Dixie Valley Geothermal Area
Geothermal Area Profile
|Exploration Region:||Central Nevada Seismic Zone Geothermal Region|
|GEA Development Phase:||Operational"Operational" is not in the list of possible values (Phase I - Resource Procurement and Identification, Phase II - Resource Exploration and Confirmation, Phase III - Permitting and Initial Development, Phase IV - Resource Production and Power Plant Construction) for this property.|
|Mean Reservoir Temp:||231°C504.15 K
|Estimated Reservoir Volume:||19.5519.55 m³
|Mean Capacity:||62 MW62,000 kW
|USGS Mean Reservoir Temp:||225°C498.15 K
|USGS Estimated Reservoir Volume:||11 km³|||
|USGS Mean Capacity:||129 MW|||
The Dixie Valley Geothermal Area is located near Fallon, Nevada. It lies along a range front fault that runs between the base of the Stillwater Range and the northwestern edge of Dixie Valley. The fault line and thermally active area are roughly 30 km long. It stretches from the Dixie Valley Geothermal power plant (Figure 1) on the north side of the geothermal zone to the Dixie Hot Springs Geothermal Area on the south side. The Dixie Meadows Geothermal Area also lies within this thermally active fault zone. There are a few other hot springs nearby: Seven Devils, Sou, and Hyder hot springs. There are also three blind systems within the valley: Dixie Comestock Mine, Pirouette Mountain, and Eleven Mile Canyon. The Dixie Valley Geothermal Area is the hottest and largest known geothermal system in the Basin and Range Province. The geothermal production area is divided into two groups of production wells: Section 33 and Section 7; injection wells are located between the two production zones in section 5. Each zone is about 1-3 km long and they are not hydrologically linked at depth. A third zone that lies to the south of the production area, called Dixie Valley Power Partners (DVPP), has not been developed yet and is not hydrologically linked to the current production zones, but exhibits similar thermal characteristics.
The Dixie Valley Geothermal Area is a fault-controlled geothermal system and is the hottest known deep-circulation system in the Basin and Range province. The quantity and diversity of geophysical, geological, geochemical, hydrologic, and other studies conducted at Dixie Valley are also much greater than those performed at any other geothermal area in Nevada. Consequently, the amount of available information at Dixie Valley provides a unique template for understanding and developing other Basin and Range geothermal systems. In recent years, the site has been used as a case example for Basin and Range systems. Several adaptations of conventional geothermal exploration techniques have been tested and calibrated at Dixie Valley for the identification of resources suitable for development as Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).
In addition to the geothermal resource, Dixie Valley hosts several gold deposits near the Senator Fumaroles, and so has received some attention from the gold mining industry. Dixie Valley has also been in the spotlight due to the occurrence of several large earthquakes in the area, the most notable being in 1954 when a 7.2 magnitude earthquake struck at Fairview peak, followed by a 6.7 magnitude earthquake four minutes later associated with rupturing of the Dixie Valley Fault. These quakes produced large surface ruptures and drew the attention of many researchers.
History and Infrastructure
Operating Power Plants: 1
|Add a new Operating Power Plant|
Developing Power Projects: 1
|Add a new Developing Power Project|
Power Production Profile
|Gross Production Capacity:|
|Net Production Capacity:|
|Power Purchasers :||
There is one geothermal power plant in Dixie Valley, located at the northern end of the valley about 100 km northeast of Fallon, Nevada. It is currently the largest geothermal power generation facility in Nevada. The power plant was brought online in 1988 and was originally owned by the Oxbow Group. In 2000 it was purchased by Caithness Energy, and then in 2010 Terra-Gen Power, LLC acquired the facility. The power plant produces 67 MW and has the highest energy output of any other geothermal power facility that is not associated with recent magmatic activity. The energy produced at the Dixie Valley Power Plant is currently being sold to Southern California Edison.
