Abstract
Reply to comment by Maier and Kocabas on “A closed-form analytical solution for thermal single-well injection-withdrawal tests” Yoojin Jung and Karsten Pruess Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 1. Introduction We appreciate the comment by Maier and Kocabas (2012) on our research article (Jung and Pruess, 2012). In their comment, they raise the following issues: (1) their solutions presented in Kocabas (2010) and Maier and Kocabas (2012) are mathematically simpler and computationally more efficient than our analytical solutions and (2) the insensitivity of thermal breakthrough curve to the flow velocity, which is one of the important conclusions of our study, only holds for the special case where the injection and the withdrawal flow rate is identical. We address each of these comments, along with a few other relatively minor comments and suggestions, below. 2.1. Efficiency of the Analytical Solution Regarding the computational efficiency of the analytical solutions, we agree that the solutions developed by Kocabas (2010) and Maier and Kocabas (2012) using the iterated Laplace transform have a simpler form than our solutions and therefore need a shorter
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
