This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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.
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 . = specific heat capacity of rock. 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. 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. The back transforms (from Carslaw and J a e g e r . in 1990. 1. E a r l y estimates of the f r a c t u r e geometry were described in Dyadkin and Kruger (1989). over a useful lifetime in excess of 10 years. and second w i t h respect to time. 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 . O C Ti = injection well bottomhole fluid temperature. kg/m3 Qf = water flow r a t e in f r a c t u r e . Data specific for . THE LMI HEAT EXTRACTION MODELS Analytical and numerical heatphysics models have been developed a t LMI ( Dyadkin and Gendler . 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). sec If t >> (W+Le6)/Qe . = mean initial formation temperature. C. J/kgOC X = thermal conductivity of rock. 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.160 . A description of the geologic setting was given b y Vainblat and Drozdetskaya (1987) . 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). if necessary. augmented by fossilfuel heating. Dyadkin. length of f r a c t u r e . first with respect t o distance into t h e l a y e r . situated almost horizontally a t a d e p t h of 1900 t o 2640 m. Schematic of t h e Russkie Komarovtsy twowing. W/mOC t = t i m e . water. 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.rock mechanical properties in t h e heat physics models a r e given in t h e respective publications. 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. The solution of t h e governing equations was derived with double application of t h e Laplace transform. t h e mean heat extraction r a t e would be about 3130 k J / s . then t h e dimensionless temperature in Equ. The resource consists of a massive granodiorite intrusive of 740 m thickness a t a mean temperature of 124 O C . m c . Lr = width. m 6 = mean f r a c t u r e a p e r t u r e . 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 . (from Dyadkin and Kruger . OC Tr = production well bottomhole fluid temperature.. The method of Lauwerier is discussed b y Prats (1986). O C p. Figure 1 shows a schematic section of t h e reservoir after five phases of reservoir creation b y hydraulic fracturing. 1989 ) . 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 . threeparallel h y d r o f r a c t u r e d reservoir. e t al (1978) a s Fig. (1) can be approximated by t h e Austin formula in Gringarten. = density of rock. ms/s We. water. 1985)for thermal mining processes over a number of y e a r s .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.
y .I A Tr = temperature change across fracture length.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 .. 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. 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 . S p a c i n g v a r i a b l e Porosity 0. The approach was based on t h e use of Rayleigh a n d Peclet numbers in appropriate ranges.. 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. e t al. where t h e two numbers a r e defined as: (4) where g = gravitational constant. 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). can be expressed in terms of t h r e e parameters: Ne.. OC A Lr = f r a c t u r e length between well pair. t h e reservoir is heat t r a n s f e r limited.Table 1 R u s s k i e Komarovtsy Modeling D a t a S e t Parameter . rock blocks in a laboratory model of a fracturedrock reservoir ( H u n s b e d t . time. The nondimensional fluid temperature a t location x and time t .. O C .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 .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. 9. 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. where x. The modified Rayleigh number is derived from injection parameters and the Peclet number accounts for nonuniform permeability and temperature dependence of fluid viscosity. s The LMI numerical model was developed by Artemieva (1979a. determined numerically.. m 6 = fracture aperture.V a l u e  Parameter .81 m/sz a= = thermal expansion coefficient for water. m u = fluid vlscosity. 1977). resulting in rapid decline in produced water temperature.. For small values (NE. 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. 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 . < lo).. P a . The model has been improved to provide for radial and doublet flow (Lam. 1988). nondimensional linear distance from injection well to production well t' = t/t. based on anticipated flowrate t h r o u g h t h e f r a c t u r e flow path.9 k g / s 0 < (Gr'/12 Re) < 12. . 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). 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. 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 . = Vt. and 9 . number of h e a t t r a n s f e r units.= x/L. 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. nondimensional flow time NE. 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.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.
