Research papersPeriodic changes in effluent chemistry at cold-water geyser: Crystal geyser in Utah
Introduction
In the field of geothermal and CO2-driven cold-water geysers, determining the physical and chemical mechanisms that cause periodic eruptions has been a common objective (Gouveia and Friedmann, 2006, Han et al., 2013, Hurwitz et al., 2012, Hurwitz et al., 2014, Ingebritsen and Rojstaczer, 1993, Karlstrom et al., 2013, Kieffer, 1989, Lu et al., 2006, Vandemeulebrouck et al., 2013, Watson et al., 2014). Both geothermal and cold-water geysers behave similarly in certain degrees; for example, they eject effluent with regular periodic eruption patterns, and in the end, will potentially transit to either fumaroles or springs once the subsurface energy is consumed. Regardless of these similarities, geothermal and cold-water geysers have their own characteristic eruption mechanisms. The primary difference is from the driving force; geothermal geysers are driven by the accumulation of thermal energy which triggers gas expansion and eruptions (Munoz-Saez et al., 2015). With respect to cold-water geysers, eruptions are not associated with a thermal effect, but result from a change in hydrostatic pressure. Reduction in hydrostatic pressure initiates a positive feedback system of CO2 bubble exsolution, growth, and buoyant acceleration (Han et al., 2013, Lu et al., 2005, Watson et al., 2014). These multiple positive feedbacks drive geyser eruptions. Recently, in-geyser video observations and data collections have provided great insights into the operations of these geysers by identifying the configuration of geyser conduits/chambers and boiling/flashing depths (Belousov et al., 2013, Han et al., 2013, Hutchinson et al., 1997, Munoz-Saez et al., 2015, Watson et al., 2014).
Despite extensive work on determining how geysers operated physically, very few researchers focused on monitoring temporal variations in geyser effluent chemistry during eruption cycles (Hurwitz et al., 2012, Kampman et al., 2014, Ladd and Ryan, 2016, Noguchi and Nix, 1963, Shipton et al., 2004). The first attempt to monitor changes in effluent chemistry during an eruption cycle was conducted by Noguchi and Nix (1963) at Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone National Park in June 23, 1962; the recorded eruption characteristics such as eruption height, duration, and interval were 35–52 m, 4 min, and 66.3 min, respectively. During the 4-min eruptions, variations in geyser effluent chemistry were distinct, which included immediate increase in Cl−, alkalinity, and SiO2 concentrations followed by a gradual decay. Based on the field observation, Noguchi and Nix (1963) concluded that mixing of salty thermal groundwater and dilute groundwater occurred during the geyser eruption. More recently, Hurwitz et al. (2012) attempted to understand how chemical and physical relationships are tied together during geyser eruptions at Old Faithful, Daisy, Grand, Oblong, and Aurum in Yellowstone National Park. For this purpose, temporal variations in geyser effluent chemistry and eruption intervals were correlated, but no significant trends or strong correlations between effluent chemistry and geyser eruption patterns were noted. Additionally, based on observation of long-term data since 1884 (>120 years), Hurwitz et al. (2012) concluded that effluent chemistry from Old Faithful geyser has remained consistent despite the large variation in geyser eruption intervals.
Similar to the endeavor at Old Faithful geyser, Crystal geyser in Utah, a CO2-driven cold-water geyser, was also investigated to determine variations in geyser effluent chemistry during eruptions. The eruption cycle at Crystal geyser has shown considerable variation since it was drilled in 1936; documentation of the eruption cycle can be found in Baer and Rigby (1978) and Gouveia and Friedmann (2006). The most extensive and recent characterization was found in Han et al., 2013, Watson et al., 2014 who inserted in situ pressure and temperature sensors within the geyser. While the eruption cycle at Crystal geyser has varied historically, the main constituents such as the minor eruption period (mEP), major eruption period (MEP) and recharge (R) maintained consistent; typical eruptions of the Crystal geyser in recent days were recorded (Supplementary video). Specific to the chemical observations of geyser effluent, Shipton et al. (2004) was the first to collect geyser effluent during an eruption, which revealed the reduction of Na+ and K+ concentrations during the eruptions. Later, Kampman et al. (2014) conducted further sampling of Crystal geyser’s effluent and used ternary mixing diagrams to show that deep Paradox Formation brine and groundwater from shallow Jurassic aquifers (Navajo and Entrada Sandstones) dynamically fed Crystal geyser. In addition to the temporal fluid sampling at Crystal geyser, Kampman et al. (2014) drilled a well (CO2W55) 90 m north of the southern Little Grand Wash (LGW) fault trace and 285 m west of Crystal geyser. Fluid samples were collected over ∼325 m depth from the Entrada (98 m), Carmel (188 m), and Navajo Sandstones (206, 224, 276 and 322 m).
