Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Approach to the geothermal potential of Colombia

C Alfaro , J.B. Rueda-Gutiérrez *, Y Casallas , G. Rodríguez , J. Malo
Colombian Geological Survey, Colombia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords:
Geothermal assessment
Geothermal resources of Colombia
High enthalpy resources of Colombia
First approach to geothermal resources in
Colombia
Geothermal areas of Colombia
Volumetric heat in place method
The geothermal potential of Colombia was calculated through the volumetric method, by considering the di­
mensions assigned to the hot springs registered in the national territory, as individual or grouped hot springs
(cluster), which were assumed as the possible reservoirs. The calculation was made for two scenarios, depending
on the assigned variables. An expected area, a thickness, and a reference temperature of 2 km2, 1.5 km and, the
mean surface temperature calculated according to the altitude, respectively, and a maximum recovery factor of
0.25, for the optimistic scenario. An expected area, a thickness, and a reference temperature of 0.785 km2, 1 km,
and condenser temperature (40 ◦ C), respectively, and a maximum recovery factor of 0.2 for the pessimistic
scenario. In both cases, the reservoir temperature was inferred from the aqueous geothermometers. The 324 hot
springs recorded in the national territory were grouped into a total of 165 clusters in the first scenario and, 176 in
the second one, distributed in 21 preliminary delimited geothermal areas associated with volcanic systems and
16 Departments, located - outside of the preliminary delimited geothermal areas.
In the optimistic scenario, the total electrical power of the 21 geothermal areas distributed in 80 clusters was
calculated at 1170.20 ± 31.39 MWe, with a stored heat of 138.60 ± 1.84 EJ. The greatest resources are found in
the geothermal areas of San Diego, Santa Rosa, Cerro Machín and Nereidas-Botero Londoño, with electrical
powers of 141.85, 137.24, 129.94 and 100.72 MWe, respectively. These are all located in the northern block of
the Central Cordillera. To the south are the areas of Caldera del Paletará and Azufral, with electrical powers of
117.96 MWe and 81.9 MWe, respectively. On the other hand, the pessimistic scenario for which 94 clusters were
defined, a mean electric power of 263.6 MWe and a mean stored heat of 35.56 EJ, were calculated.
In the 16 Departments with 85 clusters of hot springs for the optimistic scenario, the total calculated electrical
power and heat were 24.95 ± 2.15 MWe and 49.56 ± 0.75 EJ, respectively. The greatest potential corresponds to
the Huila Department in 11 clusters, with 12.09 MWe of electrical power and 7.08 EJ of stored heat. Cundi­
namarca Department has the largest number of hot springs (50) grouped into 24 clusters, with the greatest
amount of heat (15.75 EJ) and a power of 1.99 MWe. In the pessimistic scenario, the total calculated mean
electrical power and mean stored heat were 5.73 MWe and 8.76 EJ, respectively.

1. Introduction possibly limited to these structures.

The Colombian territory hosts an important thermal anomaly origi­
nating in the intense tectonic activity of the subduction zone, which is
also responsible for the occurrence of earthquakes and volcanoes. This
anomaly is the heat source of at least 21 hydrothermal geothermal
systems in the Andean region, most of which are possible high enthalpy
systems. The tectonic activity throughout the territory accounts for the
existence of thermal springs that originate in the deep infiltration
through faults and fractures. Such springs are even found outside the
volcanic zones, where the geothermal gradient is expected to be normal.
These springs have a lower energy content and are a resource that is
The magnitude of the geothermal resources and their energy po­
tential are unknown, and until now, based on expert judgement, it has
been estimated between700 and 1370 MWe (Gawell et al., 1999). These
resources are usable in a wide range of possibilities that include electric
power generation, the satisfaction of greater energy demands beyond
the currently installed capacity of 15,950 MWe in 29 countries (Huttrer,
2020), and so-called direct uses of thermal energy, which include rec­
reational and balneological uses, space heating (buildings and green­
houses), aquaculture, the drying of agricultural crops and industrial
uses, the installed capacity of which is 107,727 MWt in 88 countries
(Lund and Toth, 2020).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jbrueda@sgc.gov.co (J.B. Rueda-Gutiérrez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102169
Received 30 November 2020; Received in revised form 13 May 2021; Accepted 8 June 2021
Available online 24 June 2021
0375-6505/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Alfaro et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

The integration of these resources into the energy market would be Table 1
an important contribution to the objectives of diversification of the Geothermal potential in Latin America.
energy basket and energy transformation of the National Government. Country Country or Authors Method Geothermal
For this reason, the Pact for mining energy resources for sustainable geothermal potential
growth and the expansion of opportunities of the National Development field
Plan 2018–2022 (Colombia: Ley 1955 de 2019) and the round table México All the territory
Initiative for the development of geothermal energy in Colombia, from the Hiriart et al. Volumetric 762 MWe
Ministry of Mines and Energy, which is supported by the Geothermal (2011) Method
Gradual 701 MWe
Exploratory Mission of the Inter-American Development Bank (BID, decompression
2019), have tasked the Colombian Geological Survey with estimating Mulas de Pozo Active 6.000 MWe
the energy potential of the geothermal resources of the country. et al. (1985) in volcanoes Vs.
The volumetric heat in place method, is one of the most used for the Stefansson estimated
(2005) geothermal
geothermal assessment all over the world (Muffler and Cataldi, 1978;
potential
Organización Latinoamericana de Energía, 1993). Some South American All the Iglesias et al. Volumetric 1168 - 1274
countries have calculated the geothermal potential by using this territory: (2011) method
method, showing a dispersion in the results obtained. Table 1 summa­ Intermediate
rizes the results of some of these calculations for the entire territory of to low
temperature
some countries, as well as for specific geothermal prospects. resources
Geothermal areas of Colombia. The 21 hydrothermal areas identified Ecuador Chachimbiro Almeida (1990) Volumetric 113 MWe
in Colombia (OLADE and Geotérmica Italiana, 1982; CHEC, CONTECOL, Prospect in Beate & Method
Geotérmica Italiana, 1983; Geocónsul, 1992; SGC, 2013) were prelimi­ Urquizo (2015)
Tufiño 138 MWe
narily delimited based on surface evidence as heat sources (volcanic
Prospect
structure or igneous intrusions), discharge areas of possible geothermal (Ecuadorian
reservoirs (hot springs and fumaroles) and geological structures such as side)
faults and fractures, which control the main conduits of fluid circulation Chalupas 283 MWe
to and from the reservoirs. These areas are located mainly in the Central Prospect
Oyacachi Electroguayas 100 MWe
Cordillera and in very localized segments of the middle zone of the
Prospect (2009) in Beate
Eastern Cordillera and the southern zone of the Western Cordillera & Urquizo
(Fig. 1). (2015)
The geothermal areas were grouped into five blocks: Paipa-Iza All the territory Gawell et al. Unspecified From 420 –
(1999) 850 MWe
(Eastern Cordillera), San Diego, Cerro Bravo-Cerro Machín and Huila-
until 1.700
Sucubún (Central Cordillera) and Las Ánimas - Chiles (Central and MWe
Western Cordilleras) (Fig. 1, Table 2), to generate polygons with a CEPAL (2000) Unspecified 500 MWe
greater extension for the evaluation of environmental and social vari­ in Bona &
ables. The two initiatives estimation of the energy potential and evalu­ Coviello (2016)
MEEER (2010) Active 3.000 to
ation of environmental and social variables are part of the round table
in Bona & volcanoes Vs. 8.000 MWe
from the Ministry of Mines and Energy, supported by the Geothermal Coviello (2016) estimated
Exploratory Mission (BID, 2019). geothermal
The Paipa-Iza Block groups two geothermal areas whose heat source potential by
Stefansson
is related to the Paipa volcano and the Iza cryptodome, which are
(2005)
possibly the only surface expressions of volcanic and subvolcanic ac­ Perú All the territory Ministerio de Volumetric 2.860 MWe
tivity in the Eastern Cordillera and located in a dominant sedimentary Energía y Method
environment (Velandia, 2003; Rojas et al., 2009; Alfaro et al., 2017). Minas
The San Diego Block, to the north of the Central Cordillera, only (MINEM),
Japan
consists of a geothermal area. However, the presence of the volcanoes
International
Maar de San Diego and the El Escondido de Florencia, as well as Cooperation
andesitic igneous intrusions such as that of Puente Linda and others, Agency (JICA)
identified by aeromagnetometry (Moyano et al., 2018), and the distri­ 2012
Gawell et al. Unspecified From 600 –
bution and compositional difference of the thermal springs around these
(1999) 1.410 MWe
manifestations of magmatic activity allow to assume the existence of until 2.990
three different geothermal systems (Rueda-Gutiérrez and Rodríguez, MWe
2016). Argentina Tocomar Filipovich Volumetric 6 - 56 MWe
The Cerro Bravo-Cerro Machín Block, with the greatest number of geothermal et al. (2017) Method
field
thermal springs in the territory, is made up of eight geothermal areas:
Southern Chiodi et al. Unspecified 11.4 × 1018
Cerro Bravo Volcano; Villamaría-Termales, Nereidas - Botero Londoño Puna (2020) J
and Hacienda Granates, which are mainly associated with the Nevado Copahue field Exploratory 30 MWe
del Ruiz volcano; Paramillo de Santa Rosa Volcano; Otún Lake; Nevado wells
del Tolima Volcano, and Cerro Machín Volcano (Chec, Contecol, Geo­ information
Multiproxy 107.5 MW
térmica Italiana, 1983; Geocónsul 1992). The most advanced data including
geothermal exploration studies in Colombia have been conducted in this CO2 as a tracer
block, in the Nereidas – Botero Londoño geothermal area, to the west of of the original
the Nevado del Ruiz (CHEC, CONTECOL, Geotérmica Italiana, 1983; vapour phase
Domuyo field Volumetric 1.000 MW
Universidad Nacional de Colombia UNAL, INGEOMINAS, COLCIENCIAS
Method
e ISAGEN, 2012; INGEOMINAS, Centro Internacional de Física CIF,
COLCIENCIAS e ISAGEN, 2012), where the only existing deep explor­ (continued on next page)
atory geothermal well was drilled in 1997 (Designpower Genzl, 1997).

