Native American tribes.
Answer 14: DOE encourages applications from all entities who meet the eligibility requirements outlined in Section III of the FOA.

Question 15: What about the cost share requirement for Phase 2 for Native American tribes?
Answer 15: The Phase 2 cost share requirement would depend on how the Native American Tribe registered itself in the System for Award Management (SAM). If the tribe is registered in SAM as a Federally Recognized Native American Entity, then 20% cost share would be required. If the tribe is registered in SAM as a non-profit, then the cost share requirement is waived.

Question 16: Are there any page limits to the appendices?
Answer 16: There is no page limit for the appendices to the technical volume.

Question 17: An October 1 deadline for applications makes for a very tight timeframe to submit a proposal. Is DOE considering extending the deadline?
Answer 17: At this point in time, there are no plans to extend the application deadline. However, DOE will consider an extension if it becomes apparent that doing so would be in the best interests of the program.

Question 18: Did the DOE already internally preselect sites that it favors and the FOA is purely an administrative requirement not to officially sole source? Given past EGS funding preferences it appears to be proper to ask this question.
Answer 18: Absolutely not. DOE is open to all proposed sites that meet the criteria described in the FOA.

Question 19: Can you tell us more about the process for DOE assignment of STAT participants in Phase 3? Will these be DOE staff members or will other non-DOE members of the geothermal community be considered for assignment?
Answer 19: The intent is that DOE will appoint both DOE staff and non-DOE experts to the STAT.

Question 20: Can the prime Recipient be changed between the different Phases of the project?
Answer 20: Changing of the Prime Recipient between different phases of the project is highly unusual. This would only be considered allowable under certain circumstances and the allowability of such a change would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Question 21: 1 km of reservoir creation in crystalline rock is not without risk. Does DOE cover liability with the successful site?
Answer 21: DOE liability is addressed through the incorporation of the following provision in all cooperative agreements resulting from this FOA:

“The Recipient shall indemnify DOE and its officers, agents, or employees for any and all liability, including litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, arising from suits, actions, or claims of any character for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property or to the environment, resulting from the project, except to the extent that such liability results from the direct fault or negligence of DOE officers, agents or employees, or to the extent such liability may be covered by applicable allowable costs provisions."

Question 22: Can you please elaborate on the "Program Policy Factors" you mentioned that are part of the initial review? Are there specific metrics?
Answer 22: The Program Policy Factors are listed in Section V.B.5 of the FOA. There are no defined metrics. These may be considered by the Selection Official in order to maximize the effectiveness of available Federal funding and to best achieve the program goals.

Question 23: Will a copy of this presentation be available for reference during the proposal process?
Answer 23:

The webinar on the FORGE FOA is now available online at the following link:

http://energy.gov/eere/forge/forge-webinar-0

(Note: This link was updated/corrected on 8/18/14)

Question 24: Is this FOA for electricity only? What about other forms of energy utilization, e.g. district heating?
Answer 24: This FOA is focused on advancing technologies that result in achieving well productivity targets (e.g. flow rates and temperatures) commensurate with electricity production.

Question 25: Is the aim of the FOA to eventually identify another FORGE-EGS site or identifying a technology that allows EGS sites to be better constructed?
Answer 25: The intent of this FOA is not to establish another large-scale EGS site but rather to better understand and overcome the many technical barriers to EGS commercialization. Specifically, the objective of this FOA is to establish and manage FORGE as a dedicated site where the subsurface scientific and engineering community will be eligible to develop, test and improve new technologies and techniques in an ideal EGS environment. This will allow the geothermal and other subsurface communities to gain a fundamental understanding of the key mechanisms controlling EGS success, in particular how to initiate and sustain fracture networks in the spectrum of basement rock formations using different stimulation technologies and techniques. The critical knowledge gained through the FORGE project can then be transferred to industry for the design and development of large-scale, economically sustainable heat exchange systems, thereby providing a rigorous and reproducible approach that will reduce industry development risk.

Question 26: If PIs are interested in testing a technology that is site independent, at what point should they enter the FORGE review process?
Answer 26: It is anticipated that during Phase 2C the site operations team in collaboration with DOE will commence with activities to solicit for and the review of technologies for testing and evaluation at the FORGE site. Opportunities may occur in earlier phases to test technologies for base characterization of the site. PIs interested in testing their technologies at the FORGE site should stay abreast of FORGE activities and solicitation and partnering opportunities.

Question 27: Is a proposal expected to have all the components of a complete system as shown in the last slide of the webinar? Or can it address a few components only?
Answer 27: It is expected that a proposal will cover all components of a complete system. See the final page of webinar contained at this link: http://energy.gov/eere/forge/downloads/forge-webinar

Question 28: Would an accelerated schedule be considered in the project, e.g., drilling during Phase 2A?
Answer 28: Yes, an accelerated schedule could be considered and would not preclude an application from being reviewed. However, DOE funding constraints could preclude early implementation of cost prohibitive activities. In addition, key aspects of the project must be in place prior to drilling activities to reduce project risk. The Applicant should take this into consideration in their application. For example, all NEPA and other permitting requirements must be completed and approved, and preliminary baseline seismic monitoring should have been achieved prior to any drilling activities.

Question 29: Section IV.C.2.a. of the FOA, in the section addressing the contents of Appendix A, states: “The Applicant shall provide documentation that a well or wells exist at the proposed site that provides confirmation of in-situ conditions at the target depth(s). Documented flow rates at target depth must not suggest that the target is a potential hydrothermal reservoir.” Is it required that the well be to the target depth of the reservoir? Would wells at the site that confirm expected temperature, but may not be to target depth, be sufficient to qualify for Phase 1 investigation?
Answer 29:

The DOE does not specifically require that an existing well be to the target depth of the reservoir. However, the Applicant should provide sufficient data to support claims of reservoir temperatures at target depths. DOE will review these claims in association with the data justification provided in the appendices A and B of the Applicant’s Technical Volume.

Question 30: Will all technology developed as part of FORGE be available to the public?
Answer 30: The nature (intellectual property, patent, etc.) of ownership of a technology tested and evaluated at the FORGE may vary and thus, its availability to the public will be determined on a case-by-case basis and made part of a negotiated agreement.

Question 31: The site eligibility requirements give a target temperature of 175C at a maximum depth of 4km or a minimum gradient of ~44C/km. Since the best sites on the East Coast are about 35-40C/km, they would not qualify. Is it the intent of this FOA to preclude sites in the East?
Answer 31: No, it is not the intent of the DOE or this FOA to preclude sites in the East.

Question 32: Is the Phase 2B “full NEPA compliance” on uncertain projects an issue? If only 3 out of 10 go on and then 1 out of 3 go on, will DOE still be doing NEPA on all 3?
Answer 32: Yes. During Phase 2B those Recipients involved (up to 3) will be required to conduct environmental reviews and obtain all permits and approvals in accordance with NEPA and other state and local requirements.

Question 33: Site depth & temperature profile: are they considered to be constraint or simply preferred?
Answer 33: Depth is not an initial compliance criteria, temperature is a constraint (as listed in Section V.B.2 Initial Compliance Review of the FOA). Because temperature data is not always accurate and difficult to obtain, we will review all applications unless they are substantially above or below our preferred range.

Question 34: For the last EGS FOA I talked to the DOE about, I got the reply that the DOE is not interested in EGS technologies using hydraulic fracturing reservoir stimulation because it has been done for a while and the results did not generate a breakthrough. The flavor at the time was in chemical processes due to the influence of the MIT network with British influence. Now it looks like you turned that view around 180 degrees towards what has been done in Europe over the past 25 years already. What is it that you want to accomplish with FORGE in regards to technical game changing that has not already been accomplished in Europe?
Answer 34: Objectives at FORGE include realizing significantly increased performance per well over that realized at prior EGS field demonstrations. It is anticipated that this will include wells optimized to the in-situ stress field including highly deviated or fully horizontal configurations as well as new technologies and approaches for implementing and monitoring multi-zone stimulations.