Building upon the initial effort at Crystal geyser, we here present dynamic and periodic variations of groundwater chemistry during multiple eruption cycles utilizing both in situ continuous measurements (pressure, temperature, electrical conductivity and pH) and geyser effluent samples from 2007 to 2014. Utilizing a suite of temporal groundwater chemistry datasets, systematic trends in geyser effluent chemistry have been revealed; Crystal geyser exhibited repeating dramatic changes in groundwater chemistry that coincided with its own unique eruption cycle. The evolving characteristics of effluent chemistry suggest that the source aquifers (Jurassic Entrada and Navajo Sandstone aquifers and deep Paradox Formation brine) are supplying groundwater to Crystal geyser throughout the eruption cycle. In addition, to determine the fractional contribution from the multiple aquifers during each eruption period, geochemical inverse modeling utilizing defined fluid end-members was conducted, which revealed new insights into the subsurface dynamics governing the eruptions at Crystal geyser.
Section snippets
Geologic setting of Crystal geyser
At the northern margin of Paradox basin, the north- to northwest plunging Green River anticline is intersected by the east-west striking normal Little Grand Wash (LGW) fault (Dockrill and Shipton, 2010). The LGW fault extends approximately 30 km and is mostly dip-slip at 70° to the south; the displacement of the fault varies by location, but major offset consists of the Jurassic Morrison Formation and Cretaceous Mancos Shale at the surface. Despite uncertainties of subsurface information,
Historical eruption periodicity at Crystal geyser
Crystal geyser has undergone significant changes in the duration, intervals, and intensity of eruptions since it was first drilled in the 1930’s and scientifically investigated in the late 1970’s. The first documentation of the eruption periodicity can be found in Baer and Rigby (1978). Eruptions averaged a length of 7 min with consistent intervals of 4 h and 15 min (2-part eruption style). Eruptions at this time would discharge roughly 123.3 m3 of water with eruption heights reaching 14 m. The next
Monitoring and data collection of geyser effluent chemistry
Continuous in situ monitoring of pH, dissolved oxygen (DO) and electrical conductivity (EC) was conducted in 2013 using a Hydrolab MS5, which was installed together with two Solinst Levelogger Edge 3001 transducers (Fig. 1c). In order to prevent excessive vibration from the eruption activities, both the Hydrolab and transducers were attached to multiple 1.27 cm diameter PVC pipes connected to each other. pH, DO, and EC measurements from the Hydrolab have an accuracy of ±0.2 units, ±0.2 mg/L and ±1
Fluid chemistry at Green River, Utah
The fluid temperature varied from 16 to 18 °C at Crystal geyser, 14–18 °C at the SW springs, 13.6 °C in the Entrada Sandstone, and 15.9–18.3 °C from the top to the base of Navajo Sandstone (Han et al., 2013, Kampman et al., 2014). The molar abundance of the major cations and anions for all locations followed Na+ > Ca2+ > Mg2+ > K+ and Cl− > HCO3− > SO42−, respectively. Na+, K+, Cl− and SO42− concentrations increased in the order of Entrada, Navajo, Crystal geyser and SW springs (Tables S1–S8). Specifically,
Hydrogeochemical variations during recharge (R) and the minor eruption period (mEP)
Recharge (R) is characterized by a steadily increasing water level within the well (Watson et al., 2014). The length of the R is positively correlated with the length of the preceding Major Eruption Period (MEP) (Han et al., 2013). Due to the increasing length of preceding MEPs, the length of R has increased over the observed years; 2.8 and 11 h in 2010 (R1 and R2) (Fig. 2 in Watson et al. (2014)), 35 h in 2013 (Fig. 3) and 33 h in 2014 (Fig. 4). The minor eruption period (mEP) consisted of small
Binary and ternary mixing
Based on hydrogeochemical observations of Crystal geyser effluent during mEP, MEP, and R, three end-members (groundwaters from Jurassic Navajo and Entrada Sandstones, and Paradox Formation brine) were characterized. The concentrations of Na+, K+, and Cl− in the effluent of Crystal geyser were greater compared to the formation fluids collected from the Entrada and Navajo Sandstones (Fig. 2a). The elevated concentrations at Crystal geyser effluent infer an additional input of salinity. Three
Conclusion
Given that the well of Crystal geyser was drilled without installation of a proper casing, water or brine is sourced from a multitude of depths dependent on the pressure regime over depth and time. Therefore, fluid “sources” are not specific to one depth or one aquifer but rather to a combination of aquifers and spatial regions. The fluid chemistry obtained from the samples of the Entrada Sandstone, Navajo Sandstone and Paradox Formations are useful to characterize these spatial regions.
During
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (Grant Number: 2016-11-0472). The authors would like to thank David L. Parkhurst (inverse modeling), Patrick Anderson (water chemistry analyses), Aaron Ziegler and Cheng Thao (sample collection and preparation) for their help with this research. In addition, authors thank to constructive comments from Dr. Namiki and the anonymous reviewer. The
References (40)
- et al.
Structural controls on leakage from a natural CO2 geologic storage site: central Utah, U.S.A
J. Struct. Geol.
(2010) - et al.
Fault-controlled CO2 leakage from natural reservoirs in the Colorado Plateau, East-Central Utah
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
(2014) - et al.
Feldspar dissolution kinetics and Gibbs free energy dependence in a CO2-enriched groundwater system, Green River, Utah
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
(2009) - et al.