2
C. Alfaro et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

Table 1 (continued ) volcano, are included in this study.

Country Country or Authors Method Geothermal Finally, the Las Ánimas - Chiles Block includes six geothermal areas:
geothermal potential Doña Juana - Las Ánimas Volcanoes, Galeras - Morazurco Volcanoes,
field Sibundoy Volcano, Azufral Volcano, Cumbal Volcano and the Chiles -
Cerro Tuzgle 28 MWe to Cerro Negro Volcanic Complex. The areas of Doña Juana, Galeras,
field 34 MWe Azufral, Cumbal and Chiles-Cerro Negro volcanoes were included in the
Los Deep 20 MWe exploration work of the reconnaissance study of the geothermal re­
Despoblados exploratory
sources of Colombia (Olade and Geotérmica Italiana, 1982). Exploration
field drilling and a
feasibility studies, in the prefeasibility stage, have been carried out in the
study geothermal areas of Chiles-Cerro Negro (Aquater 1987) - and the Azufral
All the Gawell et al. Unspecified From 490 – volcano (Alfaro et al., 2015; Beltrán, 2016; Rodríguez and Rueda-Gu­
territory (1999) 1.010 MWe tiérrez, 2017; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2018; Matiz, 2020; Alfaro et al.,
until 2.010
MWe
2020). The areas of the Las Animas, Morazurco and Sibundoy volcanoes
Chile Tátara - San Hickson et al. Volumetric 320 MWe are named and included in this study.
Pedro – (2011) Method In addition to these geothermal areas, there are 121 thermal springs,
Pellado Hodgson possibly related to fractured/faulted hydrothermal systems, in 16 De­
Volcanic (2013) in Bona
partments (Fig. 2). Most of these are also found in the Andean region
Complex & Coviello
(2016) (Nariño, Huila, Tolima, Cundinamarca, Boyacá, Santander, North
Apacheta, El Aravena et al. 228 ± 154 Santander and Antioquia), some of them are located in isolated spots in
Tatio and (2016) MWe the Caribbean region (Atlántico, Magdalena and Cesar), in the Pacific
Tokhuaca region (Chocó), in the Orinoquía (Arauca, Casanare, Meta) and even in
Cordón Caulle Sepúlveda 250 MWe
(2006) in Bona
the Amazon region (Guaviare).
& Coviello Other geothermal resources that could be available in the territory,
(2016) such as those associated with blind hydrothermal systems, hot dry rock
Central (CVZ) Aravena et al. Magmatic heat 39.000 MWe systems and sedimentary basins, have not yet been identified and
and Southern (2015) transfer
therefore are not considered here.
(SVZ) Andean
volcanic arc The objectives of this study are to estimate the energy stored in the
All the territory Lahsen (1986) Heat flow 16.000 geothermal hydrothermal systems of Colombia and their possible
in Bona & contribution to the installed capacity of the country, prioritize the
Coviello (2016) geothermal areas based on their energy potential and provide the energy
Lahsen (2015) Unspecified From 1.050
sector with the information required for the first phase of planning for
in Bona & to 2.950
Coviello (2016) MWe the development of geothermal energy in Colombia.
Gawell et al. Unspecified From 780 – For the execution of this work, the Colombian Geological Survey
(1999) 1.630 MWe (Servicio Geológico Colombiano - SGC) implemented the volumetric
until 2.350
stored-heat assessment method, based on a training given by the com­
MWe
Morata (2014) Unspecified From 1.000 pany Geokeri S.A. de C.V. from Mexico (Geokeri, 2019a) and a calcu­
in Bona & – 2.440 lation tool in Visual Basic, developed in Excel, by the same company
Coviello (2016) MWe until (Geokeri, 2019b).
3.500 MWe In this work, the geothermal potential of Colombia will be exposed in
Aravena et al. Volumetric 431 ± 321
two possible scenarios, the results are related to the uncertainties of the
(2016) Method MWe
Bolivia Río Empexa JOGMEC et al. Volumetric 10 – 15 MWe variables taken as reference in the volumetric method, since no
Prospect (2011) in Bona Method measured subsoil data is available, and the literature presents very wide
& Coviello ranges for these variables.
(2016)
Laguna Delgadillo 280- 370
Colorada (2000) in Bona MWe 2. Methodology
Prospect & Coviello
(2016) 2.1. The volumetric method
All the Gawell et al. Unspecified From 510 –
territory (1999) 1.260 MWe
until 2.490
The volumetric heat in place method is based on the calculation of
MWe the energy contained in a given volume of rock (rock matrix and satu­
Venezuela El Pilar - Cataldi et al. Unspecified 134 – 163 ration fluid). According to Muffler and Cataldi (1978), this method has
Casanay (1987) in Bona MWe the following advantages: it allows discrimination and compensation of
& Coviello
inevitable errors when introducing geological and physical approxima­
(2016)
All the territory Gawell et al. Unspecified From 370 – tions and assumptions and other subjective assumptions, it is applicable
(1999) 480 MWe to any geological environment, and it is based on a series of geological
until 910 and physical parameters that can be measured or estimated for a specific
MWe area. According to the same authors, the disadvantages are due to the
uncertainties of recoverability and replenishment (which can be solved
The Huila-Sucubún area is made up of four geothermal areas: in the future based on data and measurements), estimation of the re­
Nevado del Huila Volcano, Gabriel López Caldera, Paletará Caldera and covery factor (based on assumptions according to the production model
Sotará - Sucubún volcanoes. The areas of Nevado del Huila, Puracé of the fluid production), temperature variations, the effective porosity
Volcano (located within the Paletará Caldera) and Sotará Volcano, were and depth and the assumption of the prevalence over time of the ther­
named in the exploration work of the reconnaissance study of the modynamic conditions at the time when the estimation was performed.
geothermal resources of Colombia (Olade and Geotérmica Italiana, The procedure for applying the method described by Brook et al.
1982). The calderas Gabriel López and Paletará, as well as the Sucubún (1978) consists of sequentially calculating the base accessible resource
(or stored heat) Eqs. (1) and (2), the recoverable accessible resource (or

3
C. Alfaro et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

Fig. 1. Location of preliminary geothermal areas (black polygons) and blocks (yellow polygons).

specific volumetric heat of the rocks (ρ C), area (a), thickness (d) and
Table 2
temperature difference between the reservoir (td) and the mean envi­
Geothermal areas (GA) and blocks.
ronmental temperature taken as the reference (tr):
Geothermal area Area Block Area
(km2) (km2) Qd = ρc.a.d.(td − tr ) (1)
Paipa GA 143 Paipa - Iza 540 The specific volumetric heat of the rocks depends on the porosity
Iza GA 127
(Φ), the density of water and rock (ρw and ρr, respectively) and the heat
San Diego GA 495 San Diego 2355
Cerro Bravo Volcano GA 133 Cerro Bravo - Cerro 4639 capacity of water and rock, Cw and Cr, respectively, at a given temper­
Machín ature, as indicated in Equation 2:
Villamaría-Termales GA 457
Nereidas-Botero Londoño GA 108 ρc = Φρw Cw + (1 − Φ)ρr Cr (2)
Hacienda Granates GA 363
Santa Rosa Volcano GA 473
The recoverable heat depends on the heat of the reservoir (qR) and
Otún Lake GA 123 the heat extractable at the wellhead (Qw), which are related by the re­
Nevado del Tolima Volcano GA 280 covery factor (Rg), as indicated in Equation 3.
Cerro Machín Volcano GA 88
Huila Volcano GA 359 Huila - Sucubún 4719 QW = Rg . qR (3)
Gabriel López Caldera GA 606
–Paletará Caldera GA 741 The electrical power (Pe) depends on the recoverable heat at the
Sotará – Sucubún volcanoes GA 246 wellhead (Qw), the surface heat loss factor (SLF), the conversion effi­
Doña Juana-Las Ánimas 378 Las Ánimas - Chiles 7293 ciency (CE) and a project lifetime (LT) (30 years, in most of the cases)
volcanoes GA
expressed in seconds and calculated using Equation 4:
Galeras-Morazurco volcanoes 381
GA (QW . SLF.CE)
Sibundoy Volcano GA 283 Pe = (4)
LT
Azufral Volcano GA 516
Cumbal Volcano GA 176
Chiles-Cerro Negro Volcanic 203 3. Application of the method
Complex GA
The currently available information collected with geothermal
exploration methods based on the integration of geological, geophysical
resource) at the wellhead (Eq. (3)), which depends on the recovery
and geochemical surface studies, is not sufficient to define the geometry
factor, and the electrical power or installed capacity (Eq. (4)) based on
and dimensions of the potential geothermal reservoirs. Similarly, pet­
the resource and a utilization factor, which represents the efficiency of
rophysical and geothermal fluid chemistry data are still lacking. For this
conversion of thermal energy to electrical energy.
reason, the methodology described by Brook et al. (1978) for
The heat stored in the reservoir or deposit (Qd) depends on the