The small value of 50 m (T = 1. t h e volume of each rock block would be Vb = 600x100~740 = 4 . 3. t h e time COnStant 1 s 88. Dyadkin. t h e mean residence time would be 0. 1977) = 0.7 y ) for competent.08 years (29 d a y s ) . 1990) . 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. with a correspondingly smaller thermal time constant).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 . e t al. and above 200 m . radius would be R = (3Vb/4n)*/' = 182 m. 2. t h e minimum amortization period. = 30 O C Qm= 33 k g / s MFS I v a r i a b l e parameter m Neu= tr/T . ek T = R.7 y e a r s . R *by A r t e m i e v a . Therefore.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 .= 33 kg/s T . natural fractures following hydrofracturing .E X T R A C T I O N ANALYSIS LHI * S""" Q. For MFS values around 50100 m.001. much too small for effective heat extraction r a t e . 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. 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. For a flowrate of 11 k g / s p e r f r a c t u r e .rock blocks after hydrofracturing. 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. t h e analytical model predicts a lifetime of 25 years t o t h e abandonment temperature of 110 oc. Dyadkin 6 Gendier. 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 . Smi rnova = 182 6' Y 3 L by SGP 10 HeatSweep Mode 2 Fig. t h e cooldown time would be less than 10 y e a r s .'/3U (0. Larger flowrates would result in even f a s t e r cooldown t o 110 OC. 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 . The values for flowrate of 5.21/Bi) 16) where $ k = Xu0 sphericity (Kuo. 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 .83 a = thermal diffusivity of t h e rock Bi = Biot number of t h e rock For an equivalent radius of 182 m. 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.w6 15 Fig. September. 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. The "number of heat t r a n s f e r units". Fig. The thermal time constant of t h e rock block is J b . The values from 5. Equivalent flow geometry for one wing of t h e Russkie Komarovtsy reservoir for 1D linear heat sweep modeling.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. cooldown t o 110 O C would be longer than 25 y e a r s . in estimating t h e Russkie Komarovtsy reservoir production. I ' 'O '5 I ' tp p z o Timo. 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 . t h u s for any such flowrate would be of t h e order of 0.J O I N T H E A T . RESULTS Fig. 25 m. b u t differ somewhat for 50 k g / s . 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. equivalent radius of 182 m. 4 4 ~ 1 0 ~ and the equivalent heat transfer spherical ms .
pp.5 123  11. The possibilities 163 . . (Acamemy of Sciences. E. Stroganova. Artemieva. USSR.0 20. p p . Y u . 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. No. Leningrad. A second key aspect is t h e actual flow paths taken by t h e injected fluid. Numerical Simulation of Mixed Convection in WaterSaturated Geothermal Seams. 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. 1983).L. Moscow. "Heatphysical Processes in Mining Technology" (LMI Press. E . and T .0 14.0 113 111 108 87 __ 114  . Boguslavsky. When estimates made b y models of diverse assumptions provide a reasonable range of potential r e s u l t s . 8491. 102106.V . 7 (LMI Press. . 4 . Results of SGP cooldown estimates a s a function of flowrate around t h e hydrofractured rock blocks with equivalent radius of 182 m. of creating competent parallel hydrofractured blocks without associated interconnections t h r o u g h opened natural fractures is discussed b y Dyadkin. "Mechanics of Liquids and Gases". EconomicMathematical Simulation of Geothermal Circulation Systems. Influence of Liquid Viscosity on Filtration Process in Porous Seams. E . Leningrad. 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. 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. Leningrad. 1979b). I .0 25. 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. 1986). No. t h e ability t o estimate possible r a n g e s of productivity becomes v e r y important. primarily in the hydrofractures. p p . t h e confidence level of makmg investment decisions rises markedly. 1 30 Tffl . The three models assume t h e flow is uniformly distributed.6. E. 1981). 97 72 m A t t h e match MFS of 160 18.6 I1 e0 t 0 2 4 6 e 10 12 14 Time (years) Fig. 37. Leningrad. 3 . . 6 (LMI Press.. Mixed Artemieva. L . . (T = 50 k g / s for almost 10 years. 5 . Convection in a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture. REFERENCES Comparison Table 2 of L H I .106 83 Artemieva. "Physical Processes in Mining Operations". 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. p p . 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. e t al (1990). No. Piskacheva.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 5.130126 T(fJ  TU)  flQ) (kg/s/lrsc) 6.L . 8289. Although many differences exist between t h e LMI analytical and numerical models and between t h e LMI and S G P models.1 y ) . . E .0 50. 104. "Heatphysical Processes in Mining Technology" (LMI Press. 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. Stability of a Nonuniform Heated Liquid in a Porous Horizontal Seam.0 120 It8 16. "Physical Processes in Mining Operations". 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. and E . 1979a). p . L. Foremost of these is t h e actual results of t h e massive hydraulic fracturing which creates t h e artificial reservoir. 124 124 107 103 _  120 115 110 104 124 124 124 124 123 108 Artemieva. 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. A third aspect is t h e induced changes in t h e reservoir with production time. and in t h e LMI models.