Geothermal activity in the Dixie Valley area was first reported in 1968 by surveyors.  By the late 1970s and early 1980s Dixie Valley became a competitive location for geothermal exploration with 11 different companies engaged in exploration activities. In 1985, the Oxbow Geothermal Corporation acquired three separate geothermal leaseholds in the Dixie Valley area. The acquisitions came from Sun Company and Trans-Pacific-Geothermal who each held Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with Southern California Edison. They each planned to build power plants of 10-20 MW, but the high transmission costs that were associated with the projects prevented development. By combining the two smaller ventures into one 67 MW plant, the 220-mile, 230-kV transmission line that was needed to connect with Southern California Edison became economically feasible. The line became the largest privately owned electric transmission facility in the United States. Oxbow hired Ebasco Services as the turnkey contractor and Ben Holt Company as the project engineer for the 3.5-year plant construction. The single-unit, double-flash power plant also became the largest geothermal plant of its kind in the country when completed in July 1988. The generating station produced 67 MW of electricity from a geothermal resource of around 249°C from a 2400-3050 m depth interval in the permeable fracture zone of the Dixie Valley fault.
The power plant was bought by Caithness Energy in 2000, following an extensive study of the facility and resource. Starting in 1999, Caithness expressed an interest in the facility and hired GeothermEx to prepare a report and complete assessment of the plant. A major part of the study was to assess the newly implemented use of augmented injection in the wells. GeothermEx created mathematical models that confirmed the field could sustain profitable output for the lifetime of the facility. This study is described in more detail in the Technical Problems and Solutions section. The plant was later purchased by Terra-Gen Power, LLC in 2010.
Much of Dixie Valley’s success is due to the pre-existing PPA contracts. The existing PPA alleviated much of the uncertainty and risk that would have normally been associated with a “first-of-its-size” geothermal power plant. Aside from already having a PPA in place, extensive exploration had already been done prior to the acquisition, which helped confirm the resource and contributed to minimizing the total project and development time. Terra-Gen Power originally had a PPA with Southern California Edison which expires in July 2018, but another PPA has already been executed to give a firm energy price through 2038.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Involvement
Because the Dixie Valley Geothermal Area typifies other fault-controlled, deep-circulation driven systems in the Basin and Range and serves as a good case study to better understand development of these kinds of resources, the DOE funded extensive research from 1995 to 2002 at Dixie Valley to:
- Better characterize fault-controlled Basin and Range systems
- Better understand why some areas of faults are more permeable than others
- Determine the optimal exploration techniques for deep, fault-controlled geothermal systems.
Recent investigations have clarified the extent and structure of the thermal setting in the area, connecting the system with the Dixie Hot Springs 30 km to the north, previously believed to be a separate system. Researchers have determined that the fault zone is one to two miles wide with multiple strands and that the water and heat do not relate to a magmatic source.
Dixie Valley Timeline
1954: Rupturing of the Dixie Valley Fault causes a set of high-magnitude earthquakes at Fairview Peak.
1968: Surveyors document geothermal activity in the Dixie Valley area.
Late 1970s: Dixie Valley becomes a competitive exploration target, with 11 different companies active in the area.
1985: Oxbow Geothermal Corporation obtains three separate geothermal leaseholds in Dixie Valley. Consolidation of the lease holdings and PPAs made construction of the 220 mile transmission line to the planned geothermal facility economically feasible.
1995-2002: DOE funds extensive research in the Dixie Valley area to better characterize and develop exploration techniques for deep fault-controlled geothermal systems in the Basin and Range.
1997: Injection augmentation program begins at Dixie Valley to reduce evaporative water loss to the system.
2000: The Dixie Valley Geothermal Power Plant is purchased by Caithness Energy.
2010: Terra-Gen Power, LLC acquires the Dixie Valley Geothermal Power Plant.
2011: Terra-Gen is awarded $2 million in DOE funding to develop unutilized low temperature resources at Dixie Valley.
For a more detailed review of the history, see Steven C. Bergman, David D. Blackwell, Fraser E. Goff, B. Mack Kennedy, Jason R. McKenna, Maria C. Richards, Richard P. Smith, Al F. Waibel, and Philip E. Wannamaker. 2014. Dixie Valley Synthesis. Dallas, TX: SMU Geothermal Laboratory. 412p.
