Logo here?Kraf a fumarole. ©Yan Lavallee, University of Liverpool.

Crossing the Scientific and

Technological Frontier

from Solid Rock to Magma

KRAFLA MAGMA TEST BED (KMT)

One of the great challenges in understanding Earth’s crustal processes is the interface between the aqueous fluid-bearing or hydrothermal regime and the silicate melt-bearing or magmatic regime. The migrations of magma and fluid are the agents of mass and heat transfer within the crust and to the surface. Humans experience this as volcanic eruptions, geothermal energy, and ore deposits.

The rate of heat loss from magma through a

surrounding hydrothermal system controls the

lifetime of the magma body and the energy available

for extraction from the hydrothermal system. We

can imagine a magma body as a thermos flask

where the wall is the crystallized magma itself. This

insulating wall is the critical interface of transition

from magmatic to hydrothermal systems, but at very

high temperatures its rock wall can deform so any

fractures will quickly heal. Without melt or fluid to

flow, heat transfer would be by conduction, which is

mostly dependent on thickness of the wall. The high

temperature face of this zone is hypothesized to be

crystallizing magma and the low temperature face is

thought to contain growing fluid-filled cracks. The

answer to how magma and hydrothermal systems are

coupled lies in this zone.

Geothermal drilling in the Krafla Caldera, Iceland,

serendipitously hit rhyolite magma at a depth of only

Introduction

2

2100 m. This was a major breakthrough and provides

unprecedented opportunities allowing us to:

• closely observe, sample, and manipulate the

transition zone in order to rigorously test

concepts of volcanic systems

• develop improved or new monitoring

techniques for volcanology

• push drilling and sensor technology to the

crust’s high-temperature maximum

• explore the roots of geothermal systems and

the potential for direct energy extraction from

magma — the ultimate geothermal resource.

What is proposed is more than a drilling project. It

is a cluster of coordinated, multidisciplinary efforts

encompassing:

• borehole and sample observations coupled with

large-scale experimental studies

• linked surface geophysical and geochemical

observations

• advanced geothermal energy technology

• sensor development for extreme environments

• advanced volcanic eruption forecasting.

It combines the serendipity of the Krafla discovery

with the growing pressure–temperature overlap of

drilling, volcanology, and laboratory experimentation.

This is the Krafla Magma Testbed (KMT).

The concept of crossing a frontier is apt, because

exploration of the interior of our planet has received

less attention than exploration of outer space or

the atom. With our burgeoning population, we need

to pay more attention to the frontiers beneath us.

This attention requires multinational and multi-

stakeholder partnerships such as the Ocean Drilling

Program and now the International Continental

Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP), of which KMT is a

part. The frontier between solid and molten Earth is

one through which all of the Earth’s crust has passed,

but our observations have not.

3

4

Globally, governments spend large sums on volcano

monitoring because with proper monitoring, the risk of

disaster can be reduced. Volcanoes give early warning

of eruption by:

• increases in small earthquakes

• inflation of the volcano on a scale of centimeters

(or meters in extreme cases)

• changes in the amounts and chemistry of

escaping gases.

Such signs are readily detected by instrument networks

at the surface and are termed unrest.

The World Organization of Volcano Observatories

(WOVO) has 79 members from 33 countries. National

expenditures for observatories range from tens of

millions Euros per year for prosperous countries

with high vulnerabilities to modest operations that

are part of weather stations in other cases. Average

fatalities per year are under one thousand, modest by

comparison with floods and earthquakes, but volcanic

catastrophes with hundreds of thousands killed

and economic losses in the hundreds of billions are

possible. Eruptions on this huge scale are geologically

common but have not occurred in modern times.

Today, most volcanoes that threaten significant

populations or air routes are monitored with arrays

of telemetered instruments to detect and measure

unrest. However, the signals measured are only

proxies for what the magma beneath the volcano is

doing. This has never been directly observed, so we

are in a worrying situation where decisions of great

consequence are based on models that are untested.

