2016年-世界发展银行全球_Comparative_Analysis_of_Approaches_to_Geothermal_Resource_Risk_Mitigation___A_Global_Survey_46页_929kb

Summary of Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Geothermal Resource Risk Mitigation: A Global Survey

Core Content

This report provides a comparative analysis of various approaches to mitigating geothermal resource risk, focusing on how governments and public-private partnerships can facilitate geothermal development by reducing early-stage uncertainties. The goal is to assist countries in selecting the most suitable risk mitigation strategy based on their specific needs and conditions.

Main Views

Geothermal energy is a reliable, clean, and sustainable source of baseload power, with a global potential of 70 to 80 GW. However, only about 12 GW is currently being exploited, due to the high resource risk during the initial exploration and drilling stages. This risk is particularly pronounced in "green fields" where the resource is not yet proven, making it difficult for private investors to commit capital.

To overcome this, several risk mitigation strategies have been implemented globally:

1. Government as Total Developer
   Governments take full responsibility for geothermal exploration, development, and operation, often through state-owned enterprises. This approach shifts all resource risk to the public sector and can lead to significant geothermal capacity growth, as seen in the Philippines, Mexico, and Iceland.

2. Cost-Shared Drilling
   This strategy involves the government sharing the cost of exploration drilling with private developers, thereby reducing their financial exposure. It is implemented in two main forms:

   • Exploration Drilling Cost-Sharing: The government provides a portion of the funding for initial exploration, enabling private developers to proceed with reduced risk.
   • Government-Led Exploration: The government conducts initial exploration to reduce risk before transferring development rights to the private sector.
     This method has been effective in Japan and the United States, with Japan’s cost-sharing scheme contributing to the installation of 536 MW of geothermal power.

3. Geothermal Resource Risk Insurance
   Insurance mechanisms are designed to pool exploration risks across multiple projects, offering coverage if certain pre-qualified outcomes are not achieved. However, due to the limited size of the geothermal sector and the high uncertainty during exploration, this approach has been underutilized and often unaffordable for developers.

4. Early-Stage Fiscal Incentives
   Fiscal incentives such as tax credits, duty exemptions, and feed-in tariffs reduce the initial financial burden on developers and can help offset early-stage risks. While beneficial, they are typically not sufficient to fully incentivize private investment in high-risk exploration.

Key Information

• Global Installed Capacity: Over 3.5 GW of geothermal capacity has been developed through government-led initiatives.
• Challenges in Geothermal Development: High up-front costs, inadequate policies, lack of infrastructure, and limited technical expertise are major barriers.
• Importance of Risk Mitigation: Early-stage resource risk is a critical barrier that can stall geothermal development, especially in new fields.
• Success Cases: Countries like the Philippines, Mexico, and Iceland have achieved significant geothermal capacity through government-led development. In contrast, countries like Australia, Chile, and Argentina have had substantial public support but limited power production.
• Role of the World Bank: The report was prepared by the World Bank's Energy and Extractives Global Practice and supported by ESMAP and GGDP, aiming to help countries apply risk mitigation strategies effectively.

Case Examples

Country	Number of Fields Supported	Resulting Installed Capacity (MW)
Costa Rica	2	177
El Salvador	2	149
Nicaragua	1	70
Mexico	4	980
France (Guadeloupe)	1	15
Indonesia	5	417
Philippines	5	608
New Zealand	2	220
Iceland	6	664
Turkey	1	15
Ethiopia	1	8
Kenya	1	290 (140 more being developed)
TOTALS	31	3,613

Conclusion

The report concludes that while no single risk mitigation approach is universally applicable, government involvement and cost-sharing schemes have been instrumental in advancing geothermal development. A framework is provided in the annex to help countries evaluate and select the most appropriate risk mitigation strategy. The success of these strategies depends on a combination of policy support, technical capacity, and financial resources, and they should be implemented in conjunction with addressing other investment-related challenges.

Key Factors Influencing Risk Mitigation Success

• Strategic Objectives: Alignment with national energy and power sector goals.
• Scale and Timeframe: The size and urgency of geothermal development plans.
• Domestic Technical Capacity: Availability of skilled personnel and expertise.
• Administrative Ability: Capacity to manage and oversee risk mitigation schemes.
• Financial Impact: Affordability and sustainability of the approach.
• Stakeholder Considerations: Input from private developers, investors, and other relevant parties.

Recommendations

• Countries should assess their specific conditions and choose the most suitable risk mitigation strategy.
• Public-private partnerships, particularly through cost-shared drilling, can effectively reduce early-stage risks.
• Government-led development is a viable option, especially in countries with strong institutional capacity.
• Fiscal incentives can support development but are not sufficient on their own to mobilize exploration capital.
• The report emphasizes the importance of integrating risk mitigation with broader investment climate improvements.