Topography of the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary below the Upper Rhine Graben Rift and the volcanic Eifel region, Central Europe

The 3D conductive thermal field of the North Alpine Foreland Basin: influence of the deep structure and the adjacent European Alps

“…This isotherm is deepest in the northeastern and western part of the model area with 25,500 m bsl and intermediate in the central model area with values around 23,000 m bsl. Towards the northwestern corner of the model area, in the direction of the Eifel plume (Seiberlich et al 2013), the 460 °C isotherm rises to up to 19,500 m bsl. From the northern edge of the Molasse Basin to the south the isotherm rises continuously to 20,000 m bsl depth at the margin of the Alps.…”

“…Furthermore, a seismologically derived LithosphereAsthenosphere Boundary (Fig. 5) has been implemented integrating results of Tesauro (2009), Geissler et al (2010, Karousova et al (2013), Seiberlich et al (2013) and Bianchi et al (2014). The LAB is deepest (up to 150 km bsl) below the Alps, moderately deep (~130 km bsl) below the Bohemian Massif and the Molasse Basin and rises below the Eifel plume (~80 km bsl) in the northwest.…”

Surface heat flow and lithosphere thermal structure of the Rhenohercynian Zone in the greater Luxembourg region

“…The upper boundary condition for thermal modelling is the annual surface T that generally ranges from 7.5 to 8 °C in the Ardennes and from 8 to 8.5 °C in the Guttland (Haenel et al, 1980;www.asta.etat.lu) In addition to varying the LAB depth, the steady-state thermal effect of an uprised asthenospheric mantle, the Eifel plume (Budweg et al, 2006;Goes et al, 2000a;Seiberlich et al, 2013;Raikes, 1980;Raikes and Bonjer, 1983;Ritter, 2007), was modelled. Given the uncertainties with regard to the top of the plume, three scenarios were considered in the thermal modelling for the easternmost part of cross section C: Top of plume at 60 km depth (e.g., Budweg et al, 2006), 50 km (Ritter, 2007; and references therein) or 40 km (Seiberlich et al, 2013).…”

“…Given the uncertainties with regard to the top of the plume, three scenarios were considered in the thermal modelling for the easternmost part of cross section C: Top of plume at 60 km depth (e.g., Budweg et al, 2006), 50 km (Ritter, 2007; and references therein) or 40 km (Seiberlich et al, 2013). The transition from normal (100-km-thick) to thinned, plume-affected lithosphere apparently spans over 25-30 km and is located underneath northeastern Luxembourg and the eastern border of Belgium (Keyser et al, 2002;Walker et al, 2005).…”

Exploration for deep geothermal reservoirs in Luxembourg and the surroundings - perspectives of geothermal energy use

“…This suggests that large-scale groundwater circulation is possible underneath the South Eifel area and that the CO 2 is related to the cooling magma due to unsuccessful attempts of smallvolume magma batches to erupt on the surface (Figure 10; Bräuer et al 2013;Langguth and Plum 1984;Lucius 1959;Schmincke 2007). Furthermore, recent tectonic mobility (see 'Cenozoic structural evolution of the Müllerthal-Südeifel Depression' subsection), deep magma emplacement and CO 2 degassing are related to the fact that the South Eifel area is located above the western margin of the Eifel plume (Bräuer et al 2013;Keyser et al 2002;Seiberlich et al 2013;Walker et al 2005). The fact that the adjoining Müllerthal region in Luxembourg, which also lies within the ED, does not have any mineral springs may be related to the relatively thick and impermeable sedimentary cover and a lower number of faults.…”