Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-xh428 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-24T00:12:37.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Overview of potential geothermal reservoirs in Denmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

Rikke Weibel*
Affiliation:
GEUS, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Mette Olivarius
Affiliation:
GEUS, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Henrik Vosgerau
Affiliation:
GEUS, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Anders Mathiesen
Affiliation:
GEUS, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Lars Kristensen
Affiliation:
GEUS, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Carsten M. Nielsen
Affiliation:
GEUS, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Lars H. Nielsen
Affiliation:
GEUS, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
*
Author for correspondence: Rikke Weibel, Email: rwh@geus.dk

Abstract

The Danish onshore subsurface contains very large geothermal resources that have the potential to make a significant contribution to transforming Danish energy consumption toward a more sustainable energy mix. Presently, only a minor fraction of this green energy is exploited in three small plants. The main factors that have hampered and delayed larger-scale deployment are related to uncertainties in the geological models, which inevitably lead to high economic risks that are difficult for smaller district heating companies to mitigate without support from a compensation scheme. To facilitate and stimulate much wider use of the Danish geothermal resources, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) and other research institutes have conducted several regional research projects focusing on the geological and geochemical obstacles with the principal objective of reducing the exploration risks by selecting the best geological reservoirs.

One of the most important geological factors causing uncertainty is the quality of the reservoirs and their ability to produce the expected volume of warm geothermal brine. Thus, great emphasis has been placed on investigating and understanding the relationships between reservoir sandstone, porosity, permeability, petrography, diagenetic processes and alterations related to variable sediment sources, basin entry points, depositional systems and climate, burial and thermal history. Mesozoic sandstones comprise the most important geothermal reservoirs in Denmark. Details concerning the reservoir quality are compiled and compared for the Lower Triassic Bunter Sandstone, Triassic Skagerrak, Upper Triassic – Lower Jurassic Gassum and Middle Jurassic Haldager Sand formations. The Bunter Sandstone Formation contains extensive aeolian and more confined fluvial sandstones with high porosity and permeability. However, highly saline formation water could be unfavourable. The Skagerrak Formation comprises well-sorted braided stream sandstones in the centre of the basin, and is otherwise characterised by muddy sandstones and alluvial fan conglomerates. An immature mineralogical composition has caused intensive diagenetic changes in the deepest buried parts of the basin. The Gassum Formation consists of shoreface, fluvial and estuarine sandstones interbedded with marine and lacustrine mudstones. In the upper part of the formation, the sandstone beds pinch out into mudstones towards the basin centre. Pervasive siderite- and calcite cement occurs locally in shallowly buried sandstones, and with burial depth the maximum abundances of quartz and ankerite cement increase. Sandstones of shallow burial represent excellent reservoirs. The relatively coarse grain size of the Haldager Sand Formation results in high porosity and permeability even at deep burial, so the formation comprises a high-quality geothermal reservoir.

Substantial progress has been made, and a well-established regional geological model combined with reservoir quality is now available for areas with cored wells. This has enabled an improved estimation of reservoir quality between wells for exploration of geothermal reservoirs.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map showing the principal structural elements of the eastern parts of the Norwegian–Danish Basin and the northern part of the North German Basin.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic scheme illustrating a schematic S–N cross-section of the Triassic–Jurassic succession of the eastern part of the Norwegian–Danish Basin, the Ringkøbing–Fyn High and the northernmost rim of the North German Basin. The four lithostratigraphic units with geothermal potential described here are highlighted with colours. Modified after Bertelsen (1980), Michelsen and Clausen (2002), Michelsen et al. (2003) and Nielsen (2003).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Three pie diagrams showing the distribution of detrital components and cementing phases of the Bunter Sandstone and Skagerrak formations (A), Gassum (B) and Haldager Sand formations (C). The underlying maps show the thickness variation of each formation, though with the Bunter Sandstone and the assumed time-equivalent part of the Skagerrak formations combined.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Different types of quartz overgrowth characteristic of the different formations as secondary electron imaging by scanning electron microscope. (A) Limited quartz overgrowth (Qo) due to abundant red coatings, Bunter Sandstone Formation, Tønder-4, 1663.27 m. (B) Quartz outgrowth (Qo) due to thick illitic coatings (I), Skagerrak Formation, Thisted-2, 2919.33 m. (C) Large quartz overgrowth (Qo) (macroquartz), Gassum Formation, Farsø-1, 2871.64 m. (D) Limited quartz overgrowths (Qo) as quartz mountains (terminology of Weibel et al., 2010), Vedsted-1, Haldager Sand Formation, 1155.47 m.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Porosity–permeability variation of the Bunter Sandstone, Skagerrak, Gassum and Haldager Sand formations. Note the subdivision according to grain size for most formations with the exception of the Haldager Sand Formation. Data has previously been presented for the Bunter Sandstone Formation (Olivarius et al., 2015), Skagerrak Formation (Weibel et al., 2017b) and for the Gassum Formation (Weibel et al., 2017a,b), and more information about the cementing phases and their influence on porosity and permeability is available from these references. Data for the Halder Sand Formation only is presented here.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Porosity and permeability variation for the Bunter Sandstone, Skagerrak, Gassum and Haldager Sand formations with estimated maximum burial depth, which is present-day burial depth corrected for Neogene exhumation (Japsen & Bidstrup, 1999; Japsen et al., 2007). The mechanical compaction curves from Gluyas & Cade (1997) and Ramm et al. (1997) are shown for comparison on the porosity plots. An arbitrary threshold of 10 mD is shown on the permeability plots for easy comparison. Origin of data similar to Figure 5.