Geothermal-Well Delivery Board Adviser

The mandate

The committee repeatedly asks how many wells and rigs to commit before reservoir learning reduces uncertainty. Project teams show schedule acceleration, geoscientists preserve ranges, commercial teams assume power dates and procurement warns that scarce rigs disappear without early awards. Portfolio models treat each well independently although crews, consumables, test capacity and learning are shared. The adviser’s standing question is which sequence creates the most decision value while protecting capital and customer commitments.

The cadence is four days monthly: one well-performance review, one portfolio-and-capital challenge, chair preparation and either committee attendance or a field visit. Five committee meetings and four field, rig or supplier reviews are included. A material well result or award question receives a response within forty-eight hours. Live drilling direction, subsurface interpretation, safety, procurement negotiation and power-contract decisions remain with management and qualified specialists.

The term lasts ten months through the next rig awards and two well-result gates. One two-month renewal may be approved if a named test result falls beyond term and conflicts are refreshed. The adviser will leave a well-portfolio decision history, learning-value framework, shared-capacity map and evidence triggers for acceleration, redesign or stop. The independent chair decides renewal after testing management’s ability to sustain the approach.

The adviser has no line authority, executive responsibility, drilling role, technical approval or board vote. Accountable teams design and operate wells; geoscientists interpret reservoirs; directors sanction capital. The adviser may challenge schedule coupling, request downside evidence and recommend staged awards, but cannot select a target, certify reserves, direct rigs, approve well integrity, choose suppliers, negotiate offtakes or guarantee power dates.

Interests involving geothermal developers, drilling contractors, rig owners, service firms, equipment vendors, power buyers, financiers, governments or reservoir advisers require disclosure. A current mandate for a bidder or target project creates recusal. Other non-conflicting appointments may continue within cadence. Compensation is independent of wells drilled, rig awards, capacity booked, megawatts declared, capital sanctioned, financing or supplier selection.

Why the board wants this voice

Technical and project leaders bring strong evidence but are accountable for delivering the portfolio already proposed. Directors lack someone who has governed multi-well learning and scarce rig capacity across regions. Independent delivery experience can expose where acceleration destroys information value or where excessive caution loses viable supply and commercial windows.

What you will own

• Press management to separate resource hypothesis, well objective, drilling outcome, test evidence and power implication.
• Test portfolio sequences against learning value, rig moves, specialist crews, consumables, testing and seasonal access.
• Challenge schedule cases that treat well success, drilling duration and shared capacity as independent certainties.
• Examine owned, framework and spot rig strategies for flexibility, competence, idle cost and bargaining exposure.
• Shape board gates for data acquisition, well release, rig commitment, power promise and portfolio pause.
• Maintain independent records of assumptions, technical dependencies, conflicts, dissent and expired evidence.
• Leave the committee a repeatable well-delivery review linked to upcoming capital and commercial decisions.

Candidate qualifications

• Has governed geothermal, oil and gas or comparable subsurface well portfolios through uncertain results, shared capacity, changing subsurface evidence and capital gates.
• Can evidence a drilling sequence changed because information value outweighed apparent schedule acceleration.
• Understands well objectives, rig and services contracting, testing, integrity, reservoir uncertainty and power-project interfaces.
• Has challenged technical and commercial teams without making subsurface, safety or procurement judgments.
• Can distinguish portfolio contingency from duplicated optimism across well success and duration assumptions.
• Is independent of relevant developers, contractors, suppliers, buyers, financiers and technical advisers.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend five Reykjavik committee sessions and complete four field, rig or supplier evidence visits.
• Will not interpret reservoirs, approve wells, direct rigs, certify integrity or negotiate contracts.
• Brings direct multi-well portfolio governance; generic renewable-energy investing is insufficient.
• Will disclose contractor, rig, service, buyer, government and financing relationships before reviewing awards.

1. 49 words maximum. Which well sequence did you change because the next result had greater decision value than speed?
2. 49 words maximum. What developer, rig, service, buyer or financier commitments would this board need disclosed?
3. 49 words maximum. When have you recommended reserving capacity conditionally rather than awarding a full drilling programme?