scholarly journals Geology of the Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous geothermal aquifers in the West Netherlands Basin – an overview

Author(s):  
Cees J.L. Willems ◽  
Andrea Vondrak ◽  
Harmen F. Mijnlieff ◽  
Marinus E. Donselaar ◽  
Bart M.M. van Kempen

Abstract In the past 10 years the mature hydrocarbon province the West Netherlands Basin has hosted rapidly expanding geothermal development. Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous strata from which gas and oil had been produced since the 1950s became targets for geothermal exploitation. The extensive publicly available subsurface data including seismic surveys, several cores and logs from hundreds of hydrocarbon wells, combined with understanding of the geology after decades of hydrocarbon exploitation, facilitated the offtake of geothermal exploitation. Whilst the first geothermal projects proved the suitability of the permeable Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous sandstones for geothermal heat production, they also made clear that much detail of the aquifer geology is not yet fully understood. The aquifer architecture varies significantly across the basin because of the syn-tectonic sedimentation. The graben fault blocks that contain the geothermal targets experienced a different tectonic history compared to the horst and pop-up structures that host the hydrocarbon fields from which most subsurface data are derived. Accurate prediction of the continuity and thickness of aquifers is a prerequisite for efficient geothermal well deployment that aims at increasing heat recovery while avoiding the risk of early cold-water breakthrough. The potential recoverable heat and the current challenges to enhance further expansion of heat exploitation from this basin are evident. This paper presents an overview of the current understanding and uncertainties of the aquifer geology of the Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous strata and discusses new sequence-stratigraphic updates of the regional sedimentary aquifer architecture.

2017 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cees J.L. Willems ◽  
Andrea Vondrak ◽  
Dirk K. Munsterman ◽  
Marinus E. Donselaar ◽  
Harmen F. Mijnlieff

AbstractThe primary challenge for efficient geothermal doublet design and deployment is the adequate prediction of the size, shape, lateral extent and thickness (or aquifer architecture) of aquifers. In the West Netherlands Basin, fluvial Lower Cretaceous sandstone-rich successions form the main aquifers for geothermal heat exploitation. Large variations in the thickness of these successions are recognised in currently active doublet systems that cannot be explained. This creates an uncertainty in aquifer thickness prediction, which increases the uncertainty in doublet lifetime prediction as it has an impact on net aquifer volume. The goal of this study was to improve our understanding of the thickness variations and regional aquifer architecture of the Nieuwerkerk Formation geothermal aquifers. For this purpose, new palynological data were evaluated to correlate aquifers in currently active doublet systems based on their chronostratigraphic position and regional Maximum Flooding Surfaces. Based on the palynological cuttings analysis, the fluvial interval of the Nieuwerkerk Formation was subdivided into two successions: a Late Ryazanian to Early Valanginian succession and a Valanginian succession. Within these successions trends were identified in sandstone content. In combination with seismic interpretation, maps were constructed that predict aquifer thickness and their lateral extent in the basin. The study emphasises the value of palynological analyses to reduce the uncertainty of fluvial hot sedimentary aquifer exploitation.


1959 ◽  
Vol S7-I (8) ◽  
pp. 803-808
Author(s):  
Vladimir Stchepinsky

Abstract Upper Jurassic (Kimeridgian and Portlandian) and lower Cretaceous formations crop out in the area south of Bar-le-Duc, France. In contrast to the fractured area to the west, this area is a solid block. The relatively unimportant Veel-Combles fault is related to the Marne double fault, despite its isolation. An east-west fault, 20 kilometers long with a southward throw of 10 meters, can also be traced. The paleogeographic evolution of the area during the Mesozoic is outlined.


Author(s):  
Harmen F. Mijnlieff

Abstract The Netherlands has ample geothermal resources. During the last decade, development of these resources has picked up fast. In 2007 one geothermal system had been realised; to date (1 January 2019), 24 have been. Total geothermal heat production in 2018 was 3.7 PJ from 18 geothermal systems. The geothermal sources are located in the same reservoirs/aquifers in which the oil and gas accumulations are hosted: Cenozoic, Upper Jurassic – Lower Cretaceous, Triassic and Rotliegend reservoirs. Additionally, the yet unproven hydrocarbon play in the Lower Carboniferous (Dinantian) Limestones delivered geothermal heat in two geothermal systems. This is in contrast to the Upper Cretaceous and Upper Carboniferous with no producing geothermal systems but producing hydrocarbon fields. Similar to hydrocarbon development, developing the geothermal source relies on fluid flow through the reservoir. For geothermal application a transmissivity of 10 Dm is presently thought to be a minimum value for a standard doublet system. Regional mapping of the geothermal plays, with subsequent resource mapping, by TNO discloses the areas with favourable transmissivity within play areas for geothermal development. The website www.ThermoGis.nl provides the tool to evaluate the geothermal plays on a sub-regional scale. The Dutch geothermal source and resource portfolio can be classified using geothermal play classification of, for example, Moeck (2014). An appropriate adjective for play classification for the Dutch situation would be the predominant permeability type: matrix, karst, fracture or fault permeability. The Dutch geothermal play is a matrix-permeability dominated ‘Hot Sedimentary Aquifer’, ‘Hydrothermal’ or ‘Intra-cratonic Conductive’ play. The Dutch ‘Hot Sedimentary Aquifer’ play is subdivided according to the lithostratigraphical annotation of the reservoir. The main geothermal plays are the Delft Sandstone and Slochteren Sandstone plays.


GeoArabia ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
George J. Carman

ABSTRACT Five structural trends are recognized in Kuwait: (1) Three sub-parallel anticlinal trends (005°-015°) occur on the west flank of the Kuwait Arch and trap oil in Lower Cretaceous and Jurassic strata. (2) North-south trending structures, including the Kuwait Arch, are probably founded on basement horsts. These were reactivated from Late Jurassic to post-Turonian time and contain the largest oil pools in Kuwait (e.g. Greater Burgan) in Middle Cretaceous, Lower Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic strata. (3) A northwest trend (320°-340°) in north and west Kuwait reflects the structural grain of the underlying Arabian Shelf and while generally dry in Middle Cretaceous strata has proven oil in Lower Cretaceous and Jurassic strata. (4) East-northeast (030°-050°) anticlines are present mid-flank the Kuwait Arch to the west and north. They contain oil in Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous strata, and Middle Cretaceous strata where north-south trends are overprinted. They may be related to northeast trending shear zones. (5) The Ahmadi Ridge is a rare north-northwest contraction trend probably related to the Zagros orogeny and traps oil where it overprints the Kuwait Arch trend. The apparently simple anticlinal oil field structures are cut by normal faults, which are mapped as radial, with throws up to 50 meters but averaging 15 meters. Structural compartmentalization of reservoirs has not been conclusively identified. The faults are near-vertical and often occur in swarms; the majority deform strata below the Mishrif Unconformity while rare faults reach the surface. Reverse throws are evident on seismic and in one well. Dextral offsets along northwest and northeast trending fault and lineaments indicate strike-slip. Wellbore breakouts, processed borehole imagery data and outcrop joint data define a principal maximum stress field orientation of 040°-050° consistent with regional trends.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document