GECS Vortrag PDF

INSIGHT INTO MODERN
RESERVOIR ENGINEERING
AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Miklos Antics and Pierre Ungemach

GPC INSTRUMENTATION PROCESS (GPC IP)
Paris Nord 2, 165 Rue de la Belle Etoile,
BP 55030, 95946 ROISSY CDG CEDEX, FRANCE
m.antics@geoproduction.fr
pierre.ungemach@geoproduction.fr
www.gpc-france.com
Geothermal Energy and CO2 Storage: Synergy or Competition, GFZ Potsdam, 20100210 1
OUTLINE
 INTRODUCTION
 DEFINITIONS. EUROPEAN RESOURCE SETTINGS
 INSIGHT INTO MODERN RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
 HEAT EXTRATION ISSUES
 CASE STUDY – MADRID AREA
ASSESSMENT OF GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
 WATER INJECTION
 RESERVOIR SIMULATION
 SUSTAINABLE HEAT EXTRACTION.
A RESERVOIR ENGINEERING APPROACH (CASE STUDY)
 CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
 Geothermal Energy is energy stored in the form of
heat beneath the surface of the solid earth. This
definition became official in Germany (VDI 4640)
and it has been adopted by the European
Geothermal Energy Council (EGEC).
 Geothermal energy can be reclaimed in two
different ways:
 in the form of electricity
 the form of heat
 each type of utilisation is distinguished by different
technologies and applications.
GEODYNAMIC MAP OF EUROPE
Volcano-magmatic
Sweden
Highland Norway
Massif Massif Back-arc marginal basin
Crystalline massif
Danish Basin
Foredeep basin
W. Yorkshire
Basin
Netherland
Intracratonic basin
Basin
Hampshire
Cornwall
Basin Active pull-apart/
Massif horst-graben structures
Active subduction zones
Lausitz
Armorican Orogenic belt
t
Rif
Massif
Massif
ine
Alpine
Rh
Foredeep Bohemian Carpathian Volcanic island arc
Massif
Foredeep
ift
R
sse
Central
re
Pyrenean Massif
e-B
Foredeep Pannonian Transylvanian

n
Basin
Rho
Basin
Tajo Po
Basin Iberic Basin
Meseta
Massif Ebro
Rhone
Foredeep
Basin Corsica
Massif Tuscan-Lazio Thracian
magmato-tectonic Basin
province
Rhodope
Quadalquivir Sardinia Massif
Foredeep Algerian Massif
Provenzal Tyrrhenian
Basin Thessaloniki
Basin
Campidano Rift Basin Aegean
Eolian Arc Basin
Alboran
Basin Caltanisetta
Foredeep
Aegean Arc
Pantelleria Rift
EUROPEAN GEODYNAMIC SETTINGS

(after C. Sommaruga)
HEAT FLOW DENSITY MAP
from Cermak and Rybach (1979)

TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION @ 5000 m depth
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTS
high enthalpy (el. power)
high temperature basins
(el.power, district heating)
medium temperature basins
(district heating)
everywhere:
EGS, shallow geothermal
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY USES
www.geothermie-perspectives.fr
TENTATIVE GEOTHERMAL SYSTEM NOMENCLATURE
BASED ON SATURATED STEAM TEMPERATURES
(adapted from Subir Sanyal, 2005)
Class Class 7 Supercritical
5
Class
Class 4
3
Class
2
6 Maximum saturation enthalpy

(2800 kJ/kg) superheated
(“dry”) steam
Two-Phase
Vapour
180 °C
Pressure-Enthalpy-Temperature diagram for pure water
SIMPLIFIED GEOTHERMAL UTILISATION DIAGRAM
Maximum
250°C saturated
steam enthalpy
240°C
Direct (@ 3,48 kPa)
Ste
300°C Expans am
ion 200°C
F lash Cond
Dual ens
ing
h (Condensi
le Fla s ng ,
350°C i ng (Tw
Ba
ck
S l F l ow o ph
a
ota se -
T ex
pr
Bi
Critical Point p 150°C
na
ss
SION CYC
VER
an
for pure water
ry(
N LE
uer)
CO
si
(@ 22,12 kPa) Y G
ORC
IT
on
EN
RIC ER
CT
(Absor
374°C
Fr eezin n)
PO
AT
E O WE
,K
EL
ION
G
alin
R
ptio
g
a)
10 - 15 °C 100 - 110 °C
es
Ground
l Us
GE
OHEAT
t
Hea
tria
(*)
DIR S 90°C
g
ECT USE
TH
ER
olin
S
So u
us
s
MA SS
es
Fi s
d
L US
ES/PROC
/co
Ba
In
oc
rm
ro
hf
cH
P
u
p
e
at
lne
Ag
Pr
ing
ar
30°C 80°C
in Sp t in
g
m
o
at
ace ea
lo
g/ h
He
Aq /Green house
gy
/M ua t
ed cul tri c
ic ture s
ina Di 70°C
l
40°C (*) heat pump alone < 30 °C

