i An update to this article is included at the end

Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Conceptual modeling and characterization of Puga geothermal reservoir, T

Ladakh, India
⁎
Shibani K. Jhaa, , Harish Puppalab
a
Department of Civil Engineering
b
Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani 333 031, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Evaluation of a potential geothermal reservoir depends on the conceptual model which governs fluid flow and
Geothermal energy heat transfer in the reservoir. Knowing the spatial variation of reservoir parameters is essential to develop a
Thermal manifestation zone conceivable and explicable conceptual model. Lack of deep reservoir characteristics impaired the development
Thermo-hydro-geological parameters of conceptual model for Puga geothermal field, India. This study proposes a methodology to develop a con-
Puga geothermal well
ceptual model of Puga geothermal field. The proposed methodology utilizes the resistivity model developed by
Equilibrium temperature.
National Geophysical Research Institute as preliminary data. The conceptual model developed in this study,
maps the spatial variation of thermo-hydro-geological properties of Puga reservoir. The mapped properties of the
reservoir are porosity, thermal conductivity, specific heat, radioactive heat capacity, density and permeability of
reservoir. Furthermore, lateral extent of the possible heat source and spatial variation of steady state tem-
perature of the reservoir are also estimated. The estimated reservoir temperature from the conceptual model of
Puga geothermal field is in agreement with temperature interpretations of Na/K and Na-K-Ca geothermometer
studies. The resulting conceptual model will further aid in the operational phase of reservoir development like
volumetric assessment of reservoir potential and reservoir potential estimation under various extraction con-
figuration.

1. Introduction prepared by incorporating the variation of permeability, temperature,

Energy extracted from Earth’s heat is known as geothermal energy.
Typically, the entrapped heat in Earth’s strata, is extracted by injecting
water as working fluid that transports the entrapped heat of the re-
servoir. Although, geothermal energy is disseminated all over the
earth's crust, its magnitude varies with location. Since the installation of
geothermal plant involves huge capital investment, it is necessary to
predict reservoir potential in advance before installing geothermal
plant. This helps to reduce the possible uncertainties associated with
energy extraction. The preliminary step in assessing the potential of a
geothermal reservoir is to develop a conceptual model from geological
and geophysical data. Aspects of heat source, recharge zones and initial
temperature distribution within the reservoir are typically unified in
developing a conceptual model. Furthermore, knowing the variation of
reservoir properties along the length and depth of reservoir from a
comprehensive conceptual model will be used in simulating the dy-
namic processes of reservoir exploitation.
From literature, a wide range of conceptual models are identified.
The conceptual models of geothermal fields in Iceland have been
pressure distribution and the fluid composition (Arnórsson, 1995). Las
Tres Virgenes geothermal field in Mexico is conceptualized using
structural, hydro chemical, geological and isotopic data of the region
(Portugal et al., 2000). Considering the geophysical investigation re-
sults, together with information of the geology, conceptual model of
Chingshui geothermal reservoir has been prepared (Zhang et al., 2016).
Furthermore, the geophysical data obtained from the bore wells with
depth ranging between 500 and 3000 m is also used in the preparation
of Chingshui conceptual model.
Ohaaki geothermal system in New Zealand has been conceptualized,
using borehole data for depth range of 2200–3000 m. Reservoir char-
acteristics such as temperature, pressure and permeability distributions
have also been included (Mroczek et al., 2016). Geological, geophysical
and fluid properties of the Ngatamariki geothermal field are used in
preparing the conceptual model of the reservoir (Chambefort et al.,
2016). A conceptual model of Los Humeros which determines geolo-
gical properties till the depth of 2750 m approximately and variation of
temperature have been prepared using the data obtained by physical
exploration through 42 bore wells of which few bore wells were

