4.7 Article

Analysis of heterogeneous characteristics in a geothermal area with low permeability and high temperature

Journal

GEOSCIENCE FRONTIERS
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages 1039-1050

Publisher

CHINA UNIV GEOSCIENCES, BEIJING
DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.10.007

Keywords

Los Humeros geothermal field; Reservoir performance; Hot rock; Enthalpy; Permeability; Recharge

Funding

  1. Comision Federal de Electricidad of Mexico (CFE) [MEXUS-CONACYT 14560]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An analytical methodology for reservoir characterization was applied in the central and southwestern zones of Los Humeros geothermal field (LHGF). This study involves analysis of temperature, pressure, enthalpy and permeability in wells and their distribution along the area. The wells located in the central western side of the geothermal field are productive, whereas those located at the central-eastern side are non-productive. Through temperature profiles, determined at steady state in the analyzed wells, it was observed that at bottom conditions (approximately 2300 m depth), temperatures vary between 280 and 360 degrees C. The temperatures are higher at the eastern side of central zone of LHGF. A review of transient pressure tests, laboratory measurements of core samples, and correlation of circulation losses during drilling suggest that permeability of the formation is low. The enthalpy behavior in productive wells shows a tendency of increase in the steam fraction. It was found that productivity behavior has inverse relation with permeability of rock formation. Further, it is observed that an imbalance exists between exploitation and recharge. It is concluded from the results that the wells located at central-eastern area have low permeability and high temperature, which indicates possibility of heat storage. (C) 2016, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available