C. H A. Mech . Technical Report LBL15500 (Lawrence Berkeley L a b . and P . August.L. Report. D . San Diego. Dyadkin. Hunsbedt. Proceedings. Proceedings. P . The T r a n s p o r t of Heat in oil Layer Caused b y Injection of Hot Fluid. and S. 2. Nijhoff. K r u g e r . No. I .Boguslavsky. ASME/AIChE 18th National Heat Transfer Conference. p p . 107110. Kruger. Drake. 1989 (Robinson Sci. A . S . Dyadkin. 1988).G. Lam. P . Kruger. London.Petro. 1977.. . . J.A. August. Kuo. "Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy". CSM International Conference. S. A. LANL Int. "First JapanU. H . P. Proceedings. Laboratory Studies of NonIsothermal Field Production from Fractured Geothermal Reservoirs. A . D Dissertaion. .Crack Mukhin.Geophys. Prats . R . Proceedings. ( S P E . 595605 (1988). R D . Yu . A. "EngineeringPhysical Conditions of Fracturing Hard Rock" (LMI Press. Lauwerier . B . Physical HyArodynamics and Heat (Inst. S . (Univ. 1987). "Geothermal Thermophysics" (Nauka. P . and K . Experimental Studies on Heat Extraction from Fractured Geothermal Reservoirs.. P u b . and A. UT. Murphy. J . Leningrad. . 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. A . P h y s . . Transfer. Proceedings. . Vol. H. Analysis of the Stanford Geothermal Reservoir Mode! Experiments Using t h e LBL Reservoir Simulator. Leningrad. I . Dyadkin. S . Dyadkin. 241253 (1978). A . 4 . Kruger. 1987).Sci. . Ohnishi. Hunsbedt. 1 9 9 0 ) . 1979. J u n e . 1983. Hunsbedt. Kruger. NematNasser. 1989. S. .23. 10th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop. 1983). S. Themophysics. CA. Geothermics g. London. Oxford. and P . Paper 77HT54. . 1982). 1D Doublet Heat Sweep Model. 1975. November. Dyadkin. V . . A . Gringarten. 1978). Pruess.Res. 2nd edi. "Thermal Recovery". Zyvoioski. M. 190200.712718 (1978). 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. and J . McFarland. Leningrad. p p . Hirakawa. Geothermal Reservoir Model Plane Model. Vainblat . (Nauka. P. NO. 7184. "Conduction of Heat in solids" (Oxford Press. pp. 1981). Proceedings. 13th SGP Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering (Stanford Univ.USSR.D and P. SGP Technical Report SGPTR75. N . Kruger. H . A Comparison of Two Heat Transfer Models for Estimating Thermal Drawdown in Hot Dry Rock Reservoirs. (1980). A Method for Heat Transfer in Heterogeneous Media Task Solution. 6168. Development of the General Purpose Simulator MULKOM. 113120. J..T. "EngineeringPhysical Conditions of Fracturing Hard Rock" (LMI Press. N . 1948). 1989). "Mining of Geothermal Deposits" (Nedra. 102106. pp. and Y . "EngineeringPhysical Conditions of Fracturing Hard Rock" (LMI Press. 1985). A . Earth Science Division. Gendler. ShapeFactor Correlations for Transient Heat Conduction from IrregularShaped Rock Fragments t o Surrounding Fluid. Hunsbedt. Phys. Heat Extraction from LowTemperature Fractured Petrothermal Resources. London. Robinson. N Z . Paper 79HT92. K r u g e r . and G . T e s t e r . in p r e s s . Leningrad. . "HeatMass T r a n s f e r Processes in Geothermal Energy Extraction" (LMI Press. . Smirnova. and I. Energy Extraction from a Laboratory Model Fractured GeothermdReservoir. Proceedings. Mechanical Engineering Department.. 1988). Lam. Smirnova. 164 . J . Novosibirsk. London. . Salt Lake City. E n g r .30. Monograph No. Geothermics 2 . Yu D .D. Appl. (1955). and W .7. Lam. Moscow. Economics of a Conceptual 75 MW Hot D r y Rock Electric Power Station. January. Sci. Hunsbedt. 1987). of Auckland. . Witherspoon. Yaeger. Kruger. Yu. Cornwall. Smirnova. EconomicMathematical Modeling and Experimental Parameters of a GCS with Hydrofracturing of t h e Zakarpate GeoTES. and Tech. . pp. Theory of Heat Extraction from Fractured Hot Dry Rock. p p . 1986). Y u . August. 145150. 2932. . Lam. No. New York. S . Appld. Novosibirsk. Pavlov. ASME/AIChE 19th National Heat Transfer Conference. Calculation of Fracturing the Hard Rock Region for Construction of t h e Zakarpate GeoTES. . and A.L. . Salt Lake City. Kruger. Iregui. P . Abe. Gendler. Paper 77HT53. M. . D . ASME/AIChE 18th National Heat Transfer Conference.L. Gendler. and P. P. Y u . R e s .Tech. UT. .L Drozdetskaya.5. J. 110115. N . B . 373397 in S . and N . Ac. 1990). J.. D . . U K . E . N . and A. E. and N . Ph.. K r u g e r . Pruess. Experimental Investigation of Transient Heat Extraction in Porous Media with Fluid Filtration. A. Tokyo. E d s . C . Brigham. E . R . and S: G . Seminar on Hydraulic Fracturing and Geothermal Energy" (M. 1977.G. Energy Recovery from FractureStimulated Geothermal Reservoirs. Carslaw. p p . User's Manu& for t h e 1D Linear Heat Sweep Model. Stanford University. Leningrad. K . 2. p p . 1. . 459574 (1985). and S .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.