softwareengineerprogrammer · softwareengineerprogrammer · May 20, 2026 · May 20, 2026 · May 20, 2026 · May 20, 2026
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ nosetests.xml
 *.iml
 *.komodoproject
 .idea
+.junie
 .project
 .pydevproject
 .vscode
@@ -124,6 +125,9 @@ src/geophires_docs/fervo_project_red-2026_graph-data-extraction.xcf
 /Useful sites for Sphinx docstrings.txt
 /.github/workflows/workflows.7z
 tmp.patch
+project-structure.txt
+geophires-aliases.sh
+*message.txt
 
 # Mypy Cache
 .mypy_cache/

diff --git a/docs/Fervo_Project_Cape-5.md.jinja b/docs/Fervo_Project_Cape-5.md.jinja
@@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ See [GEOPHIRES Economic Outputs documentation](parameters.html#economic-paramete
 | Maximum Net Electricity Generation   | {{ max_net_generation_mwe}} MW | | |
 | Maximum Total Electricity Generation | {{ max_total_generation_mwe }} MW | Upper bound: 600 MW  | Combined nameplate capacity of 10×60 MWe Gen 2 ORCs. A total of 8×60 MWe Gen 2 ORCs have been announced for Phase II; 3 from Turboden and 5 from Baker Hughes (Turboden, 2025; Jacobs, 2025). This equates to 480 MW gross capacity for Phase II's 400 MW net capacity. An equivalent SOAK 500 MW project would therefore require 10 Gen 2 ORC units. (Note that the modular Gen 2 ORCs are not individually modeled in this case study, and are assumed to be combined into a single power plant.) |
 | 2-year Average Net Power Production per Production Well | {{ two_year_avg_net_power_mwe_per_production_well }} MW | 7.6–11.5 MW | Figures 4 and 12 (Singh et al., 2025). |
+| Heat to Power Conversion Efficiency  | {{ heat_to_power_conversion_efficiency_pct ~ '%' }} | 19.5% | DeGolyer and MacNaughton, 2024. |
 | Injection Pumping Parasitic Load <br/> ({Average Pumping Power}/{Average Total Electricity Generation}) | {{ parasitic_loss_pct ~ '%' }}  | Upper bound: 16.7% | The Phase II procurement strategy (480 MW gross / 400 MW net) implies a design ceiling of 16.7% for total on-site consumption (including injection pumping). Current SOAK targets for parasitic consumption range from 15–20%, reflecting a planned reduction from the ~25–30% observed in Phase I operations (Norbeck, 2026). |
 | Total fracture surface area per well | {{ total_fracture_surface_area_per_well_mm2 }}×10⁶ m² <br/> ({{ total_fracture_surface_area_per_well_mft2 }} million ft²) | Project Red: 2.787×10⁶ m² <br/> (30 million ft²) | Greater fracture surface area expected than Project Red (Fercho et al., 2025). |
 | Reservoir Volume | {{ reservoir_volume_m3 }} m³ | | Calculated from fracture area × fracture separation × number of fractures per well × number of wells |
@@ -567,6 +568,11 @@ https://www.baytexenergy.com/content/uploads/2024/04/24-04-Baytex-Eagle-Ford-Pre
 Beckers, K., McCabe, K. (2019) GEOPHIRES v2.0: updated geothermal techno-economic simulation tool. Geotherm Energy
 7,5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-019-0119-6
 
+DeGolyer and MacNaughton. (2024, September 24).
+Report as of June 30, 2024 on Heat Initially In Place associated with the Project Cape Area prepared for Fervo Energy.
+Securities and Exchange Commission, Exhibit 99.1.
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1853868/000162828026025821/exhibit991-sx1.htm
+
 Fercho, S., Matson, G., McConville, E., Rhodes, G., Jordan, R., Norbeck, J.. (2024, February 12).
 Geology, Temperature, Geophysics, Stress Orientations, and Natural Fracturing in the Milford
 Valley, UT Informed by the Drilling Results of the First Horizontal Wells at the Cape Modern

diff --git a/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-irr.png b/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-irr.png
diff --git a/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-irr.svg b/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-irr.svg
diff --git a/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-lcoe.png b/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-lcoe.png
diff --git a/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-lcoe.svg b/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-lcoe.svg
diff --git a/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-project_npv.png b/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-project_npv.png
diff --git a/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-project_npv.svg b/docs/_images/fervo_project_cape-5-sensitivity-analysis-project_npv.svg
diff --git a/docs/_images/fervo_project_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-1.png b/docs/_images/fervo_project_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-1.png
diff --git a/docs/_images/fervo_project_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-2.png b/docs/_images/fervo_project_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-2.png
diff --git a/...ect_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-fracture-sensitivity-1.png b/...ect_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-fracture-sensitivity-1.png
diff --git a/...ect_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-fracture-sensitivity-2.png b/...ect_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-fracture-sensitivity-2.png
diff --git a/...es/fervo_project_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-long-term.png b/...es/fervo_project_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-long-term.png
diff --git a/..._project_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-power-sensitivity.png b/..._project_red-2026_production-temperature-data-vs-modeling-power-sensitivity.png
diff --git a/docs/_images/singh_et_al_base_simulation-production-temperature.png b/docs/_images/singh_et_al_base_simulation-production-temperature.png
diff --git a/src/geophires_docs/generate_fervo_project_cape_5_md.py b/src/geophires_docs/generate_fervo_project_cape_5_md.py
@@ -387,6 +387,9 @@ def n_year_avg_net_power_mwe(years: int) -> float:
         'max_net_generation_mwe': round(sig_figs(max_net_generation_mwe, 3)),
         'max_total_generation_mwe': round(sig_figs(max_total_generation_mwe, 3)),
         'two_year_avg_net_power_mwe_per_production_well': sig_figs(two_year_avg_net_power_mwe_per_production_well, 2),
+        'heat_to_power_conversion_efficiency_pct': sig_figs(
+            _q(surf_equip_sim['Heat to Power Conversion Efficiency']).to('percent').magnitude, 3
+        ),
         'parasitic_loss_pct': sig_figs(parasitic_loss_pct, 3),
         'number_of_times_redrilling': redrills,
         'total_wells_including_redrilling': total_wells_including_redrilling,