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
Dixie Valley is an unpopulated desert, so developers faced no opposition in siting the facility. The project did, however, encounter delays due to concerns over wildlife and protected areas because of the transmission lines required to reach the remote location. Obtaining the right of ways for the transmission lines became the most difficult hurdle for Oxbow. It took nearly 2 years before the negotiations between the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other landowners were completed. Even though the landowners and BLM were cooperative, the route for the right of way was changed several times, leading to additional expenses. Barney Rush, the executive vice president of Oxbow, stressed that the positive relationship that they have been able to maintain with both the Bureau of Land Management and Southern California Edison has been an important factor in their success.
Dixie Valley has an unusually clean resource, so disposal of waste sludge and water historically has not been a significant concern. The plant operators re-inject as much of the water as possible in order to maintain pressure within the wells. Roughly 75% of the water is re-injected, 23% is lost to evaporation, and only about 2% requires disposal. The 2% that is disposed of is safely discharged into a nearby salt marsh. Between 1985 and 1998, reservoir monitoring revealed that 31% of the total reservoir fluid had been lost due to the evaporative cooling at the power plant; this amount of water loss began to cause a reduction in power production, the amount of power loss was not stated. Due to this problem there was a need for an injection augmentation program. The program started in 1997 and required the operator to obtain water rights and conduct extensive tests of various waters for scaling potential. The new injection program utilized cold, shallow ground water rich in Ca and Mg. In order to stabilize the geothermal reservoir, an injection augmentation rate of about 30 kg/sec was needed. Monitoring of the shallow, cold water aquifer has shown that it should be capable of supplying water indefinitely. After injection began a gradual increase in the power plant output of 1-2 MW over 2 months occurred.
The DOE Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP) is currently funding a project to increase the production of the Dixie Valley Geothermal Area. In 2011, Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC was awarded $2 million in DOE funding to generate electricity from existing unutilized low-temperature resources. The project attempts to prove the technical and economic feasibility of power generation expansion at the existing Dixie Valley Power Plant by utilizing the wastewater from the present power generation in a binary plant. The existing low-pressure, low-temperature brine is currently injected back into the reservoir. After obtaining the necessary permits, Terra-Gen will engineer, procure, construct, test, and commission a 4.2 MW binary power plant, providing the DOE GTP and the National Geothermal Data System with nonproprietary information for at least 2 years.
First Discovery Well
|Initial Flow Rate:||
|Flow Test Comment:|
Ever since a large-magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck in 1954, Dixie Valley has been the focus of many extensive geoscience studies. After the discovery of a large geothermal resource in Dixie Valley in 1968, the amount of studies and geophysical research increased. Geothermal exploration activities began in the early 1980s, and the power plant was completed in 1988. Between 1995 and 2002, the DOE funded extensive research at Dixie Valley, and currently DOE is funding research into Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) exploration methods using the site as a test platform for new modeling techniques. It is claimed that the normal fault zone between Dixie Valley and the Stillwater Range (where the geothermal area is located) is probably the most thoroughly explored normal fault zone in the world. The area has over 20 deep drill holes and many thermal gradient wells. Countless geophysical studies of all types have been conducted in the area. See the Activities section for more details on exploration techniques that have been conducted at Dixie Valley.
Well Field Description
Well Field Information
|Number of Production Wells:||1|
|Number of Injection Wells:||24|
|Number of Replacement Wells:|
|Average Temperature of Geofluid:|| 285°C558.15 K
|Sanyal Classification (Wellhead):||High Temperature|||
|Reservoir Temp (Geothermometry):|
|Reservoir Temp (Measured):|
|Sanyal Classification (Reservoir):|
|Depth to Top of Reservoir:||1700m1.7 km
|Depth to Bottom of Reservoir:||2895m2.895 km
|Average Depth to Reservoir:||2298m2.298 km
The Dixie Valley production field was developed between 1979 and 1988. The field has two groups of production wells: section 33 and 7 (Figure 2); there are injection wells between the two groups of production wells in section 5. Well 36-14 on the south side of the production field has the highest temperatures reaching 285°C. There are two hot wells several km to the southwest that are located outside of the main groups of production wells. These wells are 66-21 and 45-14 and have temperatures of 218°C and 195°C, respectively. The northernmost well is 76-28 and has a temperature of 162°C at 2350 m depth. There is also a well to the east of the main production area named 62-21 that has a temperature of 184°C at 3318 m depth. Despite evidence of widespread thermal activity along the range front fault (~30 km long), deep wells have only been drilled in close proximity to the production field. As of 2009, a total of 20 deep drill holes and over 100 thermal gradient wells had been drilled along the valley/range contact where the normal fault zone is located.