Question 35: What happens if initial drilling finds a hydrothermal system?
Answer 35: The compliance criteria, data in Appendix B, and proposed phased approach with key go/no-go decision points built into the award is anticipated to eliminate projects that do not meet the GTO Program’s goals and objectives for FORGE. Should a project site be selected that is found to be in a hydrothermal system, the project would no longer meet DOE goals and objectives for the FORGE and would not be permitted to continue.

Question 36: Who issues the R&D Solicitations in Phase 3? DOE or the awardee?
Answer 36: The Prime Recipient will issue the R&D solicitations.

Question 37: If applicants can propose alternate teaming arrangements, can they propose alternate phase descriptions?
Answer 37: The FOA outlines what DOE believes to be the optimal phased approach to meet GTO EGS goals and objectives, and to achieve full compliance with all FORGE technical and administrative requirements. Alternative phased approaches will be considered.

Question 38: It was not completely clear in the presentation; do you expect all test wells for the site already having been drilled? Are exploration wells sufficient that extrapolate to the target temperature? If you expect all wells with target temperatures already being in place, you actually might have preselected the sites you want to consider, because they have been prepared through past DOE funding for this FOA.
Answer 38: No, it is not expected that all test wells for the site will have already been drilled. Existing wells can provide valuable information on the conditions of the subsurface, although existing wells do not need to be to target depth. Minimum requirements for Phase 3 include drilling of preferably two or more operational, full sized well(s). The Applicant may also choose to propose the drilling of auxiliary wells or to utilize existing wells for R&D efforts complementary to the primary EGS.

Question 39: Can DOE funds be used for drilling activities?
Answer 39: Yes.

Question 40: The FOA doesn't include power generation. Would a test of advanced technology power generation equipment be precluded from submission for Phase 3?
Answer 40: Technology testing and evaluation of innovative power generation technologies tailored to EGS resources may be considered in year five of Phase 3.

Question 41: Can sedimentary units overlie igneous and metamorphic bodies?
Answer 41: Development within a low-perm crystalline basement or metamorphic rock overlain by sedimentary units would be considered a viable site for consideration under this FOA as long as no stimulation or circulation occurs within the sedimentary unit(s).

Question 42: What methodologies will you accept for verification of the temp requirement?
Answer 42: All quantitative temperature estimates will be accepted, with a preference for direct measurements with clear definitions of uncertainty.

Question 43: How is an existing hydrothermal system defined?
Answer 43: An existing hydrothermal field is defined as a site that has been shown to have characteristics that could support traditional hydrothermal power production, or is under development for or currently producing power from a hydrothermal system.

Question 44: Can FORGE be located on the periphery of an existing hydrothermal system?
Answer 44: Yes.

Question 45: What if the proposed site is on the margin (not within) an existing geothermal field, and it is possible (not perhaps, not known) that additional electricity production is a result of site activities?
Answer 45: A site that is deemed likely to lead to additional electricity production as a result of site activities may not be selected. It is up to the Applicant to demonstrate that the proposed site is at a sufficient distance and in sufficiently different hydrogeologic conditions to meet the objectives of FORGE without hydraulically connecting to or otherwise impacting an existing geothermal field.

Question 46: If a flowing well is not anticipated, then how can you demonstrate the efficient of this work?
Answer 46: Flow testing is permitted.

Question 47: What are your technical criteria for success? A sustainable, commercially-viable flowing well?
Answer 47: Potential milestones are listed in Section I. H. Phase 3 - Technology Testing and Evaluation. Applicants are free to present alternate and/or additional technical criteria that they believe will help meet DOE’s objectives for FORGE.

Question 48: How do you define the limits of an “operational hydrothermal field”? In other words, is a selected site outside of an existing operational field acceptable? Can you define what the edge/margin of a geothermal field is?
Answer 48: An operational hydrothermal field is defined as a site that has been shown to have characteristics that could support traditional hydrothermal power production, or is under development for or currently producing power from a hydrothermal system. A site may be located near an existing hydrothermal field. It is up to the Applicant to demonstrate that the proposed site is at a sufficient distance and in sufficiently different hydrogeologic conditions to meet the objectives of FORGE without hydraulically connecting to or otherwise impacting the operational hydrothermal field. This justification will be evaluated through a program policy factor.

Question 49: FOA Section 1 part D (page 9) “Site Characteristics” defines the “ideal” site for FORGE as “well-characterized, with a high temperature in the target formation in the range of 175-225C…. and with a target formation between 1.5 – 4 km depth” with an electricity generation outcome. Based on best available heat flow and temperature gradient information we have seen, this requirement appears to exclude potential sites in the majority of U.S. states, including all eastern States. Is it the intent of this DOE FOA to exclude all sites in the East and other areas not meeting this “ideal site” description?
Answer 49: No, it is not the intent of DOE or this FOA to exclude all sites in the East and other areas not meeting this “ideal site” description. Site characteristics including temperature and depth of target formation will be considered during merit review of all applications and will weigh into the selection decision. The intent of the FORGE initiative is to optimize the development and optimization of EGS in a site that represents the most prevalent faction of the EGS resource.

Question 50: Assuming the FOA is not amended to consider possible sites in the East for FORGE (see question above) do you anticipate a future DOE FOA that would explore geothermal site options for demonstration and/or testing in the East and mid-Western regions?
Answer 50: The Geothermal Technologies Office is not planning for a second FORGE project focused exclusively on demonstration and/or testing in the East and mid-Western regions as sites in these areas are not precluded from the current FOA.

Question 51: In lieu of a single site, would the DOE consider a proposal that included a collaboration of an Eastern site and a Western site, each focused on different research areas applicable to the region? As just one example, the Eastern site may focus on the ability of seismic and other geophysical measurements to monitor and map resource enhancements at greater depths (as will be necessary to reach similar resources in the East), a research question that requires validation experimentally at the location of interest and cannot be obtained by extrapolation from results at a shallower western site.
Answer 51: Applicants are not precluded from submitting more than one application to this FOA, provided that each application describes a unique project site concept. Each application will be evaluated on its own merits. A FORGE sit concept could include more than one physical location. It will be up to the Applicant to demonstrate that their site concept and approach will best meet DOE's objectives for FORGE.

Question 52: Since the DOE’s concern about resource depth is stated to be based on “drilling costs”, would the DOE consider a proposal in response to this FOA that involves a deeper installation with the addition of third-party funding (beyond required cost-share) to cover the additional drilling depth, assuming other research objectives could be well-demonstrated?
Answer 52: Yes.

Question 53: From a research perspective, the use of a single bottom-hole temperature at one site appears limiting. The use of an even higher-temperature resource may be preferable for some researchers, while research using a lower-temperature resource may provide valuable information that would be widely applicable as part of a national strategy to increase the impact of geothermal. For application in a research setting, a facility that has available infrastructure and resources to raise or lower the temperature on demand (using conventional district heating and chilled water energy resources through an engineered heat exchange arrangement) would provide researchers with a wider spectrum of conditions to test conversion and generation equipment and determine appropriate equipment for different resources, which would appear to improve its value as a national research facility. If research rather than demonstration is the goal, would such an arrangement be considered in lieu of the strict resource requirements stated in the FOA?
Answer 53: The objectives of this FOA are to facilitate the design and testing of a rigorous and reproducible approach for developing and sustaining large-scale, economically sustainable heat exchange systems. Because the focus of this FOA is optimization of EGS, proposals focused on direct use geothermal systems will not be considered compliant.

