The Use of Multi-Geophysical Methods to Determine the Geothermal Potential: A Case Study from the Humenné Unit (The Eastern Slovak Basin)
<p>The Pannonian back-arc basin and its peripheral areas. The Eastern Slovak basin covers a significant part of Central Europe. The high heat flow (values in mW·m<sup>−2</sup>) distribution in the basin is not uniform. The same is true for the aquifers. The Humenné Unit (blue mark) is one of the aquifers for geothermal use (modified after [<a href="#B6-applsci-12-02745" class="html-bibr">6</a>,<a href="#B18-applsci-12-02745" class="html-bibr">18</a>]).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Lithostratigraphic column of the Humenské Mountains. Lithology is interpreted from geological mapping and borehole core interpretation.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Spatial distribution of geophysical methods, boreholes and the shape of the Humenné Unit.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Geothermogram describing the depth-temperature dependence of the Humenné Mountains. [<a href="#B22-applsci-12-02745" class="html-bibr">22</a>].</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Deep seismic cross-section No. 83/85 illustrated geological conditions and position of the Humenné Unit. The Unit is on tectonic contact with the Pieniny Klippen belt and to the southwest is overlayed by sediments of the Central Carpathian Paleogene basin and volcanites/sediments of the Eastern Slovak basin.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Deep seismic cross-section No. 16/75 illustrated shortening around the Pieniny Klippen belt on the edge with the Humenné Unit and Central Carpathian Paleogene basin. The flower structure is a result of transpressive movements on the Pieniny Klippen Belt where south vergent thrusting generated a system of tectonic sheets. The bed is thickened where it contacts the “inflated” aquifer.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Results of gravimetric measurements: (<b>a</b>) map of linear elements of the gravity field indicated tectonic fractures and vertical changes (<b>b</b>) map of complete Bouguer anomalies for density 2.67 g·cm<sup>−3</sup> better indicated tectonic elevations in the subsurface. The map has a lot of similar basic parameters with seismic cross-sections (modified after [<a href="#B35-applsci-12-02745" class="html-bibr">35</a>]).</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Geoelectric resistivity profile No. PFTU-5 (see <a href="#applsci-12-02745-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>). Lower differential density between Miocene and Cretaceous sediments does not allow clearly divided sedimentary boundaries. With increasing depths (more than 500 m), the quality of interpretation decreases (modified after [<a href="#B24-applsci-12-02745" class="html-bibr">24</a>,<a href="#B37-applsci-12-02745" class="html-bibr">37</a>]).</p> "> Figure 9
<p>The Humenné Unit has an elongated shape with an irregular depth of the main aquifer. Based on geophysical methods, the system of tectonic elevations and grabens was identified. (<b>A</b>) Uncovered geological map respects the main tectonic deformations and geological structure of the Humenné Unit. (<b>B</b>) Borehole GTH-1 at a depth of 500 m confirms yield ranging from 3.5 to 4.2 l.s<sup>−1</sup> and a temperature of 42 °C. (<b>C</b>) Isotherm’s model on the pre-Cenozoic surface displays increasing temperatures toward the center of the Eastern Slovak Basin and confirms relationships between elevations and temperature distribution. (<b>D</b>) Geological cross-section along the Hummene unit confirms tectonic erosional processes during Cenozoic evolution.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Geological Settings
3. Methods and Material
3.1. Geological Mapping
3.2. Xenoliths
3.3. Boreholes
Hydrogeological Data
3.4. Geophysical Survey
3.4.1. Deep Seismic Exploration
3.4.2. Gravimetry
- g(φ,λ,h)—gravitational acceleration at the measuring point
- gn(φ)—normal field calculated according to Somigliana’s formula
- RF(φ,h)—Fay correction (reduction) for the calculation point at the height h above the ellipsoid when considering the Taylor expansion to the second stage with the consideration of geometric flattening [31]
- σgsf(h)—the gravity of a spherical plate with an outer radius of 166.7 km
- T(φ,λ,h)—topographic corrections calculated up to 166.7 km from the point calculation
3.4.3. Geoelectric Measurements
3.5. Modeling
4. Results from the Used Geophysical Methods
4.1. Deep Seismic Cross-Sections
4.1.1. Seismic Profile No. 83/85
4.1.2. Seismic Profile No. 16/75
4.2. Gravimetric Measurements
4.3. Geoelectric Profiling
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
- Deep seismic cross-sections are the most precise sources of information from the subsurface. Based on their interpretation it was possible to distinguish the basic sedimentary boundaries, the relationship between volcanic complexes and sediments, tectonic structures, and individual geological forms. They are also the starting point for other already mentioned geophysical methods. The biggest disadvantage is the cost of making deep seismic profiles.
