Slider

Science

SCITECH

AMAZING FACTS

NATURE SPACE

Psychology

Drilling surprise opens door to volcano-powered electricity

Getting into hot water - one of Iceland’s geothermal power plants. Gretar Ívarsson
Can enormous heat deep in the earth be harnessed to provide energy for us on the surface? A promising report from a geothermal borehole project that accidentally struck magma – the same fiery, molten rock that spews from volcanoes – suggests it could.
The Icelandic Deep Drilling Project, IDDP, has been drilling shafts up to 5km deep in an attempt to harness the heat in the volcanic bedrock far below the surface of Iceland.
But in 2009 their borehole at Krafla, northeast Iceland, reached only 2,100m deep before unexpectedly striking a pocket of magma intruding into the Earth’s upper crust from below, at searing temperatures of 900-1000°C.
This borehole, IDDP-1, was the first in a series of wells drilled by the IDDP in Iceland looking for usable geothermal resources. Thespecial report in this month’s Geothermics journal details the engineering feats and scientific results that came from the decision not to the plug the hole with concrete, as in a previous case in Hawaii in 2007, but instead attempt to harness the incredible geothermal heat.
Wilfred Elders, professor emeritus of geology at the University of California, Riverside, co-authored three of the research papers in the Geothermics special issue with Icelandic colleagues.
“Drilling into magma is a very rare occurrence, and this is only the second known instance anywhere in the world,“ Elders said. The IDDP and Iceland’s National Power Company, which operates the Krafla geothermal power plant nearby, decided to make a substantial investment to investigate the hole further.
This meant cementing a steel casing into the well, leaving a perforated section at the bottom closest to the magma. Heat was allowed to slowly build in the borehole, and eventually superheated steam flowed up through the well for the next two years.
Elders said that the success of the drilling was “amazing, to say the least”, adding: “This could lead to a revolution in the energy efficiency of high-temperature geothermal projects in the future.”
The well funnelled superheated, high-pressure steam for months at temperatures of over 450°C – a world record. In comparison,geothermal resources in the UK rarely reach higher than around 60-80°C.
The magma-heated steam was measured to be capable of generating 36MW of electrical power. While relatively modest compared to a typical 660MW coal-fired power station, this is considerably more than the 1-3MW of an average wind turbine, and more than half of the Krafla plant’s current 60MW output.
Most importantly it demonstrated that it could be done. “Essentially, IDDP-1 is the world’s first magma-enhanced geothermal system, the first to supply heat directly from molten magma,” Elders said. The borehole was being set up to deliver steam directly into the Krafla power plant when a valve failed which required the borehole to be stoppered. Elders added that although the borehole had to plugged, the aim is to repair it or drill another well nearby.
Gillian Foulger, professor of geophysics at Durham University, worked at the Kravla site in the 1980s during a period of volcanic activity. “A well at this depth can’t have been expected to hit magma, but at the same time it can’t have been that surprising,” she said. “At one point when I was there we had magma gushing out of one of the boreholes,” she recalled.
Volcanic regions such as Iceland are not active most of the time, but can suddenly be activated by movement in the earth tens of kilometres below that fill chambers above with magma. “They can become very dynamic, raised in pressure, and even force magma to the surface. But if it’s not activated, then there’s no reason to expect a violent eruption, even if you drill into it,” she said.
“Having said that, with only one experimental account to go on, it wouldn’t be a good idea to drill like this in a volcanic region anywhere near a city,” she added.
The team, she said, deserved credit for using the opportunity to do research. “Most people faced with tapping into a magma chamber would pack their bags and leave,” she said. “But when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.”
Water and heat = power. nea.is
In Iceland, around 90% of homes are heated from geothermal sources. According to the International Geothermal Association, 10,700MW of geothermal electricity was generated worldwide in 2010. Typically, these enhanced or engineered geothermal systems are created by pumping cold water into hot, dry rocks at depths of between 4-5km. The heated water is pumped up again as hot water or steam from production wells. The trend in recent decades has been steady growth in geothermal power, with Iceland, the Philippines and El Salvador leading the way, producing between 25-30% of their power from geothermal sources. Considerable effort invested in elsewher including Europe, Australia, the US, and Japan, has typically had uneven results, and the cost is high.
With the deeper boreholes, the IDDP are looking for a further prize: supercritical water; at high temperature and under high pressure deep underground, the water enters a supercritical state, when it is neither gas nor liquid. In this state it carries far more energy and, harnessed correctly, this can increase the power output above ground tenfold, from 5MW to 50MW.
Elders said: “While the experiment at Krafla suffered various setbacks that pushed personnel and equipment to their limits, the process itself was very instructive. As well as the published scientific articles we’ve prepared comprehensive reports on the practical lessons learned.“ The Icelandic National Power Company will put these towards improving their next drilling operations.
The IDDP is a collaboration of three energy companies, HS Energy Ltd, National Power Company and Reykjavik Energy, and the National Energy Authority of Iceland, with a consortium of international scientists led by Elders. The next IDDP-2 borehole will be sunk in southwest Iceland at Reykjanes later this year.

