Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Subsurface stratigraphy and its correlation with the surficial geology

at Los Humeros geothermal field, eastern Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt
G. Carrasco-Núñez a,∗ , M. López-Martínez b , J. Hernández a , V. Vargas a,1
a
Centro de Geociencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campus UNAM Juriquilla, 76100, Queretaro, Mexico
b
Departamento de Geología, CICESE, Ensenada, B.C., Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Los Humeros is one of the main Pleistocene silicic volcanic complexes and the third geothermal field in
Received 25 August 2016 exploitation in Mexico. It is located in the eastern sector of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (TMVB) and
Received in revised form has a long and complex geologic evolution involving the formation of at least two large nested calderas
30 December 2016
associated with very large ignimbrite-forming eruptions during the last 0.46 Ma (Ferriz and Mahood,
Accepted 2 January 2017
1984). Due to its young activity, it has an active geothermal field (Yáñez and García, 1980) producing
Available online 19 January 2017
about 65 MW. Several wells for both exploration and exploitation of geothermal fluids have been drilled
in the caldera interior, showing the subsurface stratigraphy and structure of the volcanic center. A revised
Keywords:
Subsurface stratigraphy
lithostratigraphic characterization of Los Humeros subsurface together with petrographic, geochemical
Caldera systems and 40 Ar/39 Ar-based geochronology data support correlation of rock formations at depth with surface
Geothermal exploration geology. This study shows the very heterogeneous nature of the subsurface stratigraphy of Los Humeros
Caldera geothermal field volcanic complex, helping to refine its internal structure and evolution. This provides a more realistic
Geologic exploration configuration of the heterogeneities of the geothermal reservoir and the vertical and lateral distribution
of permeable conditions controlling the configuration of the geothermal reservoir. These results can be
important to guide the prospection of potential areas for the possible expansion of the geothermal field.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are key to understanding rapid changes observed in the permeabil-

Geothermal fields associated with volcanic centers are very
important sites where the internal structure of a caldera sys-
tem can be indirectly revealed due to the opportunity to access
the subsurface stratigraphy through exploratory wells drilled
for the exploitation of the geothermal energy (i.e., Ármannsson
et al., 1987; Giordano et al., 2014; Muecke et al., 1974). Iden-
tification of subsurface stratigraphic units and their correlation
with both underground rock formations and surface geology is a
major challenge, particularly in areas where rock units are similar
and no distinctive stratigraphic markers can be used. Further-
more, hydrothermal alteration is a very common process in active
geothermal fields that obscures the original mineralogy and tex-
tural attributes, thus complicating the identification of rock types.
Therefore, the establishment of an adequate subsurface stratigra-
phy for a caldera system requires a careful study based on a detailed
examination of the well samples and their lateral variations, which
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: carrasco.gerardo@gmail.com (G. Carrasco-Núñez).
1
Deceased.
ity of apparently continuous rock units at depth and the consequent
configuration of the geothermal reservoir.
The actual worldwide interest in renewable energies moti-
vates the exploitation of geothermal resources, not only as new
prospects but also as improvements in current developments. Cen-
tral Mexico has appropriate conditions for the development of
geothermal resources within the TMVB. This province has more
than 2,000 volcanoes including caldera complexes and volcanic
chains formed by large stratovolcanoes, as well as volcanic domes,
and extensive monogenetic fields comprising cinder cones, maars
and fissure lavas ranging in composition from basalt to rhyo-
lite, which have been active since the Miocene to the present
(Ferrari et al., 2012). At present, the Federal Power Commission
(CFE- in Spanish) is in charge of the exploitation of the geother-
mal fields at Los Azufres (Michoacán) and Los Humeros (Puebla),
while Domo San Pedro (Nayarit), is the only geothermal field
operated by a private company by concession. There are numer-
ous geothermal prospects to be exploited, 13 of which have been
recently identified by CFE as part of the new strategies of the Mex-
ican Federal Energy Reform (http://www.energia.gob.mx/portal/
Default Intermedia.aspx?id=3068). Most of these fields are asso-
ciated with large calderas, such as Los Azufres, Los Humeros or

