Folie 1

1
From scientific results to management policies
Teodóra Szocs Joerg Prestor, György Tóth,
Annamária Nádor, Andrej Lapanje and the
TRANSENERGY team
Final Event of project TRANSENERGY
Transboundary geothermal energy resources of
Slovenia, Austria, Hungary and Slovakia Vienna,
24th of June 2013
2
From scientific results
http//transenergy-eu.geologie.ac.at
Geological 3D models
Reservoir delineation
Hydrogeochemistry
Modelled depressions in the Pannonian aquifers
Temperature map of basement
3
Consequences of regional flow systems
TransEnergy Project
Main aquifers/ geothermal reservoirs Multilayered
porous intergranular sediments Lime stones,
dolomites.
SK
A
HU
SLOV
Pannonian Basin - hot sedimentary aquifer
utilization of geothermal energy thermal
groundwater / fluid abstraction
ICPDR, 2009
Governance of transboundary aquifers and
resources is needed !
4
Integrated resource management of hydrogeothermal
systems two main policy aspects

• Water policy (2000/60/EC)

• Energy policy (2009/28/EC)

• Groundwater within aquifer and groundwater body
• Environmental objectives
• Constant level / no intrusions
• protection of thermal water
• RBMPs A, HU, SK, SI
• 2009 2015 2021

• Geothermal energy stored beneath the surface
• Energy objectives
• Significant specific increments increased
  utilization of thermal water
• NREAPs A, HU, SK, SI
• 2010 2020 2030

Division of management of geothermal resources
between two sectors is still seen as an obstacle
to integration!
5
Strengths and weaknesses

• Water policy (2000/60/EC)

• Energy policy (2009/28/EC)

• Programmes of measures (RBMPs)
• Common Implementation Strategy Guidance
• Groundwater body delineation, Status assessment,
  Monitoring
• Just guidance!

• Programes of actions and Incentives
• Regulatory
• Financial

2009 2015 2021 2027 2010 2020
2030 2040
6
EU Danube Region Strategy (EUSDR)
4 pillars, 11 priority areas
Renewable energy ? Geothermal energy ?
Groundwater ? Long term
sustainable management is needed
Water quality ? Groundwater quality-
Coordination through
the ICPDR (WFD- DRBMP)
Common basis for closer cooperation and
governance at state levels Groundwater poorly,
while geothermal energy better represented in
EUSDR
7
Constraints for ranking in use of thermal water
WFD Priority of groundwater dependent ecosystems
Priority of drinking water utilization Overall
importance of public participation Priority of
existing utilizations National specific
priorities According to the existing acts and
laws Economic pressures (CH productions) Environm
ental pressures Pressures from environmentalist,
public, etc. Pressures of rising groundwater,
flood protection Pressures of local, regional
interest (development plans, lobbies) Neighbourin
g countrys specific priorities, other than the
home-countrys ones

1. drinking water and public health
2. medicinal purposes (balneology)
3. agriculture, livestock, and fish-farming
4. nature conservation
5. economic ? energy use
6. other

Vienna Basin
8
Ecosystems versus thermal water extractions
Esztergom, Šturovo wells and springs
Patince-spa, Csokonai-, Lilla spring ecosystems
under rehabilitation
SK
Amsterdam centre
Hun utca, egyedi panelház
HU
Tata spring group
Pilis-hills
Potential geothermal plant
Gerecse-hills
Hun utca, házsor
Vértes-hills
Main karstic recharge zones
N Bakony-mountains
9
Long term sustainable management of geothermal
resources

• Sustainability is reached when
• there is a favourable efficiency of resource
  exploitation,
• the real expenses are not carried over to the
  next generation.

What is local weakness (bad) and what is strength
(good)?
Very bad Bad Medium Good Very good

