Groundwater 2010:

the challenge of sustainable management

National Groundwater Conference
31 Oct 4 Nov 2010, Canberra Australia

A static method for collecting

temperatures in deep groundwater bores
for geothermal exploration and other
applications
Cara Danis & Dr Craig ONeill
GEMOC, Department of Earth and Planetary Science,
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Objectives
Brief history of the geothermal exploration
in Australia
Role of groundwater bores
The static measurement methods
Case study - other applications

History of the Geothermal in Australia

Exploration in the early 90s by the
Australian Geological Survey Organisation
The first geothermal dataset combined
over 3000 bottom-hole temperatures from
exploration drilling
Auscope and Geoscience Australia are reentering existing exploration bores and
deep groundwater bores to log
temperature

Austherm07 Temperature at 5km Map

Geothermal Exploration
Geothermal exploration has two main
requirements:
High accuracy bottom-hole temperature
measurements and
Good data coverage
But there is also a need for equilibrated
bottom-hole measurements for thermal
modelling of potential geothermal
resources

The Role of Groundwater Bores

Existing bores provided opportunity to
expand the geothermal data set
Groundwater column provides thermal
coupling
Gives a good indication of the temperature
of the host formation and surrounding
geotherm
Are generally equilibrated if greater than 3
months old

The Static Method

Geophysical temperature logs lower a
thermistor at a slow speed providing
continuous temperature readings
Static methods uses thermistors at
discrete intervals for set periods of time for
individual temperature readings
The greater the time spent recording at an
interval the more accurate the temperature
measurement

The Static Method

Two methods using HOBO loggers
Equipment Specs:
- Range: -20 C to 50 C
- Accuracy: 0.37 C (at 20 C)
- Resolution: 0.1 C (at 20 C)
- Recording interval: 1sec
Measurements collected in 29 groundwater bores

Measurement
Locations

Method A

1hr total

Method B

50m

50m

100m

100m

150m

150m

200m

200m

20mins per interval

RESULTS

Method A
250m

225m

200m

150m

100m

50m

35

33

31

Temperature (C)

29

27

25

23

21

19

Enter Water Column

17

15
9/03/2010
15:21

9/03/2010
15:36

9/03/2010
15:50

9/03/2010
16:04

9/03/2010
16:19

9/03/2010
16:33

9/03/2010
16:48

9/03/2010
17:02

9/03/2010
17:16

9/03/2010
17:31

Method B
20

200m
19

Temperature (C)

170m

18

150m

100m
17

Enter Water Column

16
28/07/2010 12:28

28/07/2010 12:57

28/07/2010 13:26

28/07/2010 13:55

28/07/2010 14:24

28/07/2010 14:52

RESULTS
Repeatability

Method A
GW75402/2

PZ26A
Depth (m)

10/06/2009

12/03/2010

Difference

Depth (m)

23/12/2009

11/02/2010

Difference

80

19.662

19.662

0.000

25

18.806

18.711

0.095

130

20.710

20.710

0.000

75

19.187

18.996

0.194

230

26.292

26.304

0.012

125

19.758

19.853

0.095

150

20.234

20.126

0.108

175

20.460

20.460

0.000

GW75093/4
Depth (m)

23/12/2009

11/02/2010

Difference

100

18.045

18.045

0.000

150

18.557

18.557

0.000

All measurements are within the accuracy (0.37 C) of the logging unit

Method A vs B
GW75098/3
Depth
(m)

9/03/2010

14/07/2010

100

20.901

20.805

150

21.569

200

PZ26A
Difference

Depth
(m)

12/03/2010

19/09/2010

0.096

55

19.282

19.151

0.131

21.664

0.095

80

19.662

19.555

0.107

22.333

22.333

0.000

130

20.71

20.603

0.107

225

22.561

22.633

0.072

180

23.677

23.665

0.012

250

22.944

22.968

0.024

205

24.871

24.871

0.000

230

26.304

26.280

0.024

All measurements are within the accuracy (0.37 C) of the logging unit

Difference

Case Study:
Temperature and Borehole Failure

Background
During temperature measurement
collection in March 2009 noticed the BHT of
borehole A was 5 C cooler than nearby
and deeper boreholes
Groundwater level measurements showed
a 28m rise in water level in A
Suspicions of casing/grout failure resulting
in aquifer mixing lead to an18 month study
of the BHT

Nest Piezometric Groundwater Levels

24-Mar-06

10-Oct-06

28-Apr-07

14-Nov-07

1-Jun-08

18-Dec-08

6-Jul-09

22-Jan-10

10-Aug-10

26-Feb-11

Depth (metres below casing)

0
10
20
30
A

40

B
50

60
70
80
90

Bottom-hole Temperature at 290 mbc for Borehole A

30
29

Temperature (C)

28
27
26
25

290

24
23
22
21
20
24-Mar-06

10-Oct-06

28-Apr-07

14-Nov-07

1-Jun-08

18-Dec-08

6-Jul-09

22-Jan-10

10-Aug-10

26-Feb-11

Case Study Conclusions

Borehole casing or grout appears to have failed, probably above
the standing water level, thus causing one or more of the upper
aquifers to mix within the water column

This mixing caused a drop in bottom-hole temperature

The bottom hole temperatures slowly increases in response to
groundwater level increase and stabilisation
Over 15 months the bottom-hole temperature has increased 4.5 C

Over the last 3 months the bottom-hole temperature appears to be

stabilising with the host rock formation
These results show that disturbance to the groundwater column
significantly affects bottom-hole temperatures and thermal
equilibrium must be re-attained

CONCULSIONS
Both methods are simple and effective in collecting down-hole
temperature measurements
Method A, although faster, requires more logging units
Method B creates the least amount of disturbance to the water
column and requires only one logging unit
Both methods are repeatable within the accuracy of the logging
unit
Method A and B produce comparable results for the same
borehole
Any disturbance to the water column, such as cleaning or
aquifer leakage, will affect the resultant temperature
Time needed to re-equilibrate with host rock temperatures
depends on the amount and length of disturbance
Static measurements in deep groundwater bores, provided
they are equilibrated, add valuable data for geothermal
exploration

Acknowledgements
NSW Department of Primary Industries
NSW Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water
Ulan Coal Mines Ltd
Coffey Geotechnics
Hydroilex