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.01.001
0375-6505/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
the prospect La Primavera-Cerritos Colorados (Jalisco) (Flores-
Armenta and Gutiérez-Negrín, 2011). Those calderas are several
km in diameter (< 10 km), and fed by shallow long-lived magmatic
reservoirs, allowing the formation of geothermal systems that may
be exploited for long periods of time.
Los Humeros is one of the three most important geothermal
fields in Mexico and is currently producing electricity from about
20 wells out of the 50 already drilled, producing ca. 65 MW with
the recent installation of two new units (Gutiérrez-Negrín, per-
sonal comm.). It is located in the eastern sector of the TMVB
(Negendank et al., 1985) (Fig. 1), and it is associated with a large
caldera system active from 0.46 Ma to Recent (Ferriz and Mahood,
1984). There are several studies about the surface geology from
the initial works of Pérez-Reynoso (1978), De la Cruz (1983),
Yáñez and García (1980), and Ferriz and Mahood (1984), to more
specialized studies on structural geology (Garduño et al., 1985;
López-Hernández, 1995; Norini et al., 2015), or more recent vol-
canologic and petrologic papers (Carrasco-Núñez and Branney,
2005; Wilcox, 2011; Carrasco-Núñez et al., 2012; Dávila-Harris
and Carrasco-Núñez, 2014), or focused on geophysical aspects
(Palacios-Hertweg and García-Velázquez, 1981; Campos-Enriquez
and Garduño-Monroy, 1987; Arredondo, 2007; Lermo et al., 2008),
geochemical aspects (Verma, 1983; Ferriz and Mahood, 1987;
Verma, 2000), about hydrothermalism (Barragán et al., 1991; Prol,
1998) and the conceptual model (Arellano et al., 2003; Gutiérrez-
Negrín and Izquierdo-Montalvo, 2010). The subsurface geology
has been reported mainly through internal reports from sam-
ples derived from the geothermal wells drilled by CFE for Los
Humeros, where the general stratigraphic columns were proposed
(Viggiano and Robles, 1988; Cedillo et al., 1994; Cedillo, 1997;
Cedillo, 1999; Gutiérrez-Negrín and Izquierdo-Montalvo, 2010),
or some particular selected wells were reported (Viggiano and
Flores-Armenta, 2008; Lorenzo-Pulido, 2008). A more recent report
commissioned by CFE (Carrasco-Núñez et al., 2008) indicates an
apparent lithostratigraphic heterogeneity in the subsurface, thus
making necessary a detailed definition of the lithostratigraphic
variations that appear in the subsurface in order to allow a more
precise correlation with the surface geology, which is the main
goal of this paper. These correlations are the basis for updating
the geologic model of the field, which will make possible a better
assessment of the geothermal potential of a particular field.
2. Regional geologic setting
Los Humeros is a Pleistocene basalt-andesite-rhyolite caldera
with an active geothermal system currently in exploitation (Yañez
and García, 1980). It is the northernmost volcano of the Serdán-
Oriental Basin (SOB), which lies west of andesitic stratovolcanoes
of the Citlaltépetl-Cofre de Perote range (Fig. 1). The SOB is a
closed basin characterized by bimodal, mainly monogenetic, vol-
canism comprising cinder cones, large rhyolitic domes and both
basaltic and rhyolitic maars. This basin is limited to the east by
the Cofre de Perote-Citlaltépetl volcanic chain, which consists
of large andesitic stratovolcanoes and dome complexes, and to
the west by the Tlaxco-Cerro Grande range, made of Miocene
andesitic volcanic rocks (Carrasco-Núñez et al., 1997) that over-
lie ≤ 3000-m-thick, highly deformed Mesozoic limestone. To the
north, the same sedimentary basement rests on the Teziutlán Mas-
sif, a Paleozoic crystalline complex made of metamorphic and
intrusive rocks, including green schists, granodiorites and gran-
ites (Quezadas-Flores, 1961; Viniegra, 1965). These rocks form the
regional basement and were dated at 207 ± 7 Ma and 246 ± 7 Ma
by the K/Ar method, and also include some intrusive rocks dated at
181 ± 5 Ma and 131 ± 5 Ma (Yáñez and García, 1980). The Mesozoic
sedimentary basement crops out at a few sites within the SOB and
forms part of the subsurface underlying a thick andesitic formation
beneath Los Humeros caldera.
Numerous early Tertiary intrusions of granodiorite and syenite
crop out in the surrounding areas, some of them were dated at 14.5
and 31 Ma by the K/Ar method (Yáñez and García, 1980). The oldest
volcanic rocks exposed are andesitic and basaltic lavas (dated at
3.5 Ma, Yañez and García 1980, and 1.55 Ma, Ferriz and Mahood,
1984), which overlie the Mesozoic sedimentary rocks.
To the west of the SOB, Miocene andesitic volcanism is
associated with the Cerro Grande volcanic complex. Thick and volu-
minous volcanism (more than 200 km3 ), dated at 8.9–11 Ma by
the K/Ar method (Carrasco-Núñez et al., 1997; Gómez-Tuena and
Carrasco-Núñez, 2000), correlate with the Cuyoaco Andesite forma-
tion (López-Hernández, 1995) or the Alseseca Andesite (Yáñez and
García, 1980), dated at 10.5 Ma. The Plio-Pleistocene volcanism is
represented to the north and northeast of Los Humeros by the Tez-
iutlán Andesite, dated at 3.5 and 5 Ma by the K/Ar method (Yáñez
and García, 1980). Ferriz and Mahood (1984) report a younger age of
1.55 Ma for this formation. This volcanism has been identified in the
subsurface of Los Humeros caldera, forming andesitic sequences up
to 1.5 km thick (López-Hernández, 1995).
To the east is Cofre de Perote, a shield-like compound volcano
of andesitic composition formed by several domes during a period
from 0.5 to 0.2 Ma (Carrasco-Núñez et al., 2010). Many other volca-
noes formed before Los Humeros caldera, including some isolated
rhyolitic lava flows dated at 0.46 Ma (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984).
The geologic map of Los Humeros was updated, based on a care-
ful analysis of previous work (i.e. Pérez-Reynoso, 1978; De la Cruz
1983; Yáñez and García, 1980; Ferriz and Mahood, 1984) and field
verification (Fig. 2). It shows a general distribution of the main
lithostratigraphic units and their relation with the basement rocks
and external activity contemporaneous to its evolution.
3. Geology of Los Humeros caldera and geothermal field
The geologic evolution of Los Humeros caldera includes at
least two major caldera-forming eruptions, multiple voluminous
plinian eruptions, alternating episodes of dacitic and rhyodacitic
dome-forming eruptions and, more recently, ring-fracture volcan-
ism dominated by basaltic and basaltic andesite lava flows and
several small cinder cones. Ferriz and Mahood (1984) proposed four
different evolutionary stages. During the first stage, pre-caldera
high-silica rhyolite lavas erupted, were disrupted by a 115 km3
(DRE) caldera-forming explosive eruption at 460 ky (Ferriz and
Mahood, 1984)-450 ky (Carrasco-Núñez et al., 1997), producing
a large irregular caldera (Los Humeros) of about 21 km by 15 km.
This was associated with the emplacement of the voluminous high-
silica rhyolite Xáltipan ignimbrite, widely distributed radially from
the caldera (Fig. 1). The second stage (∼360 ky to 140 ky) includes
the emplacement of high-silica rhyolite domes along the caldera
rim and in the calderaı́s interior, followed by a series of plinian
and sub-plinian explosive eruptions that produced about 10 km3
(DRE) of rhyodacitic-andesitic pumice fallout layers known col-
lectively as the Faby Tuff (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984). These were
mainly dispersed to the east and southeast during a period between
240 and 140 ky (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984; Wilcox, 2011). Dur-
ing the third stage (starting at 140 ky), a second caldera-forming
eruption produced the quasi-circular, 9-km-diameter Los Potreros
caldera nested within Los Humeros caldera. This eruption produced
about 15 km3 (DRE) (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984; Carrasco-Núñez and
Branney, 2005) of a double compositionally zoned (from rhyolitic
to andesitic to rhyolitic pumice) Zaragoza ignimbrite (Carrasco-
Núñez and Branney, 2005). During the fourth stage, rhyodacitic
and andesitic lavas erupted at 60 ky, followed by minor erup-
tions, including a 0.6 km3 dacitic pumice fall deposit (Xoxoctic Tuff;
 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
Fig. 1. Location of Los Humeros caldera and geothermal field. a) Inset map showing the distribution in the eastern Trans Mexican Volcanic Belt (TMVB). b) Digital Elevation
Model for Los Humeros showing the main structural features (Los Potreros and Los Humeros scarps).
∼50 ky) and diverse pyroclastic flows and breccia deposits grouped
as the Llano Tuff (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984; Wilcox, 2011), which
has a minimum age of 28 ky (Rojas, 2016). The recent volcanism
comprising andesitic and basaltic lavas with some explosive activ-
ity is dated at 40 and 20 ky by K/Ar (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984) but
the dates are affected by very large errors (+/− 30 in both cases).
The youngest activity produced a rhythmic alternation of trachyan-
desitic and basaltic fall layers (Cuicuiltic tuff) that were associated
with formation of the 1.7-km diameter Xalapazco crater in the
southern part of the caldera by Ferriz and Mahood (1984). However,
recent studies demonstrate that this is from simultaneous activity
at several different vents located both in the center and to the east
and southeast of Los Humeros caldera more recently than 6.7 ky
(Dávila-Harris and Carrasco-Núñez, 2014). The final activity is asso-
ciated with about 0.25 km3 basaltic andesite and basaltic lava flows
that erupted from Los Humeros southern calderaı́s rim and flowed
to the south (Fig. 2). Also, some olivine basaltic lava flows erupted
inside the caldera and on the southern flank, as well as dacitic-
rhyodacitic lavas (Arenas) near the SW caldera rim. These lavas
3
were considered younger than 20 ky by Ferriz and Mahood (1984),
but because they overlie the Cuicuiltic tuff, they are now considered
to be of Holocene age. Another collapse structure, called the Central
Collapse, was proposed in the inner part of the caldera (De la Cruz,
1983; López-Hernández, 1995), but neither this structure nor any
deposits associated with it has been confirmed (Gutiérrez-Negrín
and Izquierdo-Montalvo, 2010, this work). Instead, it seems to rep-
resent a morphological configuration formed by lava flow fronts
from nearby vents.
4. Methods
Selection of the wells to be studied was based on a preliminary
analysis of the available material from each well: type of mate-
rial (cores or chips), degree of alteration, precise information of its
depth, and strategic location within the geothermal field. Lithos-
tratigraphic characterization of all the studied logs was based in
a detailed revision from description of chips at intervals of 10 m
for each well. Cleaned samples were observed with a binocular
4 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
Fig. 2. Revised geologic map of Los Humeros (modified from Ferriz y Mahood, 1984; De la Cruz, 1983; y Yáñez y García, 1980). Radiometric dating indicated by red asterisks
are compiled from different sources as indicated in the text. Main structural features are indicated. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.).
microscope, complemented with petrographic studies for selected
samples, and geochemical and geochronologic analyses in particu-
lar cases.
4.1. 40 Ar-39 Ar analytical procedures
The 40 Ar-39 Ar analyses were performed at the Laboratorio
de Geocronología at the Departamento de Geología of Centro
de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ense-
nada (CICESE). The argon isotope experiments were conducted
on sample fragments of groundmass concentrate. The equip-
ment consists of a Coherent Ar-ion Innova 70 laser extraction
system in line with a VG5400 mass spectrometer. All the
samples and irradiation monitors were irradiated in the U-
enriched research reactor of University of McMaster in Hamilton,
Canada, at position 5C for 10 hr. To block thermal neutrons,
the capsule was covered with a cadmium liner during irradia-
tion. Aliquots of sanidine TCR-2 (28.34 ± 0.28 Ma, Renne et al.,
1998) and sanidine FCT-2 (28.201 ± 0.046 Ma, Kuiper et al., 2008)
were used as irradiation monitors. The monitors were dis-
tributed among the samples to determine the neutron flux
variations. Upon irradiation, the monitors were fused in one
step while the samples were step-heated. All the argon exper-
iments were preceded by a blank measurement, in which all
the argon isotopes were measured. The argon isotopes were cor-
rected for blank, mass discrimination, radioactive decay of 37 Ar
and 39 Ar, and calcium, potassium and chlorine neutron-induced
interference reactions. The parameters used to correct for neutron-
induced interference reactions were: (39 Ar/37 Ar)Ca = 6.50 × 10−4 ;
(36 Ar/37 Ar)Ca = 2.55 × 10−4 ; (40 Ar/39 Ar)K = 0. Mass 36 was also cor-
rected for chlorine-derived 36 Ar (35 Cl (n, ␥) 36 Cl →36 Ar + ␤ with
t½ = 3.1 × 105 a). The decay constants recommended by Steiger and
Jäger (1977) were applied in the data processing. The equations
reported by York et al. (2004) were used in all the straight-line-
fitting routines of the argon data reduction. The plateau age was
calculated from the weighted mean of consecutive fractions that
were in agreement within 1 ␴. The errors in the plateau, integrated
and isochron ages include the scatter in the irradiation monitors.
The analytical precision is reported as one standard deviation (1 ␴).
The relevant 40 Ar-39 Ar data for all the experiments are available at
the Appendix A as supplementary data upon request. A summary
of the ages obtained is presented in Table 1.
Two experiments were performed for all the samples, these
yielded reproducible results. The heating schedule for the second
experiment was improved based on the pattern of the argon release
of the first run, also whenever it was possible the amount of sam-
ple used was adjusted with the aim of obtaining better precision
of the 40 Ar-39 Ar ages. The well samples contained some degree
of hydrothermal alteration and released unusually high amount of
gases. A combination of a carefully chosen heating schedule, a cold
liquid nitrogen trap, plus two stages of cleaning with SAES getters
allowed to determine the argon isotopic composition which con-
sisted chiefly of argon of atmospheric composition. In spite of the
imprecise ages obtained, these results allowed us to correlate at
1␴ level the age of the rock formations at depth with the surface
geology of the Los Humeros geothermal field.
 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
Table 1
Summary of 40 Ar/39 Ar dating.
Sample UTM (GSR) t (Ma) 1 s (Ma)
HU 08 01 692068 2175044 1.46 0.31
H 26 N3 663133 2175459 1.55 0.54
HU 08 06 692580 2176215 1.62 0.04
H 25 N2 666396 2176169 1.80 0.98
H 20 N2 663330 2177486 2.08 0.21
H 20 N5 663330 2177486 2.53 0.86
H 42 663265 2173558 2.61 0.43
These were plotted as age spectra, in which the plateau segment
is identified. The low-temperature fractions displayed argon loss
or excess argon. The isochron ages were calculated in the correla-
tion 36 Ar/40 Ar versus 39 Ar/40 Ar diagram from the best straight line
described by the fractions that define the plateau segment. Gener-
ally, there was good agreement between the calculated plateau and
isochron ages. For the majority of the samples (H20 N-2; H25 N-2;
H26 N3; H42), the plateau age is preferred. For samples HU08-01,
HU08-06 and H20 N-5, the isochron age is taken as the best esti-
mate of the age of the sample. The detailed 40 Ar/39 Ar results are
presented in the Supplementary data, these include a table with
the relevant 40 Ar/39 Ar data and figures with the age spectra, the
37 Ar /39 Ar diagram and the 36 Ar/40 Ar versus 39 Ar/40 Ar correla-
Ca K
tion diagram.
4.2. Geochemical analytical methods
Samples for major elements were analyzed at the Labora-
torio Universitario de Geoquímica Isotópica (LUGIS) at Instituto
de Geología of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
(UNAM), using a SRS-3000 Siemens FRX. The trace elements were
determined using an Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrom-
eter (ICP-MS), using a Thermo Series XII, at the Laboratorio de
Estudios Isotópicos (LEI) of the Centro de Geociencias (UNAM).
Sample preparation was made using an ultraclean laboratory at
Centro de Geociencias (UNAM). For the analysis, at least 4 certified
international standards were used (AGV-2, BCR-2, AGV-2, JB-2). The
details of the analytical procedures can be found in Mori (2007).
5. Stratigraphic columns from selected wells
Based upon the type of material and availability, degree of alter-
ation, and position within the geothermal field, we selected wells
H20, H43 and H25, to cover the WNW-ESE path; wells H5, H8, H10,
H19 and H20, to cover NE-SW path; and the wells H42, H26, H19
and H20, to cover the N-S (Fig. 3). The studied logs show an evi-
dent lithostratigraphic heterogeneity; nevertheless, we identified
field–scale lithostratigraphic units representing the subsurface of
los Humeros caldera. We provide a more detailed description for
wells H20 and H43, due to their strategic location and better sample
availability. Additional details for the other wells mentioned above
are included as supplementary repository material.
5.1. Well H20 (2830 masl; depth: 2400 m)
This well is located at the east boundary of the active geothermal
field (Fig. 3). For practical purposes, the lithostratigraphic log was
grouped into 2 main sequences: the lower unit is a thick effusive
succession including both an andesitic lava formation in the lower
part (1060–2400 m deep; 420–1760 masl) overlain by a rhyolitic-
dacitic unit (1060–470 m deep; 1760–2350 masl). This upper unit is
a more heterogeneous sequence dominated by rhyolitic pyroclastic
rocks and minor scoriaceous deposits in the upper part, with some
intercalations of lava flows of different compositions, which appear
from 470 m deep (2350 masl) to the surface (Fig. 4a).
5
Comments Rock type
isocrone; 40 Ar/36 Ar = 389 ± 82; n = 10 / MSWD = 1.1 andesitic basalt
plateau; 69.66% 39 Ar; n = 3 / MSWD = 0.05 andesitic basalt
isocrone; 40 Ar/36 Ar = 331 ± 73; n = 8 / MSWD = 0.7 andesitic basalt
plateau; 52.02% 39 Ar; n = 2 / MSWD < 0.01 basalt
plateau; 96.31% 39 Ar; n = 5 / MSWD = 0.2 andesite
isocrone; 40 Ar/36 Ar = 374 ± 27; n = 5 / MSWD = 0.4 andesite
isocrone; 40 Ar/36 Ar = 307 ± 8; n = 12 / MSWD = 1.1 andesite
The lower sequence can be subdivided into at least 3 units:
a) basal hornblende-bearing andesites, b) pyroxene-bearing por-
phyritic andesites, at the intermediate level, and c) rhyolitic and
dacitic lava flows at the upper level, with minor altered layers
that resemble tuff horizons, at 2100 m deep (720 masl), and some
other thin layers. The lowermost andesitic lavas are very dis-
tinctive because they contain primary hornblende crystals. They
show microlitic textures and occasionally skeletal textures (sieve)
that indicate mineralogical disequilibrium. It is very important
to highlight that these andesites have a very restricted distribu-
tion in the subsurface geology of Los Humeros, in contrast with
previous reports. The H20 well, did not reach basement rocks at
the bottom (2400 m). The dominant rocks of the lower sequence
are pyroxene-bearing porphyritic andesites with plagioclase and
opaque minerals showing different degrees of alteration, with a
dominance of epidote, calcite, oxides and quartz. Below 1650 m
deep (1170 masl), we observed a remarkable greenish color reflect-
ing a higher proportion of epidote that continued to the deepest
part of the log. In contrast, the upper unit of this sequence is 600 m
thick and is made of rhyolitic and dacitic lavas, with minor andesitic
lavas intercalated in the lower part. The first ones contain biotite
crystals and flow banding, visible at macro and microscopic scale
(fluidal texture), which indicates they were emplaced as viscous
lava flows. Some obsidian fragments were found, suggesting the
formation of an outer vitrophyric carapace. No shards or broken
crystals were found. All of these features (great thickness, flow
banding texture, absence of shards) and its association with obsid-
ian layers, allow us to interpret them as an effusive event related
to the formation of a dome complex exhibiting a typical vitro-
phyric carapace. This interpretation differs from previous reports
where they were considered as thick pyroclastic units (Viggiano
and Robles, 1988).
The altered horizon of tuffaceous appearance at the 2100 m
level (720 masl) is just beneath a rhyolitic vitrophyric rock mix-
ing with porphyritic andesites with plagioclase and epidote.
Likewise, at other stratigraphic levels (such as 1360 m deep;
1460 masl), those altered layers may represent local boundaries
between units or sites affected by fractures that facilitate the
introduction of hydrothermal fluids causing more intense alter-
ation.
The upper sequence is formed by two different units. The lower
unit is 400 m thick, composed dominantly of rhyolitic tuffs (ign-
imbrites) with different degrees of welding. Even though they are
altered, we identified biotite and hornblende crystals within a
glassy matrix, with fiamme textures. Within this sequence, there
are andesitic-dacitic lavas and a few banded rhyolitic lavas, partic-
ularly at the lower part of this unit.
The topmost part of the upper sequence is 70 m thick and com-
prises deposits of lithic fragments of andesitic-basaltic composition
as well as pumice and scoria tuffs, which can be derived from
small cinder cones and recent explosive activity generated in the
calderaı́s interior. This unit is commonly forming part of the upper-
most sequences found in all lithostratigraphic logs of Los Humeros
field.
6 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
H-59
H-62
43
H-4
H-50
Correlation Section
Selected well
Producer well
Closed well
Injector well
New well
Fig. 3. Location of the main geothermal wells within Los Humeros geotherm field, showing those used in this paper (circle) and sections.gr3
5.2. Well H43 (2818 masl; depth of 2200 m)
This well is located in the west-central part of the geother-
mal field, cutting the meta-sedimentary basement at 1725 m
(1105 masl), with a thickness of 475 m. It comprises recrystal-
lized limestone, skarn and some andesitic intrusions, which appear
preferentially toward the upper part. The base of the lower
andesitic sequence, with a thickness of 640 m, is at a depth of
1640 m (1190 masl), where it is in contact with an 80 m-thick
altered horizon of tuffaceous appearance, lying directly over the
metasedimentary basement (Fig. 4b). The base of this sequence is
composed of altered porphyritic basaltic andesites, while the upper
part is dominated by plagioclase-pyroxene bearing porphyritic
andesites. This lithologic change occurs at 1300 m (1530 masl),
where the zone of geothermal interest begins and extends to
a depth of 2300 m (Lorenzo-Pulido, 2008). This transition from
altered andesites (base) to pyroxene-bearing andesites is consid-
ered an important factor favoring better permeable conditions for
the geothermal reservoir. It is important to highlight the absence
of primary hornblende within any of these andesites, so we con-
sider that the hornblende-phyric andesite unit is not present in
this well, which differs to previous reports (Lorenzo-Pulido, 2008;
Viggiano and Flores-Armenta, 2008). The basal andesites of this log
show a geochemical affinity (more mafic) that is not compatible
with the porphyritic andesites. Furthermore, none of the andesitic
H-55
rp
s sca
otrero
Los P
42
Xalapazco
crater
km
intrusions in the meta-sedimentary basement contain hornblende
crystals. The upper sequence initiates at 1000 m depth (1840 masl)
and is composed of three different units. The lower one (230 m
thick) is a mixture of porphyritic andesites intercalated with either
lithic or altered rhyolitic glassy tuffs. The unit is overlain by a 360-
m-thick homogeneous lithic tuff with biotite, obsidian and eutaxitic
(fiamme) texture. The presence of glass (obsidian) and the fiamme
texture allows a strong correlation of this unit with the Xáltipan
ignimbrite, where it is a typical feature. The intermediate unit con-
tinues upward, reaching a thickness of 300 m. It is dominated by
rhyolitic and rhyodacitic tuffs, both lithic and vitro-crystalline, with
intercalated andesitic and andesitic basalts. It is separated from the
basal unit by a thin horizon of porphyritic basaltic andesite. The
shallower unit of this well is 100–110 m thick. It is composed of
a combination of olivine basalts with minor pumice and andesites
with porphyritic texture. This latter unit can be correlated with
similar units observed in the majority of the wells studied.
6. Geochemistry of the lithostratigraphic units
We used geochemical indicators to differentiate and ultimately
facilitate correlation among lithostratigraphic units, focusing on
geochemical parameters that are not affected by the different
degrees of hydrothermal alteration of the well samples. The most
 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17 7