Volcano monitoring

5

By drilling through the rock–magma interface and into

magma, we can:

• establish where and under what conditions magma

is stored beneath a volcano

• stimulate its boundary region by fluid injection to

see whether the result is indeed the inferred unrest

• and ultimately place sensors near and even in

magma to provide direct measurement of a rise in

temperature or increase in pressure that could lead

to eruption.

The latter development could be a complete game-

changer in monitoring strategy, providing greater

assurance of timely and accurate warning, and perhaps

shifting to more efficient, less labour-intensive

monitoring strategies.

A simple and certain result will be the ground-truthing of

geophysical techniques such as seismic, electromagnetic,

gravity, and geodetic measurements that are used to infer

the presence of magma and transient changes in magma

pressure. The threat of eruption is deemed to be higher

if the magma is closer to the surface the — a shorter

warning time for its arrival at the surface. The fact that

magma under Krafla was discovered at half the predicted

depth is therefore reason enough to seriously re-evaluate

existing volcano monitoring methods. The KMT will

develop a World Volcano Model, a world standard for

hazard assessment, monitoring, and data interpretation,

comparable to that being developed for earthquakes.

Geothermal potential

6

In many ways, geothermal energy is an ideal energy source for the future

because it is:

• renewable (unlike fossil fuels)

• low to net zero in CO2 emission

• continuous — independent of diurnal and seasonal cycles

(unlike solar, wind, and hydroelectric)

• small in footprint and ecological impact because the production facility is

sited on the fuel source

• free from the accident and spill hazards of transporting fossil fuels and

nuclear waste, and from the major ecological impact of hydropower

reservoirs.

Despite its many advantages, geothermal energy currently makes up only

about 0.1% of global power production. Geothermal power plants are

relatively inefficient in converting heat to electricity compared to fossil

fuel and nuclear plants, because they use lower temperature natural steam.

They lack economies of scale because conventional practice yields only tens

or hundreds of MWe production per geothermal field. Also, the resource is

restricted geographically and not transportable, except by transmission of

the electric power produced. KMT will test the feasibility of extracting heat

directly from magma rather than indirectly from rocks heated by magma.

This will increase the heat energy extractable from a geothermal field by an

order of magnitude and the efficiency of conversion to electricity by a factor

of two or three. Meanwhile, instead of transporting fuel to conveniently

located power plants, the electricity can be transmitted to users by low-

loss, high-voltage DC cables, including submarine cables. The demand for

development and production of high-voltage DC transmission systems is

currently driven by ocean wind-power farms, but high-grade geothermal

fields can quickly benefit as well.

As the drive to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emission increases, the

development of geothermal energy must also increase. The use of

supercritical steam heated directly by magma will dramatically change the

economics of geothermal energy. Volcanic ranges and islands could become

national and international power factories. In addition, the reduction of

eruption risk is a possible collateral benefit.

7

Now is the time to seize upon the convergence of

multiple fields of science and engineering with a

magma testbed. Geothermal drilling and flow testing,

which by nature perturb the system and measure

the response, have reached the magmatic hearth.

Real-time volcano monitoring techniques have been

revolutionized through conversion from analog

to digital systems and the advent of geographical

positioning systems (GPS) and interferometric synthetic

aperture radar (ISAR) technology. This has in turn led to

a blossoming of models for magma that must be tested

to be reliably used. Large-scale laboratory experiments

with rock under magmatic conditions and sophisticated

finite-element fluid-dynamic models can now inform

us of both natural and drilling induced perturbations

to the magmatic system. In turn, new observations

through drilling can inform new laboratory experiments.

Sensors that are being developed to monitor conditions

within jet and rocket engines, which have the same

temperature regime as magma, can be applied to direct

monitoring.

The result of the KMT will be that for the first time we

will have:

• a real understanding of time-dependent behavior

of magmatic systems in response to pressure and

temperature changes and fluid injection

• magma engineering that could be used to greatly

increase the extraction of geothermal energy

• the possibility of reducing the volume of shallow

eruptible magma in the system, thereby reducing

eruption risk.