- The calculation of the Complete Bouguer anomaly determined the numerical values of the density anomalies that correspond to the morphological elevations and depressions of the pre-Cenozoic basement. The study area, represented by volcanic (Miocene) and sedimentary rocks (Mesozoic–Cenozoic), had a reduction density of 2.67 g·cm−3.
- Geoelectric resistivity profiling has some limits. Geoelectric resistivity layers are possible to interpret to a maximum depth of 500 m. There are 4 layers with specific resistivity values in the study area:
- ρ: 4–50 Ωm—intensely aquiferous andesites, breccias, tuffs/clays, marly limestones
- ρ: 30–60 Ωm—marly limestones, shales, clays
- ρ: 50–200 Ωm—andesite lava flows, breccias
- ρ: 80–360 Ωm—mainly carbonates, compact andesites
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jolivet, L.; Faccenna, C.; Piromallo, C. From mantle to crust: Stretching the Mediterranean. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2009, 285, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handy, M.; Schmid, S.M.; Bousquet, R.; Kissling, E.; Bernoulli, D. Reconciling plate-tectonic reconstructions of Alpine Tethys with the geological-geophysical record of spreading and subduction in the Alps. Earth Sci. Rev. 2010, 102, 121–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tari, G.; Horváth, F.; Rumpler, J. Styles of extension in the Pannonian Basin. Tectonophysics 1992, 208, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balázs, A.; Burov, E.; Matenco, L.; Vogt, K.; Francois, T.; Cloetingh, S. Symmetry during the syn-and post-rift evolution of extensional back-arc basins: The role of inherited orogenic structures. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2017, 462, 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruszkiczay-Rüdiger, Z.; Balázs, A.; Csillag, G.; Drijkoningen, G.; Fodor, L. Uplift of the Transdanubian Range, Pannonian Basin: How fast and why? Glob. Planet. Chang. 2020, 192, 103263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horváth, F.; Musitz, B.; Balázs, A.; Végh, A.; Uhrine, A.; Nádor, A.; Koroknai, B.; Pap, N.; Tótha, T.; Wórum, G. Evolution of the Pannonian basin and its geothermal resources. Geothermics 2015, 53, 328–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tari, G.; Dövényi, P.; Dunkl, I.; Horváth, F.; Lenkey, L.; Stefanescu, M.; Szafián, P.; Tóth, T. Litospheric structure of the Pannonian basin derived from seismic, gravity and geothermal data. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 1999, 156, 215–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cloetingh, S.; Matenco, L.; Bada, G.; Dinu, C.; Mocanu, V. The evolution of the Carpathians-Pannonian system: Interaction between neotectonics, deep structure, polyphase orogeny and sedimentary basins in a source to sink natural laboratory. Tectonophysics 2005, 410, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csontos, L.; Vörös, A. Mesozoic plate tectonic reconstruction of the Carpathian region. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2004, 210, 1–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacko, S.; Farkašovský, R.; Ďuriška, I.; Ščerbáková, B.; Bátorová, K. Critical tectonic limits for geothermal aquifer use: Case study from the East Slovakian basin rim. Resources 2021, 10, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Békési, E.; Lenkey, L.; Limberger, J.; Porkoláb, K.; Balázs, A.; Bonté, D.; Vrijlandt, M.; Horváth, F.; Cloetingh, S.; van Wees, J. Subsurface temperature model of the Hungarian part of the Pannonian Basin. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2018, 171, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piller, W.E.; Harzhauser, M.; Mandic, O. Miocene Central Paratethys stratigraphy current status and future directions. Stratigraphy 2007, 4, 151–168. [Google Scholar]