H 20 H-43
a b

Samples
0
Pumice tuff 0 Pumice tuffs
Olivine basalt
100
Lithic tuff
Altered tuff
100 Porphyritic andesite (pl>cpx)
Obsidian tuff
Vitro-crystalline tuff
200 Welded (obsidian) tuff
Porphyritic andesite-dacite 200
300
Welded rhyolitic tuff (bio?) * Lithic-crystalline tuff
Rhyolitic tuff
Lithic rhyodacitic tuff
Porphyritic dacite (pl) 300 * Rhyolitic tuff
400 Banded rhyolite *
Rhyodacitic tuff (bio) Vitro-lithic tuff
400
*
500 * Porphyritic basaltic andesite
Altered banded rhyolite-dacite * (pl>cpx)

600 500 Altered rhyolitic tuff

Obsidian rhyolite-dacite *
700 Microporphyritic rhyolite-dacite
600
Altered banded dacite Lithic tuff (ignimbrite)
800
Lithic rhyolitic tuff 700
40 39
Ar/ Ar Porphyritic andesite-dacite (px)
2.08 ± 0.21 Ma
900
* N2 Lithic tuff/ vítric andesite
800
Vitrophyric rhyolite (bio ?) Vitric andesite (pl>cpx)
1000 Altered tuff
Banded dacite-rhyolite (+/- obsidian) *
900 * Porphyritic andesite (pl>px)
1100 * Lithic andesitic tuff
Porphyritic andesite
Altered rhyolitic tuff
1000 * Andesitic lithic tuff/ porphyritic andesite
1200 *
Altered porphyritic andesite
1100
1300
Andesite-dacite (+/- obsidian) *
Lithic tuff
1400 N4 1200
** Altered porphyritic andesite
Porphyritic andesite (pl, px)
(pl>px)
1500
1300

1600
1400
40 39
Begin greenish coloration
Ar/ Ar 1700
2.53 ± 0.86 Ma *N5 Porphyritic basic andesite
1500 *
1800
Altered porphyritic andesite (px)
1600
1900
**
1700 Altered tuff-like rocks
2000

N6
Obsidian rhyolite
2100
Altered tuff 1800
Andesitic intrusions
2200
1900
Limestone basement rocks
2300
2000
Altered porphyritic andesite (horn)
2400 N7
2100

2200

Fig. 4. Revised Lithostratigraphic columns for the wells (a) H-20, (b) H-43.

sensitive elements to alteration (i.e. Sr and Ba) do not show a direct
correlation with the alteration degree (characterized by the LOI),
and therefore these can be used as geochemical indicators for cor-
relation purposes (Carrasco-Núñez et al., 2008). Also, the rest of the
elements used (i.e. REE, Nb and Ta) are considered immobile during
weathering and metamorphism.
In order to establish possible relations among the different
lithostratigraphic units, we propose some inter-element relations
that can be used as geochemical discriminators to help confirm
stratigraphic correlations. Several plots show some interesting geo-
chemical groups. The Nb/La-Sr/Nb plot (Fig. 5) shows at least 2
different geochemical groups (for practical purposes named A &
B) for the wellı́s samples as well as for surficial samples, that crop
out outside of the caldera, 14 km northeast of Perote town (Fig. 2).
A few samples plot in a separate group that we named “C”.
The geochemical group A is characterized by high silica con-
tents (rhyolites with >70% SiO2 , and low Sr/Nb (Fig. 5), Ba/Nb and
Eu/Eu* (Table 2; Fig. 6), values that are very distinctive in compari-
son with the rest of the analyzed samples. The rocks of group A are
very abundant in the upper part of the sequence for all the wells
and they are restricted to the first 1,000 m of depth (Fig. 6). Most
of them are possibly related to the voluminous caldera-forming
deposits of Los Humeros. At least some of these rock units clearly
correlate with the Xaltipan ignimbrite by its composition, physical
properties and stratigraphic position. The geochemical group B is
the most abundant, it is present in all the studied wells, comprising
all the lithostratigraphic sequences. This group consists of andesites
and basalts, having high Nb/La values (Fig. 5), with moderate Ba/Nb
and Sr/Nb (Fig. 5); and homogeneous Eu/Eu* without great Eu
8 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17

Table 2
Selected trace elements (Sr, Nb, La and Eu) of surface rocks, wells H5, H8, H10, H19, H20, H24, H26, H42 and H43, and of Cerro Grande (by comparison).