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shibani@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in (S.K. Jha), harishpuppala.ce@gmail.com (H. Puppala).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.12.004
Received 25 July 2017; Received in revised form 13 November 2017; Accepted 8 December 2017
Available online 26 December 2017
0375-6505/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala
Nomenclature
REb Equivalent resistivity of each band in the scale
RL Lower limit of the resistivity
RU Upper limit of the resistivity
Rij Resistivity values of each of the pixels within the shifting
window
N Total number of pixels within the shifting window
Ep Effective parameter of the block
pi Geological property of rock
wi Weightage allotted to each of rock type
explored till the depth of 2500 m (Arellano et al., 2003).
In India, hot spring committee1 was commenced to explore the fea-
sibility of utilizing the existing hot springs for small scale power gen-
eration and other domestic applications (Jawaharlal, 2002;
Ravishanker, 1991). After extensive studies, a report submitted by hot
spring committee provided the framework for geothermal investigation
in India. Systematic efforts have been made to explore geothermal re-
sources during the year 1973, by launching Puga geothermal project in
Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir. This remarkable project is followed by
the identification of few other geothermal provinces also (Jawaharlal,
2002). From the field investigations conducted by Geological Survey of
India (GSI) and National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), several
areas in India have been marked as economic geothermal provinces
(Craig et al., 2013; SubbaRao and Viswanadhan, 2003). Geophysical,
thermal logging, drilling and magnetotelluric investigations have been
carried out at few of these identified provinces. The identified geo-
thermal fields are explored through borewells, however explorations
were limited to shallow depths due to lack of machinery and expertise
(Jawaharlal, 2002; MNRE, 2016).
Tentative geothermal potential of India is estimated as 10,600 MW
(Craig et al., 2013). The power potential of Puga geothermal system is
estimated for shallow homogenous reservoir with an assumption of
constant porosity and density (Gupta et al., 1979). Moreover, porosity
assumed for assessing the reservoir potential is derived using empirical
relation which is dependent on resistivity of surface hot water and re-
presentative resistivity of reservoir (Gupta et al., 1979). With these
assumptions the potential of reservoir is estimated as 36.5 MW (Gupta
et al., 1979). This assessment may not be pertinent as the assumption of
homogenous reservoir may not be realistic as it may underestimates or
overestimate the reservoir potential. Therefore, conceptualizing geo-
thermal field as block heterogeneity, which captures the spatial varia-
tion of reservoir properties, should be emphasized in future studies.
More recently, a conceptual model of Puga geothermal reservoir
extending in N-S direction with dimensions of 7300 × 1500 m has been
developed for simulation works to study reservoir response in terms of
temperature and pressure variation due to exploitation (Absar et al.,
1996). Alluvium in the top layer, underlain by breccia, granite and the
gneiss over the entire reservoir at discrete locations are the elements of
block heterogeneity. Temperature and pressure distributions of the re-
servoir have been evaluated at few vertical cross sections. From the
results presented by Absar et al. (1996), it is observed that the tem-
perature increases with depth till 500 m, where a maximum tempera-
ture of 150 °C is observed. However, a temperature reversal to 100 °C is
noticed at a depth of 1500 m. From the conceptual model addressed by
Absar et al. (1996), it is stated that the reservoir till 1500 m may not be
sufficient to entrap heat energy that may produce electricity on an in-
dustrial scale.
Following the conceptual model of Absar et al. (1996) and Gupta
et al. (1979), another conceptual model of Puga geothermal field is
1
A committee formed by Indian government to carry out the field investigations in
exploring geothermal potential.
327
Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337
αi Inverse of absolute distance between mean resistance va-
lues of each type of rock
k Intrinsic permeability of the reservoir
μ Dynamic viscosity of the working fluid
g Gravity vector
P Hydraulic pressure
ρf Density of fluid
ρs Density of rock
cf Specific heat of fluid
cs Specific heat of rock
developed by Jha and Puppala, (2016). The developed model trends in
east-west direction for a length of 3270 m and up to a depth of 3200 m
with an injection and an extraction well. Cold water is injected through
the injection well. This injected water drives the entrapped heat within
the reservoir rock and transports the heat with flowing water. This heat
is further extracted through the production wells. This typical combi-
nation of injection and extraction well is referred as geothermal
doublet. The reservoir production potential is sensitive to this doublet
configuration. The study by Jha and Puppala, (2016) considers log-
normal distribution of thermo-hydro-geological properties, which fol-
lows regional geology. However, constant thermal gradient is assumed
for initial condition of reservoir for simulating the dynamic behavior of
reservoir under doublet configuration. The probable extraction tem-
perature has been obtained, however it is associated with significant
uncertainty due to the underlain assumptions for spatial variation of
properties. To overcome the limitation of constant thermal gradient for
entire valley, Kriging interpolation technique had been adopted by Jha
and Puppala, (2017) to develop spatially varying thermal gradient of
the shallow reservoir. This study couldn't establish the varying thermal
gradient for deep geothermal reservoir. However, these studies estab-
lish the fact that assumption of constant thermal gradient is not a
realistic assumption for both shallow and deep geothermal reservoir.
The limitations of the past research works (Absar et al., 1996; Gupta
et al., 1979; Jha and Puppala, 2016) as discussed in the aforementioned
sections, are kept in view to propose a new conceptual model of Puga
geothermal reservoir in this study. The proposed conceptual model
follows a methodology that maps the spatial variation of thermo-hydro-
geological properties by conceptualizing the reservoir as block hetero-
geneity. The thermo-hydro-geological properties of reservoir includes
porosity, thermal conductivity, specific heat, radioactive heat capacity,
density and permeability. The resistivity model by National Geophy-
sical Research Institute (Azeez and Harinarayana, 2007) is adopted as
base data to estimate and map thermo-hydro-geological properties. In
absence of original resistivity model, this paper considers the published
imagery by Azeez and Harinarayana, (2007) and performs image pro-
cessing by Arc GIS/Arc map software® to extract the electrical resistivity
data. This base data of electrical resistivity model is followed to esti-
mate effective values of thermo-hydro-geological properties of each
block of conceptual model of reservoir. In addition, spatially varying
steady state temperature along a vertical section trending in east-west
direction is also mapped. The spatial variation of temperature further
delineates the lateral extent of heat source. Thus, conceptual model of
block heterogeneity in terms of spatial variation of thermo-hydro-geo-
logical properties and temperature is established in this study. The re-
sulting conceptual model will also aid in the operational phase of re-
servoir development and in estimating the amount of energy that can be
extracted from the geothermal reservoir throughout the operation
phase in future studies.
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337

2. Geographical location and geo-scientific studies at Puga

geothermal region

Puga valley, is located in the Ladakh district of Jammu and Kashmir,

India as shown in Fig. 1. It is 700 km far from Srinagar city and 190 km
from Leh Town. This valley is at an altitude of 4400 m and is 15 km long
and around 1 km wide trending in east–west. It is encompassed with
Sumdo town and Polokongka La in east and west directions respec-
tively. The regional geology of Puga geothermal region is well known
from literature (Azeez and Harinarayana, 2007; Ravishanker, 1991).
Geothermal activity in this region is evident in form of various surface
manifestations such as hot springs, mud pools, sulphur and borax de-
posits (Azeez and Harinarayana, 2007).
Numerous efforts have been made by Indian government to in-
vestigate the potential of Puga geothermal field. Wide range of geo-
scientific studies have been carried out in this geothermal region
(Harinarayana et al., 2006, 2004). However, exploratory works in this
geothermal field are limited to shallow depths of reservoir which im-
paired the knowledge of deep subsurface lithology. In 1970’s, surface
heat flow studies and temperature measurements have been carried out
at few discrete locations through bore wells as shown in Fig. 1 (Gupta
et al., 1974).
Fig. 2. Temperature vs depth at gauged wells (Jawaharlal, 2002).
2.1. Geophysical exploration

surveys are conducted in Puga region (Arora et al., 1983; SubbaRao and
In Puga geothermal region, 34 boreholes have been drilled, with just
Viswanadhan, 2003). These geophysical studies reveal the presence of
7 being logged for temperature (Gupta et al., 1974; Ravishanker, 1991).
thermal features at shallow depths (less than 500 m). This is also evi-
The variation of temperature with depth at these logged borewells are
dent from delineated low resistivity zone. However, the substructure of
shown in Fig. 2. The temperature logs are limited in shallow reservoir
Puga geothermal region beyond the depth of 500 m is not mapped
(≪400 m). This limited information impairs the mapping of subsurface
(Harinarayana et al., 2006). Knowing the thermo-hydro-geological
temperature for deep geothermal reservoir.
properties is imperative for further investigation of reservoir potential,
Magnetic, gravity, refraction, seismic refraction and resistivity

Fig. 1. Geographical Location and extent of Puga geothermal reservoir.

