This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/38161519/PetrogeothermalReservoir
09/26/2010
text
original
Sixteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 2325, 1991 SGPTR134
COMPARISON OF THERMAL COOLDOWN ESTIMATES I N THE RUSSKIE KOMAROVTSY PETROGEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR
Paul Kruger Stanford Geothermal Program Stanford University Yuri Dyadkin, Semon Gendler, Elena Artemieva, Nina Smirnova Heat Physics Department Leningrad Mining Institute
ABSTRACT
A comparison of several models to estimate the rate of thermal cooldown in artificial circulation geothermal reservoirs was made for the Russkie Komarovtsy fracturestimulated reservoir, which will be located near the town of Uzhgorod in the Zakarpate region of the Ukraine S S R . The economic viability of this moderatetemperature resource depends on sustained flow above the minimum abandonment temperature for a period sufficient to recover investment and operating costs. The rate of heat extraction for the required flowrate depends on the fracture distribution in the reservoir. Results of the S G P 1D Heat Sweep model are compared to approximate analytical and numerical models developed at the Leningrad Mining Institute, based on a common set of initial conditions for the Russkie Komarovtsy reservoir. The comparison shows that all of the models yielded reasonably similar thermal decline estimates with a satisfactory lifetime of about 25 years to abandonment temperature.

INTRODUCTION
Commercial development of the extensive, widely distributed petrogeothermal resources in the world depends on attaining economic efficiency in heat extraction from natural and arUficiallyfractured geothermalreservoirs by circulation of water as a heatcarrier fluid. Methods to predict the rate and lifetime of heat extraction from these moderatetemperature resources are very important for early decisions affecting their longterm development in the USA, USSR, and other countries seeking alternate sources of indigenous energy. The ability to develop commercial technology for heatextraction at a sufficient rate over a satisfactory amortization period requires understanding of the complex heat and mass transfer processes involved. Heat transfer in fractured petrogeothermal reservoirs is a very complicated process ( Dyadkin, 1989) dependent on a combination of geometric parameters of reservoir structure, hydrologic flow regimes, production and reinjection practices, and thermal properties of the fracturedrock formation. Preproduction data f o r many of these parameters are generally sparse, and heat extraction predictions for specific potential projects must be made from best estimates and suitable models of the geothermal system. 159
The economic feasibUty of energy extraction from fracturestimulated reservoirs with artificial circulation systems has been estimated ( e . g . , Boguslavsky, 1981; Murphy, et al, 1985; Dyadkin, 1985) with many assumptions concerning the processes of unsteady, nonisothermal flow of circulating fluid through a reservoir of fracture and matrix permeability distributions and of heat transfer rates for planar and irregular shaped rock blocks. Models have been developed for estimating heat extraction from such reservoirs (e.g., Gringarten, et al, 1978; Hunsbedt, et al, 1979; Pruess, 1983; Dyadkin and Gendler, 1985). In view of the need t o improve the ability of heat extraction models to predict the behavior of yet undeveloped resources based on available data, a comparison was made between models developed at the Leningrad Mining Institute with the model developed at the Stanford Geothermal Program. The LMI heatphysics models, described by Smirnova (1978) ; Artemieva (1979a,1979b); Gendler and Pavlov (1980); Mukhin and Smirnova (1981); Artemieva and Piskacheva (1983) ; Dyadkin and Gendler (1985); and Artemieva and Stroganova (1986), were developed for several thermal aspects of mining operations. The S G P 1D Heat Sweep model, described by Hunsbedt, et al (1977,1978,1979); Kuo, et al (1977); Kruger ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; Hunsbedt, Lam, and Kruger (1983); and Lam and Kruger (19 88), was developed f o r early analysis of prospective geothermal reservoirs based on preproduction data f o r estimating thermal recovery from
reinjected fluid as a function of production strategy and reservoir characteristics.