Question 54: Using geothermal energy for direct heat use and combined heat and power applications in the Northeast and in other northern tier states could effectively utilize lower-temperature, shallow resources to meet their substantial annual heat demand in an economically acceptable manner. Is the DOE considering a future FOA that would include this research/demonstration focus?
Answer 54: Direct heat use and combined heat and power applications are not covered under the FORGE FOA and at this time, the Enhanced Geothermal Systems Program is not planning future FOAs focused exclusively on this topic area. The Geothermal Technologies Office is, however, interested in continuing to pursue direct use and combined heat and power research in the future.

Question 55: There are many aspects of the project that need to be aligned to prepare a proper proposal and plan for phases 2 and 3, yet the time to prepare the proposal is very short. Similarly complex calls for proposals often give at least 3x as much time as is allowed for this FOA. Could DOE grant a 1-month extension to the due date?
Answer 55: DOE is aware of the complexities involved and will consider an extension if it becomes apparent that doing so would be in the best interests of the program.

Question 56: Service companies in the oil & gas business have ongoing R&D programs into HPHT (high pressure high temperature) technologies. With some adjustment (e.g., an add-on to a new R&D program or applying internal R&D resources to modify existing technology) to enable their application in the EGS environment, the developed technologies could be tested in the FORGE project. Could the application and testing of new technologies developed by service companies contribute to the cost-share requirement of the FORGE project? If so, how would the cost-share be calculated?
Answer 56: Based on the information provided, the application and testing of a privately developed new technology may be considered as cost share. Cost share must come from non-Federal funds and it must be reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the project. Please refer to Attachment 2 of the FOA and your respective cost principles for additional cost share information. Once a privately developed technology is incorporated into Federal financial assistance, the Government has rights to any and all modifications to that technology that occur during the course of the project.

Question 57: The FOA indicates that during Phase 3, at least 50% of the annual FORGE funding would be allocated to testing new technologies that will be the subject of a separate, competitive DOE solicitation. I take this to mean that DOE wants the FORGE project to be a test bed for these new technologies. I have 2 questions about this issue: a. Can the team members of the Phase 3 FORGE project submit bids to this separate R&D solicitation? (If successful, this would mean that they are implementing their own R&D idea.) b. Since a significant expenditure is likely to be required for drilling during Phase 3, would drilling costs be excluded or included when deciding what constitutes 50% of the annual FORGE funding?
Answer 57:

a. Yes, a FORGE team member may submit a bid to a separate R&D solicitation. It is incumbent on the teaming arrangements between the Prime Recipient and all subs to address any and all potential conflicts of interest including those pertaining to the selection and implementation of technologies for testing and evaluation at the FORGE site.

b. At least 50% of annual Phase 3 FORGE funding must be directed towards these competitive R&D solicitations, exclusive of funds dedicated to innovative drilling and flow testing.

Question 58: Can DOE funding for Phase 2 (A, B, or C) be used for exploration drilling, such as drilling temperature gradient wells or exploration wells to the formation target depth?
Answer 58: Yes, provided NEPA clearance has been obtained.

Question 59: Is 225 C a "hard upper limit"?
Answer 59: Temperature is an initial compliance constraint (as listed in Section V.B.2 Initial Compliance Review of the FOA). However, because temperature data is not always accurate and difficult to obtain, we will review all applications unless they are substantially above or below our preferred range of 175-225 C.

Question 60: Regarding the basic criteria for selecting the FORGE site: a. Is 225 deg C a maximum temperature? b. Define an operational hydrothermal system. Is a site adjacent to an operational hydrothermal system acceptable as a FORGE site? c. Is a hot dry rock site such as the one operated by Los Alamos Lab acceptable as a FORGE site?
Answer 60:

a. Yes, 225 C is a maximum temperature for the target reservoir. As previously stated, because temperature data is not always accurate and difficult to obtain, we will review all applications unless they are substantially above or below our preferred range of 175-225 C.

b. An operational hydrothermal field is defined as a site that has been shown to have characteristics that could support traditional hydrothermal power production, or is under development for or currently producing power from a hydrothermal system. A site may be located near an existing hydrothermal field.

c. A “hot dry rock” site could be acceptable if it meets the compliance criteria.

Question 61: What is the rational for requiring a cost share by for-profit companies? It puts them at a disadvantage with respect to universities, national labs etc and DOE wants to retain 30% of the decision making authority.
Answer 61: This determination was made since for-profit companies can potentially receive a financial benefit through participation in FORGE.

Question 62: In regards to funding for Phase 1; DE-FOA-0000890-FORGE; I don’t see a minimum or maximum amount for the budget? Would it be prudent to stay at about $200,000? What would be a good target budget amount?
Answer 62: In accordance with Section II of the FOA, approximately $2,000,000 of Federal funding is available for Phase 1 awards and EERE anticipates making up to 10 awards under Phase 1 of this FOA. A $200,000 budget for Phase 1 would therefore be consistent with this language. See Section II Table 1 of the FOA for a Summary of Anticipates Phases, Duration, Funding and Cost Share.

Question 63: Why was the T range of 175-225 C selected? What is the site has a higher downhole T of >225 C? Will they be considered or eliminated for consideration?
Answer 63: The range of 175-225 C ensures that target formation temperatures are high enough to meet goals without being too high to permit testing of a sufficiently diverse set of tools and techniques. Because temperature data is not always accurate and difficult to obtain, we will review all applications unless they are substantially above or below our preferred range of 175-225 C. A site with a downhole temperature significantly greater than 225 C in the target formation will be eliminated from consideration.

Question 64: Will DOE consider extending the closing date of the FOA?
Answer 64: Amendment 000002 to the FOA was just released. The revised closing date is now 11/12/2014.

Question 65: We are considering nominating a candidate Forge site that lies within an existing geothermal leasehold, but is located at a considerable distance from the operating geothermal plant and associated production/injection well-field and appears to be essentially impermeable itself, with deep test wells that cannot sustain fluid flow. Long-term pressure monitoring has been practiced in many of the shut-in wells in the leasehold since plant startup, including some of those within our candidate Forge site sub-area. An attenuated form of downhole pressure response has been observed in observation wells within the candidate Forge area, with substantially lower pressure disturbance amplitudes and more gradual rates of pressure change than those simultaneously observed in the main well-field. Does this presence of non-zero pressure interference response within the candidate site disqualify it for consideration under this FOA?
Answer 65: No, the presence of non-zero pressure interference response within the candidate site does not disqualify it for consideration under this FOA. Information supporting the proposed FORGE site including available pressure response data will be considered under the Merit Review Criteria, Site Suitability. It may be beneficial in circumstances similar to this where the proposed FORGE site is near a hydrothermal site, for the Applicant to provide comparison information (i.e., pressure response) between the active hydrothermal site and the proposed FORGE site to support claims that the two are not hydraulically connected and that the operational hydrothermal field will not be otherwise impacted

Question 66: Can a proposed “site” consist of more than one physical site, but that are connected by common geology or subsurface characteristics?
Answer 66: A “site” in the context of the FORGE FOA refers to not only the surface but also the subsurface target location for EGS technology testing and assessment. If the applicant seeks to operate mutually exclusive surface facilities to target the same target formation, this would be considered a viable option; though NEPA and other regulatory permitting would need to be obtained for both surface sites.

Question 67: Can an applicant submit more than one application?
Answer 67: Yes, a single proposer can submit multiple applications provided each describes a unique, scientifically distinct project and site.

Question 68: Can an applicant submit more than one application for the same site? Alternatively, can a company/entity be involved in more than one application for the same site?
Answer 68: No, a prime applicant cannot submit more than one application for the same site. However, an entity may participate as a team member on more than one application for the same site.

Question 69: Can an applicant add/change partners after the Phase 1 application is submitted?
Answer 69: Yes, teaming arrangements can be modified during the course of the project, but all changes must be reviewed and approved by the DOE Contracting Officer.