combined heat pump/heat exchange > 30 °C
60°C heat exchange alone > 50°C
50°C
Geothermal resource utilisation potential
A tentative assessment
Geothermal continuum – The EGS issue
INSIGHT INTO MODERN RESERVOIR
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
RESERVOIR ENGINEERING
VS. MANAGEMENT
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ADDRESSES
 HEAT IN PLACE
 RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE
 WELL DELIVERABILITIES
 HEAT RECOVERY
 RESERVOIR LIFE
 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT ADDRESSES
 OPTIMUM EXPLOITATION STRATEGIES
 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
 ECONOMIC VIABILITY
 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
IN A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
PERSPECTIVE
KEY QUESTIONS:
IS GE:
RENEWABLE ?
EXHAUSTIBLE ?
SUSTAINABLE ?
DEFINITIONS
Renewability
« The energy extracted from a renewable energy
source is always replaced in a natural way by an
additional amount of energy and the replacement
takes place on a similar time scale as that of the
extraction » (Axelsson et al, 2001).
Sustainability
« … the ability of a geothermal heat extraction system
to sustain production over long times » (Rybach,
2003).
« … for each geothermal system and for each mode of
production there exists a certain level of maximum
energy production, below which it will be possible to
maintain a constant energy production from the
system for a very long time (100 – 300 years)… »
(Axelsson et al, 2004).
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT &
SUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION
 IS GEOTHERMAL HEAT A RENEWABLE ENERGY

SOURCE?
 YES. BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE OF HEAT FLOW
 IS GEOTHERMAL HEAT EXHAUSTABLE ?
YES AS IT CAN BE EXPLOITED ABOVE CONDUCTIVE

HEAT RESUPLY
 HOW TO RECONCILE HEAT MINING ISSUES WITH
LONGEVITY OF RESERVOIR LIFE AND RISK
ASSESSMENT THIS IS WHAT SUSTAINABLE
MANAGEMENT OF GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES IS ALL
ABOUT
RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT DIAGRAM
EXTERNALITIES
RESERVOIR/
SYSTEM LIFE
SUSTAINABILITY ECONOMICS
ECONOMIC/
RESERVOIR OFFER DEVELOPMENT/ DEMAND FINANCIAL/
Existing/potential INSTITUTIONAL/
ENGINEERING Recoverable MANAGEMENT heat loads ENVIRONMENTAL
Heat STRATEGY
PRODUCTION RISK Non Technical

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Obstacles
INTEGRATED RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT
Surface/Subsurface
Exploration (Geology,
geophysics,
geochemistry)
Well
Performance
Well Well
Assessment
Drilling/Completion Tests
Development
Drilling Exploration
Drilling Tracer
Tests
Early
Lithology Reservoir
Structure Assessment
Geochemistry
CONCEPTUAL
MODELLING
Material
Balance
Reservoir
Simulation
Resource/
Reservoir
Assessment
Heat
Extraction Reservoir
Production
Management Makeup
Direct Wells
Power Uses
Generation
CHP Shallow
ORC Heat Water
Pumps Injection
EGS
CASE STUDY – MADRID AREA
ASSESSMENT OF GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
MADRID GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE SETTING
Location of Target Assessment Areas
NO-SE CROSS SECTIONAL SKETCH

(Adapted from European Geothermal Atlas & Petratherm)
SEQUENCE RESOURCE ENERGY
13.5 °C CLASS RATIOS
0
3
GCHP/GWHP SHALLOW GTH 50 W/m - 1.16 kW/m /h/°C
200 15/20
Impervious
Rock
500 30
GDHC MEDIUM DEPTH 3

1.16 kW/m /h/°C
HP assisted GTH
1000 50
Impervious
Rock
1500 70
GDHC DEEP 3
HX alone GTH 1.16 kW/m /h/°C
2500 100
Impervious
Rock
3500 130/140
1.16 kW/m3 /h/°C (heat)