328
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala
especially under the dynamic behavior of reservoir due to exploitation.
Unfortunately, the spatial variations of thermo-hydro-geological prop-
erties are neither addressed for shallow nor for deep geothermal re-
servoir in any studies so far.
2.2. Magnetotelluric studies at Puga geothermal field
To study the crustal electric structure of the Puga geothermal field,
wide band (1000 Hz–0.001 Hz) MT studies have been conducted (Azeez
and Harinarayana, 2007; Harinarayana et al., 2006). These studies in-
clude 35 magnetotelluric stations that are spatially located with inter-
vals ranging from 0.4 km to 1.0 km in the valley as shown in Fig. 3.
From the resistivity model developed by NGRI using MT data, it is
observed that the resistivity of region lying in west of valley is high
compared to the east of valley. This low resistivity zone is delineated as
the thermal manifestation zone, which is highlighted as hatched region
in Fig. 3.
From the resistivity model, it is observed that Kiagor Tso Fault
(KTF) in Fig. 3 trending in NNE-SSW direction, which is located ap-
proximately in west of thermal manifestation zone, delimits the thermal
anomalous area. This regional fault is considered as a major structural
feature that connects the surface and the deep anomalous region. An-
other prominent feature is demarcated as low resistivity region lying
between 2 km and 6 km as noticed from Fig. 3 in red color. This pro-
minent region is interpreted as heat source (Azeez and Harinarayana,
2007). Proximal cause for this heat sources can be interpreted with the
presence of fluid zone associated with partial melting of deep crustal
rocks or hot fluids resting over magma emplacement into the upper
crust. Considering the structural features, existing spatial distribution of
borewells and economical aspects, the region in east of KTF till the
depth of 6 km is considered as boundary for geothermal reservoir in
present study and spatial variations of thermo-hydro-geological prop-
erties of reservoir are estimated for the region which is on the eastern
side of KTF and include the identified thermal manifestation zone.
329
Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337
3. Reservoir properties influencing fluid flow and heat transport
Heat transport in a geothermal reservoir predominantly takes place
through conduction and convection, which is accelerated by injecting
cold water at high pressure as a driving force. Spatially varying thermo-
hydro-geological properties of reservoir effects the process of fluid flow
and heat transport. Therefore, coupled heat transport and fluid flow is
analyzed to study the reservoir potential under injection and extraction
configuration. The influencing parameters of these coupled processes
and the interrelation between them is understood by governing math-
ematical models. The fundamental governing equations of heat trans-
port and fluid flow in a porous geothermal reservoir are given by a
series of equations as listed below.
The governing heat transport equations responsible for transport of
heat in a porous reservoir is given by Eq. (1)
∂ (ρcT )
+ ∇. (ρ f c f qT ) − ∇. (λ∇T ) = 0
∂t (1)
Where, thermal conductivity (λ) and volumetric heat capacity (ρc) of
porous medium is represented in terms of local average volume.
λ = (1 − ϕ) λs + ϕλ f
ρc = (1 − ϕ) ρs cs + ϕρf cf (2)
Where ϕ is the porosity of reservoir; λs, λf are thermal conductivity of
solid and fluid; cs, cf are specific heat capacity of solid and fluid re-
spectively; ρf, ρsare the densities of fluid and solid.
The governing equation responsible for fluid flow in a porous geo-
thermal reservoir is represented by Eq. (3).
∂ρf
ϕ + ∇ ·(ρf q) = 0
∂t (3)
where, q is the Darcy velocity corresponding to a single-phase flow as
given by Eq. (4)
Fig. 3. Resistivity model of Puga reservoir along
Profile B (Azeez and Harinarayana, 2007).
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala
k 4.1.1. Step-1
q = − (∇P − ρf g∇z )
μ (4)
Where,
k is intrinsic permeability of the reservoir
μ is the dynamic viscosity of the working fluid
g is the gravity vector
P is the hydraulic pressure
These governing equations (Eqs. (1)–(4)) depict the fact that re-
servoir properties like porosity, thermal conductivity, specific heat,
density, permeability and porosity of rocks influence heat transport and
fluid flow processes in porous reservoir. However, the characterizations
of reservoir properties are not available for Puga geothermal field.
Limited number of shallow borehole explorations limit the detail in-
formation of the reservoir. The electrical resistivity model obtained
from MT studies conducted in recent past, is the only data available till
6 km of depth. Therefore, taking electrical resistivity model as the re-
ference data base, a methodology has been proposed in this study to
map the reservoir parameters. The methodological aspects and the
underlain assumptions are discussed in the subsequent sections.
4. Methodology
Resistivity model developed by Azeez and Harinarayana, (2007) is
used as a preliminary data to map the spatial variation of thermo-
hydro-geological properties of thermal manifestation zone of Puga re-
servoir. This includes spatial variation of porosity, thermal con-
ductivity, specific heat, density and permeability. The basic steps fol-
lowed in estimation of these parameters from proposed methodology
are as follows.
(i) Image analysis and classification of resistivity model
(ii) Evaluation of equivalent resistivity of each block of conceptual
model
(iii) Identification of rock types based on equivalent resistivity and
regional geology
(iv) Estimation and mapping of thermo-hydro-geological parameters of
reservoir
4.1. Image analysis and classification of resistivity model
Present study adopts the published image of electrical resistivity
model by Azeez and Harinarayana, (2007). In absence of original data
on file, the published imagery of resistivity model is used to extract
resistivity value corresponding to each pixel of the imagery using image
processing techniques. To extract resistivity value, digital number2 is
taken as a unique identity field. From Fig. 3, it is noticed that imagery
obtained from Azeez and Harinarayana, (2007) is a true color image.3
From the gradient color scale as shown in Fig. 3, it is observed that
digital number of each pixel in the gradient scale is coherent with re-
sistivity value. The interrelation between the resistivity and digital
number is shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows that different resistivity
values have unique digital number in either of the bands, which impairs
the identification of resistivity value using digital number. To overcome
this, imagery of resistivity model is processed using supervised classifi-
cation technique4 using ArcGIS/Arc Map® software. The various steps
followed in image processing are explained below.
2
A numerical value corresponding to a pixel in an imagery, usually in the form of a
binary integer in the range of 0–255 or 1–256.
3
The color of each pixel within the imagery is determined by the combination of the
red, green, and blue intensities stored in each color plane at the pixel's location
4
The user specifies various pixels values that should be associated with each class by
selecting representative Training sites. The training sites are each range in color gradient
scale in this context.
330
Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337
The resistivity model by Azeez and Harinarayana, (2007) shows that
a range of resistivity values are represented using a unique color gra-
dient. This depicts the fact that range of resistivity values are possible
for a particular digital number. To overcome this disarray, an equiva-
lent resistivity for each of the range is evaluated as per Eq. (5) for each
of the ranges in the gradient scale. This helps to assign a resistivity
value corresponding to a digital number.
RL + RU
REb = ⎛ ⎞
⎝ 2 ⎠ (5)
Where,
REb = Equivalent resistivity of each band in the scale
RL = Lower limit of the resistivity for the considered range
RU = Upper limit of the resistivity for the considered range.
4.1.2. Step-2
The imagery of resistivity model is processed to enable the identi-
fication of equivalent resistivity value corresponding to a unique digital
number. The processed image is shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b). Although
the imagery representing the resistivity model of entire Puga reservoir
as shown in Fig. 4(a), only region towards the east of KTF as shown in
Fig. 4(b) is considered for present conceptual model development.
The digital number of each range within the color gradient scale,
after the image classification is given in Table 1. From the attributes of
Table 1, it is noted that digital numbers of red band corresponding to
Fig. 4(a) are different for different value of resistivity. For instance, the
digital number of group R1, R2 and R3 is 255 before image classifica-
tion, which changed to 20, 40, 60 respectively after image classifica-
tion. Similarly, the digital number of R5 and R13 is 123 before image
classification, which reformed to 100 and 251 respectively after image
classification. This classification facilitates the unique identification of
resistivity values using digital numbers, which is evident from the at-
tributes shown in Table 1. For illustration, a resistivity value of 2.5, 7.5
and 15 may be related with a digital number of 255 which is for R1, R2
and R3. But this complication is diminished after image processing.
Resistivity of 2.5, 7.5 and 15 are related to digital numbers of 20, 40
and 60 respectively.
4.2. Evaluation of equivalent resistivity of each block of conceptual model
From the literature (Amistoso et al., 1993; Battistelli and Nagy,
2000; Bodvarsson et al., 1990; Burnell, 1992; Kissling et al., 1996;
Kolditz and Clauser, 1998; Lei and Zhu, 2013; McGuinness et al., 1995;
O Sullivan et al., 1990; Sanchez, 1997), it is observed that the geo-
thermal reservoirs are conceptualized either by using block or layer
heterogeneity with different block and layer dimensions. As hetero-
geneity of reservoir is real field situation, Puga geothermal reservoir is
conceptualized as block heterogeneity in this study. From the state of
art of geothermal reservoir studies, it is concluded that, 200 m in length
and the 100 m in depth is the typical block size (O Sullivan et al., 2001)
for reservoir characterization. Since the borewell exploration is limited
to shallow depths (≪400 m), if block size suggested by O Sullivan et al.
(2001) is adopted in this study, only four data points will be available to
compare the estimated temperature of conceptual model with field
temperature logs from bore well. Keeping this in view, a block size of
100 m in length and 50 m in depth is considered. This facilitates the
comparison of temperature vs depth plot of conceptual model with the
plot from field log at eight different depths.
4.2.1. Shifting window algorithm
The resistivity model shown in Fig. 3, represents a geographical
length of 12.24 km and 6 km of depth, which accounts to 3.4 m length
and 6.9 m depth for each pixel in the imagery. To compose a block size
of 100 m length and 50 m depth, a group of pixels is clustered and an
equivalent resistivity corresponding to each block is to be computed. To
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337