- Lund, J.W.; Freeston, D.H.; Boyd, T.J. Direct applications of geothermal energy: 2005 Worldwide Review. Geothermics 2006, 34, 691–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, J.W.; Freeston, D.H. World-wide direct uses of geothermal energy 2000. Geothermics 2001, 30, 29–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lund, J.W.; Toth, A.N. Direct Utilization of Geothermal Energy 2020 Worldwide Review. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2020, Reykjavik, Iceland, 24–27 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Erlingsson, T.; Thorhallsson, S. Long Distance Transmission pipelines for Geothermal waters in Iceland (20–60 km). In Proceedings of the Workshop for Decision Makers on Direct Heating Use of Geothermal Resources in Asia, organized by UNU-GTP, TBLRREM and TBGMED, Tianjin, China, 11–18 May 2008; p. 12. [Google Scholar]
- Rudinec, R. Crude Oil, Natural Gas and Geothermal Energy Resources in Eastern Slovakia; Alfa: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1989; 162p, (In Slovak with English summary). [Google Scholar]
- Bielik, M. A preliminary stripped gravity map of the Pannonian Basin. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1988, 51, 85–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fusán, O.; Biely, A.; Ibrmajer, J.; Plancár, J.; Rozložník, L. Terciery Basement of the Inner Western Carpathians; Geofond: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1987; 123p. [Google Scholar]
- Mlynarcík, M.; Petrivalský, P. Sobrance Spa; Geofond: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1989; 220p. [Google Scholar]
- Franko, O.; Fendek, M.; Remšík, A. Geothermal Energy of the Slovak Republic; State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1995; p. 90. [Google Scholar]
- Bajo, I.; Franko, O.; Grexová, S.; Mlynarčík, M.; Pramuk, V. Regional Hydrogeothermal Evaluation of Humenske Mts; Final Report; Geofond: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2007; 117p. [Google Scholar]
- Sasvári, T.; Kondela, J. Demonstration of alpine structural phenomena at the structure of magnesite deposit Jelsava-Dubrava Massif. Metalurgija 2007, 46, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
- Žec, B.; Kaličiak, M.; Konečný, V.; Lexa, J.; Jacko, S.; Baňacký, V.; Karoli, S.; Potfaj, M.; Rakús, M.; Petro, L.; et al. Explanation to Geological Map of the Vihorlatské vrchy Mts. and Humenské vrchy Mts., Scale 1:50,000; State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1997; 254p, (In Slovak with English summary). [Google Scholar]
- Jacko, S.; Jacko Sen, S.; Labant, S.; Bátorová, K.; Farkašovský, R.; Ščerbáková, B. Structural contraints of neotectonic activity in the eastern part of the Western Carpathians orogenic wedge. Quat. Int. 2021, 585, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajo, I.; Szabová, A. Vihorlat-Popriecny—Hydrogeological Prospection; Final Report; Geofond: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Král, M.; Jancí, J.; Lizon, I. Geothermic Exploration of the Slovak Socialist Republic; Final Report; Geofond: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Tasarova, Z.A.; Fullea, J.; Bielik, M.; Sroda, P. Lithospheric structure of Central Europe: Puzzle pieces from Pannonian Basin to Trans-European Suture Zone resolved by geophysical-petrological modeling. Tectonics 2016, 35, 722–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bielik, M.; Tasarova, Z.A.; Vozar, J.; Zeyen, H.; Gutterch, A.; Grad, M.; Janik, T.; Wybraniec, S.; Gotze, H.J.; Dererova, J. Gravity and seismic modeling in the Carpathian-Pannonian Region. In Variscan and Alpine terranes of the Circum-Pannonian Region; Vozar, J., Ebner, F., Eds.; Slovak Academy of Sciences, Geological Institute: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2010; pp. 203–231. [Google Scholar]
- Sefara, J.; Bielik, M.; Konecny, P.; Bezak, V.; Hurai, V. The latest stage of development of the lithosphere and its interaction with the asthenosphere (Western Carpathians). Geol. Carpathica 1996, 47, 339–347. [Google Scholar]
