Upload
feleti
View
29
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Komárom – Štúrovo Pilot Area (Hungary – Slovakia) Recommendations for sustainable management of transboundary hydrogeothermal resources at cross-border pilot areas. Emese Gáspár 1 , György Tóth 1 Jaromír Švasta 2 , Anton Remšik 2 , Dusan Bodiš 2 , Radovan Černák 2 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The Komárom – Štúrovo Pilot Area
(Hungary – Slovakia)Recommendations for sustainable management of
transboundary hydrogeothermal resources at cross-border pilot areasEmese Gáspár1, György Tóth1
Jaromír Švasta2, Anton Remšik2, Dusan Bodiš2, Radovan Černák2
and the TRANSENERGY Team1MFGI; 2ŠGUDŠ
Final Event of project TRANSENERGYVienna, 24. June 2013.
1. Why was this Pilot Area selected? – area selection2. Main, most important questions3. Model building4. Answers by the help of the model5. Management Issues6. Conclusion, recommendations – further proposals
Content
1. Why was this Pilot Area selected?
Transboundary regional cold-thermal karst system – in focus of ICPDR
Recharge in Hungary; natural discharging springs, groundwater dependent ecosystems in both country
Utilizations: cold water – drinking water, mineral water lukewarm (springs) – spa, balneology warm system – spa, green house/district heating Mine dewatering in the Hungarian part – effects in both
country
1. Why was this Pilot Area selected?In focus of ICPDR
2 thermal transboundary groundwater body from the 11 transboundary groundwater
bodies
1. Why was this Pilot Area selected?Recharge and natural discharge
Recharge areas
Lukewarm springs (>20°C)
Cold and thermal karst aquifer – T3, K1 limestones and dolomites(Cold and thermal water porous aquifer – Pannonian and Pontian sandstones)
Group of springs
Water T(°C)
Yield (original) (m3/d)
Tata 20-22 ~115 000
Dunaalmás + Patince
22-24 -25-27
~3 000-4 500
Esztergom (+Sárisáp)
11-15 ~12 000-13 000
Recharge ~190 000 m3/d
1. Why was this Pilot Area selected?The main utilizations in the last 75 years
>130 main abstraction site in the last 75 years average 18-year-long time series between 1951 and 2011 mine dewatering more than 50 year-long today:
thermal water utilizations – spas, balneology, agriculture (green-houses)
drinking water utilization mineral water production
Recharge areas
Utilizations
Lukewarm springs (>20°C)
Žlatná na Ostrove Patince Tata
1. Why was this Pilot Area selected?Effects of the mining
Tata springsregenerationand flooding
Natural karst water level before mining
Karst water level during the mining (1990)
1. Why was this Pilot Area selected?Effects of the mining
Lukewarm(>20 °C) springs
Present utilizationsites
After Csepregi, 2007
2. Main, most important questions
Karst water abstractions What was the effect of the mine water-abstraction on the karst
flow system? How and how long does it take the refilling of the karst system
after the mine closure? What is the present state of the system?
Groundwater dependent ecosystems Which are the main groundwater dependent ecosystems in the
area? What are its qualitative and quantitative characteristics?
How could we protect of the regional flow system during the planning of the local productions?
3. Model buildingGeology
The main geological formationsMain Dolomite
Dachstein Limestone
Jákó + Polány Marl
Környei + Tata Limestone
Lábatlan Sandstone + Bersek Marl
Lower Pannonian
Upper Pannonian
Outcrops
Lukewarm (>20°C) spring
Top of the Pretertiary basement (m.A.s.l) Tertiary cover
After Alföldi et al. 1985.