Sample HU-0807 HU-0801 HU-0802 HU-0803 HU-0803J HU-0803M LH-0804 HU-0806 HU-0805 H5-130 H5-280

Sr 13.2 467.9 381.7 259.0 214.7 285.6 422.0 419.6 557.9 367.2 570.9
Nb 20.6 18.8 29.4 39.9 42.9 39.3 21.7 22.6 12.4 16.9 9.6
La 43.2 31.2 44.0 53.7 52.5 49.8 41.3 40.6 20.9 31.5 25.5
Eu 0.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.6

Sample H5-530 H5-610 H5-850 H5-880M H5-970 H5-1308 H5-1310M H5-1470 H8-480 H8-610 H8-1000
Sr 377.8 506.0 27.7 589.7 31.9 493.9 496.5 306.6 356.2 190.8 670.5
Nb 52.0 31.5 19.8 31.6 20.5 15.6 16.6 1.2 17.3 20.0 23.9
La 52.9 35.0 33.5 35.0 36.5 20.0 20.8 5.0 26.6 26.0 36.9
Eu 2.0 1.7 0.3 1.8 0.2 1.6 1.6 0.2 1.3 0.9 1.8

Sample H8-1500 H8-1850 H8-2120 H8-2126 H10-710 H10-1060 H10-1450 H10-N1 H10-1710 H10-N2 H10-N2C
Sr 648.9 646.7 488.0 505.0 625.2 620.5 636.3 640.9 619.8 278.8 255.2
Nb 29.0 11.6 5.4 5.6 28.1 14.5 30.2 31.6 28.8 16.8 34.8
La 34.3 19.8 15.0 15.2 34.3 19.6 36.5 41.5 34.1 22.3 37.0
Eu 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.2

Sample H10-2050 H10-2065M H10-2090 H10-N3 H19-640 H19-970 H19-1210 H19-1740 H19-N4 H19-1960 H20-210
Sr 659.2 785.8 317.2 239.4 325.2 30.4 499.1 286.2 568.6 333.5 131.6
Nb 10.5 14.6 12.6 34.1 47.4 18.2 41.9 17.8 20.9 25.0 20.5
La 18.6 23.1 25.8 40.9 58.1 36.9 49.5 36.5 26.3 35.4 39.1
Eu 1.1 2.1 1.5 1.5 2.0 0.3 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.6

Sample H20-290 H20-310 H20-410M H20-450M H20-580M H20-820 H20N2 900 H20-970 H20-1230 H20-1300 H20-N4 1400
Sr 27.5 45.8 18.2 196.8 23.4 51.0 521.7 16.0 539.5 532.9 405.7
Nb 17.7 19.5 18.4 23.4 19.0 18.5 36.0 24.5 29.7 30.3 39.8
La 38.6 38.9 37.3 38.5 40.0 39.4 46.5 26.1 40.6 40.9 45.2
Eu 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.4 2.2 0.2 1.9 1.9 1.9

Sample H20-N5 1700 H20-N6 2000 H20-N7 2400 H24-N1 H24-N2A H24-N3 H24-N4 H 25–858 H25-N1 H 25–1590 H25-N2
Sr 630.2 393.8 1292.2 574.52 622.44 372.00 436.46 593.5 422.74 7.9 457.72
Nb 25.1 27.2 5.4 32.98 33.09 28.77 15.14 11.1 27.58 57.7 21.73
La 38.0 29.8 32.1 37.84 36.98 29.67 28.51 19.0 42.56 76.8 21.32
Eu 1.8 1.3 2.0 2.05 1.91 0.82 1.45 1.481 2.37 0.505 2.05

Sample H 25–1970 H26-N1 H 26–950 H26-N2 H 26–1420 H 26–1610 H26-N3 H 26–2260 H42-1020 H42-1020 H42-1340
Sr 565.9 256.65 36.3 381.20 369.3 372.7 596.36 1259.2 435.1 423.8 360.5
Nb 40.2 19.00 21.9 26.87 43.7 48.7 27.20 5.0 23.9 23.7 26.8
La 46.7 32.84 43.2 42.03 48.5 51.7 29.47 30.9 38.8 38.6 42.6
Eu 2.029 1.24 0.362 2.35 1.944 1.738 1.65 1.982 2.3 2.3 2.3

0 Surface
Well H 5
500 Well H 8

A Well H 10
Depth (m)

Well H 19
1000 Well H 20
Well H 24
Well H 25
1500
Well H 26
Well H 42
2000 Well H 43
Cerro Grande
CG Average
2500
0.1 1.0 10.0
Eu/Eu*
Fig. 5. Plot of Nb/La vs. Sr/Nb for the studied wells, including samples from the Fig. 6. Plot depth vs. Eu/Eu* for selected wells of Los Humeros. Group A shows clearly
Cerro Grande volcanic field. Three main groups can be identified (see text for more lower values for Eu/Eu* but groups B and C are not distinguishable from each other.
details).

anomalies and relatively high Nb/Ta. The similarities observed in
these rocks (group B), indicate that they are likely co-genetic.
Some isolated basaltic units that appear within the andesitic
sequence at different stratigraphic levels in some wells were geo-
chemically compared for possible correlation. We found some
similarities (REE patterns) between pyroxene-bearing basalts of
wells H5 and H10, for levels 1300 (well H5) and 1060 (well H10),
but different with respect to level 1710 (well H10), suggesting a
possible correlation between them (Table 3; Fig. 7). If this corre-
lation is correct, that lava flow would indicate an offset of at least
160 m with the block down toward well H5. Although this possi-
ble structural configuration disagrees with the structural pattern
proposed by Cedillo (1997) and Arredondo (2007), it is apparently
compatible with that proposed by Cedillo (1999), favoring the pos-
sible prolongation of Los Humeros fault dipping to the west at a
depth of at least 2.3 km.
Rocks of the geochemical group C include an andesitic rock
located at the bottom of well H20, showing both petrographic and
geochemical features that correlate with similar Miocene rocks
from Cerro Grande volcanic complex, located to the west of the
caldera. They have high Sr (> 1000 ppm), high Sr/Nb, Ba/Nb and
low Nb/La (Fig. 5). The stratigraphic position of these rocks at the
bottom of well H20 is compatible with a much older age of that
volcanism. Furthermore, the presence of primary hornblende is a
 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17 9

Table 3
Rare Earth Elements (REE) chemistry of the wells H5, H10 and H20.

Sample La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Tb Gd Dy Ho Er Yb Lu

H5-130 31.5 62.3 7.6 27.9 5.7 1.4 0.8 5.0 4.5 0.9 2.6 2.5 0.4
H5-280 25.5 54.3 6.9 27.5 5.8 1.6 0.7 5.0 4.0 0.8 2.2 2.0 0.3
H5-530 52.9 108.3 13.3 50.8 9.9 2.0 1.3 8.5 7.0 1.3 3.6 3.4 0.5
H5-610 35.0 74.9 9.2 35.5 7.3 1.7 1.0 6.5 5.4 1.0 2.8 2.7 0.4
H5-850 33.5 63.8 7.1 23.4 4.6 0.3 0.7 3.9 3.9 0.8 2.3 2.3 0.3
H5-880 35.0 73.1 9.2 35.9 7.4 1.8 0.9 6.4 5.2 1.0 2.7 2.5 0.4
H5-970 36.5 74.2 7.8 25.6 5.1 0.2 0.7 4.3 4.0 0.8 2.3 2.2 0.3
H5-1308 20.0 44.1 5.9 24.5 5.5 1.6 0.8 5.1 4.2 0.8 2.1 1.9 0.3
H5-1310 20.8 45.2 5.9 24.6 5.3 1.6 0.8 5.2 4.3 0.8 2.1 1.9 0.3
H5-1470 5.0 5.5 0.9 4.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1
H10-710 34.3 72.1 9.0 35.3 7.3 1.8 0.9 6.1 4.9 0.9 2.5 2.3 0.3
H10-1060 19.6 43.1 5.7 23.3 5.2 1.6 0.7 5.0 4.3 0.8 2.2 1.8 0.3
H10-1450 36.5 74.3 9.5 36.6 7.4 1.9 0.9 6.4 5.1 1.0 2.6 2.3 0.3
H10-N1 41.5 88.5 10.9 42.2 8.4 1.9 1.0 6.9 5.2 1.0 2.6 2.3 0.3
H10-1710 34.1 70.3 9.0 34.9 7.1 1.8 0.9 6.1 4.8 0.9 2.4 2.2 0.3
H10-N2 22.3 48.5 5.7 22.3 4.5 1.3 0.6 4.1 3.3 0.7 1.6 1.5 0.2
H10-N2C 37.0 68.5 6.9 22.1 4.0 1.2 0.4 2.6 2.1 0.4 1.0 1.1 0.2
H10-2050 18.6 38.6 4.9 18.9 3.9 1.1 0.5 3.5 2.8 0.5 1.4 1.2 0.1
H10-2065 23.1 52.2 7.4 31.1 7.6 2.1 0.9 6.4 5.3 1.0 2.3 2.0 0.3
H10-2090 25.8 55.2 7.1 27.7 6.0 1.5 0.7 4.9 4.3 0.8 1.9 1.7 0.2
H10-N3 40.9 75.9 8.1 27.0 5.3 1.5 0.6 4.2 4.2 0.8 2.0 2.1 0.3
H20-210 39.1 76.5 8.4 29.0 5.6 0.6 0.8 5.2 5.1 1.1 3.0 3.4 0.5
H20-290 38.6 76.6 8.3 27.5 5.4 0.3 0.8 4.7 4.6 0.9 2.6 2.5 0.3
H20-310 38.9 73.5 8.1 27.6 5.4 0.3 0.8 4.9 5.0 1.0 3.1 3.5 0.5
H20-410 37.3 70.7 7.8 25.9 5.0 0.3 0.7 4.4 4.4 0.9 2.6 2.6 0.4
H20-450 38.5 73.2 8.7 30.8 6.3 0.9 0.9 5.5 5.1 1.0 3.1 3.2 0.5
H20-580 40.0 78.0 8.5 28.0 5.4 0.3 0.8 4.8 4.6 0.9 2.5 2.4 0.3
H20-820 39.4 77.5 8.3 28.6 5.5 0.4 0.8 5.1 5.2 1.1 3.1 3.5 0.5
H20-N2 900 46.5 92.7 11.8 45.9 9.4 2.2 1.2 8.0 6.8 1.3 3.4 3.2 0.5
H20-970 26.1 54.4 6.2 21.2 4.7 0.2 0.7 4.2 4.5 0.9 2.7 2.9 0.4
H20-1230 40.6 82.3 10.2 38.9 7.9 1.9 1.0 6.7 5.5 1.1 3.0 2.9 0.4
H20-1300 40.9 84.8 10.3 39.1 8.0 1.9 1.0 6.9 5.8 1.1 3.2 3.1 0.5
H20-N4 1400 45.2 91.1 11.4 42.8 8.4 1.9 1.0 6.9 5.8 1.1 3.1 3.0 0.4
H20-N5 1700 38.0 75.6 9.6 36.4 7.2 1.8 0.9 6.1 5.0 1.0 2.7 2.6 0.4
H20-N6 2000 29.8 56.5 6.8 24.3 4.9 1.3 0.6 3.9 3.3 0.6 1.6 1.5 0.2
H20-N7 2400 32.1 70.8 9.7 38.2 7.8 2.0 0.8 5.8 3.8 0.7 1.6 1.3 0.2