Table 1
Technical specifications of resistivity model for image classification. (For interpretation of the references in the table, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Before Image classification After image classification
Shade Shade
Group Digital Number (DN) Digital Number (DN) Resistivitya
R G B R G B (Ohm-m)
R1 255 4 1 20 0 0 2.5
R2 255 97 0 40 0 0 7.5
R3 255 195 0 60 0 0 15
R4 232 255 1 80 0 0 35
R5 123 254 0 100 0 0 75
R6 34 255 1 120 0 0 150
R7 0 255 57 140 0 0 250
R8 0 254 156 160 0 0 400
R9 1 255 255 180 0 0 750
R10 0 158 255 200 0 0 1250
R11 0 70 254 220 0 0 1750
R12 23 0 254 240 0 0 2500
R13 123 0 255 251 0 0 3250
a
The resistivity value taken is the average of each range, which is evaluated by considering the lower and upper limit of each range in the color gradient scale.

Fig. 5. Selection of pixels for the defined window size.

prominent feature, delimits the thermal manifestation zone. Owing to

Fig. 4. (a): Iso cluster supervised classification of resistivity model imagery (b): Portion
of valley towards east of KTF.
calculate the equivalent resistivity of each block an algorithm termed as
shifting window algorithm5 is proposed in this study. The term window
represents group of pixels. Considering the geographical dimension of a
pixel, total number of pixels along length and depth that constitutes the
desired dimension of block heterogeneity are determined and the ef-
fective resistivity of each block is computed using Eq. (6). After eval-
uating the effective resistivity of first block the window shifts to the
next set of pixels as shown in Fig. 5. This chain terminates when the
window leaps to the end of imagery and finally effective resistivity of
all the blocks are estimated.
Σni = 1mj = 1Rij
RE =
N (6)
Where,
Rij = Resistivity value of pixel corresponding to ith row and jth
column in a window.
N = Total number of pixels within the shifting window
this fact, the area towards east of KTF is considered for conceptual
model development. The conceptual model identifies Alluvium, Schist,
Breccia, Limestone, Granite, Gneiss and Partially molten rocks as the
possible rock types that may be encountered within the reservoir till 6
Km depth. The identified rock types follow the regional geology re-
ported by field investigations (Azeez and Harinarayana, 2007;
Jawaharlal, 2002; Ravishanker, 1991). The reservoir may be categor-
ized into four zones depth wise as shown in Fig. 6. Since each rock type
exhibits a wide range of values of thermo-hydro-geological parameters,
the representative value of each parameter is considered based on
various reported literatures in this study. The seven identified rock
types along with their representative values of properties are provided
in Table 2.
Borehole data shows existence of loose valley fill till 65 m depth in
Puga reservoir (Harinarayana et al., 2006). The cores of PDGW 1 ex-
pounds the extent of alluvium for a depth of about 125 m. The 1D in-
version results of magneto-telluric studies reported at B09, PDGW 1,
C12 and PGW 26, assume that this valley fill may extend to a maximum
depth of 150 m. The identified rock types corresponding to each char-
acteristic depth Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 are presented in Table 2. Based on
identified rock types and their occurrence, zones with its constituent
rock types are assumed to follow regional geology and corresponding
resistivity data.

4.4. Estimation and mapping of thermo-hydro-geological parameters of

4.3. Identification of rock types based on equivalent resistivity and regional
geology
From geoscientific studies, it has been concluded that KTF, a
5
It is a new algorithm introduced by authors with a nomenclature of shifting window.
It scripted in MathWorks/MATLAB Software® by authors to evaluate an equivalent re-
sistivity of each block
reservoir
Considering only the effective resistivity (RE) of each block as given
by Eq. (6) in determining rock type of each block may not be con-
ceivable. This is due to the fact that each rock exhibit a range of re-
sistivity values and the ranges generally overlap. Consequently, it may
bring in uncertainty in identifying a single rock type for each block. To
address this uncertainty, the possibility of a block exhibiting the

331
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337

parameters); wi is the weight allotted to each rock type whose re-

sistivity range contains RE.
RE is the effective resistivity of each block evaluated using shifting
window algorithm. It can be noted that Archie’s equation (Kearey et al.,
2008) which provides porosity based on electrical resistivity, may be
used for porosity estimation. This equation depends on cementation
exponent of rock. In case of Puga valley, the rock type is not known in
priori, so this hinders the direct estimation of porosity using Archie’s
equation. However, even if the porosity of rock using Archie’s equation
may be estimated under some assumptions, but other reservoir para-
meters remains unaddressed due to the absence of such empirical re-
lations. In view of this proposed Eq 7 is assumed reasonable to quantify
Fig. 6. Reservoir characterization with depth. the effective reservoir parameters.
Where Z1-Shallow reservoir-I; Z2- Shallow reservoir-II; Z3-Deep reservoir; Z4-Ultra deep The weight allotted to each rock type is mathematically expressed
reservoir.