4
C. Alfaro et al.
Fig. 2. Departments with the presence of thermal springs outside the geothermal areas.
hydrothermal systems with temperatures above 90 ◦ C, based on
assumed parameters for thermal springs, is considered a representative
entity of hydrothermal geothermal systems.
Fig. 3 presents a flow diagram of the calculation procedure. The
assumed values that were used in the calculation were taken from Brook
et al. (1978), Geokeri (2019a), Wilmarth & Stimac (2015) and Garg
(2010), Garg and Combs (2015), are summarized in Table 3. As rec­
ommended by Brook et al. (1978), to estimate some statistical variables
such as the mean value, median, uncertainty (confidence interval),
standard deviation and% of uncertainty, a triangular probability dis­
tribution of the variables was defined, and minimum, expected and
maximum values were established, as indicated in the Table 3.
4. Reservoir temperature
The temperature and volume of the reservoir, as well as the utiliza­
tion factor (conversion of thermal energy to electrical energy), are the
most sensitive variables in the calculation of stored heat. The reservoir
temperature was estimated by applying SiO2 geothermometers (amor­
phous silica, chalcedony, quartz no steam loss and maximum steam loss)
and alkaline geothermometers (mainly Na/K, Na-K-Ca and Na/Li) to the
composition of the thermal springs, whose corresponding equations are
summarized in Table 2. Information on the thermal springs, such as their
location, physicochemical characteristics and composition, was taken
from the National Inventory of Surface Manifestations (Servicio Geo­
lógico Colombiano (SGC) 2015-).
The geothermometers were applied using the following criteria:
(1) For sulphate steam-heated waters with a pH lower than 4 - the
geothermometers were not applied as their composition does not
reflect chemical and thermodynamic equilibrium in the water-
rock interaction. In this case, the discharge temperature of the
spring was assumed to be the minimum, 200 ◦ C was the expected
temperature, and 250 ◦ C was taken as the maximum. These
5
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169
temperatures are reasonable given the possible presence of
geothermal steam (Geokeri, 2019a).
(2) For chloride, bicarbonate and mixed chloride-bicarbonate ther­
mal waters with a pH value greater than 4, the SiO2 geo­
thermometers were used. If these geothermometers are not
applicable (because they are out of range, as described below),
the discharge temperature of the spring was assumed as the
minimum temperature, and 100 ◦ C was taken as the expected and
the maximum temperatures (Geokeri, 2019a). The validity of the
silica geothermometers was defined based on the following
criteria: the quartz with the maximum steam loss geo­
thermometer, if the calculated temperature values are higher
than 150 ◦ C and the hot spring discharge temperature is equal to
or greater than the boiling point of water at the height of the
spring upwelling point; the quartz, no steam loss geo­
thermometer, if the calculated temperature values is lower than
150 ◦ C and the hot spring discharge temperatures is lower than
the boiling point of water at the elevation of the spring upwelling
point; the chalcedony geothermometer if the calculated values
are between 100 and 150 ◦ C; and, the amorphous silica geo­
thermometer, if the calculated temperature values is lower than
100 ◦ C. The values of the amorphous silica geothermometer were
rejected if the result was lower than the spring discharge
temperature.
(3) For chloride, bicarbonate and mixed chloride – bicarbonate
thermal waters with a valid SiO2 geothermometer, according to
the described considerations, the temperatures calculated for the
alkaline geothermometers (Na-K-Ca, Na/K and Na/Li) were
accepted if the springs are representative of geothermal reservoir
waters (chloride type) or if they have significant contributions
from the corresponding reservoir, which is assumed if the chlo­
ride concentration is higher than 100 mg/l. In this case, the
temperature of the SiO2 geothermometer was assumed as the
minimum temperature, the Na-K-Ca geothermometer as the
C. Alfaro et al.
Fig. 3. Flowchart of the procedure for estimating the energy potential of geothermal resources in Colombia.
expected temperature and the Na/K and Na/Li geothermometers,
as the maximum temperature. The Na-K-Ca geothermometer was
rejected for values lower than those measured by the silica geo­
thermometers; in this case, the temperature of the silica geo­
thermometer was assumed to be the minimum temperature, and
the temperatures of the Na/K and Na/Li geothermometers were
used as the expected and maximum temperatures, respectively.
Finally, in the case of nonrepresentative springs of geothermal
reservoir fluid (non-chloride waters or chloride content lower
than100 mg/l), the discharge temperature was assumed to be the
minimum temperature, and the expected and maximum tem­
peratures were assumed to be the temperature of the SiO2
geothermometer.
6
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169
5. Volume of the reservoir
The volume of the reservoir was assigned to each hot spring, ac­
cording to the scenario: 1, 2 and 3 km2 were taken as the minimum,
expected and maximum areas, respectively, and 1.0, 1.5 and 2.5 km, as
the minimum, expected and maximum thickness, respectively, for the
optimistic scenario (Brook et al., 1978). For the pessimistic scenario, the
reservoir area was assumed as 0.392, 0.785 and 1.177 km2 for the
minimum, expected and maximum areas, respectively. These values
were taken from a merged 500 m buffer around each hot spring, based
on the area estimation for production wells proposed by Wilmarth &
Stimac (2015) and the distance of drainage beyond the outermost wells
bounded by an extrapolated production high temperature (240 ◦ C),
enclosed by good permeability and demonstrated commercial produc­
tion wells (Sarmiento and Steingrímsson, 2007). The thickness of the
reservoir, in this scenario, was taken as 0.1, 1 and 2 km for the
C. Alfaro et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

Table 3
Assumed values for the estimation of the energy potential of geothermal resources in Colombia.
VARIABLE REFERENCE VALUES SOURCE REFERENCE VALUES
(optimistic scenario) (pessimistic scenario)

UNITS MINIMUM EXPECTED MAXIMUM MINIMUM EXPECTED MAXIMUM SOURCE

Reservoir km2 1 or – 2 or 3 or Brooke 0.392 or 0,785 or 1.177 or ½ Wilmarth
area ½ * (Cluster area) Cluster area 1.5*Cluster area et al. 1/2* Cluster Area 1.5* & Stimac
(1978) (Cluster (Cluster (2015)
area) area)
Reservoir km 1 1.5 2.5 Brooke 0.1 1 2 Garg 2010,
thickness et al. Garg and
(1978) Combs,
2015
Reservoir km3 Calculated from
volume reservoir area and
thickness
Specific KJ/ Calculated from specific
volumetric m3 ◦ C heat of rock matrix and
heat of the water
rock
T reservoir ◦
C From geothermometers Calculated Calculated
from the from the
chemical chemical
composition (1) composition
(1)

T Reference ◦
C ½ * (Mean surface Mean surface 1.5* (Mean surface Eslava 40 ◦ C
temperature calculated temperature temperature calculated (1992)
from the altitude) calculated from altitude)
from altitude
Porosity 0.1 0.11 0.15 Brooke 0.1 0.11 0.15 Brooke
et al. et al.
(1978) (1978)
Density of kg/m3 Taken from the table of GEOKERI Taken from the table of GEOKERI
water steam at the reservoir (2019a) steam at the reservoir (2019a)
temperature temperature
Density of kg/m3 2600 2700 2800 GEOKERI 2600 2700 2800 GEOKERI
the rock (2019a) (2019a)
Cp water KJ/kg Taken from the table of GEOKERI Taken from the table of GEOKERI
K steam at the reservoir (2019a) steam at the reservoir (2019a)
temperature temperature
Cp of the KJ/kg 0.9 1 1.1 GEOKERI 0.9 1 1.1 GEOKERI
rock ◦
C (2019a) (2019a)
Recovery – 0.05 0.1 0.25 GEOKERI 0.05 0.1 0.2
factor (2019a)
Conversion – Taken from a GEOKERI Taken from a GEOKERI
efficiency* recommended table (2019a) recommended table (2019a)
based on a based on a
thermodynamic analysis thermodynamic
of a binary two phases analysis of a binary two
cycle, according to the phases cycle, according
reservoir temperature. to the reservoir
temperature.