Fig. 7. Plot of REE normalized to NMORB (Sun and McDonough, 1989) for basaltic samples of wells H 5 and H 10.

very distinctive feature, showing its compositional affinity with the
Cerro Grande rocks. None of the rocks of group B have compositions
similar to the Miocene andesites of the Cerro Grande area (Fig. 5).
Well H20 was selected, due to its location and sample avail-
ability, to observe in more detail the geochemical variations of
the different units with respect to depth. The REE pattern for the
basal unit representing the hornblende andesites of group C is
completely different to the rest of the sequence. The hornblende
andesites show a marked depletion of LREE and do not show a Eu
anomaly. With the exception of level 970 m, the remainder of the
samples from the lower sequence up to the 900 m level, do not
show an Eu anomaly, which contrasts with the upper sequence
Table 4
Trace elements chemistry of the wells H5, H10 and H20.

10
Sample H5-130 H5-280 H5-530 H5-610 H5-850 H5-880 H5-970 H5-1308 H5-1310 H5-1470 H10-710 H10-1060 H10-1450 H10-N1 H10-1710 H10-N2 H10-N2C H10-2050
Li 12.7 13.4 9.0 9.2 19.5 10.5 20.5 13.2 13.9 2.0 7.3 8.4 10.5 14.4 7.6 12.7 5.7 6.8
Be 2.5 1.7 3.5 2.3 5.2 2.1 5.9 1.3 1.2 0.2 2.0 1.3 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.4 3.2 1.6
Sc 11.6 19.0 13.1 17.1 3.8 16.3 3.7 28.0 27.5 2.8 18.4 30.7 17.6 18.8 18.8 16.8 5.0 17.8
V 88.0 159.1 111.8 159.2 4.6 137.6 4.2 224.3 236.7 39.3 160.5 248.8 156.7 175.9 153.6 114.3 55.1 127.4
Cr 33.1 43.9 11.7 44.8 9.8 61.0 8.6 414.5 425.3 43.9 88.4 438.3 99.0 72.3 95.7 41.9 8.8 59.7
Co 14.2 23.6 13.7 22.4 0.9 19.8 0.8 38.3 39.7 3.0 20.0 43.8 22.1 21.7 19.8 28.4 8.7 13.6
Ni 24.6 23.9 7.8 24.3 0.9 18.8 1.0 183.4 182.2 14.6 19.6 176.5 21.5 31.5 19.9 61.6 6.9 11.4
Cu 25.4 38.0 29.6 44.1 1.6 40.2 2.1 40.2 37.9 5.6 38.6 30.1 47.0 42.1 39.2 27.0 7.5 11.8
Zn 64.5 78.6 56.3 93.4 14.8 72.6 30.2 84.6 81.1 21.3 85.4 106.0 85.3 135.6 73.5 96.6 61.1 69.3
Ga 19.3 19.9 22.0 21.1 17.2 19.8 16.7 18.0 18.1 2.1 20.5 18.3 21.0 24.0 20.3 20.4 25.2 18.5
Sr 367.2 570.9 377.8 506.0 27.7 589.7 31.9 493.9 496.5 306.6 625.2 620.5 636.3 640.9 619.8 278.8 255.2 659.2
Rb 78.4 42.1 105.7 60.4 147.8 44.4 146.3 16.0 13.2 2.8 56.3 13.2 48.9 62.1 58.6 69.7 93.2 23.0
Sr 367.0 570.4 368.9 500.8 29.1 585.1 33.4 498.0 480.4 245.9 625.2 620.5 636.3 661.4 619.8 274.1 234.8 659.2
Y 26.0 22.1 38.4 29.3 24.6 28.3 24.1 22.9 22.4 5.1 26.3 22.0 26.9 28.8 25.1 19.3 11.1 14.1
Zr 299.0 176.7 473.6 325.8 57.7 279.3 48.4 157.8 148.7 10.9 218.4 78.3 226.2 237.2 202.1 92.2 122.3 46.7
Nb 16.9 9.6 52.0 31.5 19.8 31.6 20.5 15.6 16.6 1.2 28.1 14.5 30.2 31.6 28.8 16.8 34.8 10.5
Mo 2.9 1.8 3.5 5.8 2.2 2.5 1.6 1.1 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.5 0.6
Sn 7.3 1.2 3.1 1.9 4.0 1.6 3.5 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.2 1.9 8.2
Sb 0.6 0.2 2.4 1.2 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.1 0.4
Cs 2.0 1.1 2.7 2.2 2.2 1.7 2.3 2.4 3.5 0.7 3.7 5.4 1.7 1.8 5.0 1.9 7.5 1.5
Ba 701.7 543.5 725.1 469.3 136.7 627.6 129.2 293.5 268.0 53.7 553.1 290.2 588.4 562.2 542.8 624.4 976.7 321.2

G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17

La 31.5 25.5 52.9 35.0 33.5 35.0 36.5 20.0 20.8 5.0 34.3 19.6 36.5 41.5 34.1 22.3 37.0 18.6
Ce 62.3 54.3 108.3 74.9 63.8 73.1 74.2 44.1 45.2 5.5 72.1 43.1 74.3 88.5 70.3 48.5 68.5 38.6
Pr 7.6 6.9 13.3 9.2 7.1 9.2 7.8 5.9 5.9 0.9 9.0 5.7 9.5 10.9 9.0 5.7 6.9 4.9
Nd 27.9 27.5 50.8 35.5 23.4 35.9 25.6 24.5 24.6 4.1 35.3 23.3 36.6 42.2 34.9 22.3 22.1 18.9
Sm 5.7 5.8 9.9 7.3 4.6 7.4 5.1 5.5 5.3 0.6 7.3 5.2 7.4 8.4 7.1 4.5 4.0 3.9
Eu 1.4 1.6 2.0 1.7 0.3 1.8 0.2 1.6 1.6 0.2 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.1
Tb 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5
Gd 5.0 5.0 8.5 6.5 3.9 6.4 4.3 5.1 5.2 0.8 6.1 5.0 6.4 6.9 6.1 4.1 2.6 3.5
Dy 4.5 4.0 7.0 5.4 3.9 5.2 4.0 4.2 4.3 0.7 4.9 4.3 5.1 5.2 4.8 3.3 2.1 2.8
Ho 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.5
Er 2.6 2.2 3.6 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.1 0.3 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.0 1.4
Yb 2.5 2.0 3.4 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.9 0.3 2.3 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.5 1.1 1.2
Lu 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1
Hf 6.6 4.1 10.8 7.3 1.9 6.1 1.7 3.4 3.4 0.2 4.9 2.1 5.1 5.4 4.5 2.4 3.1 1.3
Ta 1.1 0.6 2.7 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.0 2.4 0.7
W 1.0 0.3 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.6 1.5 0.8 0.3
Tl 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.3
Pb 12.1 8.2 11.9 16.5 15.5 11.9 16.0 11.3 13.0 1.7 9.5 23.7 10.0 11.7 10.1 10.3 17.8 6.8
Th 10.4 6.0 19.7 12.4 19.5 10.8 18.7 2.6 2.8 0.2 8.9 2.4 9.3 9.6 8.2 5.0 9.3 2.7
U 3.0 1.6 4.8 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 2.5 0.6 2.6 3.2 2.3 1.5 1.4 0.8

Sample H42-1610 H42-1810 H42-2140 H43-290 H43-320 H43-400 H43-440 H43-885 H43-925 H43-975 H43-1005
Sr 163.3 587.6 363.8 212.2 501.8 497.0 135.5 498.9 530.9 27.6 505.7
Nb 35.9 30.0 24.4 22.7 37.3 40.6 23.1 27.4 34.8 20.8 36.9
La 52.5 45.3 33.8 36.7 41.8 41.4 35.7 41.6 40.4 41.2 51.1
Eu 2.0 2.0 1.7 0.9 2.1 1.8 0.6 1.8 2.0 0.3 2.2

Sample H43-1105 H43-1205 H43-1485 H24-N1 H24-N2A H24-N3 H24-N4 H 25–858 H25-N1 H 25–1590 H25-N2
Sr 580.8 576.5 586.6 574.52 622.44 372.00 436.46 593.5 422.74 7.9 457.72
Nb 37.1 35.6 33.6 32.98 33.09 28.77 15.14 11.1 27.58 57.7 21.73
La 39.2 42.1 38.4 37.84 36.98 29.67 28.51 19.0 42.56 76.8 21.32
Eu 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.05 1.91 0.82 1.45 1.481 2.37 0.505 2.05

Sample H 25–1970 H26-N1 H 26–950 H26-N2 H 26–1420 H 26–1610 H26-N3 H 26–2260 95-J8 CG-6a CG-2a
Sr 565.9 256.65 36.3 381.20 369.3 372.7 596.36 1259.2 1030 373 775
Nb 40.2 19.00 21.9 26.87 43.7 48.7 27.20 5.0 6.2 5.9 5.8
La 46.7 32.84 43.2 42.03 48.5 51.7 29.47 30.9 22.9 14.91 18.24
Eu 2.029 1.24 0.362 2.35 1.944 1.738 1.65 1.982 1.47 1.21 1.3

Sample CG-31 CG-8L CG-4j 95-A6 CG-16 CG-8a JCG44 CG-7 Average CG
Sr 853 889 513 989 696 471 787 356 702.9
Nb 5.9 4.2 7.9 5.9 8.1 6.7 3.8 9 6.309
La 16.67 13.77 17.56 16.83 18.3 15.71 13.01 32.58 18.23
Eu 1.17 1.1 1.31 1.51 1.05 1.1 1.05 1.54 1.255 12
 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17 11

