Influence of extreme fracture flow channels on the thermal performance of open-loop geothermal systems at commercial scale

Geothermal Energy

Science – Society – Technology

Table 2 List of cases simulated

Case No	Mass flow rate, \(\dot{m}\) (\(kg\cdot {s}^{-1}\))	Well separation distance, W_sd (m)	Fluid circulation direction
Homogenous fracture aperture distribution
0	20	500	W–E
Heterogeneous fracture aperture distribution; varying flow rates
1	10	500	W–E
2	20	500	W–E
3	40	500	W–E
Heterogeneous fracture aperture distribution; varying well separation
4	20	300	W–E
5	20	400	W–E
6	20	500	W–E
7	20	300	N–S
8	20	400	N–S
9	20	500	N–S
Heterogeneous fracture aperture distribution; varying well pair orientation
10	20	500	W–E
11	20	500	N–S
12	20	500	NW–SE
13	20	500	NE–SW

Case 0 represents the base case of an ideal fracture displaying constant aperture. The subsequent cases use Altona’s upscaled permeability distribution. Cases 1 through 3 model the influence of mass flow rate. Cases 4 through 9 model the influence of well separation distance along the y- and x-axis, and Cases 10 through 13 evaluate the influence of the relative well placement. E, W, N, and S denote the four Cardinal points. Note that the direction of fluid circulation in Case 0 can be selected arbitrarily, since fluid circulation direction is inconsequential for a uniform permeability field