ULTRA-DEEP
EGS
GTH
η1.16 kW/m3 /h/°C (power)
CHP
5000 160/180
Abbreviations
CHP combined heat an power
Depth GEOTHERMAL Temperature EGS enhanced geothermal system
(°C)
(m) HEAT-2FLOW
-2
(9 10 Wm )
GCHP/GWHP ground coupled/ground water heat pump
GDHC geothermal district heating & cooling
HP heat pump
Hx heat exchange
GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION VS DEPTH,

TEMPERATURE & AQUIFER OCCURENCE
GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION/RESOURCE/RESERVE INTERACTION
Source: Australian Geothermal Reporting Code (AGCC)
MINING SCHEMES
Connection to the house
Ground water- Pr Inj

od ec
level uc tio
tio n
Pump w
n
w
a. Borehole heat b. Groundwater c. Aquifer energy storage (ATES)

exchanger (BHE) doublet (GWD)
Shallow geothermal (0-200m) GSHPs
Shallow Geothermal Sources
MINING SCHEMES
BUB District Heating Network
C shw
HEX
P
CP
IP
Singlet Multiproduction Doublet Quadruplet Five spot multiwell array

well scheme
PP
Production well Injection well
a. Medium depth b. Deep doublet c. Multiwell arrays

doublet (heat>1exchange
km
alone)
(heat pump assisted)
Medium depth/deep geothermal (1000-2500m)
Medium depths - Deep Geothermal Sources
MINING SCHEMES
a. Organic Rankine Cycle b. Unconventional (EGS) CHP

Ultra deep geothermal (3500-5000 m)
Deep - Ultradeep seated Sources EGS
GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE & RESERVE ASSESSMENTS
MINING SCHEMES
INTERMEDIATE NEW DOUBLET
INITIAL DOUBLET TRIPLET ARRAY 51-75 yrs
0-25 yrs 26-50 yrs
I”
P WH I I’ WH I I’ WH I
P P
Former doublet wells Former injector wells abandoned

Initial cased wells
lined (7”) as injector wells New anti-corrosion injection well
9”5/8 casings
New anti-corrosion production well
Production well
Reservoir impacts
Injection well
Well heads
Sustaining 75 yrs
System life
OVERALL (Grand SPECIFIC (NE
ZONE
Madrid) Madrid)
AREA (km2) 1400 150
VOLUME 5 km depth (km3) 7000 750
HEAT FLOW DENSITY (Wm-2) 9 10-2 9 10-2
SUBSURFACE
TEMPERATURES (°C)
500 m 35 35
1500 m 60-70 60-70
2500 m 80-100 80-100
5000 m 160-180 160-180
ACCESSIBLE RESOURCE 560 6.2
BASE (ARB) 5 km 1019 J
HEAT RESUPPLY
Power (MWt) 126 13.5
Energy (GWht/yr) 1130 104
HEAT IN PLACE (HIP) (1018 J)
Shallow GTH 21 2.2
Medium depth GTH 18 3.9
Deep GTH 27 3.1
Ultra-deep GTH 115 13.1
TOTAL 181 1018 J 22.3 1018 J
RECOVERABLE HEAT
(RCH) OVER 75 yrs
Shallow GTH (BHE/GWD) 3.3/1 0.35/0.1
(1018 J)
Medium depth GTH (1018 J) 6.3 1.4
Deep GTH (1018 J) 9.5 1.1
Ultra-deep GTH (1018 J) 5.8 0.7
TOTAL 24.9/22.6 1018 J 3.6/3.3 1018 J
EXPLOITABLE HEAT (AND
POWER) OVER 75 yrs
Shallow GHT (BHE/GWD) 0.36/0.07 0.04/0.007
(1017 J)
Medium depth GTH (1017 J) 1.3 0.3
Deep GTH (1017 J) 4.4 1.1
Ultra-deep GTH CHP (1017 J) 1.2 0.3
TOTAL 7.3/7 1017 J 1.7/1.7 1017 J
HEAT RESUPPLY (1017 J) 3.09 0.33
CONCLUSION
Item Grand NE Madrid