Geothermometry. tchalcedony(◦ C)=[1032/(4.69-log (SiO2))]− 273, tqtz, no steam loss(◦ C)=[1309/(5.19-log (SiO2))]− 273 and, tqtz, maximum steam loss ( ◦ C)=[1522/(5.75-log
(SiO2))]− 273 (Fournier, 1977 in Nicholson, 1993); tNa/K (◦ C)=1390/[log (Na/K) + 1.750]− 273 (Giggenbach, 1988 in Nicholson, 1993); tNa/K/Ca(◦ C)=1647/{log
(Na/K)+b[log(Ca1/2/Na)+2.06]+2.47}− 273 where b = 4/3, if t <100 ◦ C or 1/3, if t>100 ◦ C (Fournier and Truesdell, 1973 in Nicholson, 1993); tNa/Li (◦ C)=1590/[log
(Na/Li)+0.779]− 273 (Kharaka et al., 1982 in Nicholson, 1993).

minimum, expected and maximum as assumed during the exploration
phase (Garg, 2010; Garg and Combs, 2015), which is consistent with the
Brook et al. (1978) proposed, where a maximum thickness of 2 km is
proposed when geophysical information, drilling, or temperature gra­
dients are not available.
For springs located at a distance equal to or less than 0.8 km or 0.5
km from each other (cluster) in the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios,
respectively, the expected merged area of two or more springs has a
smaller extension than the sum of the individual areas. In this case, the
areas were defined as indicated in Table 2 as the thickness remained the
same for isolated hot springs or clusters of hot springs. The consider­
ations regarding the volume assumed for the “reservoirs” represented by
the hot springs are illustrated in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Volume assigned to hot spring clusters formed by a hot spring (A) and two or more hot springs (B).

7
C. Alfaro et al.
6. Reference temperature
According to Takahashi & Yoshida (2018), the reference temperature
may be assumed as cut-off, rejection, abandonment, or base tempera­
ture. The use of low reference temperatures such as ambient can over­
estimate the resource, instead, the use of higher reference temperatures
can obtain realistic estimates (Garga & Combs, 2015). Here, for the first
approach to the geothermal assessment, low reference temperatures
were applied: ambient, calculated to the altitude of the hot springs, with
minimum, expected, and maximum, as explained in Table 2, and
condenser temperature (40 ◦ C), for the optimistic and pessimistic sce­
narios, respectively.
7. Recovery factor
As for the other involved variables, the literature reports several
reference values for the recovery factor. Sayal et al. (2002) consider a
recovery factor of 5 to 10%, while Williams (2004) considers values
between 10 and 25%. The Australian Code suggests it to be 14% and
Grant (2015) proposes a value of 10%. In the two scenarios for this work,
the minimum and expected recovery factor are equal, 0.05 and 0.1,
respectively. The maximum recovery value for the optimistic scenario is
proposed as 0.25 (25%) and as0.2 (20%), for the pessimistic one.
To calculate the stored heat, recoverable heat and electrical power, a
Monte Carlo simulation was used, based on a script written in Visual
Basic in Excel, with 9000 iterations; developed by Geokeri (2019b).
8. Results
Of the 322 hot springs within the Colombian territory, 203 are
located in the 21 geothermal areas (GA) listed in Table 2: they are
influenced by volcanic heat sources (active or inactive) and grouped into
80 clusters (Figs. 4 and 5A). Other 119 hot springs are outside those GA
and are grouped into 83 clusters (Figs. 2 and 5B)".
Fig. 5. Illustration of the distribution of spring clusters in: A) geothermal areas (Cerro Bravo - Cerro Machín Block) and B) outside of them (Departments of Cun­
dinamarca and Boyacá).
8
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169
Taking this distribution into account, the electrical power and stored
heat were calculated for each of the clusters inside (Tables 4 and 6) and
outside the geothermal areas. Tables 5 and 7 show the cumulative values
for each of these areas.
As can be observed, the stored heat and the electrical power calcu­
lations are strongly affected by the parameters assumed in each sce­
nario, particularly by the volume of the supposed reservoirs.
9. Optimistic scenario
The greatest electrical power and stored heat is concentrated in the
volcanic zones, with a total electrical power of 1170.20 MWe, ranging
between 1138.81 and 1201 for a confidence interval of 90% and a stored
heat of 138.60 EJ, ranging between 136.76 and 140.43 EJ, for a 90%
confidence interval (Tables 4 and 5).
The two geothermal areas located in the Eastern Cordillera, Paipa
and Iza, have a total electrical power of 33.59 MWe and a stored heat of
7.03 EJ. The calculation of the power and stored heat for the Paipa
geothermal area was made by assuming reservoir volumes derived from
the hot springs clusters, as explained in the methodology and based on
the geometry of the possible geothermal reservoir identified with the 3D
density model (density values between 1.9 and 2.45 g/cc, in the middle
of high density bodies related to intrusions); the area of this possible
reservoir was calculated to be 6.2 km2, with a thickness of 1.1 km
(Alfaro et al., 2017). In this case, the reservoir temperature was inferred
from gas and isotope geothermometers (180 and 230 ◦ C, as expected and
maximum temperatures), taking into account that the composition of
the hot springs is not representative of the geothermal reservoir due to a
mixing process with a cold sodium sulphate water (Alfaro et al., 2017).
The results, 21.50 MWe and 20.89 MWe are comparable.
In the Central Cordillera, the San Diego geothermal area has an
electric power of 141.85 MWe and a stored heat of 12.51 EJ distributed
in three possible heat sources (San Diego Maar, El Escondido de Flor­
encia Volcano and andesitic intrusions (Rueda-Gutiérrez & Rodríguez-
C. Alfaro et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

Table 4
Geothermal potential calculated for clusters of hot springs within the delimited preliminary geothermal areas to the optimistic scenario.
Geothermal Area Hot spring Cluster Stored Heat EJ Power MWe Geothermal Area Hot spring Cluster Stored

Heat EJ Power MWe

Paipa PP-01 2.92 21.13 Huila HU-01 0.76 0.1
PP-02 0.82 0.10 Caldera Gabriel López CGL- 01 1.29 7.13
PP-04 0.58 0.07 CGL-02 1.37 5.76
Iza IZ-01 1.43 11.93 CGL-03 1.64 10.42
IZ-02 0.59 0.08 CGL − 04 0.84 1.47
IZ-03 0.68 0.09 Caldera del Paletará CP-01 3.48 32.37
San Diego SD-01 1.52 12.53 CP − 02 1.69 15.7
SD-02 1.41 9.58 CP − 03 0.79 0.1
SD-03 1.81 18.58 CP − 04 1.67 17.72
SD-04 1.82 23.12 CP − 05 1.57 11.91
SD-05 1.81 21.51 CP − 06 2.52 24.54
SD-06 1.47 12.15 CP − 07 0.93 0.12
SD-07 2.67 44.51 CP − 08 1.6 15.06
Cerro Bravo CB-01 1.82 21.09 Sotará Sucubún SS-01 1.14 4.84
CB-02 1.70 16.68 SS-02 1.68 12.59
CB-03 2.01 24.00 Doña Juana-Las Ánimas DJA-01 1.78 15.90
CB-04 2.42 17.99 DJA-02 2.92 19.76
Villamaría-Termales VT-01 2.14 20.05 DJA-03 1.16 2.01
VT-02 1.18 4.06 Galeras-Morazurco GM-01 1.96 24.01
VT-03 1.52 14.35 GM-02 0.56 0.07
Nereidas-Botero Londoño NB-01 6.97 72.27 GM-03 1.57 5.36
NB-02 1.08 4.14 GM-04 0.78 0.10
NB-03 1.54 14.38 Sibundoy SB-01 0.57 0.07
NB-04 1.47 5.68 SB-02 1.1 0.14
NB-05 1.18 4.77 SB-03 1.43 9.01
Hacienda Granates HG-01 1.46 13.51 Azufral AZ-01 1.81 17.67
HG-02 2.38 22.56 AZ-02 2.16 20.07
HG-03 0.94 0.12 AZ-03 1.67 13.05
HG-04 1.15 4.10 AZ-04 1.6 16.39
HG-05 2.02 18.89 AZ-05 0.62 0.08
HG-06 1.26 4.28 AZ-06 1.67 14.14
HG-07 0.65 0.08 Cumbal CUM-01 2.56 15.66
HG-08 1.00 3.43 Chiles – Cerro Negro CCN-01 1.39 8.04
HG-09 0.73 0.09 CCN-02 1.64 11.21
Santa Rosa SR-01 3.94 67.91 CCN-03 1.12 4.54
SR-02 4.13 45.37
SR-03 2.6 24.14
Otún Lake LO-01 0.63 0.08
Nevado del Tolima NT-01 1.19 8.47
NT-02 1.02 3.52
NT-03 3.79 51.37
NT-04 1.87 19.85
Cerro Machín CM-01 5.9 92.45
CM-02 4.15 36.97