Table 2
Representative thermo-hydro-geological values of identified rock types.

Rock type Resistivitya Porosityb Thermal conductivityc Specificd Radioactive heat capacitye Densityf Permeabilityg Availability

Min Max

[Ohm-m] % W/mK kJ/kg K μW/m3 g/cm3 [mD] Zone

Alluvium 1 36 0.37 0.8 0.95 1.03 1.7 1552 Z1

Partially molten rocks 0.01 25 0.09 1.58 0.74 0.45 2.37 0.04 Z3, Z4
Schist 20 3500 0.38 2.55 0.8 1.42 2.64 264 Z3, Z4
Breccia 36 250 0.36 0.76 0.71 0.04 1.63 0.67 Z1, Z2
Limestone 50 450 0.3 1 0.93 0.62 2.55 1131 Z2
Granite 300 3500 0.01 2.68 0.96 3 2.64 0.51 Z3, Z4
Gneiss 485 3500 0.01 2.9 0.75 2.07 2.8 28.8 Z3, Z4

a
Geological Society of America Memoirs (1966); Harinarayana et al. (2004); Kearey et al. (2008); Loke (1999); Palacky (1988); Samouëlian et al. (2005); Schon (2011, 2011); Telford
et al. (1990); Todd and Larry (1980).
b
Greensmith (1988); Petrich et al. (2013); Schon (2011); Todd and Larry (1980).
c
Beardsmore and Cull (2001); Schon (2011).
d
Eppelbaum et al. (2014); Schon (2011).
e
Abbady (2010); Schon (2011).
f
Hunt et al. (1995); Kearey et al. (2008); Schon (2011); Telford et al. (1990).
g
Mielke et al. (2015); Schon (2011); Todd and Larry (1980).

Fig. 7. Spatial variation of resistivity after block heterogeneity.

properties of more than one rock type as depicted by range of resistivity

is considered. Hence, this study finds the effective value of each prop-
erty, which may represent the possible characteristics of various rock Fig. 8. Frequency distribution for resistivity.
types for each block within its own resistivity range, instead of desig-
nating each block with unique rock type as represented by Eq. (7).
by Eq. (8).
n
∑i =1 ∑ wi pi wi =
αi
Ep (x , y) = n n
∑i =1 wi (7)
∑i =1 αi (8)

Ep(x,y) is the effective value of parameter at each node (x, y) as αi is the absolute inverse distance between mean resistance value of
shown in Fig. 5; pi is the parameter of interest (thermo-hydro-geological each rock type and RE, which is mathematically expressed as shown in

332
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337

5.1. Spatial variation of resistivity after block heterogeneity

Estimated equivalent resistivity of each block of conceptual model

Fig. 9. Resistivity vs depth at KTF, B07, B08, B10, B13 & B14.
shows that resistivity of the zone east of KTF is relatively lower than the
zone west of KTF, which is also evident from resistivity map shown in
Fig. 7. The block heterogeneity conceptual model shows mean and
modal resistivity of 5995 blocks are estimated as 469.9 ohm-m and
7.5 ohm-m respectively. First (Q1) and third quartile (Q3) of the var-
iation indicate that 2476 blocks exhibits a resistivity range 7.5 ohm-m –
400 ohm-m. It also infers that 32% of the blocks are clustered with
resistivity lower than 7.5 ohm-m and 26.6% of the blocks are clustered
with resistivity higher than 400 ohm-m as shown by frequency dis-
tribution curve for resistivity in Fig. 8. Also a positive skewness of 1.6
shows quite an asymmetrical variation of resistivity that is skewed in
the lower side of the mean as observed in Fig. 8 also. This infers the fact
that deep geothermal reservoir represents a highly heterogeneous re-

Table 3
Statistical parameters for spatial variations of thermo-hydro-geological properties.

Property Mean Median Mode Q1 Q3 Standard deviation Skewness Correlation with depth at different sections

KTF B7 B8 B10 B13 B14

Porosity [%] 0.19 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.37 0.12 0.83 −0.81 −0.85 −0.78 −0.64 −0.21 0.46
Thermal conductivity [W/mK] 1.46 1.67 1.2 1.2 1.77 0.31 0.84 0.23 −0.28 −0.2 −0.32 −0.13 0.43
Specific heat [kJ/kg. K] 0.91 1.0 0.74 0.74 1.03 0.15 1.13 −0.57 −0.46 −0.58 −0.77 −0.54 −0.43
Radioactive heat capacity [μW/m3] 1.13 1.42 0.45 0.45 2.08 0.73 0.93 −0.46 −0.43 −0.5 −0.62 −0.41 *a
Density [g/cm3] 2.47 2.64 2.37 2.37 2.64 0.24 0.42 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.37 −0.15
Permeability [mD] 162.26 90.8 0.04 0.04 264 288.24 0.56 −0.75 −0.66 −0.55 −0.57 −0.35 −0.09

a
No significant trend is observed at this section.

Eq. (9). servoir as found in Puga geothermal reservoir.

