Merge pull request #171 from softwareengineerprogrammer/fpc-sec-hiip-filing-3

FPC5/6 SEC filing refinements

Author: softwareengineerprogrammer

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