8

Magma manipulation

We will be working at the limits of technology in

drilling, materials, and sensor systems in a dynamic

environment. It extends from crystallizing magmas

at 900°C, 50 MPa, and 2100 m depth transitioning

upward within 30 m abruptly to solid rock at 350°C

and then through a producing geothermal system to

ambient atmospheric temperature and pressure at the

surface. As well as providing an extreme environment

for unprecedented research and for developing the

commercial geothermal opportunity of supercritical

steam, Krafla will drive innovation from Technology

Readiness Level 1 (TRL1), basic scientific principles, to

TRL 10, qualified tested and operational technology.

9

Technology transfer from the Kafla Magma testbed

Next stepsWe are actively engaged in raising 20 m Euros from

public- and private-sector sources in multiple countries to

launch the first drilling and engineering phase of the KMT.

Related scientific investigations have already begun in Italy,

Germany, New Zealand, United States and Iceland.

TRL 1–4 Develop the basic theories of magma crystallization, heat migration and circulation of fluids at a magma–rock interface through direct in situ observations.

Development of functions to test in situ technology including laboratory simulation and validation of indirect and direct measurement and geophysical models.

Outcomes New theories on magma crystallization and heat flux

New models for the magma– fluid– rock interface

Feasibility of reducing volume of eruptible magma through energy extraction

TRL 3–6 Installation of sensor networks and validation in different geo-environments

Joining the best practice in the geothermal and volcanological environment

Outcomes New sensor systems for hot, acid and dynamic geological environments

Real-time calibrations for operational geophysics including intentional stimulation and detection of volcanic unrest

Transfer of application from materials technology

TRL 6–10 Demonstration of the use of supercritical steam in an active magma chamber environment

Demonstration of use of sensor systems in an active magma environment for enhanced real-time volcano monitoring

Outcomes Commercialization of supercritical steam geothermal systems

Sensor systems to model and help to predict volcanic eruptions

10

About the authorsDonald Bruce Dingwell is President of the International Association of Volcanology

and Chemistry of Earth’s Interior and 3rd Secretary General of the European Research

Council. He is Director and Professor, Earth and Environment, Ludwig Maximilian

University of Munich and was President of the European Geosciences Union. A

foremost expert on laboratory measurement of magmatic properties, he is largely

responsible for development of the field of experimental volcanology.

John C Eichelberger is Principal Investigator for KMT, Professor of Geology at

University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Vice President Academic of University of the

Arctic. He was Volcano Hazards Program Coordinator for the US Geological Survey.

He has served as PI on four scientific drilling projects on volcanoes, and investigator

on two others including the successful coring of a 1200oC lava lake in Hawaii. He

received the European Geosciences Union’s award for work in natural hazards science

in 2015.

John N Ludden, CBE, is Executive Director of the British Geological Survey and Chair,

Earth Science Europe. He has held numerous science direction and management

posts, including Director of the Earth Sciences Division at the French National Centre

for Scientific Research (CNRS) and President of the European Geosciences Union

(EGU).

Charles Mandeville is Program Coordinator for the US Geological Survey’s Volcano

Hazards Program. He manages the five volcano observatories of the US and guides

the underlying scientific research and is also a Member of the Steering Committee for

the Global Volcano Model. He is well known for his work on magmatic volatiles.

Sigurður H Markusson is Geochemist and Project Manager of Landsvirkjun National

Power Company’s Krafla Geothermal Project. Landsvirkjun, as operator of the Krafla

geothermal field and power plant, is the key industrial partner of KMT and has drilled

through the rock melting point in three separate boreholes.

Paolo Papale is former Director of Volcanology for Italy’s Istituto Nazionale Geofisica

e Vulcanologia (INGV). He currently leads the Volcano Hazard Centre at INGV where

he is responsible for volcano hazard studies and assessment on some of the most

active, populated, and dangerous volcanoes in the world.

Freysteinn Sigmundsson is Professor of Geophysics at Nordic Volcanological Centre,

Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland. He leads and has led a number of

major volcanological project consortia in Europe and is widely recognized for his

work on volcano deformation and plate tectonics.

11

ContactHjalti Páll Ingólfsson: hpi@georg.cluster.is

John Eichelberger: jceichelberger@alaska.edu