To estimate the extent of uncertainty in modeling thermal extraction in an artificial circulation system, the 1D Heat Sweep model has been compared with other heat extraction models, such as the LBL Reservoir Simulator (Lam, et al, 1988) and the Fenton Hill Hot D r y Rock reservoir model (Robinson and Kruger, 1988) . As a basis for comparison of the LMI physical and numerical models with the SGP 1D model, a test case was made of the Russkie Komarovtsy geothermal prospect, which is planned to be the first experimental demonstration of a moderatetemperature petrothermal resource created by hydrofracturing stimulation as an artificial circulation system. This case was chosen to examine the reliability of estimating lifetimes of moderatetemperature petrogeothermal resources, where the production time to reach abandonment temperature at the required flowrate is critical for providing a reliable and economic heat source.
length of f r a c t u r e . 8 8 ~ 1 0 ~ ~ thermal drawdown from the mean initial temperature of 124 O C to t h e abandonment temperature of 110 O C . The method of Lauwerier is discussed b y Prats (1986). = specific heat capacity of rock. O C p. m c .. The approach t o t h e problem was adopted from Lauwerier (1955)for heat t r a n s p o r t in a n oil layer with injection of hot water. water. W/mOC t = t i m e . = mean initial formation temperature. The solution of t h e governing equations was derived with double application of t h e Laplace transform. The resource consists of a massive granodiorite intrusive of 740 m thickness a t a mean temperature of 124 O C . Schematic of t h e Russkie Komarovtsy twowing. J/kgOC X = thermal conductivity of rock. augmented by fossilfuel heating. first with respect t o distance into t h e l a y e r . The s e t of i n p u t data common t o t h e comparison r u n s b y t h e LMI and SGP models is listed in Table 1. Dyadkin and Gendler (1985) note t h a t t h e approximation is correct for t h e relationship of modified Grashof number t o Reynolds number over t h e r a n g e . A description of the geologic setting was given b y Vainblat and Drozdetskaya (1987) . kg/m3 Qf = water flow r a t e in f r a c t u r e . THE LMI HEAT EXTRACTION MODELS Analytical and numerical heatphysics models have been developed a t LMI ( Dyadkin and Gendler . This site was selected from a n initial list of 16 candidate sites compiled from a national s u r v e y of USSR regions for a GeoTES (geothermal heat e n e r g y station) to provide a hotwater supply for municipal and agricultural heating. 1989 ) . The demonstration project is designed t o produce thermal water through a connected network of t h r e e large parallel hydrofractures a t a constant flowrate. Dyadkin. An approximate analytical solution for bottomhole fluid temperature after heat t r a n s f e r in a vertically fractured rock t o circulating fluid was examined b y Smirnova (1978). = density of rock. Figure 1 shows a schematic section of t h e reservoir after five phases of reservoir creation b y hydraulic fracturing. e t al (1978) a s Fig. OC Tr = production well bottomhole fluid temperature. The hydrofracturing scheme was designed b y Dyadkin (1987) and coworkers and t h e economics of heat extraction were estimated b y Boguslavsky (1987). (from Dyadkin and Kruger . in 1990. over a useful lifetime in excess of 10 years. ms/s We. Data specific for .rock mechanical properties in t h e heat physics models a r e given in t h e respective publications.160 . provided updated estimates of t h e anticipated hydrofracturing results and comparative analyses of t h e heat extraction a r e based on t h e revised dimensions of t h e reservoir and planned flowrates to achieve economic r e t u r n . threeparallel h y d r o f r a c t u r e d reservoir. 1948) was of t h e form of t h e complimentary e r r o r function for t h e dimensionless fluid temperature : where T. and second w i t h respect to time. E a r l y estimates of the f r a c t u r e geometry were described in Dyadkin and Kruger (1989). O C Ti = injection well bottomhole fluid temperature. sec If t >> (W+Le6)/Qe . then t h e dimensionless temperature in Equ. Lr = width. The t h r e e parallelfracture reservoir will have J for an extractable heat content of HC = 9 . For a 10year production lifetime a t t h e anticipated flowrate of 11 k g / s p e r f r a c t u r e . 1. C. (1) can be approximated by t h e Austin formula in Gringarten. water.. 1985)for thermal mining processes over a number of y e a r s . t h e mean heat extraction r a t e would be about 3130 k J / s . situated almost horizontally a t a d e p t h of 1900 t o 2640 m. m 6 = mean f r a c t u r e a p e r t u r e . The back transforms (from Carslaw and J a e g e r .RUSSKIE KOMAROVTSY GEOTHERMAL FIELD The prime candidate for t h e first demonstration project of economic heat extraction from moderatetemperature petrogeothermal resources prevalent in t h e USSR i t h e Russkie Komarovtsy field in t h e Zakarpate s r e g i m of t h e Ukraine SSR. if necessary.
