It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
When water is injected into a fracture-dominated reservoir that is cooler or hotter than the injected water, the reservoir permeability is expected to be altered by the injection-induced thermo-mechanical effects, resulting in the redistribution of fluid flow in the reservoir. These effects are important to be taken into account when evaluating the performance and lifetime particularly of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). In this paper, we compare the results from two dye tracer tests, conducted before (at ambient temperature of ) and during the injection of hot water into a fractured crystalline rock at the Grimsel Test Site in Switzerland. Conducting a moment analysis on the recovered tracer residence time distribution (RTD) curves, we observe, after hot water injection, a significant decrease in the total tracer recovery. This recovery decrease strongly suggests that fluid flow was redistributed in the studied rock volume and that the majority of the injected water was lost to the far-field. Furthermore, using temperature measurements, obtained from the same locations as the tracer RTD curves, we conceptualize an approach to estimate the fracture surface area contributing to the heat exchange between the host rock and the circulating fluid. Our moment analysis and simplified estimation of fracture surface area provide insights into the hydraulic properties of the hydraulically active fracture system and the changes in fluid flow. Such insights are important to assess the heat exchange performance of a geothermal formation during fluid circulation and to estimate the lifetime of the geothermal formation, particularly in EGS.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 ETH Zürich, Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group, Department of Earth Sciences, Zürich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5801.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 2780); Geological Survey of Finland, Kuopio, Finland (GRID:grid.52593.38) (ISNI:0000000123753425)
2 SCCER-SoE, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5801.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 2780); RWTH Aachen, Department of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Aachen, Germany (GRID:grid.1957.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 0728 696X)
3 ETH Zürich, Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group, Department of Earth Sciences, Zürich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5801.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 2780); University of Minnesota, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Minneapolis, USA (GRID:grid.17635.36) (ISNI:0000000419368657)
4 ETH Zürich, Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group, Department of Earth Sciences, Zürich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5801.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 2780)