Ospina, 2016). The Cerro Bravo - Cerro Machín Block, which combines
eight geothermal areas, has the highest electric power in the country at
778 MWe and a stored heat of 66.53 EJ and includes Villamaría-Ter­
males, Santa Rosa and Cerro Machín Volcano, three of the five
geothermal areas with the greatest potential (> 100 MWe).
To the south of the Central Cordillera, the total electric power
calculated for the Huila - Sucubún Block is 160.27 MWe, and the stored
heat is 23 EJ, distributed in four geothermal areas, of which the Paletará
Caldera has the greatest potential (117.96 MWe and 14.27 EJ). In the
extreme south, in the Central and Western, the Las Ánimas - Chiles
Block, which combines six geothermal areas, has an electrical power of
198.46 MWe and a stored heat of 29.56 EJ. The Chiles - Cerro Negro
geothermal area, located on the border with Ecuador, registers an
electrical power of 23.77 MWe, for the Colombian side, which contrasts
with the estimate of Almeida (1990) for the Ecuadorian part of 138
MWe. On the other, at Azufral Volcano, one of the most relevant
geothermal areas of the Country, from its surface manifestations
(OLADE & Geotérmica Italian, 1982) and the results of the exploration
(Alfaro et al., 2020), an electrical power capacity of 81.9 MWe, was
estimated. This figure is consistent with a previous calculation by Zapata
(2015 (89.5 MWe, with a standard deviation of 37 MWe).
The total electrical potential from the hot springs located outside the
volcanic zones is minor (24.95 MWe). Their total stored heat
corresponds to 49.56 EJ. Their contributions per region are as follows: In
the Colombian Caribbean, to the north, there is a total heat of 1.44 EJ
and a power of 0.18 MWe distributed in the Departments of Atlántico,
Magdalena and Cesar. In the Pacific, the hot springs of Chocó have an
electrical power of 3.27 MWe and a heat of 2.30 EJ. In Orinoquía, the
Departments of Arauca, Casanare and Meta have a heat of 2.48 EJ and an
electric power of 2.82 MWe. In the Amazon, represented by the
department of Guaviare, the heat and electric power are 0.53 EJ and
0.07 MWe, respectively. In the Andean zone, outside the influence of
volcanoes, there are hot springs in the Departments of Antioquia, Boy­
acá, Cundinamarca, Huila, Nariño, North Santander, Santander and
Tolima, whose contribution to the heat and electric power are 42.82 EJ
and 18.62 MWe, respectively. In this area, the greatest number and
groups (clusters) of hot springs outside the geothermal areas are
concentrated in the Departments of Boyacá and Cundinamarca, even
though the electrical power capacity is low.
10. Pessimistic scenario
Like for the optimistic calculation, the greatest electrical power and
stored heat is concentrated in the volcanic zones, with an electrical
power of 263.62 MWe ranging between 192.10 to 366.47 for a confi­
dence interval of 90% and a stored heat of 35.56 EJ ranging between

9
C. Alfaro et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

Table 5
Geothermal potential calculated for preliminary geothermal areas in the optimistic scenario.
Geothermal area Thermal Clusters Stored heat Confidence Stored heat Recoverable Electrical power 90% Electric power
springs (EJ) mean interval 90% (EJ) mean heat (EJ) (MWe) mean Confidence (MWe) median
interval

Paipa 14 4 4.31 3.41 to 5.22 4.31 0.5 21.50 10.96 to 32.04 21.49
Paipa* 14 - 2.87 1.53 to 4.22 2.75 - 20.89 2.34 to 39.44 17.60
Iza 4 3 2.72 2.27 to 3.14 2.70 0.3 12.09 6.45 to 178.73 12.09
San Diego 15 6 12.51 11.45 to 13.6 12.51 1.15 141.85 118 to 165 142
Cerro Bravo Volcano 8 4 7.94 6.96 an 8.92 7.95 0.88 79.73 63.49 to 95.98 79.61
Villamaría-Termales 9 3 4.83 4.03 to 5.62 4.81 0.51 38.50 27.39 to 49.71 38.48
Nereidas-Botero 14 5 12.19 10.55 to 13.83 12.2 1.31 100.72 71.60 to 129.85 100.74
Londoño
Hacienda Granates 19 9 11.57 10.39 to 12.76 11.54 1.36 67.24 52.04 an 82.43 67.1
Santa Rosa Volcano 20 3 10.66 9.27 to 12.05 10.66 1.07 137.24 105.6 to 168.9 137.80
Otún Lake 1 1 0.63 0.3 to 0.95 0.6 0.08 0.08 0.03 to 0.13 0.07
Nevado del Tolima 18 4 8.66 7.50 to 9.82 8.65 1.17 82.70 60.70 to 104.71 82.64
Cerro Machín 14 2 10.05 8.29 an 11.81 10.04 1.14 129.94 93.65 to 166.23 130.14
Volcano
Huila Volcano 4 1 0.76 0.37 to 1.14 0.72 0.09 0.1 0.03 to 0.16 0.09
Gabriel López boiler 8 4 5.15 4.55 to 5.75 5.13 0.57 24.78 19.69 to 29.83 24.71
Caldera del Paletará 21 8 14.27 12.86 to 15.67 14.25 1.48 117.96 96.13 to 139.78 117.87
Volcanoes of Sotará - 2 2 2.82 2.37 to 3.27 2.82 0.3 17.43 12.06 to 22.62 17.44
Sucubún
Volcanoes Doña 6 3 5.30 4.62 to 5.99 5.32 0.55 37.84 29.82 to 45.86 37.98
Juana-Las Animas
Galeras-Morazurco 8 4 4.87 4.22 to 5.51 4.85 0.68 29.49 20.68 to 38.29 29.42
Volcanoes
Sibundoy Volcano 4 3 3.09 2.66 to 3.52 3.1 0.33 9.8 5.52 to 12.83 9.19
Azufral Volcano 8 6 9.6 8.69 to 10.52 9.60 0.91 81.9 67.41 to 96.36 81.71
Cumbal Volcano 1 2 2.56 1.59 to 3.51 2.46 0.25 15.66 5.41 to 25.90 14.05
Chiles Volcanic 5 3 4.14 3.5 to 4.8 4.16 0.48 23.77 16.98 to 30.55 23.78
Complex - Cerro
Negro
TOTAL 203 80 138.60 136.76 to 138.59 15.11 1170.20 1138.81 to 1170.32
140.43 1201.58

28.14 to 46.87 for a confidence interval of 90% (Tables 6 and 7).
In the Eastern Cordillera, Paipa and Iza have a total electrical power
of 17.32 MWe and a heat of 2.51 EJ. The calculations for the Paipa
geothermal area assuming reservoir volumes based on hot springs was
14.95 MWe and 1.99 EJ, for electrical power and stored heat, respec­
tively. In this case the lower and expected reservoir temperature values
were taken as 180 ◦ C and the maximum, as 230 ◦ C, for the hot springs
with high gas discharges. The calculation based on the reservoir inferred
dimensions, from the 3D density model (see explanation in optimistic
scenario), just changing the reference temperature as 40 ◦ C and the
maximum recovery factor, as 0.2, reduced the electric power to 14.87
MWe and the stored heat to 2,35 EJ.
In the Central Cordillera, the results of the calculations indicate that
the San Diego geothermal area has an electric power of 36.91 MWe and a
heat of 4.47 EJ. The Cerro Bravo - Cerro Machín Block, which combines
eight geothermal areas, as stated before, has 144.16 MWe and a heat of
16.37 EJ.
To the south of the Central Cordillera, the total electric power for the
Huila - Sucubún Block is 24.08 MWe, and the heat is 4.76 EJ. In the
extreme south, the Las Ánimas - Chiles Block, which combines six
geothermal areas, has an electrical power of 41.96 MWe and a heat of
7.45 EJ.
The electrical potential and the stored heat calculated for the thermal
springs outside the volcanic zones are 5.73 MWe and 8.76 EJ, respec­
tively. In the Colombian Caribbean, there is a total heat of 0.27 EJ and a
power of 0.03 MWe distributed in the Departments of Atlántico, Mag­
dalena and Cesar. In the Pacific, the hot springs of Chocó have an
electrical power of 0.58 MWe and a heat of 0.45 EJ. In Orinoquía, the
Departments of Arauca, Casanare and Meta have a store heat of 0.45 EJ
and an electric power of 0.09 MWe. In the Amazon, Guaviare Depart­
ment, the heat and electric power are 0.1 EJ and 0.01 MWe, respec­
tively. For the hot springs of the Andean zone, which are located outside
preliminarily delimited geothermal areas, in the Departments of
Antioquia, Boyacá, Cundinamarca, Huila, Nariño, North Santander,
Santander and Tolima, the heat and electric power are 7.49 EJ and 5.02
MWe, respectively. In this zone, the greatest number and clusters of hot
springs are concentrated in the Departments of Boyacá and Cundina­
marca; even though the electrical power is low.
11. General discussion
Based on the data reported in the Table 1 and in the results of the
calculation for Colombia in the two scenarios, whose fundamental dif­
ferences are based on the dimensions of the assumed reservoir (mini­
mum, expected and maximum clusters’ volume, for individual hot
springs, equivalent to 1, 3 and 7.5 km3 and 0.04, 0.8 and 2.4 km3, for the
optimistic and the pessimistic case, respectively), the variability of the
results becomes evident, given the uncertainty of the reservoir variables.
However, taking into account the tectonic context within the Pacific
Ring of Fire, as well as the activity of several volcanoes (21 actives) and
some other extinct (volcanoes, calderas, maars), would allow the opti­
mistic scenario to be more realistic.
As proposed by Stefansson (1998)- there is a relation between the
number of active volcanoes and estimated potential of identified
geothermal resources, as it was established for 8 volcanic regions with
geothermal potential:
TWha (Identified resources): ( − 2 ± 11) + (1.5 ± 0.1) ∗ n
TWha (Total): 63 ± 719 + (8.4 ± 0.9) ∗ n
Where n is the numbers of volcanoes
From the above, it can be seen that the identified geothermal re­
sources for Colombia, with 21 active volcanoes, would be between 2112
and 4863 MWe. For neighbouring countries such as Ecuador, where
there are 27 active volcanos the electric power was estimated in 3000 to
8000 MWe (Table 1), by using this same method (Bona & Coviello
(2016).
The calculation using the volumetric method in the optimistic

