Inversion of well production capacity curves at Mutnovskoe geothermal deposit

Spotlight of the analysis is on the inversion of well production capacity curves at Mutnovskoe geothermal deposit, Kamchatka. The inversion means the decrease in the flow rate with the drop in the wellhead pressure. It was earlier assumed that, as against Pauzhetka deposit, the wells at Mutnovskoe deposit had no inversion. The calculations performed with regard to the new theoretical concepts show that the inversion is possible. For detecting the inversion of the well production capacity curves, the tests were carried out in three wells at Mutnovskoe deposit. The wellhead pressures were measured in the course of stepped reduction in the well flow rate. The inversion is found in two wells—Geo-3 and Geo-2. The undetected inversion in Geo-4 has a few reasons. The theoretical analysis shows that the complexity of detecting inversion in this well is connected with the low specific flow rate of fluid from the reservoir, and with the presence of lower percent of water in the mixture of water and vapor in the well. Furthermore, the absence of the inversion can be connected with the vapor zone in the upper source area of the well. Thus, the accomplished research allows telling on the presence of the inversion in the well production capacity curves, at least in some curves, at the Mutnovskoe geothermal deposit. It is emphasized that the inversion is observed as small flow rates which are usually of no commercial interest. Nonetheless, the significance of this phenomenon grows in the discussion and decision-making on the adjustment of well flow rates with a view to synchronizing the heat source production and the thermal station operation in the mode of varied load.

Shulyupin A. N., Chernev I. I., Varlamova N. N. Inversion of well production capacity curves at Mutnovskoe geothermal deposit. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2024;(7): 49-60. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2024_7_0_49.

The studies used the equipment of the Scientific Evidence Storage and Processing Shared Center of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation under Contract No. 075-15-2021-663.

A.N. Shulyupin¹, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Director, e-mail: ans714@mail.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7379-410X, 
I.I. Chernev, Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Deputy Chief Engineer, e-mail: Chernev-II@kamenergo.ru, Kamchatskenergo PJSC branch Renewable Energy, 683009, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Russia,
N.N. Varlamova¹, Junior Researcher, e-mail: vnnvilsvet@mail.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5372-5043,
¹ Mining Institute of Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 680000, Khabarovsk, Russia.

N.N. Varlamova, e-mail: vnnvilsvet@mail.ru.

1. Bulba E. E., Kuznetsov G. V., Shvaybovich M. I. Assessment of the prospects for usingunconventional renewable energy sources in the next twenty years. Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. Geo Assets Engineering. 2022, vol. 333, no. 2, pp. 164—172. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.18799/24131 830/2022/2/3533.

2. Lund J. W., Toth A. N. Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2020 worldwide review. Geothermics. 2021, vol. 90, article 101915. DOI: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2020.101915.

3. Huttrer G. W. Geothermal power generation in the World 2015–2020 Update Report, Review. Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2020+1. Reykjavik, Iceland, 2021, аrticle 01017.

4. Butuzov V. A., Tomarov G. V., Alkhasov A. B., Aliev R. M., Badavov G. B. Geothermal energy of Russia: resources, electric power generation, and heat supply (a review). Teploenergetika. 2022, no. 1, pp. 3—17. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.1134/S004036362112002X.

5. Shulyupin A. N., Varlamova N. N. Current trends in the development of geothermal resources. Georesursy. 2020, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 113—122. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.18599/grs.2020.4.113-122.

6. Zhang J., Xie J., Liu X. Numerical evaluation of heat extraction for EGS with tree-shaped wells. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2019, vol. 134, pp. 296—310. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.12.171.

7. Osgouei Y. T., Akin S. Experimental and numerical study of flow and thermal transport in fractured rock. Heat and Mass Transfer. 2021, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 1053—1068. DOI: 10.1007/s00231-02003001-w.

8. Ghavidel A., Gracie R., Dusseault M. B. Design parameters impacting electricity generation from horizontal multilateral closed-loop geothermal systems in Hot Dry Rock. Geothermics. 2022, vol. 105, article 102469. DOI: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2022.102469.

9. Ye Z., Wang J. G. Uncertainty analysis for heat extraction performance from a stimulated geothermal reservoir with the diminishing feature of permeability enhancement. Geothermics. 2022, vol. 100, article 102339. DOI: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102339.

10. Nguyen A., Tamasauskas J., Kegel M. A method for fast economic optimization of large hybrid ground source heat pump systems. Geothermics. 2022, vol. 104, article 102473. DOI: 10.1016/j. geothermics.2022.102473.

11. Zhang X., Wang E., Liu L., Qi C. Machine learning-based performance prediction for ground source heat pump systems. Geothermics. 2022, vol. 105, article 102509. DOI: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2022.102509.

12. Chong Q., Wang J., Gates I. D. Evaluation of closed-loop U-Tube deep borehole heat exchanger in the Basal Cambrian Sandstone formation, Alberta, Canada. Geothermal Energy. 2022, vol. 10, article 21. DOI: 10.1186/s40517-022-00229-z.

13. Luo Y., Yan T., Yu J. Integrated analytical modeling of transient heat transfer inside and outside U-tube ground heat exchanger. A new angle from composite-medium method. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2020, vol. 162, article 120373. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120373.

14. Pavlov K. A., Pashkevich R. I. Simulation of a double-wеll petrothermal circulation system. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2018, no. S60, pp. 236—243. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236-14932018-12-60-236-243.

15. Pashkevich R. I., Shadrin A. V. Numerical simulation of EGS with double porosity reservoir. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2021, no. S19, pp. 392—407. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2 021_11_19_392.

16. James R. Factors controlling borehole performance. Geothermics. 1970, vol. 2, pp. 1502—1515.

17. Grant M. A., Bixley P. F. Geothermal reservoir engineering. USA, Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier, 2011, 359 p.

18. Shulyupin A. N. Ustoychivost' rezhima raboty parovodyanoy skvazhiny [Stability of the steamwater well mode], Khabarovsk, OOO «Amurprint», 2018, 136 p.

19. Kirui F. K. Tracer flow testing for determination of mass flow rates and enthalpies, case study for KenGen-Olkaria production wells. Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2020+1. Reykjavik, Iceland. 2021, аrticle 24027.

20. Mubarok M. H., Zarrouk S. J., Cater J. E. Pressure differential devices for measuring total mass flow rate and enthalpy in twophase geothermal pipelines. Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2020+1. Reykjavik, Iceland. 2021, аrticle 25000.

21. Droznin V. A. Fizicheskaya model' vulkanicheskogo protsessa [Physical model of the volcanic process], Moscow, Nauka, 1980, 92 p.

22. Shulyupin A. N. Gravitational instability of gas-liquid flow at development of geothermal fields. Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. Geo Assets Engineering. 2022, vol. 333, no. 6, pp. 140—146. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.18799/24131830/2022/6/3565.

23. Shulyupin A. N., Lyubin A. A., Varlamova N. N. About the management of steam-lift production during the development of the Mutnovsky geothermal field (Kamchatka). News of the Tula state university. Sciences of Earth. 2022, no. 3, pp. 220—234. [In Russ].