Question 70: Will DOE address a project site outside the stated boundary conditions (T, depth, etc) if the application includes specific mitigation steps such as tools or technologies?
Answer 70: If a site is outside boundary conditions that are identified as Initial Technical Compliance Criteria (Section V.B.2), the application would be deemed non-responsive and would not advance to technical merit review.

Question 71: For the ten projects in Phase 1, how will DOE address the potential for over-subscription by certain researchers/PIs, who may be involved in multiple projects?
Answer 71: DOE will address this as per any other FOA. Labor hours and percentage of time contributed to the proposed project by key personnel are taken into account as well as their contributions to other ongoing and proposed projects.

Question 72: How will DOE weigh and consider the potential listing of sage grouse? Will that lead to preference for some sites over others?
Answer 72: Impacts to habitat among other environmental and cultural aspects will be considered as part of the preliminary NEPA review process and could affect the suitability of the proposed site during merit review.

Question 73: At what point exactly is the lack of full NEPA and regulatory prep and compliance a non-starter?
Answer 73: By the close of Phase 2B, the ability to secure NEPA compliance should be evident. If unable at this time to satisfactorily demonstrate the ability to achieve NEPA compliance, the project would not pass the go/no-go decision point to Phase 2C.

Question 74: Will DOE consider keeping a back-up project “live” into Phase 3, to account for the possibility of an early “failure” of the selected site?
Answer 74: If a team or teams successfully completes all phase 2A and 2B requirements but is not selected to move forward, DOE may elect to select the team/teams as alternates.

Question 75: How will DOE deal with applications which bring state or local level funds or incentives to the bid?
Answer 75: All proposed cost share will be evaluated in accordance with the applicable cost principles. Cost share must come from non-Federal funds and it must be reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the project. Please refer to Attachment 2 of the FOA and your respective cost principles for additional cost share information.

Question 76: What happens if an entity fails, folds or simply decides it no longer wants to proceed?
Answer 76: There are too many variables to address this question thoroughly, but negotiations between DOE and Recipient would need to take place to address the specifics of the situation.

Question 77: What happens if DOE gets only 3 applications in Phase 1?
Answer 77: All applications received, whether 3 or 33, will be reviewed in accordance with the process outlined in the FOA.

Question 78: How will DOE deal with early R&D testing results, which require a dramatic change in scope? Could this possibly lead to termination of the project?
Answer 78: A Science and Technology Analysis Team, or equivalent technical monitoring body, will assess progress and results of all R&D technology and techniques implemented at FORGE and provide input to the Site Operator regarding ongoing activities and potential changes in scope. Results that compromise the ability of the project to continue to meet DOE objectives for FORGE will lead to discussions between DOE and the Recipient as to the proposed future of the project.

Question 79: How do environmental and safety factor into selection?
Answer 79: Environmental and safety factors will be considered during the Merit Review Process (see Section V.B.3).

Question 80: Can you provide an outline of the ideal subsurface physical rock properties for a proposed site?
Answer 80:

The ideal FORGE site is:

• Well characterized, with high temperatures in the target formation in the range of 175-225 C
• Moderate permeability of order 10-16 m2, below the limit that typically supports natural hydrothermal systems
• Target formation between 1.5-4 km depth, to avoid excessive costs associated with the drilling of new wells while attaining stress and temperature characteristics that are suitable to EGS and advancement of new technologies
• Must not be within an operational hydrothermal field
• Does not stimulate or circulate fluids through overlying sedimentary units, if applicable.

Question 81: How is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) partnered with DOE in this effort?
Answer 81: BLM is not officially partnered with DOE in this effort though they may have federal representation in the review of applications and may be appointed by DOE as representation on the Science and Science and Technology Analysis Team or equivalent technical monitoring body.

Question 82: The resume page limit: Is it 2 pages like is listed in the summary on page 35, however, page 33 says 3 pages?
Answer 82: The summary on page 35 is incorrect. A resume page limit of 3 pages is acceptable.

Question 83: For the Appendices I would like to insert pages that say Appendix, 1, Appendix 2 etc. This should not affect the page limit, correct?
Answer 83: Correct. Introductory pages that serve to identify the section would not be considered under the page limit.

Question 84: In Phase 3, the Funding Opportunity Announcement states “At least 50% of annual Phase 3 FORGE funding must be directed towards these competitive R&D solicitations, exclusive of funds dedicated to innovative drilling and flow testing.” Can members of the selected proposal (i.e., members of the Site Management Team) apply for these competitive R&D solicitations? Or can members of the selected proposal team bypass the competitive R&D solicitation process and use up to 50% of funds not dedicated to innovative drilling and flow testing to carry out R&D activities that they deem necessary or worthwhile?
Answer 84: A FORGE team member may submit a bid to a separate R&D solicitation. It is incumbent on the teaming arrangements between the Prime Recipient and all subs to address any and all potential conflicts of interest including those pertaining to the selection and implementation of technologies for testing and evaluation at the FORGE site. FORGE team members cannot bypass the competitive R&D solicitation process.

Question 85: I was of the understanding that teaming lists are available. Where do I find these?
Answer 85: Any entity interested in sharing their information with the end goal of the facilitation of a new project team can send the following to DE-FOA-0000890-FORGE@netl.doe.gov:

-Organization Name
-Organization Type
-Contact Name/Phone Number/Email
-Area of Technical Expertise
-Brief Description of Capabilities (not to exceed 500 characters)

Anyone who sends this information is consenting to the publication of this information. EERE does not endorse or evaluate any of the entities that chose to take this step. Please note: EERE has not yet received any requests to join the teaming list, hence no information is currently posted.

Question 86: Updated Teaming List 9-29-14
Answer 86: Name: Mark McClure
Organization and title: Assistant Professor, The University of Texas at Austin
Contact: mcclure@austin.utexas.edu
Area of technical expertise: Computational modeling, hydraulic fracturing
Brief description of capabilities:
I am a petroleum engineer who specializes in computational modeling of hydraulic fracturing. As a part of my PhD at Stanford University with Roland Horne, I developed a discrete fracture network simulator that fully couples fluid flow with the stresses induced by fracture opening and sliding in large, complex fracture networks, including shear stimulation of natural fractures and propagation of newly forming hydraulic fractures. I have been using this code to participate in the GTO's code comparison project. Published work so far has been 2D, but recently we have finished extending the code to 3D. The code is efficient enough to do a field scale simulation of a stimulation treatment in a 3D network with thousands of fractures on a single compute node in one day. Recently, we have finished adding in thermal transport, tracer or fluid additive transport, alternative fluids such as CO2 (though the simulator is still single phase), and we are in the process of adding proppant transport. I have a deep knowledge of reservoir engineering, and especially a knowledge of EGS. My PhD was primarily on EGS, and I have read deeply about every EGS project in the literature, from Fenton Hill to present. I also have extensive knowledge on the topic of induced seismicity and several publications on that subject as well. My most recent work on EGS has been about our uncertainty on stimulation mechanism (newly formed versus preexisting fractures) and on the likely advantages and practicality of doing multiple stage fracturing in an EGS well.

Question 87: Updated Teaming List 9-30-14 (cumulative)
Answer 87:

Organization Name
Desert Research Institute (DRI); www.dri.edu
Organization Type
Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email
Dr. Jennifer Frederick
(775) 673-7455
jenn@dri.edu (preferred)
Area of Technical Expertise
discrete fracture networks; numerical modeling; heat transfer; thermodynamics; energy analysis/assessment; life cycle analysis
Brief Description of Capabilities (not to exceed 500 characters)
Research faculty at DRI and the Clean Technologies and Renewable Energy Center (CTREC; www.dri.edu/ctrec) are interested in participating with organized project teams for proposal development and in Science and Technology Analysis Teams (STATs).