10
C. Alfaro et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

Table 6
Geothermal potential calculated for clusters of hot springs within the preliminary geothermal areas in the pessimistic scenario.
Geothermal Area Cluster Heat EJ Power MWe Geothermal Area Cluster Heat EJ Power MWe

Paipa PP-01 0.45 3.64 Cerro Machín CM-01 0.54 2.05

PP-02 0.52 4.19 CM-02 0.27 2.11
PP-03 0.51 4.1 CM-03 0.77 9.1
PP-04 0.36 2.96 CM-04 0.77 10.46
PP-05 0.08 0.01 CM-05 0.46 6.65
PP-06 0.08 0.01 Huila HU-01 0.13 0.01
Iza IZ-01 0.33 2.37 Caldera Gabriel López CGL- 01 0.25 1.3
IZ-02 0.11 0.01 CGL-02 0.26 0.97
IZ-03 0.08 0.01 CGL-03 0.35 1.92
San Diego SD-01 0.34 2.47 CGL − 04 0.13 0.2
SD-02 1.81 9.58 Caldera del Paletará CP-01 0.08 0.01
SD-03 0.43 3.89 CP − 02 0.08 0.06
SD-04 0.48 4.54 CP − 03 0.1 0.01
SD-05 0.4 4.19 CP − 04 0.36 2.94
SD-06 0.32 2.21 CP − 05 0.1 0.01
SD-07 0.68 10.02 CP − 06 0.35 3.19
Cerro Bravo CB-01 0.39 3.94 CP − 07 0.32 2.14
CB-02 0.34 2.93 CP − 08 0.64 5.38
CB-03 0.44 4.6 CP − 09 0.13 0.01
CB-04 0.13 0.1 CP − 10 0.32 2.63
CB-05 0.36 2.88 Sotará Sucubún SS-01 0.21 0.77
Villamaría-Termales VT-01 0.74 6.05 SS-02 0.33 2.45
VT-02 0.24 0.71 Doña Juana-Las Ánimas DJA-01 0.37 2.89
VT-03 0.41 3.35 DJA-02 0.25 0.85
Nereidas-Botero Londoño NB-01 0.66 5.53 DJA-03 0.32 1.9
NB-02 1.45 13.14 DJA-04 0.08 0.01
NB-03 0.12 0.01 DJA-05 0.08 0.01
NB-04 0.30 1.11 Galeras-Morazurco GM-01 0.41 4.42
NB-05 0.22 0.73 GM-02 0.08 0.01
NB-06 0.11 0.01 GM-03 0.19 0.57
Hacienda Granates HG-01 0.41 3.33 GM-04 0.08 0.01
HG-02 0.81 6.65 Sibundoy SB-01 0.08 0.01
HG-03 0.15 0.02 SB-02 0.1 0.01
HG-04 0.22 0.71 SB-03 0.32 2.44
HG-05 0.68 7.51 SB-04 0.29 1.58
HG-06 0.25 0.76 Azufral AZ-01 0.37 3.18
HG-07 0.10 0.01 AZ-02 0.68 5.51
HG-08 0.18 0.55 AZ-03 0.33 2.25
HG-09 0.12 0.01 AZ-04 0.35 2.99
Santa Rosa SR-01 01.09 16.46 AZ-05 0.09 0.01
SR-02 0.70 6.75 AZ-06 0.34 2.51
SR-03 0.33 2.58 Cumbal CUM-01 0.6 3.2
SR-04 0.41 4.52 Chiles – Cerro Negro CCN-01 0.28 1.41
SR-05 0.09 0.01 CCN-02 0.59 5.24
Otún Lake LO-01 0.09 0.01 CCN-03 0.33 1.5
Nevado del Tolima NT-01 0.42 1.56
NT-02 0.18 0.51
NT-03 1.04 12.37
NT-04 0.44 4.07

scenario (1170.20 MWe with a confidence interval of 90% between
1138.81 to 1201.58 MWe), is in the same order of magnitude than the
estimation based on the number of active volcanoes (3368 ± 1495
MWe), particularly with the lower limit of this rangeand with the upper
limit of the range estimated by Gawell et al. (1999) (700 to 1370 MWe).
Similar variabilities are observed in the calculation of geothermal po­
tential for Ecuador and Mexico (Table 1).
As a result of this comparison, the calculation based on the optimistic
scenario (1170.20 MWe with a confidence interval of 90% between
1139.81 and 1201.58 MWe) which is more than 4 times the one corre­
sponding to the pessimistic scenario (263.62 MWe with a confidence
interval of 90% between 192.10 and 366.47 MWe), seems to be more
reliable.
12. Conclusions
Power generation in Colombia is mainly hydropower (70%) which
makes the energy matrix clean but vulnerable, since it depends on the
unpredictable hydrology. Through two initial bidding processes in 2019,
for renewable energy sources (basically wind and solar) framed in the
energy transformation governmental program, an installed capacity of
2250 MW was secured (Herrera, 2019) and an additional capacity of
5800 MW is expected to be awarded in a new bidding announced to the
end of the first semester of 2021 (Vita-Mesa, 2021). The geothermal
resources of the territory, related to the subduction volcanoes due to the
vicinity to the Circum-Pacific Belt, could contribute to the reinforce­
ment, stability and diversification of the energy basket as it was esti­
mated in the assessment presented in this paper that will be summarized
next.
The potential of the hydrothermal geothermal resources of
Colombia, in terms of electric power and stored heat was estimated
between 1138.81 and 1201.58 MWe, with a mean value of 1170.2 MWe
for a 90% confidence interval and, between 136.76 and 140.43 EJ, with
a mean value of 138.60 EJ for a 90% confidence interval, respectively, in
the optimistic scenario. On the other hand, in the pessimistic scenario,
the electric power was estimated between 192.10 and 366.47 MWe,
with a mean value of 263.62 MWe for a 90% confidence interval and, the
stored heat, between 28.14 and 46.87 EJ with a mean value of 35.53 EJ
for a 90% confidence interval. Even in the case that the optimistic sce­
nario approximation overestimates the potential, there is the possibility

11
C. Alfaro et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169

Table 7
Geothermal potential calculated for preliminary geothermal areas in the pessimistic scenario.
Geothermal area Thermal Clusters Stored heat Confidence Stored heat Electrical power 90% Confidence Electric power
springs (EJ) mean interval 90% (EJ) median (MWe) mean interval (MWe) median

