Abstract

Proximity to magma bodies is generally acknowledged as providing the energy source for hot hydrothermal reservoirs. Hence, it is appropriate to think of a “magma–hydrothermal system” as an entity, rather than as separate systems. Repeated coring of Kilauea Iki lava lake on Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii, has provided evidence of an impermeable, conductive layer, or magma–hydrothermal boundary (MHB), between a hydrothermal system and molten rock. Crystallization on the lower face of the MHB and cracking by cooling on the upper face drive the zone downward while maintaining constant thickness, a Stefan problem of moving thermal boundaries with a phase change. Use of the observed thermal gradient in MHB of 84 °C/m yields a heat flux of 130 W/m2. Equating this with the heat flux produced by crystallization and cooling of molten lava successfully predicts the growth rate of lava lake crust of 2 m/a, which is faster than simple conduction where crust thickens at t and heat flux declines with 1 / t . However, a lava lake is not a magma chamber. Compared to erupted and degassed lava, magma at depth contains a significant amount of dissolved water that influences the magma’s thermal, chemical, and mechanical behaviors. Also, a lava lake is rootless; it has no source of heat and mass, whereas there are probably few shallow, active magma bodies that are isolated from deeper sources. Drilling at Krafla Caldera, Iceland, showed the existence of a near-liquidus rhyolite magma body at 2.1 km depth capped by an MHB with a heat flux of ≥16 W/m2. This would predict a crystallization rate of 0.6 m/a, yet no evidence of crystallization and the development of a mush zone at the base of MHB is observed. Instead, the lower face of MHB is undergoing partial melting. The explanation would appear to lie in vigorous convection of the hot rhyolite magma, delivering both heat and H2O but not crystals to its ceiling. This challenges existing concepts of magma chambers and has important implications for use of magma as the ultimate geothermal power source. It also illuminates the possibility of directly monitoring magma beneath active volcanoes for eruption forecasting.

Highlights

  • Given the tremendous difference between the rate of heat transport by conduction through solid rock and advection of heat by aqueous fluid through permeable rock, the strong control of hydrothermal activity on magma evolution cannot be questioned

  • Drilling at Krafla Caldera, Iceland, showed the existence of a near-liquidus rhyolite magma body at 2.1 km depth capped by an magma–hydrothermal boundary (MHB) with a heat flux of ≥16

  • The results from drilling Kilauea Iki have been influential in thinking about magma chambers at depth, results pertaining to the transition from the hydrothermal zone of the solid lake crust to the melt-rich zone [2]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Given the tremendous difference between the rate of heat transport by conduction through solid rock and advection of heat by aqueous fluid through permeable rock, the strong control of hydrothermal activity on magma evolution cannot be questioned. Carrigan [3] drew an analogy between magma–hydrothermal systems and two resistors in series, where the largest resistance, the hydrothermal system, dominates energy flow He previously argued for convection in magma bodies and large sills [4,5], which would keep the value of the magma resistor low, whereas convection in lava lakes would die out quickly. The purpose of this paper is to discuss new implications beginning to emerge from accidental encounters with magma by geothermal drilling and the importance of understanding MHB. It is in part a review paper, gathering key observations where hidden bodies of magma have been accidently encountered. The only way to truly understand magma with its surrounding crust is to drill it

Drilling into Molten Rock
The Case of Kilauea Iki: A Stefan Problem
The Case of Krafla
MHB in Krafla Compared to Kilauea Iki
MHB Represents a Discontinuity in the Stress Field as Well as in Temperature
Suppression of Upward Flow of Magma in the Borehole
Convection in Krafla Magma
Conceptual Model of Krafla as a Closely Coupled Magma–Hydrothermal System
Magma as an Energy Source for Geothermal Power Production
Applications
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.