Research and Development Activities
Dixie Valley has been chosen as a research platform for identifying potential drilling targets for EGS. This project is led by AltaRock Energy, Inc., utilizing expertise from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Southern Methodist University, University of Nevada Reno (UNR), and the University of Utah. The interdisciplinary group of scientists is integrating geology, geochemistry, and geophysical data into a conceptual model to determine the optimal combination of data for identifying EGS drilling targets with non-invasive techniques. The study will include geological, geochemical, and thermal analysis along with magnetotelluric, gravity, magnetic, seismic tomography, and new seismic noise techniques (developed by UNR). UNR’s new ambient noise methods are particularly useful because they do not rely on active sources (like expensive reflection surveys) or local earthquake data (unavailable in regions of low seismicity). This exploration methodology will increase spatial resolution and reduce the non-uniqueness inherent in geophysical data. The study will decrease the uncertainty in the primary selection criteria for identifying EGS drilling targets, which are, in order of importance:
- Temperatures that are greater than 200 to 260°C at 1 to 4 km depth
- Rock type at the depth of interest
- Stress regime.
Using statistical methods to analyze uncertainty, non-uniqueness, and inconsistencies in the data, experts will synthesize the information into a conceptual EGS model and predict these variables (temperature, rock composition, and stress) at a scale of 5x5 km and depths of 1 to 4 km. The final product will include an EGS drilling favorability map and a comprehensive Geographic Information Systems database with existing and acquired geologic data for the Dixie Valley study site. This resource is an ideal location to test and calibrate the methodology for use in the Basin and Range exploration because it is highly characterized, including extensive temperature data at depth. It appears that the investigation should be able to cover three different thermal regions of interest: a hot dry area, a hot wet area, and a cold zone. The Dixie Valley site also provides a good analog to AltaRock’s other lease holdings in the northwest Basin and Range.
Technical Problems and Solutions
The Dixie Valley geothermal fluid has high silica content. While this can be an issue for the power production process due to silica scaling in pipelines, Caithness Operating Company (who at the time owned three geothermal areas: Dixie Valley, Coso, and Steamboat Springs) collaborated with Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) to identify a method for isolating and marketing the silica. In order to develop a method for extraction of silica, BNL tested reaction parameters such as temperature, pressure, pH, concentration of reagents, and aging to see their impacts on the properties of silica products. After it was shown that the silica could be extracted, they tested surface modification on the produced silica to increase its marketability. The data were used to predict silica production and associated costs, showing the viability of commercial mineral extraction in these geothermal power plants. BNL won a 2001 R&D 100 Award for developing the technology.
Another problem the Dixie Valley Power Plant faced was loss of water in the reservoir due to evaporation, so an injection system utilizing shallow ground water was developed. Oxbow’s augmented injection technology provided a major challenge for GeothermEx in assessing the efficacy and efficiency of the plant. The project used both traditional production and injection wells along with injection wells augmented by shallow groundwater sources to raise well pressure. This alternate water source was difficult to assess over the life of the plant because of its variability. GeothermEx preformed numerical simulation and used past production data to assess the future capacity of the field, concluding that by using the mix of well types, the Dixie Valley field should sustain its current 67 MW output for the life of the project. Over the last ten years since the report was completed and Caithness acquired the plant, the predictions have proved accurate, suggesting profitable output will continue as expected.