New potential tool for management Benchmarking
10
Benchmarking10 main indicators to support long
term sustainable transboundary thermal water
management
IBAT BAT BAT
IBAT Descriptive Points
0 Very good Wellhead, Mat. Installed, Abstr cont. follow water demand, Cascade
0 - 1 Good Wellhead, Mat. Installed, Abstr cont. follow water demand, Cascade
1 - 2 Medium Wellhead, Mat. Installed, Abstr cont. follow water demand, Cascade
2 - 3 Bad Wellhead, Mat. Installed, Abstr cont. follow water demand, Cascade
gt 3 Very bad Wellhead, Mat. Installed, Abstr cont. follow water demand, Cascade
IOE Overexploitation Overexploitation
IOE Descriptive Points
0 Very good Decrease Piezo. Level W. qual./T Gr.w. avail. Ecosys. Subs
1 Good Decrease Piezo. Level W. qual./T Gr.w. avail. Ecosys. Subs
2 Medium Decrease Piezo. Level W. qual./T Gr.w. avail. Ecosys. Subs
3 Bad Decrease Piezo. Level W. qual./T Gr.w. avail. Ecosys. Subs
gt 3 Very bad Decrease Piezo. Level W. qual./T Gr.w. avail. Ecosys. Subs
IMON Monitoring Monitoring
IMON Descriptive Points
gt 8 Very good Cont meas. Yearly report Reg. meas. Temp. sampl.
6 - 8 Good Cont meas. Yearly report Reg. meas. Temp. sampl.
4 - 6 Medium Cont meas. Yearly report Reg. meas. Temp. sampl.
2 - 4 Bad Cont meas. Yearly report Reg. meas. Temp. sampl.
lt 2 Very bad Cont meas. Yearly report Reg. meas. Temp. sampl.
TE Thermal efficiency Thermal efficiency
TE Descriptive Points
gt 70 Very good Used/available annual heat energy Reinj. 100
60 - 70 Good Used/available annual heat energy Reinj. 100
40 - 60 Medium Used/available annual heat energy Reinj. 100
30 - 40 Bad Used/available annual heat energy Reinj. 100
lt 30 Very bad Used/available annual heat energy Reinj. 100
Fu Utilization efficiency Utilization efficiency
Fu Descriptive Points
gt 30 Very good Capacity factor anual abstr/ installed capacity
25 - 30 Good Capacity factor anual abstr/ installed capacity
20 - 25 Medium Capacity factor anual abstr/ installed capacity
15 - 20 Bad Capacity factor anual abstr/ installed capacity
lt 15 Very bad Capacity factor anual abstr/ installed capacity
RIQ Reinjection (w. for heat) Reinjection (w. for heat)
RIQ Descriptive Points
gt 60 Very good Reinj. volume/ abstr. volume
40 - 60 Good Reinj. volume/ abstr. volume
20 - 40 Medium Reinj. volume/ abstr. volume
0 - 20 Bad Reinj. volume/ abstr. volume
0 Very bad Reinj. volume/ abstr. volume

I wba Water balance (Recharge) Water balance (Recharge)
I wba Descriptive Points
gt 95 Very good Critical level point, Cr. abstr. p., Renewable av. volume of water
75 - 95 Good Critical level point, Cr. abstr. p., Renewable av. volume of water
50 - 75 Medium Critical level point, Cr. abstr. p., Renewable av. volume of water
25 - 50 Bad Critical level point, Cr. abstr. p., Renewable av. volume of water
lt 25 Very bad Critical level point, Cr. abstr. p., Renewable av. volume of water
IQual_disc Discharged waste water Discharged waste water
IQual_disc Descriptive Points
gt 95 Very good Indicator of positive samples annual discharge v.
90 - 95 Good Indicator of positive samples annual discharge v.
80 - 90 Medium Indicator of positive samples annual discharge v.
70 - 80 Bad Indicator of positive samples annual discharge v.
lt 70 Very bad Indicator of positive samples annual discharge v.
Iinf Public awareness Public awareness
Iinf Descriptive Points
gt 8 Very good Monitoring BAT Quant. status Qual. status En. efficiency
6 - 8 Good Monitoring BAT Quant. status Qual. status En. efficiency
4 - 6 Medium Monitoring BAT Quant. status Qual. status En. efficiency
2 - 4 Bad Monitoring BAT Quant. status Qual. status En. efficiency
lt 2 Very bad Monitoring BAT Quant. status Qual. status En. efficiency
Balneological efficiency (10 m3/pers/day)
11
Very bad
Bad
Medium
Benchmarking
TTGWB Mura Zala in SI
?
TTGWB Mura Zala in HU
?
?
12
Summary of Benchmarking in the TTGWB Mura Zala

• Management efforts are not promoted adequately
  from user to user.
• The 3 most significant issues to be promoted
• yearly reports of monitoring results - submitted
  by user and approved by granting authority,
• critical level points of the abstracted wells -
  defined at least from other available data or
  locations,
• public should get free accessible information, at
  least of quality status of waste water.

13
Conclusions

1. Joint cross borders models (geological, heat
   flow, groundwater flow and transport, hydro- and
   isotope geochemistry) enable us to understand the
   responses of natural systems to thermal
   water/energy extractions.
2. Geological Surveys are the organizations of
   choice.
3. Priorities have to be defined.
4. Benchmarking criteria should be applied and
   ranked in order to achieve a better evaluation of
   the use of the geothermal resource. It
   facilitates the management of priorities.

14
Thank you for your attention!