IMiddle Jurassic -Early Cretaceous strata are a target for oil and gas exploration in the Dutch offshore. During the initial stages of the 'Late Jurassic' offshore exploration, various oil fields and a few gas fields were discovered of which only one, the F3-FB field, proved to be economically viable.In the Northern Offshore of the Netherlands, latest Middle Jurassic (Callovian) -earliest Cretaceous (Ryazanian) strata are mostly limited to the Dutch Central Graben and Terschelling basins. Outside the Dutch Central Graben and the Terschelling Basin only thin veneers of these strata occur on the fringing highs such as the Schill Grund High and the Step Graben. The geology of this non-marine to shallow marine succession is complex. The combination of lateral facies changes, repetitive log and facies characteristics in time, sea-level and climate changes, salt tectonics and structural compartmentalisation hamper straightforward seismic interpretation and log correlation. The large number of lithostratigraphic units defined in the Stratigraphic Nomenclature of the Netherlands illustrates the complexity of this time-interval.In recent years, new biostratigraphic techniques and newly acquired stratigraphic data led to the identification of a series of events which can be related to the tectonic, climatic, environmental and stratigraphic development of the 'Late Jurassic' in the Dutch Central Graben and Terschelling basins. Based on these data, three stratigraphic sequences can be recognized. Sequence 1 (Callovian -earliest Kimmeridgian) records the initiation of the Dutch Central Graben, Sequence 2 (early Kimmeridgian -early Portlandian) that of the initiation of the Terschelling Basin. During sequence 3 (late Portlandian -Ryazanian) the Dutch offshore was draped by a regional transgression. These insights have directly impact on the exploration potential, which is discussed in two play concepts. The first is a strat-trap play in the fluvial/paralic sediments of Sequence 1 in the lows between the graben boundary and salt domes. The second example is the Spiculite play, which comprises a bioclastic sandstone reservoir at the top of a dome with a 4-way dip closure. These two examples highlight the necessity of understanding the paleoenvironment and geography for assessing the future exploration potential.

The Netherlands has ample geothermal resources. During the last decade, development of these resources has picked up fast. In 2007 one geothermal system had been realised; to date (1 January 2019), 24 have been. Total geothermal heat production in 2018 was 3.7 PJ from 18 geothermal systems. The geothermal sources are located in the same reservoirs/aquifers in which the oil and gas accumulations are hosted: Cenozoic, Upper Jurassic – Lower Cretaceous, Triassic and Rotliegend reservoirs. Additionally, the yet unproven hydrocarbon play in the Lower Carboniferous (Dinantian) Limestones delivered geothermal heat in two geothermal systems. This is in contrast to the Upper Cretaceous and Upper Carboniferous with no producing geothermal systems but producing hydrocarbon fields. Similar to hydrocarbon development, developing the geothermal source relies on fluid flow through the reservoir. For geothermal application a transmissivity of 10 Dm is presently thought to be a minimum value for a standard doublet system. Regional mapping of the geothermal plays, with subsequent resource mapping, by TNO discloses the areas with favourable transmissivity within play areas for geothermal development. The website www.ThermoGis.nl provides the tool to evaluate the geothermal plays on a sub-regional scale. The Dutch geothermal source and resource portfolio can be classified using geothermal play classification of, for example, Moeck (2014). An appropriate adjective for play classification for the Dutch situation would be the predominant permeability type: matrix, karst, fracture or fault permeability. The Dutch geothermal play is a matrix-permeability dominated ‘Hot Sedimentary Aquifer’, ‘Hydrothermal’ or ‘Intra-cratonic Conductive’ play. The Dutch ‘Hot Sedimentary Aquifer’ play is subdivided according to the lithostratigraphical annotation of the reservoir. The main geothermal plays are the Delft Sandstone and Slochteren Sandstone plays.

In this paper we present a probabilistic fast model for performance assessment of geothermal doublets for direct heat applications. It is a simple yet versatile and multipurpose tool. It can be well applied in better understanding the sensitivity of performance to key subsurface parameters and depth trends therein, and for assessing the probability of success for geothermal projects under technical and financial constraints.The underlying algorithms deliver a sensible accuracy given the uncertainties associated with geothermal projects at exploration state. A public release of the software, available under the name of DoubletCalc, is easy to handle and requires a limited set of input parameters. Thanks to an open source code, DoubletCalc can be implemented in other software applications and extended as it has been implemented for the integration into the national geothermal information system in the Netherlands (ThermoGIS, 2011).Apart from its application for site assessments, the tool can be integrated into automated workflows processing faster representations of key aquifer properties and capable to produce indicative maps for predicted doublet power, economic feasibility and prediction of cumulative amount of heat that can be recovered. These capabilities are specifically important for decision support for policymakers while assessing the effects of particular insurance schemes and funding mechanisms.DoubletCalc cannot and is not intended to substitute geologic exploration approaches. As exploration measures, such as seismic surveys are cost intensive, DoubletCalc can be used to focus geothermal exploration on areas and sites where an enhanced probability of success can be expected.

Exploration in a mature basin requires a detailed classification and standardisation of rock stratigraphy to adequately comprehend the depositional history and prospect architecture.

No abstract