Geology of the Area
|Modern Geothermal Features:||Fumaroles, Hot Springs|||
|Relict Geothermal Features:||Hydrothermal Alteration|||
|Volcanic Age:||No Volcanism|
|Host Rock Age:||Jurassic|||
|Host Rock Lithology:||Basalt|||
|Cap Rock Age:|
|Cap Rock Lithology:|
The Dixie Valley Geothermal Area is the largest and hottest known geothermal system in the Basin and Range province. Dixie Valley is located within the Central Nevada Seismic Belt and the Battle Mountain Heat Flow High. The valley is in a region adjacent to a structural discontinuity that separates thicker crust to the east from thinner crust to the west. Dixie Valley is the lowest topographical valley in northern Nevada. Much of what has been learned about Dixie Valley is also typical of other basin and range geothermal systems. The region is dominated by normal faulting, and the Dixie Valley Geothermal System lies over a large northeast-trending range front normal fault (Figure 3). The area consists of sedimentary basin fill in the valley and highly variable rock types from andesite and basalt to shale and limestone, which make up the surrounding mountains. There are also several fumaroles and hot springs, located throughout Dixie Valley, the most notable of which are the Senator Fumaroles located on the northern edge of the geothermal area.
The thermal anomaly at the Dixie Valley power field is estimated to be about 30 km long and is not hydrologically continuous at depth. A fault zone stretching over 20 km between the Stillwater Range and Dixie Valley is the mechanism for permeability and fluid circulation in the geothermal system. The fault zone is complex and roughly 1-2 km wide. Fault strands have a steep dip of 70-80° with a depth of over 3 km. The subsurface structure does not reflect what is seen from the surface in any simple way, so identifying drilling targets can be difficult. Reservoir temperatures have been measured as high as 285°C at 2-3 km depth. It is believed that the present geothermal system has been in existence for the last 100,000 years.
The Dixie Valley Geothermal System contains a complex network of faults and fractures consisting of steep dips (Figure 4). Structural models of the Dixie Valley Geothermal system are highly variable; dip estimates of deep structures range from about 20° to greater than 75°. This uncertainty in the structure is a major factor in drilling uncertainty, which causes a high risk factor for geothermal development.
There are numerous faults that show no surface expression but have been identified by magnetic anomalies. These shallow faults interpreted by magnetic surveys are very young (late Pleistocene or Holocene) and are a part of the currently active system of extensional faulting. The normal fault that runs between the Stillwater Range and Dixie Valley, where the geothermal field lies, is claimed to be one of the most thoroughly explored normal faults in the world. It consists of a greater than 5 km vertical displacement that has occurred over about 8 to 15 million years. The fault zone is complex, steeply dipping, and 2-4 km wide. Individual fault strands dip at 70° to greater than 80° and reach depths of around 3 km. Near vertical extensional fracturing is observed at the surface. Observations from the surface do not reflect the subsurface structure in any simple way, which makes locating geothermal targets difficult. The complex effects of many different events have led to the geothermal system consisting of a very complex intertwining system of faults and fractures. The pattern is difficult to understand and not simple to describe. Structural models predict a wide range of dip angles which cause a large uncertainty in drilling targets, ultimately making development risky.
The lithological units found in the Dixie Valley Geothermal Area range in age from Triassic marine sediments to recent basin filling sediments. The stratigraphic sequence in order from the surface to the bottom of most of the drill holes is basin filling sediments, silicic tuff-rich sediments, Miocene age basalt, Miocene sediments, Oligocene silicic volcanic rocks, Jurassic oceanic basaltic crust, Jurassic marine sediments, Cretaceous granodiorite, and Triassic marine sediments.
The Dixie Valley Basin is asymmetrical; the deepest part occurs in the west part of the valley along the Stillwater Range. At the deepest point the basin filling sediments are over 2000 m thick. The rock types that make up the basin filling sediments are highly varied; the oldest sediments are predominantly reworked silicic tuffs and at shallower depths variations of pebble conglomerate with a clay matrix are the most common rock type.