Madrid
Heat in place (HIP) 1018 J 181 22
Recoverable heat (RCH) 75 yrs 1018 J 25 3.5
Exploitable heat (and power) (EXH) 75 yrs 1017 J 7.3 1.7
Heat resupply (assuming 90mWm-2 heat flow density) 3.09 0.33
1017 J
EXH / RCH ratio (%) 3 5
FINAL RESOURCE/RESERVE PROJECTED FIGURES
WATER INJECTION
 Water injection PROS:
 optimum heat recovery
 disposal of the waste, cooled, brine a major concern owing
to, increasingly stringent, environmental regulations;
 pressure maintenance as exemplified by the, mass
conservative, doublet concept of heat mining;
 land subsidence control.
 Water injection CONS:
 well short-circuiting (fractured media)
 premature cooling (thermal breakthrough) of production
wells
WATER INJECTION
MENDOCINO COUNTY
SONOMA COUNTY
PLANT OWNERS
PG&E
COLDWATERCREEK SANTA ROSA GEO
BOTTLEROCK
AIDLIN (55 MW) NCPA
(2 x 65MW)
SMUD
2 X10 MW
UNIT 11 SANTA FE GEO
UNIT 17 DWR
106 MW
GEYSERSADMINISTRATIVE FIELDBOUNDARY 113 MW GEO ENERGYPTNRS
UNITS 7,8 CCPA
2 X53 MW
UNITS 3,4 UNITS 5,6 UNIT 12
(2 X27 MW) 2 X53 MW 106 MW COBBMTN
UNIT 15 UNITS 1,2

(11,13MW) UNITS 9,10
(59 MW) 2 X53 MW
SMUDGEONO.1 UNITS 1,2
72 MW 2 X40 MW 2 X14.5MW
UNIT 14
109 MW WEST FORDFLAT
UNIT 20
113 MW
UNIT 13
0 2 km 133 MW
UNIT 18
0 1 mile 113 MW UNIT 16
113 MW
2 x 11MW
BEARCANYON
NO. 1
2 x 55MW
NO. 2 2 x 55MW
THE GEYSERS POWER PLANTS

WATER INJECTION
EFFECT OF SEGEP INJECTION ON SE GEYSERS GENERATION
Calpine Power Plant Units 13, 16, 18 and NCPA Plants 1 & 2
430
422
410
396
ANNUAL AVE. GENERATION RATE (MWG
390
376
367 367
370 359
+39MW
350 339
+54MW
337
330 +68MW
321
313
310 +69MW
+70MW
290 291
270 270
Exponential
251
250
230
Jul-95
Jan-96
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Jan-98
Jul-98
Jan-99
Jul-99
Jan-00
Jul-00
Jan-01
Jul-01
Jan-02
Jul-02
Jan-03
Jul-03
Jan-04
Jul-04
WATER INJECTION
 PARTICLE INDUCED DAMAGE
ARGILLACEOUS FLUID
SANDSTONE
Suspended
Corrosion Gas particles in
of tubing Bacteria bubbles the fluid
Matrix
Precipitation
of chemical
species
Temperature
Internal Pressure
External
particles Velocity
particles
Salinity
ApH
Pore throat
plugging
Permeability
impairment
WATER INJECTION
 PARTICLE INDUCED DAMAGE
Field test (Paris Basin Triassic Sandstone, 1983)
325
300
PRESSURE (kg/cm2)
275
250
225
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
INJECTION DURATION (hours)
WELL1 (flow rate : 130 m3/h) WELL2 (flow rate : 120 m3/h)
INJECTION WELL DESIGN SANDSTONE ENVIRONMENT
Drilling Casing / completion
PROJECTED Ød 24” Øc 18”5/8
WELL /
58
RESERVOIR 60
PERFORMANCE
Ød 17”1/2 Øc 13”3/8
Top reservoir depth..............................................1,500 m
Static WHP.............................................................-5 bars Cement
Total pay.................................................................. 400 m

Net pay (h)...............................................................110 m 650 648
Effective porosity (Øe) .................................................0.2 DV 660
Permeability (k)....................................................100 mD
Transmissivity (kh)...................................... 11,000 mDm
Skin factor (S)................................................................-2 Ød 12”1/4
Formation temperature.............................................. 90ºC Øc 9”5/8
Average injection temperature.................................. 35ºC
Fluid (eq. NaCl) salinity.......................................... 2.5 g/l
1,420
Fluid dynamic viscosity (production) (µp) ............0.32 cp Øc 9”5/8×7” liner hanger
Fluid dynamic viscosity (injection) (µi) .................0.73 cp 1,448
Total compressibility factor (c t) ........................10-4 bars-1 1,450
Fluid density (ρp) at 90ºC............................965.34 kg/m3 Wire wrapped screen/blank

liner assembly
Fluid density (ρi) at 35ºC.............................994.06 kg/m3 Øsc 6”5/8
Target injection rate (Q).................................... 150 m3/hr Øur 12”
WHP (150 m3/hr, 35ºC)......................................20.5 bars Gravel pack
Sandface velocity (vsf)........................................0.23 cm/s