diff --git a/tests/examples/Fervo_Project_Cape-5.out b/tests/examples/Fervo_Project_Cape-5.out
diff --git a/tests/examples/Fervo_Project_Cape-5.txt b/tests/examples/Fervo_Project_Cape-5.txt
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Water Cost Adjustment Factor, 2, -- Local scarcity may increase procurement cost
 
 Ambient Temperature, 11.17, -- Average annual temperature of Milford, Utah ([NCEI](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset=normals-annualseasonal&timeframe=30&station=USC00425654)). Note that this value affects heat to power conversion efficiency. The effects of hourly and seasonal ambient temperature fluctuations on efficiency and power generation are not modeled in this version of the case study.
 
-Utilization Factor, .9
+Utilization Factor, .913, -- (DeGolyer and MacNaughton, 2024)
 Plant Outlet Pressure, 2000 psi, -- McClure, 2024; Singh et al., 2025.
 Circulation Pump Efficiency, 0.80
 
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Number of Multilateral Sections, 0, -- This parameter is set to 0 because, for t
 Production Flow Rate per Well, 107, -- Cape Station pilot testing reported a sustained flow rate of 95–100 kg/s and maximum flow rate of 107 kg/s (Fervo Energy, 2024). Modeling by Singh et al. suggests initial flow rates of 120–130 kg/sec that gradually decrease over time (Singh et al., 2025). The case study flow rate is chosen both as a conservative target for long-term sustainability and to achieve a more economically favorable drawdown and redrilling schedule.
 # The ATB Advanced Scenario models sustained flow rates of 110 kg/s (NREL, 2024).
 
-Production Well Diameter, 8.535, -- Inner diameter of 9⅝ inch casing size, the next standard casing size up from 7 inches, implied by announcement of “increasing casing diameter” (Fervo Energy, 2025).
+Production Well Diameter, 8.535, -- Inner diameter of 9⅝ inch casing size, the next standard casing size up from 7 inches, implied by announcement of "increasing casing diameter" (Fervo Energy, 2025).
 Injection Well Diameter, 8.535, -- See Production Well Diameter
 
 Production Wellhead Pressure, 303 psi, -- Modeled at a constant 300 psi in Singh et al., 2025. We use a marginally uprated value to conform to GEOPHIRES's calculated minimum wellhead pressure and nominally align with the gradual increase in WHP for constant flow rates modeled by Singh et al.
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Injectivity Index, 1.38, -- Based on ATB Conservative Scenario (NREL, 2025) dera
 Productivity Index, 1.13, -- See Injectivity Index
 
 Ramey Production Wellbore Model, True, -- Ramey's model estimates the geofluid temperature drop in production wells
-Injection Temperature, 53.6, -- Calibrated with GEOPHIRES model-calculated reinjection temperature (Beckers and McCabe, 2019). Close to upper bound of Project Red injection temperatures (75–125℉; 23.89–51.67℃) (Norbeck and Latimer, 2023). Note: GEOPHIRES enforces a thermodynamic optimum that overrides higher values, such as Fervo's considered operational target of 80°C (intended for silica scaling mitigation), resulting in a "maximum theoretical power" scenario. Support for higher reinjection temperatures may be added in future GEOPHIRES versions.
+Injection Temperature, 53.6, -- Calibrated with GEOPHIRES model-calculated reinjection temperature (Beckers and McCabe, 2019). Close to upper bound of Project Red injection temperatures (75–125℉; 23.89–51.67℃) (Norbeck and Latimer, 2023). Note: GEOPHIRES enforces a thermodynamic optimum that overrides higher values, such as the 85°C ORC outlet temperature specified in Cape Station's plant design (DeGolyer and MacNaughton, 2024) (intended for silica scaling mitigation), resulting in a "maximum theoretical power" scenario. Support for higher reinjection temperatures may be added in future GEOPHIRES versions.
 Injection Wellbore Temperature Gain, 3, -- Empirical estimate for high-flow rate wells where rapid fluid velocity minimizes heat uptake during descent (Ramey, 1962).
 
 Maximum Drawdown, 0.0025, -- This value represents the fractional drop in production temperature compared to the initial temperature that is allowed before the wellfield is redrilled. It is calibrated to maintain the PPA minimum net electricity generation requirement. It is a very small percentage because it is relative to the initial production temperature; the temperature quickly rises higher due to thermal conditioning and plateaus until breakthrough, so any drawdown relative to the initial value signals that the temperature has already declined from its stabilized peak.