The Dixie Valley Geothermal Area is characterized by the Dixie Valley fault, a major range-bounding fault on the west margin of the valley and the eastern edge of the Stillwater Range, which creates the highly permeable fractures responsible for the production zone at 2-3 kilometers depth. East of the range front fault there is one major aquifer that falls within a layer of Miocene basalts at depths of 2133-2438 m. Fluids flow up the fault from depth into fractured meta-igneous rocks, which host the reservoir and are exposed in the adjacent range. The hydrothermal system is complicating, consisting of fluid flow paths that vary on a small scale leading to a complex reservoir system. A geothermal fluid outflow zone exists which discharges an estimated 5 l/s of hot fluid from the geothermal area. This loss of hot fluid results in an estimated 56 MW of lost energy from the geothermal system.
There are a few surface manifestations in Dixie Valley—the most notable is called the Senator Fumaroles located on the Northern end of the geothermal area. Gold mineralization has been noted to occur at the Senator Fumaroles. There are also a few small unnamed steam vents in the area and two small hot springs called Dixie Springs (located at the southern end of the geothermal area) and Hyder Springs (at the northern end of the geothermal area).
The heat source for the Dixie Valley Geothermal Area is believed to be deep circulation of fluid in a highly fractured, high-heat-flow upper crust zone. There is no evidence of any recent significant magmatic thermal input. Heat-flow measurements in the area locally exceed 300 MW/m2, and conductive temperature gradients are between 100 and 200°C/km.
Highly variable water geochemistry in the Dixie Valley groundwater and springs has been noted. The water from the geothermal production area has been continuously analyzed since power production began. Some chemicals in the geothermal fluids have changed over time. Chloride (Cl) concentrations have increased over time because of water loss through steam. Very little Cl flashes into the vapor phase so it stays in the system, and residual brine becomes enriched over time. This behavior is called conservative geochemical behavior. The elements boron (B) and bromine (Br) also behave conservatively in Dixie Valley. Arsenic and lithium (Li) concentrations have been found to decrease over time. Loss of arsenic is due to reactions with hydrogen sulfide (H2S), but the reason for loss of Li is unknown. Silica (SiO2) concentrations tend to fluctuate in complex ways depending on reservoir temperature and levels of steam loss between measurements. Calcium (Ca) concentrations have been found to increase over time, which is a concern due to the increased possibility of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) scale. The Dixie Valley basin waters are noted to have higher Na and K values than water from most other Basin and Range locations. Studies have indicated that fluid from the Dixie Valley contains relatively low amounts of rare earth elements, which might be related to relatively high pH and low concentrations of sulfate (SO4) and Cl which are characteristic of the geothermal fluids in the area.
NEPA-Related Analyses (7)
Below is a list of NEPA-related analyses that have been conducted in the area - and logged on OpenEI. To add an additional NEPA-related analysis, see the NEPA Database.
Exploration Activities (64)
Below is a list of Exploration that have been conducted in the area - and cataloged on OpenEI. Add a new Exploration Activity
- Ruggero Bertani. 2005. World Geothermal Power Generation 2001-2005. Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress; Turkey: World Geothermal Congress.
- Geothermex Inc.. 2004. New Geothermal Site Identification and Qualification. Richmond, CA: California Energy Commission. Report No.: P500-04-051. Contract No.: 500-04-051.
- Tom Harding-Newman, James Morrow, Subir Sanyal, Zhengjia Meng (International Finance Corporation (IFC)). 2013. Success of Geothermal Wells: A global study. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation.
- U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States. USA: U.S. Geological Survey. Report No.: Fact Sheet 2008-3082.
- David D. Blackwell,Mark Leidig,Richard P. Smith. 2002. Regional Geophysics of the Dixie Valley Area- Example of a large Basin and Range Geothermal Resource. Geothermal Resources Council, TRANSACTIONS. 26(N/A):519-522.
- David D. Blackwell, Richard P. Smith, Maria C. Richards. 2007. Exploration and Development at Dixie Valley, Nevada- Summary of Doe Studies. In: Thirty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Thirty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering; 1970/01/01; Stanford University, Stanford, California. Stanford, California: Stanford University; p. 16
- David D. Blackwell, Kenneth W. Wisian, Maria C. Richards, Mark Leidig, Richard Smith, Jason McKenna. 2003. Geothermal Resource Analysis and Structure of Basin and Range Systems, Especially Dixie Valley Geothermal Field, Nevada. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Department of Energy. Contract No.: DE-FG07-01ID13886.