P a . The model considers the question a s two independent flows t h r o u g h 600 m of f r a c t u r e path length with various values of mean fracture spacing. Dyadkin and Gendler (1985)note t h a t t h e investigation of t h e heat exchange process in fractured rock was given in Artemieva and Piskacheva (1983)..00066 Thermal P r o p e r t i e s Rock D e n s i t y 2 65 0 kg/ms Rock S p e c i f i c H e a t 1000 J / k g o C T h e r m a l C o n d u c t i v i t y 2.. 1989) and for nonuniform initial temperature distribution (Lam and Kruger. where t h e two numbers a r e defined as: (4) where g = gravitational constant. m u = fluid vlscosity.9 k g / s 0 < (Gr'/12 Re) < 12.V a l u e  Reservoir Characteristics Rock Type: G r a n o d i o r i t e Dimensions Length 1 2 0 0 rn Width 300 m Height 740 rn Mean F r a c . With the LMI assumption of fully competent rock without THE S G P 1D HEAT SWEEP MODEL The 1D linear heat sweep model was initially developed for analysis of experimental measurements of heat extraction from an assembly of arbitraryshaped 161 . based on anticipated flowrate t h r o u g h t h e f r a c t u r e flow path. For small values (NE. where x. O C . time. e t al.= x/L. The nondimensional fluid temperature a t location x and time t . It was also noted t h a t t h e numerical solution was satisfied for t h e r a n g e of modified Grashof and Reynolds number criteria adapted for the analytical model. Fig. The "number of heat t r a n s f e r units" parameter Indicates t h e relative thermal aspects of t h e flowing reservoir.I A Tr = temperature change across fracture length. = Vt.. The model has been improved to provide for radial and doublet flow (Lam. . 1977). nondimensional flow time NE. The modified Rayleigh number is derived from injection parameters and the Peclet number accounts for nonuniform permeability and temperature dependence of fluid viscosity. OC A Lr = f r a c t u r e length between well pair. < lo). The approach was based on t h e use of Rayleigh a n d Peclet numbers in appropriate ranges.Table 1 R u s s k i e Komarovtsy Modeling D a t a S e t Parameter . S p a c i n g v a r i a b l e Porosity 0. number of h e a t t r a n s f e r units.1 W / m O C W a t e r D e n s i t y ( m e a n ) 945 kg/rn' W a t e r S p e c i f i c H e a t 4200 J / k g ° C Production Characteristics I n i t i a l Temperature 124 OC I n j e c t i o n Temperature 30 O C Abandonment Temp 110 o c Circulation Flowrate 36. s The LMI numerical model was developed by Artemieva (1979a.. 1988). rock blocks in a laboratory model of a fracturedrock reservoir ( H u n s b e d t . and 9 . Results of t h e numerical calculations confirmed the basic conclusions reported b y McFarland (1975) t h e for Fenton Hill hydrofractures as estimated a t t h a t .b) from consideration of t h e stability of a nonuniformly heated fluid flowing in a horizontal f r a c t u r e . t h e reservoir is heat t r a n s f e r limited.81 m/sz a= = thermal expansion coefficient for water. Numerical solution of t h e hydrodynamic equations was carried out for vertical rectangular fractures of constant a p e r t u r e . given by t h e ratio of t h e thermal time constant of t h e rock blocks to the mean residence time of t h e fluid Y = thermal storage ratio. m 6 = fracture aperture. resulting in rapid decline in produced water temperature. determined numerically.. The differential equations which describe heat t r a n s f e r from an assembly of rock blocks with a single mean equivalents p h e r e radius to t h e s u r r o u n d i n g fluid in linear heat sweep circulation a r e given in Kruger (1982). thermal e n e r g y stored in t h e s u r r o u n d i n g fluid relative t o t h a t in t h e rock blocks q = external heat t r a n s f e r parameter p e r unit flow path length. nondimensional linear distance from injection well to production well t' = t/t. 2 shows t h e equivalent flow geometry for t h e Russkie Komarovtsy t h r e e parallel h y d r o f r a c t u r e d reservoir a s a onedimensional linear heat sweep problem. y .. 9. can be expressed in terms of t h r e e parameters: Ne.V a l u e  Parameter . The r a t e of heat conduction t o t h e rock block surfaces is insufficient for effective heating of t h e ckculating fluid..