Name: Mark McClure
Organization and title: Assistant Professor, The University of Texas at Austin
Contact: mcclure@austin.utexas.edu
Area of technical expertise: Computational modeling, hydraulic fracturing
Brief description of capabilities:
I am a petroleum engineer who specializes in computational modeling of hydraulic fracturing. As a part of my PhD at Stanford University with Roland Horne, I developed a discrete fracture network simulator that fully couples fluid flow with the stresses induced by fracture opening and sliding in large, complex fracture networks, including shear stimulation of natural fractures and propagation of newly forming hydraulic fractures. I have been using this code to participate in the GTO's code comparison project. Published work so far has been 2D, but recently we have finished extending the code to 3D. The code is efficient enough to do a field scale simulation of a stimulation treatment in a 3D network with thousands of fractures on a single compute node in one day. Recently, we have finished adding in thermal transport, tracer or fluid additive transport, alternative fluids such as CO2 (though the simulator is still single phase), and we are in the process of adding proppant transport. I have a deep knowledge of reservoir engineering, and especially a knowledge of EGS. My PhD was primarily on EGS, and I have read deeply about every EGS project in the literature, from Fenton Hill to present. I also have extensive knowledge on the topic of induced seismicity and several publications on that subject as well. My most recent work on EGS has been about our uncertainty on stimulation mechanism (newly formed versus preexisting fractures) and on the likely advantages and practicality of doing multiple stage fracturing in an EGS well.

Question 88: Updated Teaming List 10-6-14 (cumulative)
Answer 88:

Organization; F. Environmental Colombia. Colambiental NGOs
Type of organization; No governmental, private
Contact:
Name; MSc. John Jairo Baena. CEO and President Colambiental
Telephone, cell; 311 364 96 22 Medellín. Colombia
E-mail; msc.johnjbaena.civilengineer@gmail.com
colambientalong@gmail.com
knowledge; Engineering Management in advanced renewable energy systems. Clean Energy Engineering
capabilities; Engineering Consultancy. Project Supervision. Interventoria and quality controls
Administration and management of the construction processes and assembly of physical infrastructures advanced systems of renewable energy and clean energy engineering.
Agreements and strategic alliances with investors for the development and operation of power systems.

Organization Name
Desert Research Institute (DRI); www.dri.edu
Organization Type
Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email
Dr. Jennifer Frederick
(775) 673-7455
jenn@dri.edu (preferred)
Area of Technical Expertise
discrete fracture networks; numerical modeling; heat transfer; thermodynamics; energy analysis/assessment; life cycle analysis
Brief Description of Capabilities (not to exceed 500 characters)
Research faculty at DRI and the Clean Technologies and Renewable Energy Center (CTREC; www.dri.edu/ctrec) are interested in participating with organized project teams for proposal development and in Science and Technology Analysis Teams (STATs).

Name: Mark McClure
Organization and title: Assistant Professor, The University of Texas at Austin
Contact: mcclure@austin.utexas.edu
Area of technical expertise: Computational modeling, hydraulic fracturing
Brief description of capabilities:
I am a petroleum engineer who specializes in computational modeling of hydraulic fracturing. As a part of my PhD at Stanford University with Roland Horne, I developed a discrete fracture network simulator that fully couples fluid flow with the stresses induced by fracture opening and sliding in large, complex fracture networks, including shear stimulation of natural fractures and propagation of newly forming hydraulic fractures. I have been using this code to participate in the GTO's code comparison project. Published work so far has been 2D, but recently we have finished extending the code to 3D. The code is efficient enough to do a field scale simulation of a stimulation treatment in a 3D network with thousands of fractures on a single compute node in one day. Recently, we have finished adding in thermal transport, tracer or fluid additive transport, alternative fluids such as CO2 (though the simulator is still single phase), and we are in the process of adding proppant transport. I have a deep knowledge of reservoir engineering, and especially a knowledge of EGS. My PhD was primarily on EGS, and I have read deeply about every EGS project in the literature, from Fenton Hill to present. I also have extensive knowledge on the topic of induced seismicity and several publications on that subject as well. My most recent work on EGS has been about our uncertainty on stimulation mechanism (newly formed versus preexisting fractures) and on the likely advantages and practicality of doing multiple stage fracturing in an EGS well.

Question 89: Updated Teaming List 10-9-14 (cumulative)
Answer 89:

Organization Name: Leidos, Inc.
Organization Type: Private corporation.
Contact Name/Phone Number/E-mail:
Sabodh K. Garg, 858-826-1615, sabodh.k.garg@leidos.com, and/or
John W. Pritchett, 858-826-1628, john.w.pritchett@leidos.com, and/or
Benjamin C. Kohl, 303-574-8019, benjamin.c.kohl@leidos.com.
Areas of Technical Expertise:
Reservoir engineering, geophysics, numerical simulation, modeling, well test and log interpretation, resource assessment, microseismicity, seismic monitoring.
Brief Description of Capabilities:
Garg and Pritchett each have over forty years of continuous experience in geothermal reservoir engineering, resource assessment, numerical reservoir modeling/simulation, modeling software development, geothermal field test monitoring/interpretation, microseismic monitoring, pressure transient and downhole log interpretation, and related activities. External and in-house specialized consultants also available if needed. We can work with FORGE proposal teams and participate in STAT groups.

Organization; F. Environmental Colombia. Colambiental NGOs
Type of organization; No governmental, private
Contact:
Name; MSc. John Jairo Baena. CEO and President Colambiental
Telephone, cell; 311 364 96 22 Medellín. Colombia
E-mail; msc.johnjbaena.civilengineer@gmail.com
colambientalong@gmail.com
knowledge; Engineering Management in advanced renewable energy systems. Clean Energy Engineering
capabilities; Engineering Consultancy. Project Supervision. Interventoria and quality controls
Administration and management of the construction processes and assembly of physical infrastructures advanced systems of renewable energy and clean energy engineering.
Agreements and strategic alliances with investors for the development and operation of power systems.

Organization Name
Desert Research Institute (DRI); www.dri.edu
Organization Type
Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email
Dr. Jennifer Frederick
(775) 673-7455
jenn@dri.edu (preferred)
Area of Technical Expertise
discrete fracture networks; numerical modeling; heat transfer; thermodynamics; energy analysis/assessment; life cycle analysis
Brief Description of Capabilities (not to exceed 500 characters)
Research faculty at DRI and the Clean Technologies and Renewable Energy Center (CTREC; www.dri.edu/ctrec) are interested in participating with organized project teams for proposal development and in Science and Technology Analysis Teams (STATs).

Name: Mark McClure
Organization and title: Assistant Professor, The University of Texas at Austin
Contact: mcclure@austin.utexas.edu
Area of technical expertise: Computational modeling, hydraulic fracturing
Brief description of capabilities:
I am a petroleum engineer who specializes in computational modeling of hydraulic fracturing. As a part of my PhD at Stanford University with Roland Horne, I developed a discrete fracture network simulator that fully couples fluid flow with the stresses induced by fracture opening and sliding in large, complex fracture networks, including shear stimulation of natural fractures and propagation of newly forming hydraulic fractures. I have been using this code to participate in the GTO's code comparison project. Published work so far has been 2D, but recently we have finished extending the code to 3D. The code is efficient enough to do a field scale simulation of a stimulation treatment in a 3D network with thousands of fractures on a single compute node in one day. Recently, we have finished adding in thermal transport, tracer or fluid additive transport, alternative fluids such as CO2 (though the simulator is still single phase), and we are in the process of adding proppant transport. I have a deep knowledge of reservoir engineering, and especially a knowledge of EGS. My PhD was primarily on EGS, and I have read deeply about every EGS project in the literature, from Fenton Hill to present. I also have extensive knowledge on the topic of induced seismicity and several publications on that subject as well. My most recent work on EGS has been about our uncertainty on stimulation mechanism (newly formed versus preexisting fractures) and on the likely advantages and practicality of doing multiple stage fracturing in an EGS well.