Man-Made Earthquakes

Man-Made Earthquakes Update

The number of earthquakes has increased dramatically over the past few years within the central and eastern United States. Nearly 450 earthquakes magnitude 3.0 and larger occurred in the four years from 2010-2013, over 100 per year on average, compared with an average rate of 20 earthquakes per year observed from 1970-2000.
This increase in earthquakes prompts two important questions: Are they natural, or man-made? And what should be done in the future as we address the causes and consequences of these events to reduce associated risks? USGS scientists have been analyzing the changes in the rate of earthquakes as well as the likely causes, and they have some answers.
USGS scientists have found that at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells. Much of this wastewater is a byproduct of oil and gas production and is routinely disposed of by injection into wells specifically designed for this purpose.
Review Article on Injection-Induced Earthquakes
U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist William Ellsworth reviewed the issue of injection-induced earthquakes in a July 2013 study published in the journal Science. The article focused on the injection of fluids into deep wells as a common practice for disposal of wastewater, and discusses recent events and key scientific challenges for assessing this hazard and moving forward to reduce associated risks.
What is Induced Seismicity?
Although it may seem like science fiction, man-made earthquakes have been a reality for decades. It has long been understood that earthquakes can be induced by impoundment of water in reservoirs, surface and underground mining, withdrawal of fluids and gas from the subsurface, and injection of fluids into underground formations.
A graph showing the cumulative number of earthquakes in the central U.S. since 1970 per year, with a small inset on the top left showing where the earthquakes occur on a map of the U.S.
Cumulative count of earthquakes with a magnitude ≥ 3.0 in the central and eastern United States,1970-2013. The dashed line corresponds to the long-term rate of 20.2 earthquakes per year, with an increase in the rate of earthquake events starting around 2009.
What is Wastewater Disposal?
Water that is salty or polluted by chemicals needs to be disposed of in a manner that prevents it from contaminating freshwater sources. Often, it is most economical to geologically sequester such wastewater by injecting it underground, deep below any aquifers that provide drinking water.
Wastewater can result from a variety of processes, including those related to energy production. For example, water is usually present in rock formations containing oil and gas and therefore will be co-produced during oil and gas production. Wastewater can also occur as flow back from hydraulic fracturing operations that involve injecting water under high pressure into a rock formation to stimulate the movement of oil and gas to a well for production.
Wastewater injection increases the underground pore pressure, which may, in effect, lubricate nearby faults thereby weakening them. If the pore pressure increases enough, the weakened fault will slip, releasing stored tectonic stress in the form of an earthquake. Even faults that have not moved in millions of years can be made to slip and cause an earthquake if conditions underground are appropriate.
Although the disposal process has the potential to trigger earthquakes, not every wastewater disposal well produces earthquakes. In fact, very few of the more than 30,000 wells designed for this purpose appear to cause earthquakes.
Hydraulic Fracturing
Many questions have been raised about whether hydraulic fracturing — commonly known as “fracking”— is responsible for the recent increase of earthquakes. USGS’s studies suggest that the actual hydraulic fracturing process is only very rarely the direct cause of felt earthquakes. While hydraulic fracturing works by making thousands of extremely small “microearthquakes,” they are, with just a few exceptions, too small to be felt; none have been large enough to cause structural damage. As noted previously, underground disposal of wastewater co-produced with oil and gas, enabled by hydraulic fracturing operations, has been linked to induced earthquakes.
Unknowns and Questions Moving Forward
House damage in central Oklahoma from the magnitude 5.6 earthquake on Nov. 6, 2011.  Research conducted by USGS geophysicist Elizabeth Cochran and her university-based colleagues suggests that this earthquake was induced by injection into deep disposal wells in the Wilzetta North field. Learn more about that research at: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1.abstract. Photo Credit: Brian Sherrod, USGS.
House damage in central Oklahoma from the magnitude 5.6 earthquake on Nov. 6, 2011. Research conducted by USGS geophysicist Elizabeth Cochran and her university-based colleagues suggests that this earthquake was induced by injection into deep disposal wells in the Wilzetta North field. Learn more about that research at: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1.abstract. Photo Credit: Brian Sherrod, USGS.
USGS scientists are dedicated to gaining a better understanding of the geological conditions and industrial practices associated with induced earthquakes, and to determining how seismic risk can be managed.
One risk-management approach highlighted in Ellsworth’s article involves the setting of seismic activity thresholds for safe operation. Under this “traffic-light” system, if seismic activity exceeds preset thresholds, reductions in injection would be made. If seismicity continues or escalates, operations could be suspended.
The current regulatory framework for wastewater disposal wells was designed to protect drinking water sources from contamination and does not address earthquake safety. Ellsworth noted that one consequence is that both the quantity and timeliness of information on injection volumes and pressures reported to the regulatory agencies is far from ideal for managing earthquake risk from injection activities.
Thus, improvements in the collection and reporting of injection data to regulatory agencies would provide much-needed information on conditions potentially associated with induced seismicity. In particular, said Ellsworth, daily reporting of injection volumes, and peak and average injection pressures would be a step in the right direction, as would measurement of the pre-injection water pressure and tectonic stress.
Importance of Understanding Hazards and Risks
There is a growing interest in understanding the risks associated with injection-induced earthquakes, especially in the areas of the country where, before the modern boom in oil and gas production, earthquakes large enough to be felt were rare.
For example, wastewater disposal appears to be related to the magnitude-5.6 earthquake that struck rural central Oklahoma in 2011 leading to a few injuries and damage to more than a dozen homes. Damage from an earthquake of this magnitude would be much worse if it were to happen in a more densely populated area.
The USGS and Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) have conducted research quantifying the changes in earthquake rate in the Oklahoma City region, assessing and evaluating possible links between these earthquakes and wastewater disposal related to oil and gas production activities in the region. In a joint statement {http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3710}, USGS and OGS identified wastewater injection as a contributing factor for the 2011 earthquake swarm and damaging magnitude 5.6 event.
Studies show one to three magnitude 3.0 earthquakes or larger occurred yearly from 1975 to 2008, while the average grew to around 40 earthquakes per year from 2009 to mid-2013.
“We’ve statistically analyzed the recent earthquake rate changes and found that they do not seem to be due to typical, random fluctuations in natural seismicity rates,” said Bill Leith, USGS seismologist. “These analyses require significant changes in both the background rate of events and earthquake triggering properties needed to have occurred to be consistent with the observed increases in seismicity. This is in contrast to what is typically found when modeling natural earthquake swarms.”
The Oklahoma analysis suggests that a contributing factor to the increase in earthquakes occurrence may be from injection-induced seismicity from activities such as wastewater disposal. The OGS has examined the behavior of the seismicity through the state assessing the optimal fault orientations and stresses within the region of increased seismicity, particularly the unusual behavior of the swarm just east of Oklahoma City.
Oilfield waste arrives by tanker truck at a wastewater disposal facility near Platteville, Colo. After removal of solids and oil, the wastewater is injected into a deep well for permanent storage underground. This disposal process has the potential to trigger earthquakes, but very few wastewater disposal wells produce earthquakes. No earthquakes are associated with injection at the site in this photograph. Photo taken on Jan. 15, 2013. Photo Credit: William Ellsworth, USGS
Oilfield waste arrives by tanker truck at a wastewater disposal facility near Platteville, Colo. After removal of solids and oil, the wastewater is injected into a deep well for permanent storage underground. This disposal process has the potential to trigger earthquakes, but very few wastewater disposal wells produce earthquakes. No earthquakes are associated with injection at the site in this photograph. Photo taken on Jan. 15, 2013. Photo Credit: William Ellsworth, USGS