- Joe Iovenitti, Jon Sainsbury, Ileana Tibuleac, Robert Karlin, Philip Wannamaker, Virginia Maris, David Blackwell, Mahesh Thakur, Fletcher H. Ibser, Jennifer Lewicki, B. Mack. Kennedy, Michael Swyer. 2013. Egs Exploration Methodology Project Using the Dixie Valley Geothermal System, Nevada, Status Update. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering; 2013/01/01; Stanford, California. Stanford, California: Stanford University; p. 10
- Kathleen M. Hodgkinson,Ross S. Stein. 1996. The 1954 Rainbow Mountain-Fairview Peak-Dixie Valley Earthquakes A triggered Normal Faulting Sequence. Journal of Geophysical Research. 101(B11):25459-25471.
- David D. Blackwell, Richard P. Smith, Al Waibel, Maria C. Richards, Patrick Stepp. 2009. Why Basin and Range Systems are Hard to Find II- Structural Model of the Producing Geothermal System in Dixie Valley, Nevada. In: GRC Transactions. GRC Annual Meeting; 2009/10/04; Reno, Nevada. Davis, California: Geothermal Resources Council; p. 441-446
- Terra-Gen Power LLC. Projects Geothermal [Internet]. [updated 2008;cited 2008]. Available from: http://www.terra-genpower.com/Projects/Projects_Geothermal.aspx
- U.S. Department of Energy. Profiles in Renewable Energy- Case Studies of Successful Utility-Sector Projects [Internet]. [updated 2000;cited 2000]. Available from: http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/NRELprofiles.html#oesi
- Dick Benoit. 1999. Conceptual Models of the Dixie Valley, Nevada Geothermal Field. In: GRC Transactions. GRC Annual Meeting; 1999/10/17; Reno, Nevada. Davis, California: Geothermal Resources Council; p. 505-511
- Online Nevada Encyclopedia. Dixie Valley Geothermal Field [Internet]. [updated 2009;cited 2009]. Available from: http://www.onlinenevada.org/dixie_valley_geothermal_field
- Think GeoEnergy. Terra-Gen Power closes US$286m lease financing for Dixie Valley [Internet]. [updated 2010;cited 2010]. Available from: http://thinkgeoenergy.com/archives/5998
- Joe Iovenitti. 2010. Geothermal Technologies Program 2010 Peer Review. N/A: U.S. Department of Energy. Report No.: N/A.
- W. R. Benoit,Stuart Johnson,Mark Kumataka. 2000. Development of an injection augmentation program at the Dixie Valley, Nevada geothermal field. In: Proceedings, World Geothermal Congress. Proceedings, World Geothermal Congress; 2000/01/01; Kyushu - Tohoku, Japan. Kyushu - Tohoku, Japan: International Geothermal Association; p. 819–824
- W. L. Bourcier, M. Lin, G. Nix. 2003. Recovery of minerals and metals from geothermal fluids. In: 2003 SME Annual Meeting. 2003 SME Annual Meeting; 2003/02/24; Cincinnati, Ohio. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of Energy; p. 19
- Brookhaven National Laboratory. Brookhaven Lab and Caithness Operating Company Win R&D 100 Award For a Technology to Recover Silica From Geothermal Brine [Internet]. 2001. bnl.gov. Brookhaven National Laboratory. [updated 2001/07/26;cited 2013/07/25]. Available from: http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/bnlpr072601b.htm
- Ileana M. Tibuleac, Joe Iovenitti, David von Seggern, Jon Sainsbury, Glenn Biasi, John G. Anderson. 2013. Development of Exploration Methods for Engineered Geothermal Systems Through Integrated Geophysical, Geologic and Geochemical Interpretation the Seismic Analysis Component. In: PROCEEDINGS, Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University. Stanford Geothermal Conference; 2013/01/01; Stanford, California. Stanford, California: Stanford University; p. 9
- Terra-Gen Power, LLC. Terra-Gen Power and TAS Celebrate Innovative Binary Geothermal Technology [Internet]. [updated 2011;cited 2011]. Available from: http://www.terra-genpower.com/News/TERRA-GEN-POWER-AND-TAS-CELEBRATE-INNOVATIVE-BINAR.aspx