1000
H20-210
H20-290
H20-310
H20-410
H20-450
Rock/Chondrite

100
H20-580
H20-820
H20-N2 900
H20-970
H20-1230
10
H20-1300
H20-N4 1400
H20-N5 1700
H20-N6 2000
H20-N7 2400
1
La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Yb Lu
a

1000
H20-210
H20-290
H20-310
100
H20-410
H20-450
Rock/NMORB

H20-580
10
H20-820
H20-N2 900

1 H20-970
H20-1230
H20-1300

0.1 H20-N4 1400

H20-N5 1700
H20-N6 2000
0.01 H20-N7 2400

b
Fig. 8. a) Plot of REE and b) Plot of multielements normalized to primitive mantle (Sun and McDonough, 1989) for samples of well H 20.

characterized by a prominent Eu anomaly (Table 4; Fig. 8a). This
behavior is also observed in the NMORB-normalized multielement
diagram (Table 4; Fig. 8b) from well H20. Here, negative anomalies
of Sr and TiO2 are observed in the upper levels samples, while group
C at the lower level does not show the Sr and TiO2 anomaly. The
distinctive geochemical signature of group C allows its correlation
with Miocene Cerro Grande volcanism to the west of Los Humeros
caldera.
7. Geochronolgy and correlation of the stratigraphic units
Here we report seven new Ar–Ar dates (Table 1), five of which
are from four different wells inside the geothermal field (H20, H25,
H26 and H42) whereas samples HU 08 01 and HU 08 06 were col-
lected from andesitic basalt outcrops 20 km east of Los Humeros
caldera (Fig. 2).
We consider the dates obtained (Table 1) from the geothermal
well samples a good approximation to their real age in spite of the
geothermal alteration of the samples analyzed. These correspond to
the andesitic sequence between 900 and 1900 m depth. The ages
obtained were not very precise but are good enough to support
the correlation and stratigraphic interpretation of the Los Humeros
field.
Prior to this work the available age information for Los Humeros
came from well H10 at 2360 m depth. The highly imprecise age of
4.7 ± 2.37 Ma was obtained with a sericite sample (López-Infansón,
1982) that very likely represents a period of hydrothermal meta-
morphism. The careful selection of the samples for the 40 Ar-39 Ar
step-heating experiments presented here, allowed us to improve
the geochronology of Los Humeros geothermal field in spite of the
pervasive geothermal alteration of the well samples analyzed.
The samples from well H20 come from two different strati-
graphic levels. For the upper level (900 m), the porphyritic
andesite sample (H20 N2) yielded a well-defined plateau age of
2.08 ± 0.21 Ma, considered the emplacement age for these lavas.
The porphyritic andesite forms part of a sequence of intercalated
rhyolitic and dacitic lavas associated with the formation of a com-
plex of silicic domes. Andesite sample H20 N5 from 1600 m depth
yielded a less precise isochron age of 2.53 ± 0.86 Ma, but in agree-
ment with its stratigraphic position. One sample from the upper
12 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
part of the andesitic sequence at a level of 1000 m (well H42), was
dated at 2.61 ± 0.43 Ma. These rocks can correlate with those of well
H20, dated at 2.08 Ma.
The basaltic sample from level 1700 m (H25 N2) was dated at
1.80 ± 0.98 Ma, the age obtained is compatible within 1 s errors
with other ages reported in this paper. The basaltic andesite from
well H26 N3 (depth 1810 m) can be considered part of the Pliocene
volcanism based on the 1.55 ± 0.54 Ma age obtained in this work.
The dates reported in this paper range from 1.55 to 2.61 Ma.
Given the geothermal alteration of the samples analyzed the ages
obtained were not precise. However, even with the limited preci-
sion of the ages obtained here, a good correlation can be established
between the well volcanic rocks and the lavas that crop out at the
surface to the east of Los Humeros caldera, which are reported at
1.46 and 1.62 Ma (this paper).
8. Subsurface stratigraphy of Los Humeros and correlation
The comparison of the subsurface stratigraphic columns from
Los Humeros shows the great stratigraphic complexity produced
by the intense and prolonged Plio-Pleistocene volcanic activity.
This volcanic activity is associated with the formation of a volcanic
field dominated by effusive volcanism (andesitic) over which Los
Humeros volcanic field was emplaced. Los Humeros volcanic activ-
ity includes cataclysmic explosive episodes that formed caldera
structures and effusive eruptions associated with domes, cones and
fissures from different vents that produced intercalations of diverse
eruptive products with lateral variations depending on the local
distribution of the eruptive vents. The subsurface geology does not
preserve evidence of all the structural features and makes it difficult
to define a correlation of the subsurface units.
In spite of the stratigraphic complexity, a stratigraphic model
for the subsurface geology of the Los Humeros volcanic field is
proposed based on the integration of lithologic, petrographic, geo-
chemical and geochronological criteria. This model integrates 8
different units and includes some local details.
Following the scheme proposed earlier (Viggiano and Robles,
1988; Gutiérrez-Negrín and Izquierdo, 2010), the 8 lithostrati-
graphic units were grouped into four rock successions: 1) the
pre-volcanic basement and the three groups that form the volcanic
sequence, that is 2) the pre-caldera andesitic lavas, 3) the caldera-
forming pyroclastic sequences and 4) the post-caldera volcanism.
The general correlation of these groups is presented (Fig. 9) as a rep-
resentative profile of the Los Humeros field with a W-E orientation.
This profile (Fig. 9) also shows the correlation for some units and
sub-units. The irregular lateral distribution and variation in thick-
ness of the units is evident. The position of the basement changes
markedly, with a paleotopographic high in the west (Fig. 10). It
should be noted that several units identified in this study do not
correspond to the 9 units proposed by Cedillo (1997, 1999); their
occurrence and distribution is different as described below.
8.1. Pre-volcanic basement
The pre-volcanic basement is composed of Mesozoic limestone
and shale metamorphosed to different grades. In the majority of the
cases, the alteration formed hornfels and skarn, which are accom-
panied by the intrusion of andesite-like and diabase rocks with
occasional granodiorite.
The wells that cut this unit (H5, H8, H43 and possibly H10)
show the configuration of the paleo-relief, with topographic
highs for the central-west zone of the geothermal field (Fig. 10).
The intense deformation observed for these units in the adja-
cent areas of the Los Humeros caldera is associated with the
compressional phase of the Late Cretaceous-Paleocene Laramide
orogeny. The Laramide orogeny caused faulting with NE-SW and
E-W orientations (Campos-Enriquez and Garduño-Monroy, 1987;
López-Hernández, 1995). Also numerous intrusions, associated
with an extensional phase that affected this particular area of the
Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (TMVB), caused local metamorphism
in the sedimentary basement.
8.2. Volcanic successions
The volcanic successions forming the subsurface stratigraphy of
Los Humeros comprise a total of at least 7 lithostratigraphic units
that can be grouped into three main groups: Pre-caldera Group,
Caldera Group and Post-caldera Group.
8.2.1. Pre-caldera group
This group includes a thick succession of more than 1500 m on
average. It is dominated by pyroxene andesitic lavas, and minor
horizons of basaltic and rhyolitic-dacitic lavas. Some highly altered
zones with a tuffaceous appearance were identified in different lev-
els, but cannot be used as stratigraphic markers due to their lateral
discontinuity. The upper limit of this sequence is at a depth of about
1000 m, as observed in well H43 (Fig. 4b), as well as in wells H8,
H10 and H42. This group is made of 3 units: basal, intermediate and
upper, in accordance with the discontinuities observed in the wells
H20 and H19. However, continuity to wells H10, and particularly
H8 and H5, is not observed (Fig. 9).
8.2.1.1. Basal pre-caldera unit- miocene hornblende-bearing
andesites and basalts. This unit is restricted to the bottom of
a few wells, and it has no lateral continuity with the other wells,
so therefore its correlation is very limited. Andesites from the
geochemical group C contain primary hornblende crystals, but
these were found only at the bottom of wells 26 and 20 (Fig. 11).
Previous reports (i.e. Viggiano and Robles, 1988; Cedillo, 1997 and
Cedillo, 1999) proposed that the hornblende-bearing andesites are
widely distributed in most of the wells and form about one-third
of the whole andesitic sequences (lower part), reaching up to
780 m thick, between 1300 and 2500 m (López-Hernández, 1995);
however, we did not find this way.
The geochemical features of this unit are entirely different
from those of the upper andesitic succession of Pleistocene age;
they exhibit a similar geochemical pattern to the rocks from
the Cerro Grande volcanism (Gómez-Tuena and Carrasco-Núñez,
2000), which also contain hornblende. In addition to these features,
its stratigraphic position and restricted occurrence at the bottom
of some wells (up to 2400 m) indicates that these rocks represent a
totally different eruptive event to the rest of the andesitic succes-
sion, which instead correlates well with rocks of the Miocene Cerro
Grande volcanism (8.5–11 Ma) (Carrasco-Núñez et al., 1997). This
rock unit includes basaltic rocks, such as those found in well H26,
whose geochemical signature and stratigraphic position that also
correlate with the Miocene Cerro Grande volcanism.
8.2.1.2. Intermediate pre-caldera unit- pyroxene-bearing porphyritic
andesites. This unit includes the thickest part of the andesitic
pre-caldera succession. It comprises dominantly pyroxene-bearing
microporphyritic andesite lavas, with rare mafic andesites at the
basal part (well H43) (Fig. 4b) or with a dacitic affinity (well H20).
It is common to find different levels of strongly hydrothermally
altered rocks with a tuffaceous appearance (wells H10 and H19), as
well as some basalt levels with a local distribution (wells H8, H10
and H25, and perhaps H5) (Figs. 9 and 12). However, correlation of
these lithologically similar units cannot be confirmed by the geo-
chemical data. In contrast, the basalts of well H5 (level 1310) have
a geochemical signature similar to those of well H10 (level 1060),
which support a possible continuation at depth of the Humeros
 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
Fig. 9. Correlation of lithostratigraphic units and main groups along section SW-NE: wells 5, 8, 10, 19 y 20. Location of this correlation line is shown in figure 3.
fault that crops out at the surface, concordant also with the upper
levels (Fig. 9). The different alteration levels observed, for example
along the E-W trending wells, do not show a continuity through
wells H5, H8, H10, H19 and H20 (Fig. 9) to allow a correlation of
those horizons.
8.2.1.3. Upper pre-caldera unit (rhyolites and dacites >andesites).
This unit has a distribution restricted to a few wells, particularly
the rhyolitic-dacitic horizons that appear locally at wells H20, H19
and H25 (Figs. 9, 12). It includes a thick rhyolitic and dacitic suc-
cession, with a few andesites, tuffs and minor basalts (well H10).
Basaltic rocks have a local distribution and are difficult to corre-
late with other wells. This unit includes at least two important
horizons comprising banded rhyolites and dacites that represent
important effusive events associated with large domes. Although
these are thick formations, they do not have a wide lateral distri-
bution. Well H20 shows the lower rhyolitic-dacitic unit underlying
an andesitic unit dated at 2.08 Ma, which dramatically thins toward
well H19, which is only 500 m to the southwest, while another thick
rhyolitic-dacitic layer represents a volcanic dome with limited lat-
eral distribution, at least to the west, but the absence of geothermal
wells to the east prevent a precise correlation. Nevertheless, its dis-
tribution to other areas is possible, as it is reported to the south in
well H26.
8.2.2. Caldera group
This group can be subdivided into 3 main units, which are rep-
resented in well H43 (Fig. 4b). It includes thick pyroclastic deposits
associated with the most explosive events related to the formation
of the different calderas Los Potreros (Zaragoza ignimbrite) (Ferriz
and Mahood, 1984; Carrasco-Núñez and Branney, 2005; Carrasco-
Núñez et al., 2012) and Los Humeros (Xaltipan ignimbrite) (Ferriz
and Mahood, 1984), as well as numerous fall deposits grouped
13
as the Faby Tuff (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984; Wilcox, 2011). Some
pyroclastic layers are intercalated with a few thin andesitic lavas,
especially in the basal part.
8.2.2.1. Basal caldera unit. This is a heterogeneous unit, including
microporphyritic andesitic lavas and rhyolitic crystalline tuffs, with
a great range of thicknesses, preventing a good correlation among
them. This unit was generated during the initial eruptive phases
prior to the main paroxysmal caldera-forming events and produced
a complex stratigraphy.
8.2.2.2. Main caldera unit. This unit comprises dominantly rhyolitic
tuffs (ignimbrites) with different proportions of crystals, glass and
lithic clasts. In some wells, such as number H43, it is quite homo-
geneous with thicknesses up to 300 m (Fig. 4b). Samples from well
H43 show clear petrographic evidence (presence of biotite, lithic
clasts and eutaxitic texture) that allow a precise correlation with
the Xaltipan ignimbrite, which represents the most voluminous
explosive event associated with the formation of Los Humeros
caldera, dated at 0.47 Ma (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984). Even though
the voluminous deposits are well exposed outside the caldera, its
thickness inside the caldera is expected to be highly variable, after
the irregular paleorelief resulted from the structural reconfigura-
tion of the inner part of the caldera during the different collapse
episodes. These structural features controlled the emplacement
of the pyroclastic flows by affecting where vents opened. There-
fore, the appearance of the samples varies strongly in the different
geothermal wells, commonly showing contrasting degrees of weld-
ing, which is an important factor to be highlighted, because this
plays an important role in the variation of lithofacies and therefore
the conditions of permeability. However, this aspect was not easy
to identify in the small chips samples obtained from the geothermal
wells.
14 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17