Start with Science
As the use of injection for disposal of wastewater increases, the importance of knowing the associated risks also grows. To meet these challenges, the USGS hopes to increase research efforts to understand the causes and effects of injection-induced earthquakes.

How to compute the energy released by an earthquake.


To determine the total seismic energy radiated from an earthquake one would have to integrate the energy radiated at all frequencies over the entire focal sphere. The spectrum of the average radiation over the focal sphere can be approximated by a constant level at low frequencies (which is proportional to the moment, Mo) and a uniform decrease with increasing frequency above some corner frequency (Fc), so the seismic energy is a function of both Mo and Fc. For a given moment, the radiated energy will increase as Fc increases. Consider, for example, two earthquakes with the same displacement and rupture area that occur within rocks with the same shear modulus. They would have the same moment, which can be computed from:
Mo = u D A
where:
          u = shear modulus (3 - 6 x 1011) dyn/cm2
          D = average displacement
          A = area of rupture
If one event were a "slow" earthquake with "more or less creep-like deformation" (Kanamori, H., 1972, Mechanism of Tusnami Earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors, v6, p. 346-359) while the other had a more typical rupture velocity near the shear wave velocity, much more energy would be radiated from the latter earthquake due to its rich high frequency radiation corresponding larger Fc than from the "slow" event.
Having said this, however, if only an earthquake's moment is known the radiated seismic energy can still be approximated because, if a large set of earthquakes is considered, the average corner frequency varies systematically with the moment. For the average earthquake, the seismic wave energy (E), moment (Mo) and moment magnitude (MW) are related by the following equations (Kanamori, H., 1977, The Energy Release in Great Earthquakes, Journal of Geophysical Research, v82, p. 2981- 2987):
     E = Mo/(2 x 104) erg   (1 erg = 1 dyn cm)
     log E = 1.5 MW + 11.8 (Gutenberg-Richter magnitude-energy relation)