Paipa 14 6 1.99 1.61 to 2.36 1.99 14.94 11.28 to 18.60 14.97

Paipa* 14 – 2.35 1.13 to 3.57 2.24 14.87 1.62 to 28.13 12.49
Iza 4 3 0.52 0.36 to 0.67 0.52 2.38 0.90 to 3.86 2.38
San Diego 15 7 4.47 3.32 to 5.63 4.47 36.91 28.83 to 44.99 36.91
Cerro Bravo Volcano 8 5 1.66 1.33 to 1.99 1.66 14.44 10.35 to 18.52 14.41
Villamaría-Termales 9 3 1.4 1.12 to 1.66 1,39 10,15 6.99 to 13.31 10.11
Nereidas-Botero 14 6 2.84 2.31 to 3.37 2,84 20,49 13.91 to 27.08 20.47
Londoño
Hacienda Granates 19 9 2.92 2.45 to 3.31 2,92 19,5 14.97 to 24.02 19.48
Santa Rosa Volcano 20 5 2.6 2.19 to 3.04 2,62 30,53 22.76 to 38.31 30.54
Otún Lake 1 1 0.09 0.008 to 0.16 0.08 0.01 0.00 to 0.02 0.01
Nevado del Tolima 18 4 2.06 1.64 to 2.49 2.07 18.50 12.54 to 24.45 18.51
Cerro Machín Volcano 14 5 2.8 2.38 to 3.22 2.80 30.54 24.15 to 36.94 30.57
Huila Volcano 4 1 0.76 0.37 to 1.14 0.72 0.1 0.03 to 0.16 0.09
Gabriel López Caldera 8 4 0.99 0.84 to 1.14 0.99 4.37 3.27 to 5.47 4.38
Paletará Caldera 21 10 2.48 2.16 to 2.80 2.48 16.38 12.85 to 19.91 16.4
Volcanoes of Sotará - 2 2 0.53 0.36 to 0.70 0.53 3.23 1.64 to 4.82 3.19
Sucubún
Volcanoes Doña Juana - 6 5 1.04 0.082 to 1.25 1.04 4.37 3.03 to 5.71 4.38
Las Animas
Galeras-Morazurco 8 4 1.68 0.96 to 2.41 1.69 4.84 2.45 to 7.21 4.82
Volcanoes
Sibundoy Volcano 4 4 0,8 0.60 to 1.00 0.8 5.04 2.26 to 7.82 4.94
Azufral Volcano 8 6 2.16 1.78 to 2.53 2,5 16.41 12.02 to 20.79 16.42
Cumbal Volcano 1 1 0.6 0.25 to 0.94 0.57 3.2 0.72 to 5.68 2.81
Volcanic Complex Chiles 5 3 1.17 0.89 to 1.46 1,17 8.1 5.54 to 10.67 8.05
- Cerro Negro
TOTAL 203 94 35.56 28.14 to 46.87 35.5 263.62 192.10 to 366.47 263.84

that the geothermal resource of the territory is greater if it is considered
that the work does not include possible blind geothermal systems, hot
dry rock systems nor systems hosted in sedimentary basins.
The highest concentration of geothermal resources in the optimistic
scenario, 69.38%, which is equivalent to 778 MWe, is found in the
northern segment of the Central Cordillera, from the San Diego
geothermal system to the Cerro Machín volcano. Most of the geothermal
systems of the Andean Region (70%), which are associated with vol­
canoes, have a high enthalpy (> 200 ◦ C). They are found in the areas of
Nereidas - Botero Londoño (western Nevado del Ruiz), Cerro Machín,
Cerro Bravo, Paramillo de Santa Rosa, San Diego, Caldera del Paletará,
Chiles-Cerro Negro, Azufral and Paipa. These areas have a total stored
heat of 85.6 EJ and a total electrical power of 834.6 MWe, which cor­
responds to 70% of the potential calculated for the entire territory.
For hot springs located outside the volcalnoes influence zones, which
are likely related to geothermal fracture systems, a stored heat of 49.56
± 0.75 EJ and an electrical power of 24.95 ± 2.15 MWe were calculated,
for the optimistic scenario. For the pessimistic scenario, the stored heat
was calculated in 8.76 EJ and the electrical power, ins 5.73 MWe. These
systems are found in 16 Departments of the Caribbean, Pacific, Orino­
quía and Amazon regions and mainly in the Andean region. The highest
concentration of stored heat and electric power corresponds to the
department of Huila, with values of 7.08 EJ and 12.09 MWe, respec­
tively, for the optimistic scenario and, 1.3 EJ and 2.2 MWe, for the
pessimistic scenario.
The calculated electrical power is of a significant magnitude,
equivalent to 7% of the installed electrical capacity (17,720 MWe in
2018 (UPME, 2018)) and even more than the 2250 MWe awarded by the
National Government in recently awarded auctions (Presidencia, 2019)
for renewable sources (mainly wind and photovoltaic), compared to
which the geothermal source has notable advantages due to its high
plant factor and its independence from climatic factors. In any case, this
resource could contribute to the rational and efficient use of energy, just
via direct uses.
The electric power and stored heat estimation are based in assump­
tions about the reservoirs, such as their dimensions and geometry, the
physical properties of rocks and the thermodynamic properties of fluids.
To improve this estimation, it is necessary to continue exploratory sur­
face and subsoil studies until deep boreholes are drilled. Exploratory
wells will provide the direct measurements required to validate the
descriptive conceptual models and to improve the estimation of the
simulation variables.
The implementation of research strategies to estimate the
geothermal resources associated with blind systems, hot dry rock sys­
tems and sedimentary basins is required in order to do a more complete
and reliable estimation of the Colombian geothermal resources.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
C Alfaro: Conceptualization, Software, Investigation, Supervision,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Project adminis­
tration. J.B. Rueda-Gutiérrez: Conceptualization, Software, Investiga­
tion, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,
Visualization. Y Casallas: Conceptualization, Software, Investigation.
G. Rodríguez: Conceptualization, Software, Investigation. J. Malo:
Conceptualization, Software, Investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the Inter-
American Development Bank and the company Geokeri S.A. de C.V. of
México for the technical support offered during the execution of this
study. Special thanks to the Mines and Energy Minister, Dr. Diego Mesa
Puyo, and advisers Mónica Gasca and Lina Castaño, for their commit­
ment to the Geothermal Round table “Initiative for the development of
geothermal energy in Colombia” in which this work was gestated to sup­
port the development of geothermal energy in the country. Thank you to
Dr. Christiaan Gischler Blanco, leader energy specialist of the IDB and