7 y ) for competent. The thermal time constant of t h e rock block is J b . 1977) = 0. with a correspondingly smaller thermal time constant). 4 shows t h e corresponding cooldown estimates calculated by t h e S G P 1D heat sweep model for competent rock blocks with MFS of 354 m for an 162 . 1990) . A match with t h e LMI analytical method for t h e anticipated flowrate of 11 k g / s p e r hydrofracture occurs for a MFS of about 160 m. t h u s for any such flowrate would be of t h e order of 0. natural fractures following hydrofracturing . Results of LMI cooldown estimates a s a function of flowrate through t h e principal hydrofractures by t h e numerical model (solid lines) and the analytical model (broken lines ) ( h a n d carried from LMI b y Y. cooldown t o 110 O C would be longer than 25 y e a r s . b u t differ somewhat for 50 k g / s . The SGP model shows t h e v e r y rapid temperature decline for t h e assumption of MFS = 354 m ( T = 88. Fig. in estimating t h e Russkie Komarovtsy reservoir production. ek T = R. t h e time COnStant 1 s 88. Table 2 gives a summary of t h e cooldown r e s u l t s for t h e r a n g e of flowrates considered.7 y e a r s . t h e minimum amortization period.E X T R A C T I O N ANALYSIS LHI * S""" Q. t h e volume of each rock block would be Vb = 600x100~740 = 4 .J O I N T H E A T . and calculations were made for a r a n g e of mean f r a c t u r e spacings from 50 m ( R .rock blocks after hydrofracturing. e t al.w6 15 Fig. For a flowrate of 11 k g / s p e r f r a c t u r e . Smi rnova = 182 6' Y 3 L by SGP 10 HeatSweep Mode 2 Fig. Therefore. R *by A r t e m i e v a .08 years (29 d a y s ) . The "number of heat t r a n s f e r units". 3 shows t h e cooldown results calculated b y t h e LMI analytical model (solid lines) and t h e LMI numerical model (dashed lines ) a s a function of flowrate t h r o u g h t h e main hydrofractures. much too small for effective heat extraction r a t e . Dyadkin.77 y ) shows adequate heat t r a n s f e r with essentially no cooldown for 10 years a t flowrates up to about 25 k g / s p e r fracture and possibly sustained production a t Fig. t h e mean residence time would be 0.= 33 kg/s T . The values for t h e LMI analytical model agree well with t h e LMI numerical model for flowrates of 14 and 25 k g / s . For MFS values around 50100 m. t h e cooldown time would be less than 10 y e a r s .'/3U (0. 2.5 and 11 k g / s p e r f r a c t u r e show cooldown t o abandonment temperature in less than two y e a r s . Based on t h e LMI estimated minimum required flowrate of 11 k g / s p e r fracture to achieve economic thermal e n e r g y extraction. The values for flowrate of 5. 4 4 ~ 1 0 ~ and the equivalent heat transfer spherical ms . Larger flowrates would result in even f a s t e r cooldown t o 110 OC. The values from 5.5 to 50 k g / s p e r f r a c t u r e r e p r e s e n t t h e r a n g e of needed flowrates for economic r e t u r n . Equivalent flow geometry for one wing of t h e Russkie Komarovtsy reservoir for 1D linear heat sweep modeling. t h e analytical model predicts a lifetime of 25 years t o t h e abandonment temperature of 110 oc. 25 m. = 30 O C Qm= 33 k g / s MFS I v a r i a b l e parameter m Neu= tr/T . radius would be R = (3Vb/4n)*/' = 182 m. September.21/Bi) 16) where $ k = Xu0 sphericity (Kuo. 3.001. and above 200 m . equivalent radius of 182 m. RESULTS Fig. 5 shows t h e calculated cooldown for a flowrate of 11 k g / s p e r f r a c t u r e a s a function of mean fracture spacing. The small value of 50 m (T = 1. Dyadkin 6 Gendier.83 a = thermal diffusivity of t h e rock Bi = Biot number of t h e rock For an equivalent radius of 182 m. I ' 'O '5 I ' tp p z o Timo. it was assumed t h a t natural f r a c t u r e s would exist as flow p a t h s .
The three models assume t h e flow is uniformly distributed. . 8491. and E . of creating competent parallel hydrofractured blocks without associated interconnections t h r o u g h opened natural fractures is discussed b y Dyadkin. E .V . I .1 y ) .6. 124 124 107 103 _  120 115 110 104 124 124 124 124 123 108 Artemieva. Fracture patterns and rock thermal properties a r e likely to change with temperature and p r e s s u r e changes over t h e lifetime of the reservoir. pp.6 I1 e0 t 0 2 4 6 e 10 12 14 Time (years) Fig. No. Results of SGP cooldown estimates a s a function of mean f r a c t u r e spacing for the LMI anticipated flowrate of 11 k g / s per hydrofracture. E . (T = 50 k g / s for almost 10 years. 1979b). No. t h e ability t o estimate possible r a n g e s of productivity becomes v e r y important. Y u . 104. "Heatphysical Processes in Mining Technology" (LMI Press.106 83 Artemieva. primarily in the hydrofractures. DISCUSSION The comparison of t h e two LMI models and t h e SGP model has pointed out some key aspects with respect t o t h e resulting hydrodynamic regime for heat extraction b y a circulating fluid. Since each of these aspects is unknown d u r i n g t h e planning and initial production phases a t a newly created petrogeothermal resource. 4 .0 120 It8 16.0 20. . Convection in a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture. . (Acamemy of Sciences. 6 (LMI Press. 102106.0 113 111 108 87 __ 114  . Leningrad. 37. 1 30 Tffl . When estimates made b y models of diverse assumptions provide a reasonable range of potential r e s u l t s . L. 3 . p p . EconomicMathematical Simulation of Geothermal Circulation Systems. USSR. E.0 14. T(I) 126 120 116 110 1 Ob  f(MFSJ (Q11 kg/s/lrecJ so 100 86 30 86 80 j 0 L6 >4 3 I 6 1 0 16 20 26 30 Time (years) Fig. Mixed Artemieva. 8289. p p . Artemieva. Boguslavsky. Stability of a Nonuniform Heated Liquid in a Porous Horizontal Seam. 1986). and T . A third aspect is t h e induced changes in t h e reservoir with production time. 5 . "Mechanics of Liquids and Gases". Piskacheva. Foremost of these is t h e actual results of t h e massive hydraulic fracturing which creates t h e artificial reservoir. 97 72 m A t t h e match MFS of 160 18. p . Although many differences exist between t h e LMI analytical and numerical models and between t h e LMI and S G P models. The r a t e of heat t r a n s f e r with distance between wells and time is t h u s strongly influenced b y t h e flow and initial temperature distributions. .L .0 50. Results of SGP cooldown estimates a s a function of flowrate around t h e hydrofractured rock blocks with equivalent radius of 182 m. E.. Stroganova. Numerical Simulation of Mixed Convection in