USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70020977

Compilation of gas geochemistry and isotopic analyses from The Geysers geothermal field: 1978-1991

Jacob B. Lowenstern·Cathy Janik·Lynne Fahlquist·Linda S. Johnson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present 45 chemical and isotopic analyses from well discharges at The Geysers geothermal field and summarize the most notable geochemical trends. H 2 and H 2 S concentrations are highest in the Southeast Geysers, where steam samples have δD and δ 18 O values that reflect replenishment by meteoric water. In the Northwest Geysers, samples are enriched in gas/steam, CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 /Ar relative to the rest of the field, and contain steam that is elevated in δD and δ18O, most likely due to substantial contributions from Franciscan-derived fluids. The δ13C of CO 2 , trends in CH 4 vs. N 2 , and abundance of NH 3 indicate that the bulk of the non-condensable gases are derived from thermal breakdown of organic materials in Franciscan meta-sediments.

Explore related subjects

Geothermal Resources Council TransactionsArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jacob B. Lowenstern, Cathy Janik, Lynne Fahlquist, Linda S. Johnson. 1999. Compilation of gas geochemistry and isotopic analyses from The Geysers geothermal field: 1978-1991. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70020977

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2023

Detrending Great Basin elevation to identify structural patterns for identifying geothermal favorability

Topography provides information about the structural controls of the Great Basin and therefore information that may be used to identify favorable structural settings for geothermal systems. The Nevada Machine Learning Project (NVML) tested the use of a digital elevation map (DEM) of topography as an input feature to predict geothermal system favorability. A recent study re-examines the NVML data, identifying the DEM as the most important feature, showing a broad uniform pattern of high-favorability in the lower-elevation west and low-favorability in the higher elevation east of their study area in north-central Nevada. This regional elevation trend conflicts with the geologic notion that local relative topography should be used to identify geologic structures associated with favorable structural settings for hydrothermal upflow. Specifically, local relative topography gives information about position in the mountains, in the valleys, or at the transitions between, aiding in identification of faults and fault intersections. As part of U.S. Geological Survey efforts to engineer features that are useful for predicting geothermal resources, we construct a detrended elevation map that emphasizes local relative topography and highlights features that geologists use for identifying geothermal systems (i.e., providing machine learning algorithms with features that may improve predictive skill by emphasizing the information used by geologists). Herein, we describe the removal of the regional trend in elevation to emphasize the basin-and-range scale structural features, creating detrended elevation maps. Regional elevation trends were estimated using a local linear regression and subtracted from the actual elevation using a 30-m DEM. In an effort to optimize the detrended surface, alternate versions were produced with different rates of smoothness resulting in three detrended elevation maps. The resulting elevation trend surfaces (a proxy for crustal thickness) are compared with conductive heat flow maps, and a general pattern was observed of a negative correlation between heat flow and regional elevation in many areas, indicating that thinner crust may be causing elevated heat flow in some areas and thicker crust may cause the observed heat flow lows. Because these detrended elevation maps emphasize geologic structure and relative displacement, these products may also be useful for other geologic research including mineral exploration, hydrologic research, and defining geologic provinces.

Geothermal Resources Council Transactions↗
USGS2023

Cursed? Why one does not simply add new data sets to supervised geothermal machine learning models

Recent advances in machine learning (ML) identifying areas favorable to hydrothermal systems indicate that the resolution of feature data remains a subject of necessary improvement before ML can reliably produce better models. Herein, we consider the value of adding new features or replacing other, low-value features with new input features in existing ML pipelines. Our previous work identified stress and seismicity as having less value than the other feature types (i.e., heat flow, distance to faults, and distance to magmatic activity) for the 2008 USGS hydrothermal energy assessment; hence, a fundamental question regards if the addition of new but partially correlated features will improve resulting models for hydrothermal favorability. Therefore, we add new maps for shear strain rate and dilation strain rate to fit logistic regression and XGBoost models, resulting in new 7-feature models that are compared to the old 5-feature models. Because these new features share a degree of correlation with the original relatively uninformative stress and seismicity features, we also consider replacement of the two lower-value features with the two new features, creating new 5-feature models. Adding the new features improves the predictive skill of the new 7-feature model over that of the old 5-feature model; albeit, that improvement is not statistically significant because the new features are correlated with the old features and, consequently, the new features do not present considerable new information. However, the new 5-feature XGBoost model has a statistically significant increase in predictive skill for known positives over the old 5-feature model at p = 0.06. This improved performance is due to the lower-dimensional feature space of the former than that of the latter. In higher-dimensional feature space, relationships between features and the presence or absence of hydrothermal systems are harder to discern (i.e., the 7-feature model likely suffers from the “curse of dimensionality”).

Geothermal Resources Council Transactions↗
USGS2023

Predicting large hydrothermal systems

We train five models using two machine learning (ML) regression algorithms (i.e., linear regression and XGBoost) to predict hydrothermal upflow in the Great Basin. Feature data are extracted from datasets supporting the INnovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations Of Undiscovered Systems project (INGENIOUS). The label data (the reported convective signals) are extracted from measured thermal gradients in wells by comparing the total estimated heat flow at the wells to the modeled background conductive heat flow. That is, the reported convective signal is the difference between the background conductive heat flow and the well heat flow. The reported convective signals contain outliers that may affect upflow prediction, so the influence of outliers is tested by constructing models for two cases: 1) using all the data (i.e., -91 to 11,105 mW/m2), and 2) truncating the range of labels to include only reported convective signals between -25 and 200 mW/m2. Because hydrothermal systems are sparse, models that predict high convective signal in smaller areas better match the natural frequency of hydrothermal systems. Early results demonstrate that XGBoost outperforms linear regression. For XGBoost using the truncated range of labels, half of the high reported signals are within < 3 % of the highest predictions. For XGBoost using the entire range of labels, half of the high reported signals are in < 13 % of the highest predictions. While this implies that the truncated regression is superior, the all-data model better predicts the locations of power-producing systems (i.e., the operating power plants are in a smaller fraction of the study area given by the highest predictions). Even though the models generally predict greater hydrothermal upflow for higher reported convective signals than for lower reported convective signals, both XGBoost models consistently underpredict the magnitude of higher signals. This behavior is attributed to low resolution/granularity of input features compared with the scale of a hydrothermal upflow zone (a few km or less across). Trouble estimating exact values while still reliably predicting high versus low convective signals suggests that a future strategy such as ranked ordinal regression (e.g., classifying into ordered bins for low, medium, high, and very high convective signal) might fit better models, since doing so reduces problems introduced by outliers while preserving the property of larger versus smaller signals.

Geothermal Resources Council Transactions↗