View
31
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Phot
o: A
. A. Ó
ladó
ttir
Renewability Assessment of the Reykjanes Geothermal System, SW-Iceland
Gudni Axelsson et al. (see next slide)Iceland GeoSurvey (ÍSOR)
2GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Contributors
Iceland GeoSurvey (ÍSOR): Gudni Axelsson, Egill Á. Gudnason, Ragna Karlsdóttir and Ingvar Th. Magnússon
Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland: Sigrún Hreinsdóttir, Karolina L. Michalczewska and Freysteinn Sigmundsson
Vatnaskil Consulting Engineers: Andri Arnaldsson and Jean-Claude C. Berthet
GNS-Science, New Zealand: Chris J. Bromley and Sigrún Hreinsdóttir
HS-Orka: Ómar Sigurdsson
Financial support by the GEORG Research Fund in Iceland is acknowledged
3
Renewability of geothermal resources
Geothermal resources are generally classified as renewable This is an oversimplification, classification is too simple In essence of a double nature, i.e. a combination of:
a) energy current (through heat convection and conduction) andb) vast stored energy
Renewability of these aspects is quite different:a) energy current is steady and fully renewableb) stored energy is renewed relatively slowly by heat conduction
Relative importance of the two components depends on both the geological nature of a system and the rate of energy extraction during utilization
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
4
Project purpose
Main objective of project was to add significantly to the understanding of the nature of geothermal resources
Particular emphasis on their recharge and mass balance under production, i.e. to improve understanding of their renewability
Done through unifying analysis and modelling of data from different sources Emphasis on the Reykjanes geothermal system in SW-Iceland Purpose to evaluate the relative importance of the two renewability aspects
(energy current vs. stored energy) for the Reykjanes system, in particular, under the current state of utilization
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
5
Project background
Based on compilation of reservoir monitoring data, as well as collection and analysis of micro-gravity and geodetic data
Consequently the data were jointly interpretedi) by simple modelling andii) by simulating data by an up-to-date
numerical reservoir model of the system Also repeated TEM-resistivity surveying to
try to follow the growth of a steam-zone at the top of the geothermal system
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Photo courtesy of HS-Orka
6
Project phases
The project aimed to join together the results of several different scientific methods/ disciplines to address the issue in question, in particular the following methods:
A) High-resolution 3-D surface deformation monitoring (InSAR and GPS monitoring)
B) Micro-gravity monitoring
C) Repeated TEM (transient electromagnetic) resistivity surveying
D) Reservoir pressure- and temperature monitoring
E) Chemical content monitoring
F) Dynamic geothermal reservoir modelling, to jointly interpret data
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
7
Reykjanes, Iceland
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Photo: O. Sigurdsson
8
Reykjanes development
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Characterized by SW-NE striking tectonic and volcanic activity as well as steam-vents, mud-pools and warm ground in an area of about 2 km2
Reservoir temperature 280 – 350°C The reservoir fluid is hydrothermally modified sea-water Development started as early as 1956 with shallow drilling Seven wells drilled during 1968 – 1970; deepest well 1750 m Followed by intermittent, small-scale industrial utilization; salt and sea-mineral
production along with fish drying Exploration and development picked up again in 1998 Included drilling of 14 deep production wells A 100 MWe capacity geothermal power plant commissioned in May 2006
9
Reykjanes production history
Average yearly mass production from the
Reykjanes geothermal system from 1970 up to
2013; the operation of the 100 MWe power-plant started in 2006, while significant reinjection
started in 2009
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
10
Reykjanes pressure decline
Pressure monitoring data from wells at Reykjanes, measured at a depth of
1500 m b.s.l.; most of the data-points are measured in
production wells during breaks in production while
some are measured in observation wells, e.g. RN-
16 at the margin of the main production field
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
11GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Reykjanes subsidence
Subsidence in Reykjanes (RNES) and Svartsengi (SVAR) estimated from GPS measurements spanning 1992 to 2014; GARD/GASK is shown here for reference
12GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Reykjanes subsidence (cont.)
Average subsidence rate from January 2009 to July
2013 in Reykjanes estimated from the
combination of sets of ascending and descending
TerraSAR-X InSAR interferograms
13GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Purpose of estimating the mass changes in the geothermal system during the period 2006–2010
Hence the renewal (recharge) of the fluid reserves in the geothermal system
Gravity surveys conducted during the summers of 2004 (prior to the start-up of the power plant), 2008 and 2010
Micro-gravity monitoring
14GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Gravity change modelling
The analysis involved three main steps:
1) An estimation of the mass changes in the geothermal system through a Gauss-integral of the observed gravity changes during two periods, 2004–2008 and 2008–2010; 30 – 50% during the latter period
2) A simulation of the gravity-change anomaly for 2008–2010 by two simple mass change models; center of mass change at 1300 – 1700 m depth
3) A calculation of gravity changes at the observation points of the gravity grid on basis of mass changes in the numerical model of the geothermal system – see next slides
See Gudnason et al. (WGC 2015)
15GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Numerical reservoir model
A TOUGH2 model Calibrated by various
reservoir data Gravity changes due to
mass changes in the model were calculated at the observation points of the gravity grid
Modelled anomaly comparable to observed one, not exactly however
16
Chemical content
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
No clear indications of major changes in chemical content of produced fluid (i.e. due to colder recharge) have been observed to date in Reykjanes
This result can be used to estimate the minimum volume of the Reykjanes reservoir On basis of the fluid volume extracted during the first 8 years of operation of the power
plant a volume of about 1.2 km3 is estimated (assuming a porosity of 10%) Considerably less than the minimum estimated volume of the system, which is of the
order of 3 km3
This result, along with the limited recharge, likely explains why no chemical changes have been observed so far
17
Main results
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
During 2008 – 2010 the renewal of reservoir fluid through recharge is estimated to have been of the order of 30 – 50%, or about 250 ± 60 kg/s on average; the renewal for 2006 – 2008 is expected to have been correspondingly less
Rough mass-balance estimates based on the limited fluid renewal in the geothermal system, during the current large-scale utilization, and the small size of the geothermal system, show that reservoir fluid content may be depleted in some decades; this identifies the need for substantial reinjection; associated research is ongoing
In spite of the limited size and recharge the energy in-place in the system is enormous; it is estimated that only a small fraction (2%) will have been extracted after 100 years under current extraction and recharge conditions
18
Conclusions/recommendations
GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al.
Simple as well as finite-element modelling of observed deformation can further constrain the mass change in, and the renewability of, the Reykjanes system
Gravity change data should be used as a direct calibration parameter in numerical reservoir modelling, when possible
The ultimate goal is to set up one all-embracing model to simulate gravity change, deformation and chemical data, along with all reservoir data, in a fully coupled manner
Interpretation of the repeated TEM resistivity soundings indicates some shallow changes due to the growth of steam cap of the Reykjanes system, supporting the contention that resistivity methods may be a useful monitoring tool; in this case it didn’t yield quantitative results
19GGW 2016 Gudni Axelsson et al. Photo courtesy of HS-Orka
Thank you for listening
Recommended