Then:

     log Mo - log(2 x 104) = 1.5 MW + 11.8
     Mw = (log Mo - 16.1) / 1.5
The energy released by TNT (trinitrotoluene) and the TNT equivalent of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb (McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 1992):
     Energy per ton of TNT     = 4.18 x 109 Joules
                               = 4.18 x 1016ergs
     Energy per megaton of TNT = 4.18 x 1015Joules
According to the Sandia National Laboratories' web site, the energy equivalent of the Hiroshima fission bomb was 15,000 tons of TNT.
Example -- consider an earthquake with moment magnitude Mw = 4.0
The total seismic energy radiated from the source, E(4), would be:
        E(4) = 10**(1.5*4 + 11.8) = 10**17.8 ergs = 10**10.8 Joules = 6.3 x 1011 Joules
The moment, Mo(4), would be:
        Mo(4) = E x (2 x 104) = 1.26 x 1016 Joules
It has been found that a 1 kton explosion will generate seismic waves approximately equivalent to a magnitude 4 earthquake.  Therefore, the amount of energy dissipated by TNT to yield seismic waves similar to a magnitude 4 is:
        Energy of TNT(4) = 4.18 x 1012 Joules


Bhuj Earthquake India

Bhuj Earthquake India



Bhuj Earthquake India  - Aerial View
Bhuj Earthquake India – Aerial View

Gujarat : Disaster on a day of celebration : 51st Republic Day on January 26, 2001
7.9 on the Richter scale.
8.46 AM January 26th 2001
20,800 dead
Basic Facts
  • Earthquake: 8:46am on January 26, 2001
  • Epicenter: Near Bhuj in Gujarat, India
  • Magnitude: 7.9 on the Richter Scale
Geologic Setting
  • Indian Plate Sub ducting beneath Eurasian Plate
  • Continental Drift
  • Convergent Boundary
Specifics of 2001 Quake
Compression Stress between region’s faults
Depth: 16km
Probable Fault: Kachchh Mainland
Fault Type: Reverse Dip-Slip (Thrust Fault)
Location
The earthquake’s epicentre was 20km from Bhuj. A city with a population of 140,000 in 2001. The city is in the region known as the Kutch region. The effects of the earthquake were also felt on the north side of the Pakistan border, in Pakistan 18 people were killed.
Tectonic systems
The earthquake was caused at the convergent plate boundary between the Indian plate and the Eurasian plate boundary. These pushed together and caused the earthquake. However as Bhuj is in an intraplate zone, the earthquake was not expected, this is one of the reasons so many buildings were destroyed – because people did not build to earthquake resistant standards in an area earthquakes were not thought to occur. In addition the Gujarat earthquake is an excellent example of liquefaction, causing buildings to ‘sink’ into the ground which gains a consistency of a liquid due to the frequency of the earthquake.
Background
India : Vulnerability to earthquakes
  • 56% of the total area of the Indian Republic is vulnerable to seismic activity.
  • 12% of the area comes under Zone V (A&N Islands, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, N.E.States, Uttaranchal)
  • 18% area in Zone IV (Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Lakshadweep, Maharashtra, Punjab, Sikkim, Uttaranchal, W. Bengal)
  • 26% area in Zone III (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttaranchal, W. Bengal)
  • Gujarat: an advanced state on the west coast of India.
  • On 26 January 2001, an earthquake struck the Kutch district of Gujarat at 8.46 am.
  • Epicentre 20 km North East of Bhuj, the headquarter of Kutch.
  • The Indian Meteorological Department estimated the intensity of the earthquake at 6.9 Richter. According to the US Geological Survey, the intensity of the quake was 7.7 Richter.
  • The quake was the worst in India in the last 180 years.
What earthquakes do
  • Casualties: loss of life and injury.
  • Loss of housing.
  • Damage to infrastructure.
  • Disruption of transport and communications.
  • Panic
  • Looting.
  • Breakdown of social order.
  • Loss of industrial output.
  • Loss of business.
  • Disruption of marketing systems


    Top