Drilling and sampling a natural CO2 reservoir: Implications for fluid flow and CO2-fluid-rock reactions during CO2 migration through the overburden
Chem. Geol.
(2014) - et al.
Measurements in a low temperature CO2-driven geysering well, viewed in relation to natural geysers
Geothermics
(2005) - et al.
Experimental investigation and numerical modelling of transient two-phase flow in a geysering geothermal well
Geothermics
(2006) - et al.
Dynamics within geyser conduits, and sensitivity to environmental perturbations: insights from a periodic geyser in the El Tatio geyser field, Atacama Desert, Chile
J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res.
(2015) - et al.
Experimental study of CO2 convective dissolution: the effect of coloar indicators
Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control
(2015) - et al.
Eruption dynamics of CO2-driven cold-water geysers: Crystal, Tenmile geysers in Utah and Chimayo geyser in New Mexico
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
(2014) - et al.
Geology of the Crystal Geyser and environmental implications of its effluent, Grand County, Utah
Utah Geol.
(1978)
Sedimentology
Video observations inside conduits of erupting geysers in Kamchatka, Russia, and their geological framework: implications for the geyser mechanism
Geology
Man-made versus natural CO2 leakage: A 400 k.y. history of an analogue for engineered geological storage of CO2
Geology
Isotopic variations in meteoric waters
Science
Densities of CO2-H2O and CO2-H2O-NaCl systems Up to 647 K and 100 MPa
Energy Fuel
Characteristics of CO2-driven cold-water geyser, Crystal Geyser in Utah: experimental observation and mechanism analyses
Geofluids
Hydrogeochemical characterization of leaking, carbon dioxide-charged fault zones in east-Central Utah, with implications for geologic carbon storage
Bedrock Aquifers in the Northern San Rafael Swell Area, Utah, with Special Emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone
Temporal variations of geyser water chemistry in the Upper Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, USA
Geochem. Geophy. Geosyst.
Cited by (11)
Transient H<inf>2</inf>O–CO<inf>2</inf> wellbore leakage under evolving recharge conditions considering CO<inf>2</inf> phase change
2024, Journal of Cleaner ProductionEcological landscape explains aquifers microbial structure
2023, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :Porous aquifers, in contrast, had the lowest median of genera (1052) and mine the lowest of functions (6775) (Fig. 4A and C; Supplementary Table 7). These are unexpected findings, as these top ranked aquifers have the harshest abiotic conditions, with low levels of dissolved oxygen, high temperature and salinity, and the widespread presence of contaminants (Louvat et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2015, Hemme et al., 2015; Kietäväinen and Purkamo, 2015; Han et al., 2017;). We expected that specialized microorganisms would dominate extreme or extreme-like environments (Shu and Huang, 2022).
Modeling of CO<inf>2</inf>-driven cold-water geyser in the northeast Qinghai-Tibet plateau
2021, Journal of HydrologyCitation Excerpt :Natural analogs, especially CO2-driven cold-water geysers, provide advantageous conditions for studying the leakage process attributing to the great similarity between them and the limitations brought by scarce and immature engineering practices (Burnside et al., 2013; Fessenden et al., 2009; Shipton et al., 2005). Several CO2-driven geysers have been reported and well-studied with respect to the eruption dynamics and geochemical characteristics by field monitoring and numerical modeling (Han et al., 2013, 2017; Kampman et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2005; Watson et al., 2014). However, their models in which either a Darcian flow method was chosen to describe the wellbore flow (Jung et al., 2015) or defined as an isothermal pipe flow with a constant inflow rate (Lu et al., 2006) are not entirely appropriate.
Roles of fault structures and regional formations on CO <inf>2</inf> migration and distribution in shallow saline aquifer in Green River, Utah
2019, Journal of HydrologyCitation Excerpt :Group II included a total of 5 fluid samples originating from deep Paleozoic aquifers, such as Paradox brine, which were gathered in adjacent hydrocarbon fields (Kharaka et al., 1997; Spangler, 1992) and Group III included 71 effluent samples that were collected during the eruption of Crystal geyser (Han et al., 2017; Kampman et al., 2014). Finally, a total of 15 samples (Group IV) were collected at Salt Wash springs and Tenmile geyser, which are located adjacent to the northern footwall of the SW faults (Han et al., 2017; Kampman et al., 2014). Group I representing fluid chemistry in the shallow Jurassic aquifers such as Entrada, Carmel and Navajo Sandstone evolved from Na+-HCO3− to Na+-Cl−-typed groundwater as the formation depth increased (Fig. 3a); for example, the fluid chemistry at shallow Entrada Sandstone (98 mbs; Na+ + K+: 39.9% and Cl−: 24.9%) transited to be saline at Navajo Sandstone (322 mbs; Na+ + K+: 63.6% and Cl−: 44.7%).
Natural CO2 leakage and responses of shallow aquifers in the southern Xining Basin
2023, Bulletin of Geological Science and TechnologyTrace metals in CO<inf>2</inf>-rich Green River springs, Utah, USA: an analogue for engineered storage
2023, Geological Society Special Publication