Question 90: What is the difference between the SOPO discussion and the PMP milestone log? Can we combine the SOPO discussion and the PMP milestone log as one section, or do they have to remain as individual sections? May we use Landscaped pages for tables or graphics?
Answer 90: The Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) defines the tasks and subtasks necessary to achieve the project’s stated objectives. The SOPO represents the Technical Approach section of the Applicant’s overall Technical Volume. The SOPO format is provided as Attachment 5 of the FOA and the final SOPO of selected projects will become part of the Cooperative Agreement. The Project Management Plan (PMP) represents key components of the Project Organization and Management section of the Applicant’s overall Technical Volume. The PMP should follow the format provided as Attachment 6 of the FOA. The PMP should include a milestone log that provides the title of the milestone, the planned date of the milestone, and the method that will be used to verify that the milestone has been achieved. The SOPO and PMP are separate components of the overall Technical Volume. Landscape tables and graphs are allowed.

Question 91: Attachment 5 Statement of Project Objectives, under the section titled, MEETINGS AND PROJECT BRIEFINGS states that the recipient shall prepare detailed briefings for presentation to the DOE Project Officer at the officer’s location in Pittsburgh, PA or Morgantown, WY, or alternate site as designated by the Project Officer. The Principal Investigator and Technical Point of Contact is located in a destination outside of these areas. May we include TRAVEL expenses in budget of Phase one? Or will there be other means of giving a briefing like SKYPE, webinar, conference call etc.
Answer 91: Applicants may include travel costs in the Phase 1 budget if they feel they are necessary to successfully complete the scope of the project. Alternately, the DOE is always open to utilizing other cost-saving methods for meetings such as webinars or conference calls.

Question 92: In trying to plan out the schedule of activities, I need to know how long DOE anticipates awarding of funds once a notice of award is made. Basically, when do you anticipate we can begin work after the 3/31/15 notice of award? Also, how long will the review/down-select process take to go from Phase 1 to Phase 2? This can be critical in scheduling field work activities, etc.
Answer 92: Once notice of award is made, DOE anticipates that projects could begin within sixty (60) days. As noted in Section II.E. of the FOA, Phase 1 work must be completed within nine (9) months. The remaining three (3) months of the first year will be the down-select process. Please recall that these are anticipated dates that are subject to change.

Question 93: I am concerned about the Financial Management System requirement. As a DOE FFRDC we meet the requirement, but we are not supposed to certify the listed CFR to other Government entities from what has been I understand. Can this requirement be waived?
Answer 93: As a DOE FFRDC, it is sufficient that the applicant include a signed letter certifying that their financial accounting system can accumulate, segregate, record and report costs by project.

Question 94: In a bold-lined box in Attachment 3, there appears the following statement: For each italicized data element below, please provide the following: • Year(s) of data collection • Tool/Methodology • Application Page Number where values are detailed Presumably, the discussion for each italicized item should, and would likely anyway, include information about period of data collection and methods used, but what is meant by the last item: "• Application Page Number where values are detailed"? Does that mean each italicized item should refer back to the relevant page of the main technical volume, IF the data are referenced in the technical volume? Otherwise, it seems to suggest that the page number on which the information appears contain its own page number.
Answer 94: Yes, the direction to provide the “application page number where values are detailed” does mean to refer back to the relevant page of the main technical volume where details of the specific data element were discussed, if applicable.

Question 95: Updated Teaming List 10-22-14 (cumulative)
Answer 95:

Organization: M&E Engineers, Inc
Organization Type: Private Corporation
Contact Name: William Amann, PE, LEED AP
Contact Number: 908-526-5700
Contact Email: wamann@meengineers.com
Area of Technical Expertise: Energy modeling, Engineering Design, and Commissioning
Description of Capabilities: M&E Engineers can provide Energy Modeling, Engineering Design and Commissioning for open loop and closed loop ground-coupled systems.

Organization : Los Alamos National laboratory
Name Organization Type : National Laboratory
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email : Sharad Kelkar / 505 667 4639 / kelkar@lanl.gov
Area of Technical Expertise: Reservoir Simulation, Seismic Imaging, Tracer Testing, Geologic Characterization, Geochemcial Analysis, Economic Analysis, Downhole sensors
Brief Description of Capabilities : Beginning with the world’s first EGS demonstration, LANL has continued to develop and apply advanced technology at EGS projects around the world. The reservoir simulation capabilities at LANL include THMC modeling with complex geochemical interactions and tracer transport. LANL has world class expertise in seismic imaging with active and passive methods. LANL has laboratory and simulation capabilities for subsurface characterization using tracers and geochemical analysis. Projects are under way at LANL for high resolution fracture imaging using nonlinear acoustics and downhole acoustic sensors

Organization: Steamboat Energy Consultants
Name Organization Type: Consultants
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email:
John C. Lamb, President 970-870-9964 John.lamb@steamboatenergy.com
Area of Technical Expertise: Oil & Gas Operations, Reclamation Supervision, Stormwater Management, Mineral Advisement
Brief Description of Capabilities : Steamboat Energy Consultants is a solutions-based company that is truly committed to providing our clients with the specific tools and expertise that are required to complete each project in a timely and cost effective manner. We offer a complete package of consulting services to accommodate the specific and ever-evolving needs of the energy industry and are prepared to immediately begin work whenever and wherever we are needed. Within our team, we have professionals that are trained and experienced within the following areas: Environmental compliance, Project management, Safety engineering, Field supervision of drilling, Completion and workover operations. In addition, we help you manage the construction of production infrastructure such as tank batteries, pipelines and compression facilities. Above and beyond the management and supervision of operations, we also offer land professionals, petroleum and civil engineering as well as petroleum geology.

Organization Name: Leidos, Inc.
Organization Type: Private corporation.
Contact Name/Phone Number/E-mail:
Sabodh K. Garg, 858-826-1615, sabodh.k.garg@leidos.com, and/or
John W. Pritchett, 858-826-1628, john.w.pritchett@leidos.com, and/or
Benjamin C. Kohl, 303-574-8019, benjamin.c.kohl@leidos.com.
Areas of Technical Expertise:
Reservoir engineering, geophysics, numerical simulation, modeling, well test and log interpretation, resource assessment, microseismicity, seismic monitoring.
Brief Description of Capabilities:
Garg and Pritchett each have over forty years of continuous experience in geothermal reservoir engineering, resource assessment, numerical reservoir modeling/simulation, modeling software development, geothermal field test monitoring/interpretation, microseismic monitoring, pressure transient and downhole log interpretation, and related activities. External and in-house specialized consultants also available if needed. We can work with FORGE proposal teams and participate in STAT groups.

Organization; F. Environmental Colombia. Colambiental NGOs
Type of organization; No governmental, private
Contact:
Name; MSc. John Jairo Baena. CEO and President Colambiental
Telephone, cell; 311 364 96 22 Medellín. Colombia
E-mail; msc.johnjbaena.civilengineer@gmail.com
colambientalong@gmail.com
knowledge; Engineering Management in advanced renewable energy systems. Clean Energy Engineering
capabilities; Engineering Consultancy. Project Supervision. Interventoria and quality controls
Administration and management of the construction processes and assembly of physical infrastructures advanced systems of renewable energy and clean energy engineering.
Agreements and strategic alliances with investors for the development and operation of power systems.