- Torge, W. Gravimetry; de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 1989; p. 465. [Google Scholar]
- Vozár, J.; Szalaiová, V.; Šantavý, J. Interpretation of the Western Carpathians deep structures on the basis of gravimetric and seizmic sections. In Geoodynamic Development of the Western Carpathians; Rakús, M., Ed.; State Geological Institute of Dionyz Stur: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1998; pp. 241–258. [Google Scholar]
- Sefara, J.; Bielik, M.; Bodnár, J.; Čížek, P.; Filo, M.; Gnojek, I.; Grecula, P.; Halmešová, S.; Husák, L.; Janoštík, B.; et al. Structural-Tectonic Map of the Inner Western Carpathians for the Purposes of Prognose Deposits—Geophysical Interpretations; Text to the Colection of Maps (Manuscript); Geofond: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1987; 267p. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
- Pasteka, R.; Mikuska, J.; Meurers, B. Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly: A Gravimetry Puzzle, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; 142p. [Google Scholar]
- Tasarova, Z.A.; Afonso, J.C.; Bielik, M.; Götze, H.J.; Hók, J. The lithospheric structure of the Western Carpathian-Pannonian Basin region based on the CELEBRATION 2000 seismic experiment and gravity modeling. Tectonophysics 2009, 475, 454–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blakely, R.J.; Simpson, R.W. Approximating Edges of Source Bodies from Magnetic or Gravity Anomalies. Geophysics 1986, 51, 1494–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tasarova, Z.A.; Bielik, M.; Götze, H.J. Stripped image of the gravity field of the Carpathian-Pannonian region based on the combined interpretation of the CELEBRATION 2000 data. Geol. Carpathica 2008, 59, 199–209. [Google Scholar]
- Goldscheider, N.; Mádl-Szőnyi, J.; Erőss, A.; Schill, E. Thermal water resources in carbonate rock aquifers. Hydrogeol. J. 2010, 18, 1303–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fričovský, B.; Jacko, S.; Chytilová, M.; Tometz, L. Geothermal energy of Slovakia—CO2 emissions reduction contribution potential (background study for conservative and non-conservative approach). Acta Montan. Slovaca 2012, 17, 290–299. [Google Scholar]
- Mádl-Szőnyi, J.; Tóth, J. A hydrogeological type section for the Duna-Tisza Interfluve, Hungary. Hydrogeol. J. 2009, 17, 961–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czauner, B.; Mádl-Szőnyi, J. The function of fault sinhydraulic hydrocarbon entrapment: Theoretical consideration sand a field study from the Trans-Tisza region, Hungary. AAPG Bull. 2011, 95, 795–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pécskay, Z.; Lexa, J.; Szakács, A.; Seghedi, I.; Balogh, K.; Konecny, V.; Zelenka, T.; Kovacs, M.; Póka, T.; Fülöp, A.; et al. Geochronology of Neogene magmatism in the Carpathian arc and intra-Carpathian area. Geol. Carpathica 2006, 57, 511–530. [Google Scholar]
- Qiang, G. Evaluation of a Weathered Rock Aquifer Using ERT Method in South Guangdong, China. Water 2018, 10, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daniels, F.; Alberty, R.A. Physical Chemistry; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1966; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
- Therford, W.M.; Geldart, L.; Sheriff, R.E. Applied Geophysics, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
Borehole Name | Borehole Depth [m] | Depth Interval [m] | Age | Short Lithological Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
TMS-1 | 822.8 | 536.0–823.0 | Triassic | Dolomitic limestone |
TMS-2 | 150 | 62.0–150.0 | Triassic | Dolomitic limestones with brecciated texture |
TMS-3 | 125 | 40.0–80.0 | Triassic | Dolomites, dolomitic limestones with “dark green volcanic tuffaceous material” |
TMS-4 | 100 | 66.0–100.0 | Cretaceous | Dark gray to black-gray marly limestones |
TMS-5 | 140 | 84.0–140.0 | Triassic | Dolomitic limestones, dolomites |