Fig. 10. a) Main structural features of Los Humeros geothermal field (updated from Norini et al., 2015) using a 1 m resolution DEM, showing the location of the geothermal
wells drilled by CFE. b) Configuration of sedimentary basement rocks, based on wells where these rocks are reported, discontinuous lines at the bottom of the wells (H11,
H12, H13, H19, H25, H26, H27 and H42) indicate inferred depths according to Cedillo (1997).

Fig. 11. Correlation of lithostratigraphic units and main groups along section S-N: wells 42,26, 19 and 20. Location of this correlation line is shown in figure 3.
 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
Fig. 12. Correlation of lithostratigraphic units and main groups along section E-W: wells 43, 20 and 25. Location of this correlation line is shown in figure 3.
8.2.2.3. Upper caldera unit. This unit comprises an alternating
sequence of rhyolitic lithic and glassy tuffs, and andesitic-dacitic
lava flows, and occasionally, rhyolitic lavas. Locally, pyroclastic
deposits are dominant (i.e. well H43), but the thickness of individual
layers is variable and they are difficult to correlate. Nevertheless,
in some cases, their stratigraphic position facilitates a correlation
with the well-known major explosive events such as the Faby Tuff,
dated at 280 ky (Wilcox, 2011)- 240 ky (Ferriz and Mahood, 1984)
and the Zaragoza Ignimbrite, dated at 100 ky (Ferriz and Mahood,
1984) and 140 ky (Wilcox, 2011). Furthermore, using both REE and
trace element geochemistry, a discrimination among these deposits
was established for correlation purposes (Del Pilar, 2015).
8.2.3. Post-caldera group
This group comprises mainly lava flows and scoria deposits of
basaltic or basaltic andesite composition, as well as some pumice
deposits. These layers represent the most recent eruptive events
of Los Humeros caldera and they exhibit strong lateral variations,
both in thickness and eruptive style, indicating they had differ-
ent sources, and therefore correlations are difficult. The average
thickness is around 100 m, but in cases is up to 300 m (well 26).
A recent study of the most recent explosive activity of Los
Humeros caldera reveals the complex nature of this volcanism.
The Cuicuiltic succession (Dávila-Harris and Carrasco-Núñez, 2014)
blanketing most of the inner part of Los Humeros caldera resulted
from the simultaneous activation of eruptive vents both in the cen-
tral part of the caldera and also in the eastern sector, following
a vent alignment parallel to Los Potreros scarp. The activity pro-
duced a peculiar alternated sequence of trachydacitic pumice and
basaltic andesite scoria, which was generated as recently as 6.8 ky
(Dávila-Harris and Carrasco-Núñez, 2014).
15
9. Discussion and conclusions
By nature, large volcanic systems present a complex stratigra-
phy with numerous vents that pose serious correlation difficulties,
especially in the subsurface stratigraphy of a caldera such as Los
Humeros. In an attempt to understand and decipher that strati-
graphic complexity, we propose a simplified scheme made of
lithostratigraphic units. The nine different lithostratigraphic units
defined in this paper belong to 4 main groups: regional meta-
sedimentary basement and 3 volcanic groups (pre-caldera, caldera
and post-caldera), whose distribution can be seen in the E-W struc-
tural cross-section shown in Fig. 13. Distribution and orientation of
the main structural features depicted in Fig. 13 are based on the
structural pattern shown on Fig. 10 and modified from those pro-
posed by Norini et al. (2015), while the distribution of the different
lithostratigraphic groups is based mainly from the logging from Los
Humeros wells.
The geometric configuration of the sedimentary basement
under the active geothermal zone reflects a buried paleostruc-
tural system oriented in the NNW direction (Fig. 10), which was
derived from an intense deformation including both folding and
faulting events associated with the Laramide orogeny. This system
coincides with the main structural pattern that seems to play a
dominant control on the current geothermal activity of the field
(López-Hernández, 1995; Cedillo, 1997, 1999; Norini et al., 2015).
Several producer wells are located along the NNW master fault (Los
Humeros), however at the northern sector, a N-S faulting system
seems to be the main control of the geothermal field, producing a
dispersed distribution of wells through different separated faults
(Fig. 10). Norini et al. (2015) consider all the different fault struc-
tures are part of a single fault system having one main NNW-SSE
fault, with several N-S, NE-SW and E-W splays, which are sepa-
rating 3 different structural sectors, by the Maztaloya-Humeros
16 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17

Los Humeros-Los Potreros Los Potreros Los Humeros

ring fault ring fault ring fault
A H-20 Qrd-a A´
Qp Qb1 H-43 H-25 Qa-ab
Qp Qp
?
Qr1
P
OUP
QigZ
2500 Tm ROU Qp Qp 2500
QigX AG A GR
D E R QigX DER QigX QigX
CAL
Qr2
Qr2 (?) QigX CAL QigX
2000 Tpa 2000

Bend in section
1500 Tpa Tpa 1500

1000 KyJ 1000

Rhyolite KyJ
Tm ?
500 ? 500
?
KyJ
0m 0m
0m 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 30000 32000 34000 36000 38000 40000 42000 44000 46000 48000 50000

Fig. 13. Structural stratigraphic section along the E-W section line (as shown in figure 2) showing the main lithostratigraphic groups and their irregular distribution in
the subsurface of Los Humeros. The inferred limit of the two collapse-forming calderas is shown (Los Potreros, the youngest; and Los Humeros, the oldest). Labels for
lithostratigraphic units are depicted in figure 2.