Recharge areas
Local flow system
Regional flow system
Lukewarm springs (>20°C)
3. Model buildingHydrogeology
Tata springs, (from 2000) Csokonai spring, Dunaalmás (~2005)Lilla spring, Dunaalmás (2010)Lukewarm seepage, Patince (2012)Türkish-bath, reconstructed historical lukewarm spring, Esztergom
3. Model buildingThe numerical model
Layer Hydrostratigraphic unit
1 Quarternary
2-5 Upper Pannonian
6-7 Lower Pannonian
8 Miocene (sarmatian, badenian)
9 Paleogene
10-12 Mesozoic carbonate basement
based on the geological and conceptual models 6 main hydrostratigraphic units a 12 layered hydrodinamic and coupled heat transport 3D model (FEFLOW 6.1)
3. Model buildingAim of the modeling
Better understanding of the regional flow system Investigate the natural flow system and the effect of the mine
dewatering and the regeneration of the system Evaluate the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the
groundwater dependent ecosystems Further proposals by the help of the model for the protection of
the regional flow system
low temperatures are resulted due to the intensive flow system in the karst aquifer
higher water temperatures exists in the NW part of the PA and the „end” of the flow paths (Tata, Patince, Esztergom, Štúrovo)
4. Answers by the help of the modelSimulated natural state of the flow system
temperature pattern is strongly affected by the groundwater-flow – convective
heat flow dominated
4. Answers by the help of the modelSimulated flow pathlines in the karst water aquifer
4. Answers by the help of the modelSimulated steady state karst water abstractions
Steady state mine water abstraction with the yield in the late 1980’sKarst water level dropped down in the vicinity of the mining centresSprings dissapeared in the region
Steady state reduced water abstraction (as the yield in the early 2000’s)Elevated karst water level in the vicinity of the mining centresSprings near Dunaalmás appeared
Steady sate drinking water abstractionKarst water level elevated in the whole regionSprings near Dunaalmás, Tata also working again
5. Management IssuesMain aspects
The state of the protection of the groundwater resources – adequate the present protection?
The main geothermal utilizations and development possibilities Minimum and maximum water level and discharge needs of the
groundwater dependent ecosystems Water abstraction scenarios in the area, impact assessment Utilization efficiency (waste heat utilization, reinjection possibilities)
in Komárom – Komárno (sub)region Electric power generation possibilities in the area (as in feasibility
studies)
5. Management IssuesDunaalmás - Patince
Dunaalmás vulnerable drinking water resourcesProvide drinking water for 3 settlements (~5 200 inhabitants) Protected yield: 500 m3/d Aquifer: T3 karst aquifer
Lilla spring; 2012. winter
Lilla spring; 2012. spring
Wells
Delineated „B” protection zone on the surface
Delineated subsurface „B” protection zone
VIZITERV Consult Kft. 2002.
Dunaalmás
K-4
K-3
K-9
Patince
Almásfüzitő
Zitva
Naszály
Thermal water utilizations - spasBaths in both country, in Esztergom historical baths Where should we focus in development?
Protection zones for existing and ancient utilizations Štúrovo (~40 °C) Esztergom (~28 °C) higher temperatures and/or historical heritage
5. Management IssuesŠtúrovo - Esztergom
Štúrovo, bath Esztergom, bath
Esztergom, historical Türkish bath
Tata5. Management Issues
Grondwater dependent ecosystemsRising water level – „good” for ecosystems, „bad” for man-made environment Yield: ~115 000 / 0 / ~30 000 m3/d before/during/after mining„Surplus” spring water: drainage and/or utilization Proposals by the help of regional modeling
e.g. design of additional abstraction points
Tata, Fényes springs; 2012. winter Tata, Fényes springs; 2012. winter
Tata springs in the downtown; possible water drainage and utilization
Maller et al., 2013.
6. Conclusion, recommendations- further proposals
Revision of the existing protection zones (Dunalmás-Patince) Delineation of the protection zones of the existing utilizations (Esztergom,
Štúrovo) Harmonized further developments in agreement of the countries: priority
of utilization (wellness, balneology, heating, waste heat utilization, cascadian type of utilizations, etc.)
Preserve the good state of the existing grondwater dependent ecosystems and help the rehabilitation processes (eg. delineate protection zones)
Transient modeling for the examination of the changing system