1 B14 are as shown in Fig. 9. From Fig. 9, it is evident that resistivity
αi =
RE − R *n
Where, R *n is average resistivity value of each rock type, which is de-
rived by considering the lower and upper limit of the resistivity values.
5. Results and discussions
The conceptual model of block heterogeneity considers the deli-
neated extent of thermal manifestation zone in eastern side of KTF in
terms of 5995 blocks. Each block is associated with thermo-hydro-
geological properties like porosity, thermal conductivity, specific heat,
radioactive heat capacity, density and permeability. Furthermore,
spatial variations of these governing parameters at specified sections
such as KTF, B8, B10, B13 and B14 are also discussed in terms of in-
dividual correlation of each parameter with depth. Positive and nega-
tive correlations indicate increase and decrease in magnitude of para-
meter with depth respectively. In addition, few other statistical
parameters of this spatial variation, like mean, median, mode, first
quartile6 (Q1), third quartile7 (Q3), standard deviation and skewness
coefficient are also estimated. Knowing these statistical parameters of
variations provides the measure of heterogeneity or homogeneity of the
reservoir. Quartiles represent the intensity of clusters within the var-
iation and skewness represents the variation with respective to mean.
Skewness closest to neighborhood of 0 represents symmetric variation
around mean whereas nonzero skewness coefficient shows asymmetric
variation.
6
25% of the blocks in the block heterogeneity (5995 blocks) lie below Q1 and about
75% lie above Q1
7
75% of the blocks in the block heterogeneity (5995 blocks) lie below Q3 and about
25% lie above Q3
The resistivity vs depth plots at sections KTF, B7, B8, B10, B13 and
(9) increases initially and then decreases with depth at all these sections.
Negative correlations 0.932, 0.77, 0.59, 0.57, 0.47 and 0.31 are ob-
tained for resistivity vs depth at sections KTF, B7, B08, B10, B13 and
B14 respectively. It is also observed that the resistivity along the depth
at KTF is relatively lower compared to B7, B8, B10, B13 and B14. Re-
sistivity at KTF is constant till the depth of 1.5 km followed by some
fluctuations and then reaches to a lower resistivity of 7.5 ohm-m. Low
resistive of 2.5 ohm-m is encountered at 3.5 Km depth along section B7,
whereas, low resistivity region encounters at relatively lower depths
along section B8. This could be interpreted in terms of existence of heat
source closer to surface at section B8 compared to other locations.
5.2. Spatial variation of thermo-hydro-geological properties after block
heterogeneity
The thermo-hydro-geological properties of Puga reservoir after the
block heterogeneity is estimated and mapped as shown in Fig. 11(a–f).
Also the variations of these parameters with depth at sections KTF, B07,
B08, B10, B13 and B14 are shown in Fig. 12(a–f) and statistical para-
meters of these variations are given in Table 3. Table 3 provides mean,
median, modes, quartiles, standard deviation and skewness coefficient
of spatial variation of thermo-hydro-geological properties to under-
stand the characteristics of the variation.
The statistics infer the heterogeneity and skewed variation of
parameters. First quartile (Q1) defines the boundary value below which
25% of data lies and the third quartile (Q3) defines the boundary value
above which 25% of the data lies. The magnitudes of first quartile,
intermediate quartile (median) and third quartile may infer re-
presentative clusters with representative value of each cluster. This may
aid to condense the reservoir data. From the estimated statistics as
shown in Table 3, it is observed that 41% of the blocks has porosity less
than Q1 and 26% of the blocks has greater than Q3. In case of specific

333
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala
heat, it is observed that 42% of the blocks has less than Q1 and 39% has
greater than Q3. This proportion is higher in the distribution of density.
It is observed that 48% of the blocks has parametric values less than Q1
and 50% of the blocks has greater than Q3 for density variation. Fur-
thermore, 40% of the blocks has permeability less than 40% and 30% of
the blocks has permeability greater than Q3. It may be noted that
quartiles, Q1 and Q3 are not equidistant from median due to asym-
metric variations which can also be observed from the frequency dis-
tribution of all thermo-hydro-geological parameters as shown in
Fig. 10. The skewness coefficients of all the parameters is nonzero re-
presenting the asymmetrical distribution of thermo-hydro-geological
parameters. It is noted that specific heat distribution shows greater
asymmetry with highest skewness of 1.13 whereas density shows lowest
skewness of 0.42. Thus, statistics of variations show highly asymme-
trical heterogeneous spatial variations of parameters from the devel-
oped conceptual model of Puga geothermal reservoir.
From the statistics in Table 3, a negative correlation between por-
osity and depth at KTF, B7, B8, and B10 is observed. Significant ne-
gative correlation is observed between specific heat and radioactive
heat capacity with depth along the vertical cross sections at KTF, B7,
B8, B10, B13, B14. A positive correlation between rock density and
depth states that density of rock increases with depth. This observation
is in line with the philosophy of core accretion.8 The observed
8
The widely accepted theory which states that Earth's rocky core formed first, with
heavy elements colliding and binding together. Dense material sank to the center, while
334
Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337
Fig. 10. Frequency distribution for thermo-hydro-
geological parameters.
significant negative correlation between permeability and depth at all
the vertical sections can be interpreted with thermoelastic phenomena,
which states that the increase in temperature with depth increases
crustal stresses. A negative trend in porosity with depth is observed.
This is because that the increase in temperature may lead to thermal
expansion of rocks which clogs the pores within the rocks. The same
phenomenon is responsible for the decrease in permeability.
5.3. Spatial variation of equilibrium temperature after block heterogeneity
Temperature variation with depth using linear extrapolation tech-
niques (Spichak and Zakharova, 2015) is implicit with the presumption
of homogenous lithosphere, which is not a realistic assumption for re-
servoir. This underlain assumption may contribute to inaccurate tem-
perature estimations. On the other hand, indirect temperature mea-
surements made in many studies using mineral geothermometers,
hydrochemical geothermometers, gas thermometers and isotopic geo-
thermometers predict the representative temperature of reservoir. The
spatial variation of temperature remains unaddressed. Therefore, as-
sessing reservoir potential based on representative temperature in-
volves considerable uncertainty. Keeping the above facts in view, spa-
tial variation of steady state/equilibrium temperature of Puga reservoir
is obtained using 1D heat conduction equation as given by Eq. (10)
(footnote continued)
the lighter material created the crust.
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala
Q A z2
Tz = Ts + ⎛ ⎞ z − s
⎝k⎠ 2λ (10)
Where, Tz is the temperature at a depth z km; Ts is the surface tem-
perature; Q is the average heat flow of the Puga region (180 mW/m2);
As is the radioactive heat capacity of block (μW/m3) and λ is the
thermal conductivity of block (W/mK).
Surface temperature, Ts is adopted from Jha and Puppala, (2017).
Radioactive heat capacity (As) and thermal conductivity (λ) of blocks,
already estimated, are used to find equilibrium temperature of blocks
from Eq. (10). Temperature is estimated for all the blocks and tem-
perature contour is obtained along profile-B which is shown in Fig. 13.
From temperature contour in Fig. 13, it is noticed that a probable
heat source is located at about 1.8 Km from surface which is lying
between B7 and B9. It is also observed that 50.8% of the area located
east of KTF serves as heat source with temperature greater than 250 °C
within 6 Km of depth. It is known that estimated reservoir temperature
using geothermometric field studies varies between 220 and 260 °C
(Jawaharlal, 2002). Thus, the estimated temperature from the proposed
conceptual model in this study is consistent with field investigations.
335
Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337
Fig. 11. Spatial variation of (a) Porosity (%) (b)
Thermal conductivity (c) Specific heat (d)
Radioactive heat capacity (e) Density (f)
Permeability.
Also the estimated temperature of conceptual model of profile B is
compared with temperature logs from field study at PDGW which is at a
vertical off set distance of 1.2 km from vertical section of profile B and
average natural thermal gradient of that area. Since the temperature
logs of PDGW are available till 282 m, temperature vs depth plots are
compared for this depth only as shown in Fig. 14. From Fig. 14, it is
evident that estimated thermal gradient from conceptual model lies
between natural thermal gradient and thermal gradient of deep geo-
thermal well (PDGW) of Puga valley.
Variation in lithology could be the possible reason for difference in
temperature of conceptual model compared to that of PDGW. Since
PDGW is located at an offset distance of 1.2 km in north direction from
profile-B, it is anticipated that variation in geology at 1.2 km offset from
profile B contributes to this difference in temperature. Hence, as-
sumption of uniform thermal gradient over the entire valley may un-
derestimate reservoir potential, whereas assuming thermal gradient of
PDGW as representative thermal gradient may overestimates the re-
servoir potential. Therefore, conceptual model of block heterogeneity
resulting in spatially varying steady state temperature gives better es-
timate of equilibrium condition of the reservoir in comparison to either
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337