1,815
Velocity at completion outlet (v c) ......................0.61 cm/s Ød 8”1/2 1,816
1,820
RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Exploration stage Prefeasibility stage Feasibility stage Production stage
Exploration drilling P roduction drilling (P roduction history)
3. Phase
10
2. Phas e Reservoir modelling
(matching most observed
data)
9
7 6a
Reservoir modelling
Reservoir modelling Interference tests to match some
(natural state) (multiple wells)
significant transients
(P ,T data of wells)
6b
P ump tests
flow tests 8
5 (single well) Reservoir characteristics
1. Phase Conceptual model
(completion of at least one estabilished from analysis
4 of production wells
deep well)
Net heat loss
(renewable resource
3a 3b estimate)
stored energy power potential
estimate estimate
Main e xploration
2
Assesment of structure and volume of reservoir
Fluid characteristics
Clasification of system
Re connais s ance e xploration

1
Identification of prospect,
hydrological, geological setting.
Surface manifestations
 All successful geothermal simulation techniques are

based on two common ideas:
 Difference equations are fully implicit with all mass and
energy fluxes evaluated at the new time level.
 Upstream weighting is used to calculate interface
quantities.
 In summary a successful reservoir modelling
program has three fundamental components:
 The collection of meaningful and reliable geoscientific,
production, and reinjection data, and the
interpretation and analysis of this data.
 The construction of a conceptual reservoir model.
 The development of a computer model of the
reservoir, to allow the simulation of behaviour
patterns and response to exploitation.
Data collection
and analysis
Conceptual
model
Preliminary
models
Natural state
models
(full or partial)
Simple
production models
(possibly several)
Full-scale
production models
(usually 3-D)
CASE STUDY - SOUTHAMPTON
-1820 m deep well

- Triassic sandstone reservoir
- 70 m3/h,
- 74°C well head temperature,
- 300 m water level drawdown
- #3.5 Darcy meter transmissivity
SOUTHAMPTON RESERVOIR MODEL
Model calibration
a. Water level drawdowns

b. Production history
Recharged reservoir (R)
Impervious closed reservoir (C)
Weighted (3R + C)/4
Measured drawdown
Predicted drawdown patterns
SUSTAINABLE HEAT EXTRACTION.
A RESERVOIR ENGINEERING
APPROACH.
(CASE STUDY)
BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
RESOURCE SETTING
II
I Test area (single doublet, homogeneous reservoir)

II Development area (multidoublet, heterogeneous reservoir)
RESOURCE SETTING
SUSTAINABILITY
MULTIDOUBLET LOCATION
COMPATIBILITIES
PROCEDURE
STUDY OBJECTIVES
1. early reservoir conceptual models and related
production well thermal breakthrough
predictions;
2. matching forecasted vs. actual breakthrough
times and redesigning/calibrating modelling
features by:
i. comparing 2D (single layer) and 3D (multilayered)
reservoir structures;
ii. assessing relevant bedrock/caprock thermal
boundary conditions;
iii. quantifying (analytically and numerically)
interbedded impervious layer heat transfers and
subsequent impacts on production well cooling
kinetics;
3. enhancement of well and reservoir life via
appropriate production/injection multiwell arrays
and novel, long lasting, well completions;
4. relevant future heat demand and offer scenarios
meeting sustainability requirements.
HEAT EXTRACTION
π γt d e 2
tB =
3 γf q
where:
tB = thermal breakthrough time (h)
d = bottomhole (top reservoir) well spacing (m)
q = production (-)/injection (+) flowrate (m3/h)
γt = reservoir heat capacity (J/m3 K)
(
= φγf + 1 − φ γ r )
γf = fluid heat capacity (J/m3 K)
γr = rock heat capacity (J/m3 K)
φ = porosity
PROCEDURE
ASSESSMENT OF RESERVOIR STRUCTURE
CR CR
40% 1
1
34.5% 1 15% 2
23.5% 3
4%
10% 2
DEPTH
DEPTH
4% 4 2
30.5%
3
13.5% 5
18% 4
5% 5 3
BR BR
100 %FLOW 100 %FLOW
Production well Injection well b. Three layered c. Sandwiched

a. Flowmeter logging reservoir reservoir
RESERVOIR CR CAPROCK
IMPERVIOUS LAYER BR BEDROCK
II