WaterSaturated Geothermal Seams. A second key aspect is t h e actual flow paths taken by t h e injected fluid.S G P C a l c u l a t e d R e s u l t s Bottomhole F l u i d Temperature (oc) a f t e r 10 years of P r o d u c t i o n LHI SGP Flowrate nodel HFS ( m ) (kg/s/fracture) Numerical Analytical 354 160 50 5. L . t h e agreement in r a n g e of expectations is sufficiently good t o consider t h a t given t h e large uncertainties in the above mentioned aspects of heat extraction. t h e calculated values follow those of t h e LMI models a t flowrates t o about 20 k g / s and decline f a s t e r thereafter. E . "Physical Processes in Mining Operations". Moscow. No. t h e estimated lifetime of t h e Russkie Komarovtsy petrogeothermal resource should provide t h e minimum r e t u r n of hot water supply a t t h e r e q u i r e d flowrate for a minimum of 10 years and likely for 25 years without t h e need for fossllfuel augmentation. REFERENCES Comparison Table 2 of L H I .130126 T(fJ  TU)  flQ) (kg/s/lrsc) 6. Leningrad. t h e confidence level of makmg investment decisions rises markedly. 1979a). "Heatphysical Processes in Mining Technology" (LMI Press. 1983). "Physical Processes in Mining Operations". Leningrad. The possibilities 163 .5 123  11. 1981). 7 (LMI Press. e t al (1990). I t is a p p a r e n t t h a t independent means (such a s seismic response or t r a c e r s ) t o ascertain t h e actual volume and heat content of t h e fractured rock constituting the reservoir is needed. p p . .L.0 25. Leningrad. Influence of Liquid Viscosity on Filtration Process in Porous Seams. and in t h e LMI models.
A . Leningrad. 190200. SGP Technical Report SGPTR75. Prats . J . N . "First JapanU. 1. 1975. Experimental Studies on Heat Extraction from Fractured Geothermal Reservoirs.. and P . Smirnova.Petro. Lam. 1987). A Method for Heat Transfer in Heterogeneous Media Task Solution. Appld. Hunsbedt. Proceedings. London.D. Yu D . Salt Lake City. and G .. Hunsbedt. 1981). A Comparison of Two Heat Transfer Models for Estimating Thermal Drawdown in Hot Dry Rock Reservoirs. Analysis of the Stanford Geothermal Reservoir Mode! Experiments Using t h e LBL Reservoir Simulator. Drake. 1 9 9 0 ) . Physical HyArodynamics and Heat (Inst. Gendler. Appl. London. U K . Pruess.L. H . . UT. P. pp. M. and N . . Witherspoon. . August. 1986). Report. Kruger. D . ASME/AIChE 18th National Heat Transfer Conference.Geophys. . Dyadkin. J. 373397 in S . A . Smirnova. ShapeFactor Correlations for Transient Heat Conduction from IrregularShaped Rock Fragments t o Surrounding Fluid. and P. 1977. E . Gringarten. K . Ph. P . Proceedings. Novosibirsk. Sci. . Proceedings. Kruger. 1982). Solution of Equations of Heat T r a n s f e r with Filtration b y Method of Reducing System to Equivalent Equations of Heat Conduction. Theory of Heat Extraction from Fractured Hot Dry Rock.L. Proceedings. "Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy". Stanford University. Lam. and S: G . "HeatMass T r a n s f e r Processes in Geothermal Energy Extraction" (LMI Press. J. and J . E d s .23. Y u .Tech. P .. A. 1978). 