Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T07:12:57.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Instruments and methods: hot-water borehole drilling at a high-elevation debris-covered glacier

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2019

Katie E. Miles*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Centre for Glaciology, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK
Evan S. Miles
Affiliation:
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
Bryn Hubbard
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Centre for Glaciology, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK
Duncan J. Quincey
Affiliation:
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Ann V. Rowan
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Mark Pallett
Affiliation:
Kärcher (U.K.) Ltd., Kärcher House, Banbury, Oxon, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Katie E. Miles, E-mail: kam64@aber.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While hot-water drilling is a well-established technique used to access the subsurface of ice masses, drilling into high-elevation (≳ 4000 m a.s.l.) debris-covered glaciers faces specific challenges. First, restricted transport capacity limits individual equipment items to a volume and mass that can be slung by small helicopters. Second, low atmospheric oxygen and pressure reduces the effectiveness of combustion, limiting a system's ability to pump and heat water. Third, thick supraglacial debris, which is both highly uneven and unstable, inhibits direct access to the ice surface, hinders the manoeuvring of equipment and limits secure sites for equipment placement. Fourth, englacial debris can slow the drilling rate such that continued drilling becomes impracticable and/or boreholes deviate substantially from vertical. Because of these challenges, field-based englacial and subglacial data required to calibrate numerical models of high-elevation debris-covered glaciers are scarce or absent. Here, we summarise our experiences of hot-water drilling over two field seasons (2017–2018) at the debris-covered Khumbu Glacier, Nepal, where we melted 27 boreholes up to 192 m length, at elevations between 4900 and 5200 m a.s.l. We describe the drilling equipment and operation, evaluate the effectiveness of our approach and suggest equipment and methodological adaptations for future use.

Information

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Estimated reduction in power output for a naturally-aspirated combustion engine (such as used to drive the pumps in this study) due to reduced oxygen and pressure at high elevations, assuming perfect carburetion (blue line). Honda recommends smaller fuel nozzles to maintain fuel–air mixtures in the appropriate range (Honda Power Equipment, 2018) (‘rejetting’; vertical dotted lines), but no recommendation is made for beyond 4500 m a.s.l. (dashed blue line): fuel–air mixtures will thus become too fuel-rich above this elevation, further affecting power. The figure also indicates the distribution of minimum glacier elevations across High Mountain Asia from the Randolph Glacier Inventory 6.0 (RGI Consortium, 2017) (brown vertical bars), and the expected reduction in power at the elevation of the terminus of Khumbu Glacier (yellow star).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Images of a typical drilling set-up and preparations before drilling. (a) Equipment set-up at Site 4 in 2018; components are shown in a schematic illustration of this image in (b) which includes examples of some additional equipment. Drilling preparations are shown in lower panels: (c) after manual removal of coarse surface debris, fine debris was cleared as part of final equipment testing (Site 5, 2018); (d) drill stems and drill hose hanging over the tripod and sheave wheel, fed directly from the drill spool, to begin drilling (Site 1, 2017); (e) drilling begun manually without using the tripod and sheave wheel due to uneven and unstable terrain (Site 5, 2018). Site locations are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Location of Khumbu Glacier, Nepal (a), and of our drill sites on the glacier (b). Borehole (BH) IDs and their lengths are shown by diamond markers (green = not instrumented; purple = instrumented; Table 1, Section 3.3) on an image of each drill site (c–h). Elevation in (a) is shown using the 2010 GMTED DEM (Danielson and Gesch, 2008) within glacierised areas using a tiled mask from the Randolph Glacier Inventory 6.0 (RGI Consortium, 2017). Background in (b) is a hillshade created from the HiMAT mosaic DEM (Shean, 2017). People are present in each image for scale: in (d) above BH11; in (e) above BH1 and in (g) to the left of BH12. Boreholes in this figure are numbered by year, with the year denoted in each subpanel header.

Figure 3

Table 1. Information regarding all boreholes drilled on Khumbu Glacier, Nepal, in 2017 and 2018 as part of the EverDrill project

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Images of drill equipment wear from contact with englacial debris. (a) Drill stems showing abrasion; (b) drill nozzles (unused on the left and used on the right). Note the chrome plating has worn completely from the used reducing bush on the right.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Drilling rates by length for boreholes at Sites 3 (BH17-13), 4 (BH18-04) and 5 (BH18-12, BH18-13 and BH18-14) which were over 20 m in length and where drilling rates were recorded.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Inclination from vertical of boreholes that were logged by an optical televiewer (OPTV). The maximum length of these logs (150 m) was limited by the OPTV cable length.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Images of boreholes drilled on Khumbu Glacier at Site 5 in 2018. (a) BH18-08 and BH18-09 (abandoned at 1 m), showing cleared debris around boreholes; (b) test borehole 1, abandoned at < 0.5 m due to debris; (c) test borehole 2, abandoned at < 1 m due to sediment and debris inclusions; (d) BH18-12 (abandoned at 38 m), which partly drained at ~7 m below the surface (water-level lowered by ~1.5 m). All boreholes were a similar diameter (~0.1 m).

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Surface topographical change at Sites 1 and 2 between 2017 and 2018. (a) Site 1 orthoimage based on a terrestrial Structure-from-Motion survey on 8 May 2017. Surface elevation changes are shown for Site 1 on 26 May 2017 (b) and 14 May 2018 (c), relative to 8 May 2017, based on co-registered terrain models derived from repeats of the survey. (d) Site 2 orthoimage based on a terrestrial Structure-from-Motion survey on 17 May 2017. Surface elevation changes are shown for Site 2 on 5 May 2018 (e) relative to 17 May 2017, based on co-registered terrain models derived from a repeat survey. (f) The resulting orthoimage from 5 May 2018.

Miles et al. supplementary material

Miles et al. supplementary material 1

Download Miles et al. supplementary material(Video)
Video 4.6 MB

Miles et al. supplementary material

Miles et al. supplementary material 2

Download Miles et al. supplementary material(Video)
Video 5.3 MB