- U.S. Department of Energy. Development of Exploration Methods for Engineered Geothermal Systems through Integrated Geophysical, Geologic and Geochemical Interpretation [Internet]. [updated 2013;cited 2013]. Available from: http://www4.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/projects/147
- GeothermalEx. Dixie Valley — Geothermal Development in the Basin and Range [Internet]. 2013. geothermex.com. GeothermalEx. [cited 2013/07/25]. Available from: http://www.geothermex.com/projects-dixie-valley.php
- James E. Faulds,Nicholas H. Hinz,Mark F. Coolbaugh,Patricia H. Cashman,Christopher Kratt,Gregory Dering,Joel Edwards,Brett Mayhew,Holly McLachlan. 2011. Assessment of Favorable Structural Settings of Geothermal Systems in the Great Basin, Western USA. In: Transactions. GRC Anual Meeting; 2011/10/23; San Diego, CA. Davis, CA: Geothermal Resources Council; p. 777–783
- Amie Lamb, Chris Kratt, Wendy Calvin. 2011. Geothermal Exploration using Hyperspectral Analysis over Dixie and Fairview Valleys, Nevada. In: GRC Transactions. GRC Annual Meeting; 2011/10/23; San Diego, California. Davis, California: Geothermal Resources Council; p. 867-872
- Deborah Bergfeld, Fraser Goff, Cathy J. Janik. 2001. Elevated carbon dioxide flux at the Dixie Valley geothermal field, Nevada- relations between surface phenomena and the geothermal reservoir. Chemical Geology. 177(1):43–66.
- Joe Iovenitti, David Blackwell, Jon Sainsbury, Ileana Tibuleac, Al Waibel, Trenton Cladouhos, Robert Karlin, Ed Isaaks, Matthew Clyne, Fletcher Hank Ibser, Owen Callahan, B. Mack Kennedy, Philip Wannamaker. 2012. Towards Developing a Calibrated EGS Exploration Methodology Using the Dixie Valley Geothermal System, Nevada. In: Proceedings, Thirty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California, January. Thirty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University; 2012/01/30; Stanford University. Stanford, California: Stanford University; p. 15
- A. F. Waibel. 1987. An overview of the geology and secondary mineralogy of the high temperature geothermal system in Dixie Valley, Nevada. Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin. 11(N/A):479-486.
- Dick Benoit. 1992. A Case History of Injection Through 1991 at Dixie Valley, Nevada. In: GRC Transactions. GRC Annual Meeting; 1992/10/04; San Diego, California. Davis, California: Geothermal Resources Council; p. 611-620
- R. G. Allis, Stuart D. Johnson, Gregory D. Nash, Dick Benoit. 1999. A model for the shallow thermal regime at Dixie Valley geothermal field. In: GRC Transactions. GRC Annual Meeting; 1999/10/17; Reno, Nevada. Davis, California: Geothermal Resources Council; p. 493-498
- Colin F. Williams, John H. Sass. 1997. Thermal Signature of Subsurface Fluid Flow Near the Dixie Valley Geothermal Field, Nevada. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Twenty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering; 1997/08/26; Stanford, California. Stanford, California: Stanford University; p. 8
- Mow S. Lid, Michael Bohenek, Eugene T. Premuzic, Stuart D. Johnson. 2000. Silica Production from low-Salinity Geothermal Brines. In: GRC Transactions. GRC Annual Meeting; 2000/09/24; San Francisco, California. Davis, California: Geothermal Resources Council; p. 671-674
- Scott A. Wood. 2001. Behavior of Rare Earth Elements in Geothermal Systems- A New Exploration/Exploitation Tool?. Idaho: Department of Geology and Geological Engineering University of Idaho.
List of existing Geothermal Resource Areas.