Heat flow and thermal modeling of the Appalachian Basin, West Virginia

Abstract

Recent heat flow studies indicate that the Appalachian Basin in West Virginia may represent an important location for high heat flow and future geothermal energy development. Currently, however, only limited one-dimensional (1-D) heat flow studies exist in this region, making it difficult to assess the potential for geothermal development. Here, we develop the first high resolution 2-D basin model for a portion of West Virginia. The model uses 2-D finite difference heat conduction, basin cross sections, equilibrium temperature, and oil and gas bottom-hole temperature data to quantify heat flow at the surface and at the base of the sedimentary basin. The temperature data show elevated temperature gradients in the eastern portion of the basin. A 2-D advection-diffusion model, created using available lithologic and structural data, was designed to test whether variations in crustal properties, structure, erosion, or fluid advection can account for the observed temperatures in the basin. Thermal properties were populated using measured values as well as published averages. A linear heat flow vs. heat production relationship was used to determine heat flow at the base of the model. The model constrains the heat flow at the base of the sedimentary basin to 49-55 mW/m 2 . Analysis of modeling results suggests that heat flow at the base of the sedimentary basin is nearly uniform. Variations in basin temperatures are most likely due to variations in sediment thermal properties, complex structures, and/or localized fluid advection.

Modification of Crust and Mantle Lithosphere Beneath the Southern Part of the Eastern North American Passive Margin

“…Coincidently, the thermobarometric modeling and analysis (Mazza et al, 2014(Mazza et al, , 2017 suggested that the igneous rocks from the Virginia volcanoes originated from the upper mantle, supporting our hypothesis. Furthermore, the low-velocity anomaly 2 in our model is consistent with the observations of high conductivity by Evans et al (2019), the high seismic attenuation by Byrnes et al (2019), and the high heat flow by Frone et al (2015). One possible interpretation is that anomaly 2 represents the presence of asthenospheric upwelling triggered by a localized lithospheric delamination during the Eocene.…”

Heat flow density estimates in the Upper Rhine Graben using laboratory measurements of thermal conductivity on sedimentary rocks

“…Radiogenic heat production can contribute significantly to surface heat flow density in sedimentary basins (Frone et al 2015;Guillou-Frottier et al 2010;Schütz et al 2012;Waples 2002). In sediments, radiogenic heat production can be high in some shales especially in those rich in organic matter, like in the black shales of the Toarcian (Jurassic) encountered in the URG (Böcker et al 2017;Böcker and Littke 2016;Waples 2002).…”

“…Located in the northeastern part of France and southwestern part of Germany (Fig. 1), this continental rift is already home to several operational (e.g., Soultz-sous-Forêts and Rittershoffen, both France, and Bruchsal, Insheim and Landau, all in Germany) and planned (e.g., Illkirch, Vendenheim, and Wissembourg, all France) geothermal sites (Aichholzer et al 2016;Vidal and Genter 2018), but accurate estimates of heat flow density remain crucial for temperature estimations prior to drilling operations and thermodynamic models that inform our understanding of measured temperature profiles for continued geothermal exploration (Beardsmore et al 2001;Flores Marquez 1992;Frone et al 2015;Schütz et al 2014).…”

Geothermal energy characterization in the Appalachian Basin of New York and Pennsylvania

“…The single-well thermal model estimates heat flow, but the accuracy of those predictions is not well constrained. Studies using similar model constraints (Frone et al, 2015;Erkan, 2015) determined the heat flow error to differ according to thermal conductivity values. The thermal conductivity error of one measured sample on a divided bar can be 5% (Frone et al, 2015) and, depending on if the sample was run wet or dry, as much as 25% (Erkan, 2015;Blackwell and Steele, 1989).…”

“…Studies using similar model constraints (Frone et al, 2015;Erkan, 2015) determined the heat flow error to differ according to thermal conductivity values. The thermal conductivity error of one measured sample on a divided bar can be 5% (Frone et al, 2015) and, depending on if the sample was run wet or dry, as much as 25% (Erkan, 2015;Blackwell and Steele, 1989). For the Appalachian Basin of New York and Pennsylvania, a quality determination of the accuracy of the modeled temperatures at depth is not possible until more equilibrium temperature profiles at depths below 2000 m are acquired, to supplement the few equilibrium wells described in this paper (Fig.…”