Fig. 12. Depth vs (a) Porosity (%) (b) Thermal conductivity (c) Specific heat (d) Radioactive heat capacity (e) Density (f) Permeability at KTF, B7, B8, B10, B13 and B14.

Fig. 13. Temperature [°C] contour along profile-B.

constant natural thermal gradient or temperature log from any single

well.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, a concept of block heterogeneity is proposed to de-

velop a conceptual model for Puga geothermal reservoir located in
Ladakh region of India. The conceptual model provides spatial variation Fig. 14. Temperature vs depth [(a) Natural thermal gradient (b) Conceptual model
of thermo-hydro-geological parameters. The variations of parameters thermal gradient (c) Field thermal gradient at PDGW].
are highly asymmetrical and positively skewed. The model utilizes

336
S.K. Jha, H. Puppala
electrical resistivity data to identify a group of rock types that can re-
present each block. The effective values of properties are obtained by
considering weighted average of properties of each rock type in an
identified group of rocks for each block. Knowing effective properties of
all the blocks of conceptual model maps thermo-hydro-geological
properties of heterogeneous Puga reservoir. This thermo-hydro-geolo-
gical properties of reservoir include porosity, thermal conductivity,
specific heat, radioactive heat capacity, density and permeability.
Furthermore, lateral extent of possible heat source and spatially varying
steady state temperature are also obtained from this conceptual model.
The spatially varying reservoir properties of block heterogeneity
conceptual model for determining the reservoir potential in terms of
temperature gives a conceivably better estimate unlike the estimation
dependent on single representative value. The thermal gradient ob-
tained from the conceptual model is higher than the average thermal
gradient of that region whereas it is lower than thermal gradient ob-
tained from the well PDGW. Assumption of constant thermal gradient
for entire reservoir may underestimate reservoir potential, whereas
assuming thermal gradient of single well like PDGW as representative
thermal gradient of reservoir may overestimate the reservoir potential.
Therefore, spatially varying steady state or equilibrium temperature of
block heterogeneity conceptual model gives better estimate of the po-
tential reservoir. Also estimated temperature of conceptual model of
Puga geothermal field is consistent with thermal interpretations of Na/
K and Na-K-Ca geothermometer studies. It is conceivable that resulting
conceptual model will also aid in the operational phase of reservoir
development like further volumetric assessment of Puga geothermal
reservoir potential. Also reservoir potential estimation from coupled
fluid flow and heat transport with different injection and extraction
configuration during operation of the reservoir will follow this study in
future.
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge Birla Institute of Technology and Science,
Pilani for supporting this work as Doctoral fellowship.
References
Abbady, A.G.E., 2010. Evaluation of heat generation by radioactive decay of sedimentary
rocks in Eastern Desert and Nile Valley, Egypt. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 68, 2020–2024.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2010.03.023.
Absar, Kumar Virendra, Bajpai, I.P., Sinha, A.K., Ashwini, Kapoor, 1996. Reservoir
modelling of puga geothermal system, ladakh, jammu and kashmir. Geol. Surv. India
69–74.
Amistoso, A.E., Aquino, B.G., Aunzo, Z.P., Jordan, O.T., Ana, F.X.S., Bodvarsson, G.S.,
Doughty, C., 1993. Reservoir analysis of the palinpinon geothermal field Negros or-
iental, Philippines. Geothermics 22, 555–574.
Arellano, V., Garcı́a, A., Barragán, R., Izquierdo, G., Aragón, A., Nieva, D., 2003. An
updated conceptual model of the Los Humeros geothermal reservoir (Mexico). J.
Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 124, 67–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(03)
00045-3.
Arnórsson, S., 1995. Geothermal systems in Iceland: structure and conceptual models—I.
High-temperature areas. Geothermics 24, 561–602.
Arora, C., Singh, H., Das, L., Ghatak, T., Singh, R., Hakim, A., 1983. Geophysical ex-
ploration of the puga valley geothermal field, Ladakh district: Jammu and Kashmir
state. Geol. Surv. India 631–646.
Azeez, K.A., Harinarayana, T., 2007. Magnetotelluric evidence of potential geothermal
resource in Puga, Ladakh, NW Himalaya. Curr. Sci. 323–329.
Battistelli, A., Nagy, S., 2000. Reservoir engineering assessment of low-temperature
geothermal resources in the Skierniewice municipality (Poland). Geothermics 29,
701–721.
Beardsmore, G.R., Cull, J., 2001. Crustal Heat Flow: A Guide to Measurement and
Modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bodvarsson, G.S., Pruess, K., Haukwa, C., Ojiambo, S.B., 1990. Evaluation of reservoir
model predictions for the Olkaria East geothermal field, Kenya. Geothermics 19,
399–414.
Burnell, J.G., 1992. Modelling mass, energy and chloride flows in the Rotorua geothermal
system. Geothermics 21, 261–280.
Chambefort, I., Buscarlet, E., Wallis, I.C., Sewell, S., Wilmarth, M., 2016. Ngatamariki
geothermal field, New Zealand: geology, geophysics, chemistry and conceptual
model. Geothermics 59, 266–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.07.
011.
Craig, J., Absar, A., Bhat, G., Cadel, G., Hafiz, M., Hakhoo, N., Kashkari, R., Moore, J.,
337
Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337
Ricchiuto, T.E., Thurow, J., Thusu, B., 2013. Hot springs and the geothermal energy
potential of Jammu & Kashmir State, N.W., Himalaya, India. Earth-Sci. Rev. 126,
156–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.05.004.
Eppelbaum, L., Kutasov, I., Pilchin, A., 2014. Applied Geothermics, Lecture Notes in Earth
System Sciences. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
34023-9.
Geological Society of America Memoirs, 1966. Electrical Properties of Rocks and Minerals
97, 553–577.
Greensmith, J., 1988. Petrology of the Sedimentary Rocks. Springer Science+Business
Media B.V.
Gupta, M., Rao, G., Narain, H., 1974. Geothermal investigations in the Puga valley hot
