scholarly journals Fossil vs. Active Geothermal Systems: A Field and Laboratory Method to Disclose the Relationships between Geothermal Fluid Flow and Geological Structures at Depth

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 933
Author(s):  
Domenico Liotta ◽  
Andrea Brogi ◽  
Giovanni Ruggieri ◽  
Martina Zucchi

Comparison between fossil and analogue active geothermal systems permit to obtain key-parameters to define a conceptual model of the area under exploration. The approach is based on structural, kinematic, and fluid inclusions analyses. The fossil system is investigated to describe the distribution of the hydrothermal mineralization as witness of the fluid flow through geological structures and bodies, at depth. Structural and kinematic data (to define the preferential direction of fluid flow) are collected in structural stations and by scan lines and scan boxes on key outcrops. Distribution, length, width of fractures, and hydrothermal veins bring to evaluate permeability in the fossil system and, by analogy, in the deep roots of the active system. Fluid inclusions analysis shed light on density, viscosity, and temperature of the paleo-fluids. Data integration provides the hydraulic conductivity. In active geothermal systems, fieldwork is addressed to paleo-stress analysis with data from recent faults (<2 Ma), to compare with local focal mechanisms. By this, indications on the present fluid pathways are given. The main advantage resides in obtaining parameters normally got after drilling, thus contributing to strengthen the strategy of exploration, de-risking unsuccessful boreholes.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warwick Kissling ◽  
Cecile Massiot

&lt;p&gt;Geothermal provides nearly 20% of New Zealand&amp;#8217;s electricity as well as increasing opportunities for direct use. In New Zealand&amp;#8217;s ~20 high temperature geothermal systems, fluids flow dominantly through fractured rocks with low matrix permeability. It is important to understand the nature of these fracture systems, and how fluids flow through them, so that the geothermal systems may be more efficiently and sustainably used. Here we present fluid flow calculations in several distinct discrete fracture models, each of which is broadly consistent with the fracture density and high dip magnitude angle distributions directly observed in borehole image logs at the Rotokawa Geothermal Field (&gt;300&amp;#176;C, 175&amp;#160;MWe installed capacity). This reservoir is hosted in fractured andesites. In general, fractures are steeply dipping, and the reservoir is known to be compartmentalized.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our new code describes fluid flow through large numbers (e.g., thousands) of stochastic fracture networks to provide statistical distributions of permeability, permeability anisotropy and fluid dispersion at reservoir scale (e.g., 1 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;). Calculations can be based on both the cubic flow law for smooth-walled fractures and the Forchheimer flow model, which includes an additional term to describe the nonlinear drag (i.e. friction) in real fractures caused by surface roughness of the fracture walls.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Models with fracture density consistent with borehole observations show pervasive connectivity at reservoir scales, with fluid flow (hence permeability) and tracer transport predominantly along the mean fracture orientation. As the fracture density is varied, we find a linear relationship between permeability which holds above a well-defined percolation threshold. Permeability anisotropy is in general high (~10 to 15), because of the steeply dipping fractures. As fracture density decreases, mean anisotropy decreases while its variability increases. Significant dispersion of fluid occurs as it is transported through the reservoir. These fracture models will inform more traditional continuum models of fractured geothermal reservoirs hosted in volcanic rocks, to provide a better description of fluid flow within reservoirs and aid the responsible and sustainable use of that resource in the future.&lt;/p&gt;


2012 ◽  
Vol 374 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxian Zhou ◽  
Mohammad Karimi-Fard ◽  
Louis J. Durlofsky ◽  
Atilla Aydin

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 391-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. M. Shankar ◽  
I. S. Shivakumara ◽  
Chiu-On Ng

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 1019-1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Zafari ◽  
Masoud Panjepour ◽  
Mohsen Davazdah Emami ◽  
Mahmood Meratian

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document