2932. and S. "EngineeringPhysical Conditions of Fracturing Hard Rock" (LMI Press. San Diego. Mechanical Engineering Department.Res. Kruger. EconomicMathematical Modeling and Experimental Parameters of a GCS with Hydrofracturing of t h e Zakarpate GeoTES. Carslaw. Tokyo. CSM International Conference. "Geothermal Thermophysics" (Nauka.T. N . Proceedings.Sci. November. 110115. E . Proceedings. P . A. No. ASME/AIChE 19th National Heat Transfer Conference. Phys. A.D and P. B . 459574 (1985). and N . 164 . K r u g e r . Paper 77HT53.7. Novosibirsk. "Conduction of Heat in solids" (Oxford Press. 2. Abe. Brigham. J u n e . . Lam. Gendler. 1979. J. . The T r a n s p o r t of Heat in oil Layer Caused b y Injection of Hot Fluid. R D . and W . Nijhoff. 1988). Pruess. Pavlov. p p . "Mining of Geothermal Deposits" (Nedra.5. . Leningrad. . S . Hunsbedt. R e s .A.. T e s t e r . 1983. August. A . S. (Univ. . 10th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop. "EngineeringPhysical Conditions of Fracturing Hard Rock" (LMI Press. Gendler. 241253 (1978). London. Monograph No. Themophysics.30. . H A. p p . Kuo. Transfer. "Thermal Recovery". 1987). Economics of a Conceptual 75 MW Hot D r y Rock Electric Power Station. S . . H. in p r e s s . Development of the General Purpose Simulator MULKOM. Earth Science Division.G. B . H . Technical Report LBL15500 (Lawrence Berkeley L a b . p p . Kruger. 1988).C. V . Dyadkin. Leningrad. and K . Ohnishi. and P . Lauwerier . Kruger. Leningrad. 145150. Geothermal Reservoir Model Plane Model. P h y s . McFarland. S . 1977. D . Y u .. . Geothermics g. 4 . 7184. I . . No. pp. Vainblat . p p . 113120. 107110. S. 1D Doublet Heat Sweep Model. J. 2nd edi. Paper 77HT54.USSR. 1990). 1989. Geothermics 2 . Yu. Kruger. Laboratory Studies of NonIsothermal Field Production from Fractured Geothermal Reservoirs.712718 (1978). Lam. Heat Extraction from LowTemperature Fractured Petrothermal Resources. Robinson. Ac. Yaeger. and S . . I . Murphy. NO. London. CA. Hunsbedt. Energy Recovery from FractureStimulated Geothermal Reservoirs. pp. C . Dyadkin. January. 6168. Salt Lake City. Cornwall. UT.L. J . K r u g e r . Dyadkin. Moscow. 13th SGP Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering (Stanford Univ. Oxford. D Dissertaion. 1983). 1985). M. Experimental Investigation of Transient Heat Extraction in Porous Media with Fluid Filtration. of Auckland. Kruger. . . Vol. A . . p p .L Drozdetskaya. and A. ( S P E . August. NematNasser. N Z . Hirakawa. Iregui. (1980). Smirnova. R . S . Seminar on Hydraulic Fracturing and Geothermal Energy" (M. Hunsbedt. and Y . and I. 1948). . and Tech. . M e t h o d of C a l c u l a t i n g Hydrofracturing Parameters for Hard Rock at Great Depth.Boguslavsky. S. 1989). 595605 (1988). Paper 79HT92. Proceedings. N . Zyvoioski. E.G. and A. LANL Int. 102106. Leningrad. P. New York. E n g r . P. . ASME/AIChE 18th National Heat Transfer Conference. Calculation of Fracturing the Hard Rock Region for Construction of t h e Zakarpate GeoTES. P . 1989 (Robinson Sci. 2. User's Manu& for t h e 1D Linear Heat Sweep Model. A . P u b . (Nauka. Yu . 1987). R . N . D . "EngineeringPhysical Conditions of Fracturing Hard Rock" (LMI Press. Energy Extraction from a Laboratory Model Fractured GeothermdReservoir. (1955). and A. A . .Crack Mukhin.. Dyadkin. K r u g e r . Mech .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?