the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Comprehensive data set of in-situ hydraulic stimulation experiments for geothermal purposes at the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory (Sweden)
Arno Zang
Peter Niemz
Sebastian von Specht
Günter Zimmermann
Claus Milkereit
Katrin Plenkers
Gerd Klee
Abstract. In this article, a high-resolution acoustic emission sensor, accelerometer and broadband seismometer array data set is made available and described in detail from in-situ experiments performed at Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory in May and June 2015. The main goal of the hydraulic stimulation tests in a horizontal borehole at 410 m depth in naturally fractured granitic rock mass is to demonstrate the technical feasibility to generate multi-stage heat exchangers in a controlled way superior to former massive stimulations applied in enhanced geothermal projects. A set of six, sub-parallel hydraulic fractures is propagated from an injection borehole drilled parallel to minimum horizontal in-situ stress, and monitored by an extensive complementary sensor array implemented in three inclined monitoring boreholes and the near-by tunnel system. Three different fluid-injection protocols are tested: constant water injection, progressive cyclic injection, and cyclic injection with a hydraulic hammer operating at 5 Hz frequency to stimulate a crystalline rock volume of size 30 x 30 x 30 m at depth. We collected geological data from core and borehole logs, fracture inspection data from impression packer, acoustic emission hypocenter tracking and tilt data, as well as quantified the permeability enhancement process. The data and interpretation provided through this publication is an important step both, in upscaling laboratory tests, and downscaling field tests in granitic rock in the framework of enhanced geothermal system research.
- Preprint
(4633 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Arno Zang et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-170', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Aug 2023
Very nice paper. I have a few comments.
Abstract - State data location data will be archived
Line 39 Change "2018+ Homestake Mine underground tests at Saniford Facility in North Dakota," to "
2018+ EGS Collab Project underground tests at Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in South Dakota,"
Line 73 Explain the 29 fracture stages. To me a fracture stage is a location, but there are apparently 6 locations.
Line 102 "long" should be quantified. These long boreholes are short to most people.
Section 2.3.1 State the intervals for these tests.
Line 169 Change "permeable" to "permeability".
Table 1. "M4" to "M10". Verify that these are described in the paper.
Line 202 The location or reference for the "data archive" needs to be stated.
Figure 6. Define the numbers above each trace.
Line 253 State the location of the metadata.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-170-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-170', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Sep 2023
Very interesting paper, written in a clear language. In the framework of the renewable energy sources and induced seismicity, it is a work that addresses current issues by presenting interesting food for thought and a complete and useful data set.
Few observations:
- Line 59: change “Zang et al. (2017)” in “Zang et al (2017a)” as reported in the bibliography. As well as for the other 2017 Zang article: “Zang, Stephansson & Zimmermann (2017)” in “Zang et al (2017b)”
- Line 73: Could you better explain in what the 29 fracture stages consist of compared to the six hydraulic tests?
- Line 88: I suggest replacing "Geology" with "Geological methods" in line with the other sections (Borehole geophysical methods; Hydraulic methods)
- Line 102: Highlight the location of TASA and TAS02 tunnels in relation to TASN tunnel in figure 1 (if it is possible)
- Line 136: Add a reference to the technique used to estimate P and S velocity starting from the ultrasonic pulse transmission data
- Figure 2: “HF1” explain in the text what it refers to. I think it is referred to the six hydraulic tests but it is not explicitly explained; as well as for the following HF? and HF? Refrac codes.
- Figure 4: Speaking of "conventional fracturing procedure", why are you referring to figure 2a ? Is it not figure 3a?
- Lines 161-163: “The calculations (details in Zimmermann et al., 2019) are based on the slope of the declining pressure curves after shut-in and are performed for the last 100 seconds of each shut-in period for the conventional treatment with constant flow rates and for the last 40 seconds for the cyclic stages (Fig. 4)”. Does the figure refer only to the case of constant flow rates, right?
- Table 1: M4 e M10 - what are their locations with respect to the area and the injection borehole?
- Figure 6 : Is the number above each trace the scaling factor?
- Line 193: what do you mean by short boreholes? You only give the information about injection borehole length. What about the others(M1-M10)? I see that some of these informations are contained in metadata but you don’t explicitly mentioned that in the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-170-RC2
Arno Zang et al.
Data sets
Comprehensive data set of in-situ hydraulic stimulation experiments for geothermal purposes at the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory (Sweden) Arno Zang, Peter Niemz, Sebastian von Specht, Günter Zimmermann, Claus Milkereit, Katrin Plenkers, and Gerd Klee https://dataservices.gfz-potsdam.de/panmetaworks/review/4a502c148420d56db09f93239232e27cb5a91054fcfda62f55b138777a45cd05/
Arno Zang et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
257 | 59 | 17 | 333 | 8 | 11 |
- HTML: 257
- PDF: 59
- XML: 17
- Total: 333
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1