TEST AREA
TEMPERATURE DEPLETION AT PRODUCTION WELL
2D AND SINGLE LAYER EQUIVALENT MODELS
Time, years
0 20 40 60 80
Single layer equivalent reservoir

1
2D Reservoir
2
4
Temperature depletion, °C
10
11
12
13
14
TEST AREA
THREE LAYERED RESERVOIR MODEL
Time, years
0 20 40 60 80
Reservoir 1 (top)
1
Reservoir 2 (int.)
Reservoir 3 (bot)
2
8
TEST AREA
SANDWICHED RESERVOIR MODEL
Time, years
0 20 40 60 80
1
Top reservoir
Bottom reservoir
2
3
9
II

DEVELOPMENT AREA
LAYER STACK
DEVELOPMENT AREA
MODEL PARAMETERS DISTRIBUTION
142000
GGAR2 (P)
141000
GAY2 (I)
140000
GBMN4 (I) GBMN1 (P)
139000
GBMN2 (I)
GBMN3 (P)
138000
GLCN2 (P)
GLCN3 (P)
GLCS2 (I) GLCS4 (I)
137000
GLCN1 (I)
GLCS1 (P)
GLCS3 (P) GLCN4 (I)

136000
135000
134000
601000 602000 603000 604000 605000 606000 607000 608000 609000 610000 611000
DEVELOPMENT AREA
ANTI CORROSION WELL DESIGN
expansion spool
free annulus
seat
fiberglass casing
cement
centralizers
steel casing
reservoir
DEVELOPMENT AREA
PRODUCTION/INJECTION SCHEDULE
1983-1989 1990-1997 1998-1999 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2010 2011-2035 2036-2060
WELL NAME TYPE Q Ti Q Ti Q Ti Q Ti Q Ti Q Ti Q Ti Q Ti
(m3/h) (°C) (m3/h) (°C) (m3/h) (°C) (m3/h) (°C) (m3/h) (°C) (m3/h) (°C) (m3/h) (°C) (m3/h) (°C)
Scheme Doublet(1) Triplet(2) Doublet(3)
GLCS1 P -132 -132 -132 -90 -90 -80 57.5 38
GLCS2 I 132 42 132 42 132 42 90 42 90 42 80 40 57.5 38
GLCS3 P -115 -118
GLCS4 I 118 32
(1) (2)
Scheme Doublet Triplet Doublet(3)
GLCN1 I 156 43 156 43 156 43 156 43 156 43 160 42 77 38
GLCN2 P -156 -156 -156 -156 -156 -160 77 38
GLCN3 P -176 -154
GLCN4 I 154 32
(1) (2)
Scheme Doublet Triplet Doublet(3)
GBMN1 P -163 -152 -145 -145 -130 -80 65 48
GBMN2 I 163 48 152 50 145 52 145 52 130 53 80 45 65 48
GBMN3 P -130 -110
GBMN4 I 110 40
DOUBLET YEARLY HEAT PRODUCTION (MWht)