12
C. Alfaro et al.
leader of the IDB Colombian Geothermal Exploration Mission, as well as
his working group, for the training offered. Thank you to Dr. Gerardo
Hiriart Le Bert and engineers Salvador Espíndola and Monserrat Meza,
the General Director, Technical Director and Engineer Monserrat Meza
of the Geokeri company, for sharing their knowledge and experience in
the volumetric heat in place method and for their constant advice during
the execution of this study.
References
Alfaro, C., Ponce, P., Monsalve, M.L., Ortiz, I., Franco, J.V., Ortega, A., Torres, R.,
Gómez, D., 2015. A preliminary conceptual model of Azufral geothermal system.
Colombia. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, p. 18.
Alfaro, C., Matíz, J., Rueda-Gutiérrez, J., Rodríguez, G.F., González, C., Beltrán, M.,
Rodríguez, G.Z.Y., Malo, J., 2017. Actualización Del Modelo Conceptual Del área
geotérmica De Paipa. Informe. Servicio Geológico Colombiano, Bogotá, p. 111.
Alfaro, C., Rueda, J., Rodríguez, G.F., Matiz, C., Rodríguez, G., Malo, J., Gutiérrez, J.,
2020. Modelo Conceptual Descriptivo del Sistema Geotérmico del Volcán Azufral.
Informe Técnico. Servicio Geológico Colombiano. Bogotá.
Almeida, E., 1990. Alternativas Para El Desarrollo Geotermoeléctrico En La República del
Ecuador. Unp. Tech. Report for INECEL, p. 47.
Aquater, 1987. Proyecto Geotérmico Binacinal Tufiño-Chiles-Cerro Negro. Contrato
OLADE, ICEL, INECEL. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo – BID. 2019. Ayuda
Memoria CO-G1007. Misión Exploratoria Geotermia. 7 p.
Aravena, D., Muñoz, M., Morata, D., Lahsen, A., Parada, M.A., Dodson, P., 2016.
Assessment of high enthalpy geothermal resources and promising areas of Chile.
Geothermics 59, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.09.001, 14.
Aravena, D., Villalón, I., Sánchez, P., 2015. Igneous related geothermal resource in the
Chilean Andes. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015. Melbourne,
Australia, p. 8, 19-25 April 2015.
Beltrán, M.A., 2016. Interpretación datos gravimétricos y magnetométricos área de
Azufral (Nariño). Informe. Servicio Geológico Colombiano. Bogotá. 76.
Bona, P., Coviello, M.F., 2016. Valoración y gobernanza de los proyectos geotérmicos en
América del Sur. Una propuesta metodológica. Documentos de proyecto. Naciones
Unidas, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). Cooperación
Alemana. S.16-00390 178.
Brook, C.A., Mariner, R.H., Mabey, J.R., Swanson, J.R., Guffanti, M., Muffler, L.J.P.,
1978. Hydrothermal convection systems with reservoir temperatures >90◦ C. En.
Editor Circular 790. In: Muffler, L.J.P. (Ed.), Assessment of geothermal resources of
the United States –1978. Circular 790, U.S. Geological Survey, pp. 18–85.
CHEC (Central Hidroeléctrica de Caldas), 1983. Contecol Ltda., Geotérmica Italiana.
Investigación Geotérmica Macizo Volcánico del Ruiz. VII volúmenes.
Chiodi, A., Filipovich, R., Esteban, C., Pesce, A., Stefanini, V., 2020. Geothermal Country
Update of Argentina: 2015-2020. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2020.
Reykjavik, Iceland, p. 13. April 26 – May 2, 2020.
Colombia: Ley 1955 de, 2019. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2018 –2022 “Pacto Por
Colombia, Pacto por La Equidad. Disponible en. https://www.alcaldiabogota.gov.
co/sisjurMantenimiento/normas/Norma1.jsp?i=84147.
DESIGNPOWER GENZL, 1997. Nevado del Ruiz Geothermal Prospect. Nereidas
Exploration Well N1. Post Drilling Scientific Review. Geonergía Andina S.A 59.
Eslava, J., 1992. Perfil altitudinal de la temperatura media del aire en Colombia. Geofis.
Colomb. 1, 37–52. ISSN 0121-2974.
Filipovich, R., Barrios, A., Ahumada, F., Chiodi, A., Báez, W., Giordano, G.,
Viramonte, J., 2017. Probabilistic assessment of electrical potential of Tocomar
geothermal field (Central Puna - NW Argentina) using volumetric method. In:
Proceedings 39th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop 22 - 24 November 2017.
Rotorua, New Zealand, p. 6.
Fournier, R.O., 1977. Chemical geothermometers and mixing models for geothermal
systems. Geothermics 5, 41–50.
Fournier, R.O.yY., Truesdell, A.H., 1973. An empirical Na- 460K-Ca geotbermometer for
natural waters. Geochim. Cosmochim. Aeta 37, 1.255-1.275.
Gawell, K., Reed, M., Wright, P.M., 1999. Preliminary Report: geothermal Energy. the
potential for clean power from the Earth. Geotherm. Energy Assoc. 15.
Geoker, 2019a. Modelo Volumétrico para Evaluar el Potencial de Yacimientos
Geotérmicos. Material de entrenamiento. Servicio Geológico Colombiano. Bogotá.
Garg, S., 2010. Appropriate Use of Usgs Volumetric “heat in place” Method and Monte
Carlo Calculations. PROCEEDINGS, Thirty-Fourth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California. February 1-3, 2010.
7 p.
Garg, S.K., Combs, J., 2015. A reformulation of USGS volumetric “heat in place” resource
estimation method. Geothermics 55, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2015.02.004.
Geokeri, 2019a. Training on the volumetric heat in place method. Training Material
Course. Servicio Geológico Colombiano.
Geokeri, 2019b. Modelo Volumétrico; Adaptación Geokeri Octubre 2019. Macro en
Visual Basic en archivo Excel.
13
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102169
Giggenbach, W.F., 1988. Geothermal solute equilibria. Derivation of Na-K-Mg-Ca
geoindicators. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 52, 2749–2765. Vol.
Herrera, E., 2019. Con Nueva subasta, Gobierno Nacional Superó En Más Del 50% La
Meta En Energías Renovables. https://id.presidencia.gov.co/Paginas/prensa/2019/
Con-nueva-subasta-Gobierno-Nacional-supero-en-mas-del-50-la-meta-en-ener
gias-renovables-191022.aspx.
Huttrer, G. 2020. Geothermal Power Generation in the World 2015-2020 Update Report.
Virtual Event. World Geothermal Congress. Reykjavik, Iceland. Recuperado en abril
27, 2020. Disponible en https://www.wgc2020.com/virtual_event_live/.
INGEOMINAS, Centro Internacional de Física (CIF), COLCIENCIAS e ISAGEN., 2012.
Modelación de La Estructura Resistiva Del Subsuelo a Partir De Sondeos
magnetotelúricos, En áreas geotérmicas De Colombia. Caso Nevado Del Ruiz.
Informe final. COLCIENCIAS. Bogotá.
Lund, J.W., Toth, A.N., 2020. Direct Utilization of Geothermal Energy 2020 Worldwide
Review. Virtual Event. Recuperado en abril 27, 2020. Disponible en, World
Geothermal Congress. Reykjavik, Iceland. https://www.wgc2020.com/virtual_ev
ent_live/.
Matiz, C., 2020. Modelo Geológico 3D constreñido por geofísica de campos potenciales
del área geotérmica del Volcán Azufral. Informe. Servicio Geológico Colombiano.
Bogotá. 94.
Ministerio de Energía y Minas (MINEM), Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA), 2012. The Master Plan for Development of Geothermal Energy in Peru. Final
Report. Independent report. In: prepared for Japan International Cooperation
Agency and Ministry of Energy and Mines of Peru by West Japan Engineering
Consultants, Inc., p. 82. February 2012.
Moyano, I., Lara, N., Ospina, D., Salamanca, A., Arias, H., Gómez, E., Puentes, M.,
Rojas, O., 2018. Mapa De Anomalías Geofísicas de Colombia para Recursos
Minerales, Versión 2018. Servicio Geológico Colombiano, Bogotá.
Nicholson, K., 1993. Geothermal fluids. Chemistry and Exploration techniques. Springer-
Verlag. Berlin. 268 p.
Organización Latinoamericana de Energía (OLADE) & Geotérmica Italiana., 1982.
Estudio De Reconocimiento de Los Recursos Geotérmicos De La República de
Colombia. 7 Volúmenes. Pisa.
Organización Latinoamericana de Energía (OLADE) y 1993 Banco Interamericano De
Desarrollo (BID). 1993. Guía para La Evolución Del Potencial Energético En Zona
Geotérmicas Durante Las Etapas Previas a La Factibilidad. Quito, 265 pp.
Presidencia, 2019. Con nueva subasta, Gobierno Nacional supero en más del 50% la meta
en energías renovables. Disponible en. https://id.presidencia.gov.co/Paginas/pren
sa/2019/Con-nueva-subasta-Gobierno-Nacional-supero-en-mas-del-50-la-me
ta-en-energias-renovables-191022.aspx.
Rodríguez, G., Rueda-Gutiérrez, J., 2017. Geología estructural del Área Geotérmica del
Volcán Azufral. Informe. Servicio Geológico Colombiano. Bogotá. 80.
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, G.F., 2018. Modelos 1D. 2D y 3D de la estructura resistiva del
subsuelo a partir de registros magnetotelúricos para el área geotérmica del volcán
Azufral. Informe. Servicio Geológico Colombiano. Bogotá. 68.
Rueda-Gutiérrez, J., Rodríguez, 2016. Geología del Área Geotérmica de San Diego. 2016.
Informe Técnico. Servicio Geológico Colombiano. Bogotá.
Sarmiento, Z., Steingrímsson, B., 2007. Computer Programme For Resource Assessment
and Risk Evaluation Using Monte Carlo Simulation. Short Course on Geothermal
Development in Central America-Resource Assessment and Environmental
Management. UNU-GTP and LaGeo. El Salvador.
Servicio Geológico Colombiano (SGC), 2015. Inventario Nacional de Manifestaciones
Hidrotermales. Aplicativo web. Disponible en. http://hidrotermales.sgc.gov.co/inv
termales/.
Stefansson, V., 1998. Estimate of the World Geothermal Potential. Geothermal Training
Programme 1998. The United Nations University. Reykjavík, ICELAND.
Stefansson, V., 2005. World Geothermal Assessment. In: Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress 2005 Antalya. Turkey, pp. 24–29. April 2005, 6 pp.
Takahashi, S., Yoshida, S., 2018. A desktop review of calculation equations for
geothermal volumetric assessment. In: Proceedings, 43rd Workshop on. Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California. February 12-14,
2018.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL), INGEOMINAS, COLCIENCIAS e ISAGEN,
2012. Programa Estratégico Para La Investigación y Modelamiento Del Sistema
Hidrotermal Magmático en Áreas con Potencial Geotérmico Localizadas en El Flanco
Noroccidental Del Volcán Nevado Del Ruiz. Colombia. Informe final. Contrato de
Financiamiento COLCIENCIAS 762 De. COLCIENCIAS. Bogotá.
UPME, 2018. Informe mensual de variables de generación y del mercado eléctrico
colombiano – Agosto de 2018. Disponible en. http://www.siel.gov.co/portals/0/gen
eracion/2018/Informe_de_variables_Ago_2018.pdf.
Vita-Mesa, L., 2021. Nueva Subasta de Energías Alternativas Se Haría a Finales Del
Primer Semestre De 2021. La República. https://www.larepublica.co/economia
/nueva-subasta-de-energias-alternativas-se-haria-a-finales-del-primer-semestre-de-2
021-3126907.
Wilmarth, M., Stimac, J., 2015. Power density in geothermal fields. In: Proceedings
World Geothermal Congress 2016. Melboune, Australia.
Zapata, H.J., 2015. Propuesta de una hoja de ruta para el fomento del desarrollo de
proyectos Geotérmicos”. Programa Regional de Entrenamiento Geotérmico (PREG).
Universidad de El Salvador., p. 76