Organization Name
Desert Research Institute (DRI); www.dri.edu
Organization Type
Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email
Dr. Jennifer Frederick
(775) 673-7455
jenn@dri.edu (preferred)
Area of Technical Expertise
discrete fracture networks; numerical modeling; heat transfer; thermodynamics; energy analysis/assessment; life cycle analysis
Brief Description of Capabilities (not to exceed 500 characters)
Research faculty at DRI and the Clean Technologies and Renewable Energy Center (CTREC; www.dri.edu/ctrec) are interested in participating with organized project teams for proposal development and in Science and Technology Analysis Teams (STATs).

Name: Mark McClure
Organization and title: Assistant Professor, The University of Texas at Austin
Contact: mcclure@austin.utexas.edu
Area of technical expertise: Computational modeling, hydraulic fracturing
Brief description of capabilities:
I am a petroleum engineer who specializes in computational modeling of hydraulic fracturing. As a part of my PhD at Stanford University with Roland Horne, I developed a discrete fracture network simulator that fully couples fluid flow with the stresses induced by fracture opening and sliding in large, complex fracture networks, including shear stimulation of natural fractures and propagation of newly forming hydraulic fractures. I have been using this code to participate in the GTO's code comparison project. Published work so far has been 2D, but recently we have finished extending the code to 3D. The code is efficient enough to do a field scale simulation of a stimulation treatment in a 3D network with thousands of fractures on a single compute node in one day. Recently, we have finished adding in thermal transport, tracer or fluid additive transport, alternative fluids such as CO2 (though the simulator is still single phase), and we are in the process of adding proppant transport. I have a deep knowledge of reservoir engineering, and especially a knowledge of EGS. My PhD was primarily on EGS, and I have read deeply about every EGS project in the literature, from Fenton Hill to present. I also have extensive knowledge on the topic of induced seismicity and several publications on that subject as well. My most recent work on EGS has been about our uncertainty on stimulation mechanism (newly formed versus preexisting fractures) and on the likely advantages and practicality of doing multiple stage fracturing in an EGS well.

Question 96: Updated Teaming List 10-23-14 (cumulative)
Answer 96:

Organization Name: Thermal Biology Institute (TBI) and Center for Biofilm Engineering (CBE) at Montana State University
Organization Type: Applied Academic Research
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email: Dr. Brent Peyton, TBI Director, 406-994-7419, bpeyton@coe.montana.edu
Area of Technical Expertise: High Temperature Microbiology, Biofilm Control, and Biogeochemical Engineering
Brief Description of Capabilities: The TBI and CBE are internationally known for robust characterization of high temperature microorganisms and biofilm/fouling characterization and control. Our combined capabilities in these areas are an ideal fit for applied research in Geothermal Systems where high temperature biofilms can foul heat exchangers, subsurface formations, and other process equipment drastically reducing efficiency and leading to corrosion, plugging, and equipment failures. Technical capabilities include developing biofilm control strategies and characterization of high temperature microbes and environments via culturing, (meta)genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics integrated with biogeochemistry. For more information (www.biofilm.montana.edu and www.tbi.montana.edu).

Organization: Foulger Consulting
Name Organization Type: Woman-owned consulting company specialising in advance microearthquake analysis
Contact: Gillian R. Foulger / 650-996-8886 / gillian@foulgerconsulting.com
Area of technical expertise: Microearthquake analysis and interpretation. Description of capabilities: Foulger Consulting is a sole proprietorship owned by Gillian R. Foulger, Ph.D., and registered in the State of California. We provide consulting services on all aspects of passive seismic (microearthquake) surveying of geothermal and hydrocarbon reservoirs, including field operations, data acquisition, data processing, interpretation, and the preparation of material to satisfy regulatory requirements. We have experience in reservoirs in Iceland, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, and are currently working in California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Ongoing work includes Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) projects, using microearthquakes to image zones of permeability created by hydrofracturing reservoirs. We have worked on a number of DoE contracts, both as grant-holder and sub-contractor. Our management and accounting processes are DCAA-compliant. We have a significant research and development program that involves advancing mathematical and theoretical approaches, and the preparation of new software. Please visit http://foulgerconsulting.com for more information.

Organization: M&E Engineers, Inc
Organization Type: Private Corporation
Contact Name: William Amann, PE, LEED AP
Contact Number: 908-526-5700
Contact Email: wamann@meengineers.com
Area of Technical Expertise: Energy modeling, Engineering Design, and Commissioning
Description of Capabilities: M&E Engineers can provide Energy Modeling, Engineering Design and Commissioning for open loop and closed loop ground-coupled systems.

Organization: Los Alamos National laboratory
Name Organization Type: National Laboratory
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email: Sharad Kelkar / 505 667 4639 / kelkar@lanl.gov
Area of Technical Expertise: Reservoir Simulation, Seismic Imaging, Tracer Testing, Geologic Characterization, Geochemcial Analysis, Economic Analysis, Downhole sensors
Brief Description of Capabilities: Beginning with the world’s first EGS demonstration, LANL has continued to develop and apply advanced technology at EGS projects around the world. The reservoir simulation capabilities at LANL include THMC modeling with complex geochemical interactions and tracer transport. LANL has world class expertise in seismic imaging with active and passive methods. LANL has laboratory and simulation capabilities for subsurface characterization using tracers and geochemical analysis. Projects are under way at LANL for high resolution fracture imaging using nonlinear acoustics and downhole acoustic sensors

Organization: Steamboat Energy Consultants
Name Organization Type: Consultants
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email:
John C. Lamb, President 970-870-9964 John.lamb@steamboatenergy.com
Area of Technical Expertise: Oil & Gas Operations, Reclamation Supervision, Stormwater Management, Mineral Advisement
Brief Description of Capabilities : Steamboat Energy Consultants is a solutions-based company that is truly committed to providing our clients with the specific tools and expertise that are required to complete each project in a timely and cost effective manner. We offer a complete package of consulting services to accommodate the specific and ever-evolving needs of the energy industry and are prepared to immediately begin work whenever and wherever we are needed. Within our team, we have professionals that are trained and experienced within the following areas: Environmental compliance, Project management, Safety engineering, Field supervision of drilling, Completion and workover operations. In addition, we help you manage the construction of production infrastructure such as tank batteries, pipelines and compression facilities. Above and beyond the management and supervision of operations, we also offer land professionals, petroleum and civil engineering as well as petroleum geology.

Organization Name: Leidos, Inc.
Organization Type: Private corporation.
Contact Name/Phone Number/E-mail:
Sabodh K. Garg, 858-826-1615, sabodh.k.garg@leidos.com, and/or
John W. Pritchett, 858-826-1628, john.w.pritchett@leidos.com, and/or
Benjamin C. Kohl, 303-574-8019, benjamin.c.kohl@leidos.com.
Areas of Technical Expertise:
Reservoir engineering, geophysics, numerical simulation, modeling, well test and log interpretation, resource assessment, microseismicity, seismic monitoring.
Brief Description of Capabilities:
Garg and Pritchett each have over forty years of continuous experience in geothermal reservoir engineering, resource assessment, numerical reservoir modeling/simulation, modeling software development, geothermal field test monitoring/interpretation, microseismic monitoring, pressure transient and downhole log interpretation, and related activities. External and in-house specialized consultants also available if needed. We can work with FORGE proposal teams and participate in STAT groups.

Organization; F. Environmental Colombia. Colambiental NGOs
Type of organization; No governmental, private
Contact:
Name; MSc. John Jairo Baena. CEO and President Colambiental
Telephone, cell; 311 364 96 22 Medellín. Colombia
E-mail; msc.johnjbaena.civilengineer@gmail.com
colambientalong@gmail.com
knowledge; Engineering Management in advanced renewable energy systems. Clean Energy Engineering
capabilities; Engineering Consultancy. Project Supervision. Interventoria and quality controls
Administration and management of the construction processes and assembly of physical infrastructures advanced systems of renewable energy and clean energy engineering.
Agreements and strategic alliances with investors for the development and operation of power systems.

