Many numerical reservoir simulators have been used in the geothermal industry, with their valid performance confirmed using publicly available s. These simulators will have nearly identical performance for single-porosity models and parameters are easily compared between different simulators. When implementing dual-porosity formulations, the choice between MINC, dual-porosity, and dual-permeability leads a divergence in the comparability of these parameters. Through history matching and analog studies, the modeling community has converged on a range of values for several parameters that improve forecasting with realistic predictions of thermal breakthrough. This paper compares three simulators and their available dual-porosity parameters to identify a conversion approach between the softwares. A field history example from Brady's Hot Springs is presented with the corresponding applicable parameters for several dual-porosity approaches.

Press the Back button in your browser, or search again.

Copyright 2022, Stanford Geothermal Program: Readers who download papers from this site should honor the copyright of the original authors and may not copy or distribute the work further without the permission of the original publisher.