spring region Ladakh, India. Geophys. Res. Bull. 12, 119–136.
Gupta, M.L., Sharma, S., Singh, S., Drolia, R., 1979. Geophysical exploration and as-
sessment of power potential of Puga geothermal field docx. Geoviews 6, 1–4.
Harinarayana, T., Azeez, Abdul, Naganjaneyulu, K.K., Manoj, K., Veeraswamy, C.,
Murthy, K., Prabhakar Eknath, D.N., Rao, S., 2004. Magnetotelluric studies in Puga
valley geothermal field, NW, Himalaya, Jammu and Kashmir, India. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. 138, 405–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2004.07.011.
Harinarayana, T., Abdul Azeez, K.K., Murthy, D.N., Veeraswamy, K., Eknath Rao, S.P.,
Manoj, C., Naganjaneyulu, K., 2006. Exploration of geothermal structure in Puga
geothermal field, Ladakh Himalayas, India by magnetotelluric studies. J. Appl.
Geophys. 58, 280–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.05.005.
Hunt, C.P., Moskowitz, B.M., Banerjee, Subir K., 1995. Magnetic Properties of Rocks and
Minerals Rock Physics & Phase Relations: A Handbook of Physical Constant. pp.
189–204.
Jawaharlal, T., 2002. Geothermal resorces of India. Geol. Surv. India.
Jha, S.K., Puppala, H., 2016. Study of geothermal energy potential with geothermal
doublet: a case study for puga valley, ladakh. In: Souvenir. Presented at the ICWEES-
2016. Bhopal.
Jha, S.K., Puppala, H., 2017. Assessment of subsurface temperature distribution from the
gauged wells of Puga Valley, Ladakh. Geotherm. Energy 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1186/s40517-017-0061-4.
Kearey, P., Brooks, M., Hill, I., 2008. An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, 3rd ed.,
8. print. ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
Kissling, W., Brown, K., O Sullivan, M., White, S., Bullivant, D., 1996. Modeling chloride
and CO2 chemistry in the Wairakei geothermal reservoir. Geothermics 25, 285–305.
Kolditz, O., Clauser, C., 1998. Numerical simulation of flow and heat transfer in fractured
crystalline rocks: application to the hot dry rock site in Rosemanowes (UK).
Geothermics 27, 1–23.
Lei, H., Zhu, J., 2013. Numerical modeling of exploitation and reinjection of the Guantao
geothermal reservoir in Tanggu District, Tianjin, China. Geothermics 48, 60–68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.03.008.
Loke, M.H., 1999. Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies.
Pract. Guide To 2.
MNRE, 2016. Indian Geothermal Energy Developement Framework.
McGuinness, M., White, S., Young, R., Ishizaki, H., Ikeuchi, K., Yoshida, Y., 1995. A model
of the Kakkonda geothermal reservoir. Geothermics 24, 1–48.
Mielke, P., Nehler, M., Bignall, G., Sass, I., 2015. Thermo-physical rock properties and the
impact of advancing hydrothermal alteration—a case study from the Tauhara geo-
thermal field, New Zealand. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 301, 14–28. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.04.007.
Mroczek, E.K., Milicich, S.D., Bixley, P.F., Sepulveda, F., Bertrand, E.A., Soengkono, S.,
Rae, A.J., 2016. Ohaaki geothermal system: refinement of a conceptual reservoir
model. Geothermics 59, 311–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.09.
002.
O Sullivan, M., Barnett, B., Razali, M., 1990. Numerical simulation of the Kamojang
geothermal field, Indonesia. Trans Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 1317–1324.
O Sullivan, M., Karsten, P., Marcelo, J.L., 2001. State of the art of geothermal reservoir
simulation. Geothermics 30, 395–429.
Palacky, G., 1988. Resistivity characteristics of geologic targets. Electromagnetic Methods
in Applied Geophysics. pp. 53–129.
Petrich, C., Karlsson, J., Eicken, H., 2013. Porosity of growing sea ice and potential for oil
entrainment. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 87, 27–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
coldregions.2012.12.002.
Portugal, E., Birkle, P., Tello, E., Tello, M., et al., 2000. Hydrochemical–isotopic and
hydrogeological conceptual model of the Las Tres Vırgenes geothermal field, Baja
California Sur, México. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 101, 223–244.
Ravishanker, 1991. Geothermal atlas of India. Geol. Surv. India.
Samouëlian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., Richard, G., 2005. Electrical re-
sistivity survey in soil science: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 173–193. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.still.2004.10.004.
Sanchez, U.P., 1997. Los humeros geothermal field, Mexico. Trans. Geotherm. Resour.
Counc. 21, 435–439.
Schon, 2011. Physical Properties of Rocks.
Spichak, V.V., Zakharova, O.K., 2015. Electromagnetic sounding of geothermal areas.
Electromagnetic Geothermometry. Elsevier, pp. 3–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-802210-8.00001-0.
SubbaRao, K.V., Viswanadhan, S., 2003. Geothermal energy resources of India. Geol. Soc.
India 61 (634-634).
Telford, W., Geldart, L., Sheriff, R., 1990. Applied Geophysics, 1st ed. Cambridge
University Press.
Todd, D.K., Larry, W.M., 1980. Groundwater Hydrology.
Zhang, K., Lee, B.-H., Ling, L., Guo, T.-R., Liu, C.-H., Ouyang, S., 2016. Modeling studies
for production potential of Chingshui geothermal reservoir. Renew. Energy 94,
568–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.099.
 Update
Geothermics
Volume 82, Issue , November 2019, Page 243

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.06.003
 Geothermics 82 (2019) 243

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Corrigendum to “Conceptual modeling and characterization of Puga T

geothermal reservoir, Ladakh, India” [Geothermics 72 (2018) 326–337]
⁎
Shibani K. Jha , Harish Puppala
Department of Civil Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani 333 031, India

The authors regret for the incorrect appearance of suffix b in the The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
affiliation due to typo.

DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.12.004

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shibani@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in (S.K. Jha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.06.003

Available online 03 July 2019

0375-6505/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.