Organization Name
Desert Research Institute (DRI); www.dri.edu
Organization Type
Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email
Dr. Jennifer Frederick
(775) 673-7455
jenn@dri.edu (preferred)
Area of Technical Expertise
discrete fracture networks; numerical modeling; heat transfer; thermodynamics; energy analysis/assessment; life cycle analysis
Brief Description of Capabilities (not to exceed 500 characters)
Research faculty at DRI and the Clean Technologies and Renewable Energy Center (CTREC; www.dri.edu/ctrec) are interested in participating with organized project teams for proposal development and in Science and Technology Analysis Teams (STATs).

Name: Mark McClure
Organization and title: Assistant Professor, The University of Texas at Austin
Contact: mcclure@austin.utexas.edu
Area of technical expertise: Computational modeling, hydraulic fracturing
Brief description of capabilities:
I am a petroleum engineer who specializes in computational modeling of hydraulic fracturing. As a part of my PhD at Stanford University with Roland Horne, I developed a discrete fracture network simulator that fully couples fluid flow with the stresses induced by fracture opening and sliding in large, complex fracture networks, including shear stimulation of natural fractures and propagation of newly forming hydraulic fractures. I have been using this code to participate in the GTO's code comparison project. Published work so far has been 2D, but recently we have finished extending the code to 3D. The code is efficient enough to do a field scale simulation of a stimulation treatment in a 3D network with thousands of fractures on a single compute node in one day. Recently, we have finished adding in thermal transport, tracer or fluid additive transport, alternative fluids such as CO2 (though the simulator is still single phase), and we are in the process of adding proppant transport. I have a deep knowledge of reservoir engineering, and especially a knowledge of EGS. My PhD was primarily on EGS, and I have read deeply about every EGS project in the literature, from Fenton Hill to present. I also have extensive knowledge on the topic of induced seismicity and several publications on that subject as well. My most recent work on EGS has been about our uncertainty on stimulation mechanism (newly formed versus preexisting fractures) and on the likely advantages and practicality of doing multiple stage fracturing in an EGS well.

Question 97: Our Technical Volume has multiple citations and references. Where can I safely create a Reference page for the Technical Volume without it being counted in the page limits? May I add an Appendix E for References or is the Reference page required to be included in the Technical Volume? In Section IV.C.2.a. it states: "The technical volume shall not exceed the specified page limits, single spaced, including Cover Page, Table of Contents, charts, graphs, maps, photographs, and other pictorial presentations...." I understand that to mean the Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Reference pages to be part of the specific page count. For example: Technical Approach is a 10 page limit. That means that 3 pages of the Technical Volume limit could possibly include the Cover Page, Table of Content, and References. Question 83 indicates that the Appendixes could have a title page, table of contents and reference pages because those sections are unlimited.
Answer 97: Amendment 00004 to the FOA will be issued to clarify this scenario. References and citations are not to be included in the specified page limits and any cover pages or title pages inserted in the various sections of the Technical Volume for organizational purposes are not to be included in the specified page limits.

Question 98: Page 26: The Technical Volume must not exceed the specified page limits (see Technical Volume Format below for specific page limits relating to each section), single spaced, including cover page, table of contents, charts, graphs, maps, photographs, and other pictorial presentations, when printed using standard 8.5” by 11” paper with 1 inch margins (top, bottom, left, and right). Reading this and adding the page totals together The Technical Volume without Appendices will equal 37 pages. For confirmation: Are Front matter and Section title pages included in the 37 page limit?
Answer 98: The Technical Volume has four sections that are 47 pages in total, not 37:
Summary and Introduction – 2 page limit
Site Suitability – 15 page limit
Technical Approach – 10 page limit
Project Organization and Project Management Plan – 20 page limit
It is unclear what “Front Matter” is, but a Section title page, which is simply for clarity and organizational purposes, would be acceptable and would not be considered in the page count.
As stated in a prior question, Amendment 00004 to the FOA will be issued to clarify this scenario. References and citations are not to be included in the specified page limits and any cover pages or title pages inserted in the various sections of the Technical Volume for organizational purposes are not to be included in the specified page limits.

Question 99: RE: Appendix B – Site Characterization Data Inventory – Format in attachment 3 We have over 150 publications, 100 maps and over 100 logs in our data inventory for the proposed project. Appendix B is currently 30 pages long and we have not yet addressed all of the elements as outlined in attachment 3. There are too many values to list individually. We estimate they could easily number in the 100’s of thousands to millions (consider the data in a log). It is not feasible to list individual data for each element as requested in attachment 3 for Appendix B (Year of data collection, tool/methodology and application page number where the value is detailed). Please give suggestions or clarify our interpretation of attachment 3.
Answer 99: The intent of the Site Characterization Data Inventory is to establish baseline characterization data and to support the site's suitability as a FORGE site. It is expected that this data will be expanded upon and enhanced during the duration of the project. GTO appreciates that some Applicants may have years of recorded data on their proposed site as well as data provided through multiple investigative techniques. It is not the intent to gather all such data at this time but rather it is incumbent on the Applicant to provide the most representative data to support determinations on the site's suitability. If a large number of datasets are necessary to describe temporal or spatial variability of the site then this would seem appropriate to provide. GTO would prefer that the Applicant address a broad number of site characterization parameters listed in Attachment 3 of the FOA with the most relevant information rather than only a few parameters with multiple datasets of similar supporting information.

Question 100: In reference to Question 84 - In Phase 3, the Funding Opportunity Announcement states “At least 50% of annual Phase 3 FORGE funding must be directed towards these competitive R&D solicitations, exclusive of funds dedicated to innovative drilling and flow testing.” If one takes total funding minus cost of drilling and flow testing minus 50% of remaining funds there will remain a finite amount of funds. Is it prohibited that any portion of these remaining funds can be used for FORGE related research by the recipient and other members of the proposal team?
Answer 100:

ANSWER AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF THE FORGE FOA: Of the total funding, 50% is to be used for competitive R&D. The remaining 50% is to be used for drilling and flow testing as well as other operational costs. DOE envisions that both ongoing “core” and novel site characterization would be included in the R&D portion of the funding.

It is not prohibited that a portion of these remaining funds be used for FORGE related research by the recipient and other members of the proposal team. However, FORGE team members cannot bypass the competitive R&D solicitation process. A FORGE team member may submit a bid to a separate R&D solicitation. It is incumbent on the teaming arrangements between the Prime Recipient and all subs to address any and all potential conflicts of interest including those pertaining to the selection and implementation of technologies for testing and evaluation at the FORGE site.

Question 101: Our team has a number of members who will not be funded in Phase 1. Do we need to list them in the "Key Participants" section on ExChange?
Answer 101: Yes – please list the team members, even if they are not to be funded in Phase 1. For review purposes it is appropriate to know all the team members so that potential conflicts of interest can be addressed early in the process.

Question 102: Updated Teaming List 10-24-14 (cumulative)
Answer 102:

Organization Name: Dewhurst Group
Organization Type: Geophysical Consultancy
Contact Name/Phone Number/Email Kerry McCallum Cell: 360.989.6970 Office: 301.916.8996 US 716.566.5887 Colombia
k.mccallum@dewhurstgroup.us
Area of Technical Expertise: Magnetotelluric Survey and 1D, 2D, and 3D Inversions
Brief Description of Capabilities: The Dewhurst Group (DG) is a geophysical exploration Service Company specializing in magnetotelluric (MT) surveys for geothermal exploration. With some of the world’s foremost experts, DG uniquely highlights unparalleled proficiency in MT methods. Our acquisition tools include equipment from Metronix and customized instrumentation designed for use on geothermal projects by DG personnel, including experimental UAV sensor packages. We also develop and use our own proprietary processing and analytical software to complete 1D, 2D and 3D inversions.