GLCS 18000 18000 18000 14250 14250 12500 20200 27600
GLCN 22800 22800 22800 22800 22800 25000 34300 39000
GBMN 31800 26700 22600 22600 19000 18000 25400 30000
TOTAL 72600 67500 63400 59650 56050 55500 79900 96600
(1)
initial doublet: 2 deviated wells (steel cased 9"5/8)
(2)
intermediate triplet: 2 injection wells (initial reconditioned doublet, 7" steel lining), 1 new anticorrosion (steel/fiberglass lined), large diameter deviated well
(3)
final doublet: 3 anticorrosion (steel/fiberglass lined), large diameter deviated (existing producer and newly completed injector) wells.
DEVELOPMENT AREA
SIMULATION PERIOD: 1983-2010
TIME=31/12/2010 LAYER:RESERVOIR 2
8000
7000
72°C
6000 70°C
GBMN4 (I) 68°C
GBMN1 (P)
66°C
5000 64°C
62°C
GBMN2 (I) 60°C
GBMN3 (P)
58°C
4000
56°C
GLCN2 (P)
GLCN3 (P) 54°C
GLCS2 (I) 52°C
GLCS4 (I)
3000 50°C
GLCN1 (I)
48°C
GLCS1 (P)
GLCN4 (I) 46°C
GLCS3 (P)
2000 44°C
42°C
40°C
1000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
DEVELOPMENT AREA
8000
7000
72°C
6000 70°C
GBMN4 (I) 68°C
GBMN1 (P)
66°C
5000 64°C
62°C
GBMN2 (I) 60°C
GBMN3 (P)
58°C
4000
56°C
GLCN2 (P)
GLCN3 (P) 54°C
GLCS2 (I) 52°C
GLCS4 (I)
3000 50°C
GLCN1 (I)
48°C
GLCS1 (P)
GLCN4 (I) 46°C
GLCS3 (P)
2000 44°C
42°C
40°C
1000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
DEVELOPMENT AREA
8000
7000
72°C
6000 70°C
GBMN4 (I) 68°C
GBMN1 (P)
66°C
5000 64°C
62°C
GBMN2 (I) 60°C
GBMN3 (P)
58°C
4000
56°C
GLCN2 (P)
GLCN3 (P) 54°C
GLCS2 (I) 52°C
GLCS4 (I)
3000 50°C
GLCN1 (I)
48°C
GLCS1 (P)
GLCN4 (I) 46°C
GLCS3 (P)
2000 44°C
42°C
40°C
1000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
CONCLUSIONS
 Sustainable extraction of exhaustible

geothermal resources aims at increased
reservoir and well longevities targeted at
lifetimes nearing one hundred years
 It requires:
 Dependable reservoir properties
 Appropriate assessment of reservoir structure
 Reliable heat extraction concepts, well
completion/maintenance technologies and
monitoring protocols
 Databases and reservoir simulation tools
Geothermal Energy:
renewable-sustainable-proven-achievable-realistic
Thank you!
www.gpc-france.com

GECS Vortrag PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GECS Vortrag PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INSIGHT INTO MODERN

Miklos Antics and Pierre Ungemach

Foredeep Pannonian Transylvanian

EUROPEAN GEODYNAMIC SETTINGS

from Cermak and Rybach (1979)

6 Maximum saturation enthalpy

Pressure-Enthalpy-Temperature diagram for pure water

40°C (*) heat pump alone < 30 °C

 IS GEOTHERMAL HEAT A RENEWABLE ENERGY

PRODUCTION RISK Non Technical

Location of Target Assessment Areas

NO-SE CROSS SECTIONAL SKETCH

GDHC MEDIUM DEPTH 3

1.16 kW/m3 /h/°C (heat)

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION VS DEPTH,

Source: Australian Geothermal Reporting Code (AGCC)

Connection to the house

Ground water- Pr Inj

a. Borehole heat b. Groundwater c. Aquifer energy storage (ATES)

Shallow Geothermal Sources

BUB District Heating Network

Singlet Multiproduction Doublet Quadruplet Five spot multiwell array

a. Medium depth b. Deep doublet c. Multiwell arrays

Medium depths - Deep Geothermal Sources

a. Organic Rankine Cycle b. Unconventional (EGS) CHP

Deep - Ultradeep seated Sources EGS

Former doublet wells Former injector wells abandoned

Item Grand NE Madrid

FINAL RESOURCE/RESERVE PROJECTED FIGURES

UNIT 15 UNITS 1,2

THE GEYSERS POWER PLANTS

Total pay.................................................................. 400 m

Fluid density (ρp) at 90ºC............................965.34 kg/m3 Wire wrapped screen/blank

WHP (150 m3/hr, 35ºC)......................................20.5 bars Gravel pack

Sandface velocity (vsf)........................................0.23 cm/s

Re connais s ance e xploration

 All successful geothermal simulation techniques are

-1820 m deep well

a. Water level drawdowns

I Test area (single doublet, homogeneous reservoir)

Production well Injection well b. Three layered c. Sandwiched

IMPERVIOUS LAYER BR BEDROCK

I Test area (single doublet, homogeneous reservoir)

Single layer equivalent reservoir

I Test area (single doublet, homogeneous reservoir)

GLCS3 (P) GLCN4 (I)

DOUBLET YEARLY HEAT PRODUCTION (MWht)

 Sustainable extraction of exhaustible

You might also like