TMS-7 | 300 | 253.0–300.0 | Jurassic | Dark gray to black sandy limestones |
TMS-8 | 400 | 262.0–271.0 271.0–400.0 | Triassic Cretaceous | Dolomitic limestones Marly limestones |
J-1 | 250 | 184.0–250.3 | Triassic | Dolomitic limestones |
J-2 | 250 | 187.0–250.0 | Jurassic | Encrinite limestones |
GTH-1 | 600 | 400.8–457.5 | Middle Triassic | Dark, crystalline limestones with calcite veins (Gutenstein limestones) |
457.5–484.4 | Middle/Upper Triassic | Dolomites, dolomitic breccia, lime–dolomitic limestones | ||
484.4–484.5 | ? | Black graphitic breccia | ||
484.5–487.0 | Upper Triassic | Red claystones with dolomites (Carpathian Keuper) | ||
487.0–487.7 | Lower Jurassic | Red encrinite limestones | ||
487.7–513.1 | ? | Conglomerates | ||
513.1–597.5 | Middle/Upper Triassic | Dolomitic breccia, dolomites, dark limestones | ||
597.5–600.7 | Middle Triassic | Gutenstein limestones | ||
MLS-1 | 1800 | 203–466.0 | Cretaceous | Marly limestones |
622.3–808.0 | Jurassic | Red nodular limestones, encrinite limestones, sandy limestones | ||
808.0–1769 | Triassic | Sandstones, limestones, dolomites, dolomitic limestones |
Borehole Name | TMS-1 | GTH-1 | MLS-1 |
---|---|---|---|
Depth (m) | Measured and Calculated Values of the Stable Temperature in Boreholes (°C) | ||
0 | 9 | 7 | 9 |
100 | 16 | 15 | 13 |
200 | 22 | 19 | 16 |
300 | 26 | 24 | 19 |
400 | 30 | 29 | 22 |
500 | 33 | 33 | 25 |
600 | 36 | 37 | 28 |
700 | 39 | 31 | |
800 | 42 | 34 | |
900 | 45 | 37 | |
1000 | 48 | 52 | 40 |
1100 | 42 | ||
1200 | 45 | ||
1300 | 48 | ||
1400 | 51 | ||
1500 | 68 | 72 | 54 |
2000 | 87 | 88 | 70 |
2500 | 103 | 106 | 84 |
3000 | 118 | 124 | 103 |
4000 | 150 | 158 | 135 |
5000 | 182 | 190 | 163 |
6000 | 215 | 220 | 190 |
calculated values of heat flow density (mW/m2) | |||
82.1 | 91.4 |
Petrographic Type | n | Dv (g·cm−3) | Dm (g·cm−3) | P (%) | Dn (g·cm−3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Miocene granodiorite porphyry | 2 | 2.59 | 2.61 | 0.89 | 2.59 |
diorite porphyry | 84 | 2.62 | 2.69 | 2.54 | 2.65 |
andesite porphyry | 6 | 2.56 | 2.71 | 5.24 | 2.62 |
pyroxenic andesite | 178 | 2.52 | 2.66 | 5.28 | 2.59 |
propylitized andesite | 384 | 2.51 | 2.68 | 6.24 | 2.58 |
silicified andesite | 21 | 2.37 | 2.71 | 12.50 | 2.49 |
lava clastic breccia | 62 | 2.45 | 2.69 | 8.60 | 2.54 |
tuff breccia | 2 | 2.61 | 2.64 | 1.45 | 2.62 |
tuff | 50 | 2.29 | 2.70 | 15.18 | 2.45 |
pumice tuff | 33 | 2.43 | 2.69 | 10.07 | 2.51 |
hornfels | 10 | 2.68 | 2.71 | 1.14 | 2.69 |
skarn | 3 | 2.68 | 2.70 | 1.05 | 2.69 |
Paleogene shale | 25 | 2.55 | 2.72 | 5.71 | 2.60 |
clay-marly shale | 6 | 2.58 | 2.74 | 5.81 | 2.64 |
metamorphic breccia | 1 | 2.39 | 2.71 | 11.56 | 2.51 |
Cretaceous calcareous sandstone | 21 | 2.60 | 2.69 | 3.52 | 2.63 |
shale | 1 | 2.66 | 2.69 | 1.11 | 2.67 |
marlstone | 12 | 2.65 | 2.69 | 1.45 | 2.67 |
marly shale | 27 | 2.58 | 2.69 | 40.05 | 2.62 |
limestone | 3 | 2.72 | 2.75 | 1.05 | 2.73 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jacko, S.; Babicová, Z.; Thiessen, A.D.; Farkašovský, R.; Budinský, V. The Use of Multi-Geophysical Methods to Determine the Geothermal Potential: A Case Study from the Humenné Unit (The Eastern Slovak Basin). Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2745. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052745
Jacko S, Babicová Z, Thiessen AD, Farkašovský R, Budinský V. The Use of Multi-Geophysical Methods to Determine the Geothermal Potential: A Case Study from the Humenné Unit (The Eastern Slovak Basin). Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(5):2745. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052745
Chicago/Turabian StyleJacko, Stanislav, Zdenka Babicová, Alexander Dean Thiessen, Roman Farkašovský, and Vladimír Budinský. 2022. "The Use of Multi-Geophysical Methods to Determine the Geothermal Potential: A Case Study from the Humenné Unit (The Eastern Slovak Basin)" Applied Sciences 12, no. 5: 2745. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052745