and Las Papas faults as boundaries (Fig. 10). In contrast to this The local distribution of most of the lithostratigraphic units of
active system that shows the paths of the hydrothermal fluids at Los Humeros, which is especially apparent for the basalt and rhyo-
present, the major ring-fractures forming the caldera rims have lite lava flows intercalated in the lower thick andesitic succession
been apparently sealed by most recent post-caldera volcanism. (pre-caldera activity), produced an irregular and highly variable
Instead, faulting of the central part of the caldera seems to be the lateral distribution of the lava flows that is difficult to correlate
main control that induces secondary permeability controlling the between the different geothermal wells. The overlapping of vol-
ascent of hydrothermal fluids to the surface as a result of an active canic units in large volcanic complexes is common and produces
caldera resurgence process. This activity can be responsible of the serious difficulties for simple correlations. Given the complex vol-
small vertical faults affecting a pyroclastic succession (Cuicuiltic canic history of Los Humeros caldera, simple correlation models
member) occurred in the late Holocene times (Dávila-Harris and using horizontal continuous layers cannot be applied. In this study
Carrasco-Núñez, 2014). the use of geochemical signatures characteristic of some particular
The irregular distribution of the thick pre-caldera volcanic suc- units proved very useful to compare and discriminate among the
cession represents an old volcanic field developed over a highly different volcanic units and support the correlation of the well vol-
irregular paleotopography having a peak of activity around 2 Ma. canics with the surface geology based on the geochronologic data
Inferred configurations derived from the wellı́s correlations suggest presented in this paper.
the construction of a complex volcanic field with the overlapping
of multiple lava flows erupted from different vents allowing the
accommodation of voluminous successions that include the spo- Acknowledgements
radic occurrence of viscous lava domes.
The pre-caldera andesitic group includes three units: a) a A preliminary version of this paper was written as a result of
basal pre-caldera unit of hornblende-bearing andesites and basalts, the agreement UNAM-CFE No. 9400040057. We want to thank the
which correlate with rocks derived from the Cerro Grande vol- Geothermoelectric Project Management of the Electricity Federal
canism (8.5–10 Ma) (Gómez-Tuena and Carrasco-Núñez, 2000; Commission (CFE), and particularly to Germán Ramírez, Magaly
Carrasco-Núñez et al., 1997), located west of the caldera and hav- Flores and Raúl Maya for the facilities to develop this project
ing a very restricted distribution at the bottom of a few geothermal and the access to the collection of samples used in this paper.
wells; b) an intermediate pre-caldera unit of pyroxene-bearing por- Additional funding was provided by project PO-5 “Innovative appli-
phyritic andesites, comprising the main part of the pre-caldera cation of modern techniques for geothermal exploration by the
andesitic succession, where most of the geothermal reservoir is integration of geological, geochemical and geophysical methods,
located; c) an upper pre-caldera unit of rhyolites, dacites and study case of Los Humeros volcanic field”, which forms part of
andesites, with a restricted distribution that suggests the existence the CeMie-GEO Consortium No. 2007032 funded by Fondo de Sus-
of important viscous silicic domes. This pre-caldera succession tentabilidad SENER-CONACYT. Partial funding comes from PAPIIT
dated in this paper between 1.46–1.62 Ma. correlates with an grant No. 106314. We also thank support by Arturo Gómez-Tuena,
andesitic formation exposed outside of the caldera to the northwest Jorge Aranda, Pablo Dávila, Fidel Cedillo, Gabriel Origel, Sara Solís,
and north (Formations Alseseca and Teziutlán; Yáñez and García, Javier Hernández, Ana Ma. González and Juan Vázquez; and LUGIS
1980). staff (Rufino Lozano and Patricia Girón), of the Laboratorio de
The caldera group consists of three units: a) a basal caldera unit Estudios Isotópicos del CGEO (Ofelia Pérez) and Laboratorio de
comprising an alternation of rhyolitic tuffs and andesitic lava flows Geocronología of CICESE staff (Miguel Angel García and A. Susana
that indicates the beginning of the large explosive events; b) a main Rosas). Michael Ort made a deep revision of an earlier version of
caldera unit, mainly consisting of pyroclastic deposits that correlate this paper. We thank Guido Giordano, an anonymous reviewer and
with the Xaltipan ignimbrite formation, which is associated with David Bruhn for the very useful reviews. Finally, we dedicate this
the formation of the older caldera of Los Humeros (0.46 Ma, Ferriz paper to our colleague and friend Víctor Vargas for his contribu-
and Mahood, 1984); c) an upper caldera unit, mainly pyroclastic tion during the early stages of this project, unfortunately he is not
deposits belonging to the Faby Tuff (240 ky, Ferriz and Mahood, longer with us.
1984 280 ky, Wilcox, 2011), and the Zaragoza Ignimbrite (100- ky,
Ferriz and Mahood, 1984 140 ky, Wilcox, 2011).
The post-caldera group (< 0.1 Ma) comprises a diverse volcanism
including effusive and explosive activity, with compositions rang- Appendix A. Supplementary data
ing from trachydacites to basaltic andesites, which in some cases
erupted contemporaneously from different vents, particularly dur- Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
ing Holocene time. in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.
2017.01.001.
 G. Carrasco-Núñez et al. / Geothermics 67 (2017) 1–17
References
Ármannsson, H., Gudmundsson, A., Steingrímsson, B.S., 1987. Exploration and
development of the Krafla geothermal area. JÁkull 37, 13–30.
Arellano, V.M., García, A., Barragán, R.M., 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.
Arredondo, J.F., 2007. Integración geofísica en el campo geotérmico de Los
Humeros. Internal report CFE GF-HU 02-07.
Barragán, R.M., Nieva, D., Santoyo, E., Verma, M.P., Izquierdo, G., González, E., 1991.
Geoquámica de fluidos del campo geotírmico de Los Humeros, Pue. (Mexico).
Geotermia 7, 23–47.
Campos-Enriquez, J.O., Garduño-Monroy, V.H., 1987. The shallow structure of Los
Humeros and Las Derrumbadas geothermal fields, Mexico. Geothermics 16
(5/6), 539––554.
Carrasco-Núñez, G., Branney, M., 2005. Progressive assembly of a massive layer of
ignimbrite with normal-to-reverse compositional zoning: the Zaragoza
ignimbrite of central Mexico. Bull. Volcanol. 68, 3–20.
Carrasco-Núñez, G., Gómez-Tuena, A., Lozano, V.L., 1997. Geologic map of Cerro
Grande volcano and surrounding area, Central Mexico. Geol. Soc. Am. Map
Chart Ser. MCH 081, 10 p.
Carrasco-Núñez, G., Gómez.Tuena, A., López, M., Vargas, V., Aranda, J.J., Cedillo, F.,
Origel, G., 2008. Estudio de estratigrafía volcánica de la secuencia andesítica
del campo geotérmico de Los Humeros, Puebla. Gerencia Proyectos
Geotermoeléctricos, Comisión Federal de Electricidad. Internal report
DEX-HT-19-08.
Carrasco-Núñez, G., Siebert, L., Díaz-Castellón, R., Vázquez-Selem, L., Capra, L.,
2010. Evolution and hazards of a long-quiescent compound shield-like
volcano: Cofre de Perote, Eastern Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. 197, 209–224.
Carrasco-Núñez, G., McCurry, M., Branney, M.J., Norry, M., Willcox, C., 2012.
Complex magma mixing, mingling, and withdrawal associated with an
intraplinian ignimbrite eruption at a large silicic caldera volcano: Los Humeros
of central Mexico. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull 124, 1793–1809.
Cedillo, F., Vigiano, J.C. and Gutiérrez-Negrín, L.C.,1994. Columnas Petrográficas de
los Pozos Geotérmicos de Los Humeros. Internal report, Comisión Federal de
Electricidad. México, 197 pp.
Cedillo, F., 1997. Geología del subsuelo del campo geotérmico de Los Humeros,
Pue., Internal report, Comisión Federal de Electricidad, México. 30 pp.
Cedillo, F., 1999. Modelo hidrogeológico de los yacimientos geotérmicos de Los
Humeros, Pue., Mexico. Geotermia, Revista Mexicana de Geoenergía 15-3,
159–170.
Dávila-Harris, P., Carrasco-Núñez, G., 2014. An unusual syn-eruptive bimodal
eruption: the Holocene Cuicuiltic Member at Los Humeros caldera, Mexico. J.
Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 271, 24–42.
De la Cruz, V., 1983. Estudio geológico a detalle de la zona geotérmica Los
Humeros, Pue., Internal report 10/83. CFE, 51 pp.
Del Pilar, A., 2015. Cracarterización petrográfica y geoquímica de una sección del
subsuelo en el campo geotérmico de Los Humeros, Pue., el caso del pozo H-42.
Bc thesis. Autonomous University of Guerrero, 89 pp.
Ferrari, L., Orozco-Esquivel, T., Manea, V., Manea, M., 2012. The dynamic history of
the Trasns-Mexican Volcanic Belt and the Mexico subduction zone.
Tectonophysics 522–523, 122–149.
Ferriz, H., y Mahood, G., 1984. Eruption rates and compositional trends at Los
Humeros volcanic center, puebla, Mexico. J. Geophys. Res. 89 (B10),
8511–8524.
Ferriz, H., Mahood, G., 1987. Strong compositional zonation in a silicic magmatic
system Los Humeros, Mexican Neovolcanic Belt. J. Petrol. 28, 171–209.
Flores-Armenta, M., Gutiérez-Negrín, J.C.A., 2011. Geothermal activity and
development in Mexico. Short Course on Geothermal Drilling, Resource
Development and Power Plants”, organized by UNU-GTP and LaGeo, in Santa
Tecla, El Salvador, January 16–22, 2011, 12 pp.
Garduño, V.H., Romero, F., Torres, R., 1985. Análisis estructural del campo
geotérmico de Los Humeros. CFE, Internal report, Pue. (México)26–85.
Giordano, G., De Benedetti, A.A., Bonamico, A., Ramazzotti, P., Mattei, M., 2014.
Incorporating surface indicators of reservoir permeability into reservoir
volume calculations: application to the Colli Albani caldera and the Central
Italy Geothermal Province. Earth Sci. Rev. 128, 75–92.
Gómez-Tuena, A., Carrasco-Núñez, G., 2000. Cerro Grande volcano: the evolution
of a Miocene stratocone in the early Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt.
Tectonophysics 318, 249–280.
17
Gutiérrez-Negrín e Izquierdo-Montalvo, G., 2010. Review and update of the main
features of the Los Humeros geothermal field, Mexico. Proccedings World
Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 2010.
Kuiper, K.F., Deino, A., Hilgen, F.J., Krijgsman, W., Renne, P.R., Wijbrans, J.R., 2008.
Synchronizing rock clocks of earth history. Science 320, 500–504.
López-Hernández, A., 1995. Estudio Regional Volcánico y Estructural del Campo
Geotérmico de Los Humeros, Pue., Máxico. Geotermia, Revista Mexicana de
Geoenergéa 11 (1), 17–36.
López-Infansón, M., 1982. Estudio geopcronométrico, método potasio-argón, área
de la caldera de Los Humeros, Pue. IMP, Internal report, 3 pp.
Lermo, J., Antayhua, Y., Quintanar, L., Lorenzo, C., 2008. Estudio sismológico del
campo geotérmico de Los Humeros, Parte I, Sismicidad, mecanismos de fuente
y distribución de esfuerzos. Geotermia 21, 25–41.
Lorenzo-Pulido, C.D., 2008. Borehole geophysics and geology of well h-43, Los
Humeros geothermal field, Puebla, México. Geothermal Training Programme
Report. 9. Orkustofnun, Grensásvegur, Reykjavík, Iceland, p. 23.
Mori, L., 2007. Origen del magmatismo miocénico en el sector central de la FVTM y
sus implicaciones en la evolución del sistema de subducción mexicano. PhD
Thesis. Centro de Geociencias. UNAM, 130 pp.
Muecke, G.K., Ade-Hall, J.M., Aumento, F., MacDonald, A., Reynolds, P.H., Hyndman,
R.D., Lowrie, W., 1974. Deep drilling in an active geothermal area in the Azores.
Nature 252 (5481), 281–285.
Negendank, J.F.W., Emmermann, R., Krawczyk, R., Mooser, F., Tobschall, H., Werle,
D., 1985. Geological and geochemical investigations on the Eastern
Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt. Geofísica Internacional 24–4, 477–575.
Norini, G., Groppelli, G., Sulpizio, R., Carrasco-Núñez, G., Davila-Harris, P., Pellicioli,
C., Zucca, F., De Franco, R., 2015. Structural analysis and thermal remote sensing
of the Los Humeros Volcanic Complex: implications for volcano structure and
geothermal exploration. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 301, 221–237.
Pérez-Reynoso, 1978. Geología y petrología de Los Humeros, Pue, 91. Geomimet,
pp. 97–106.
Palacios-Hertweg, L., García-Velázquez, H., 1981. Informe Geofísico Del Proyecto
Geotármico Los Humeros Derrumbadas, Estados De Puebla Y Veracruz. Internal
Report, Comisién Federal de Electricidad, pp. 96.
Prol, R.M., 1998. Pre- and post-explotation variations in hydrothermal activity in
Los Humeros geotermal field, Mexico. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 83, 313–333.
Quezadas-Flores, A., 1961. Las rocas del basamento de la cuenca
Tampico-Mizantla: México, D.F., Bachelor Thesis. Fac. Ing., UNAM (pp. 72).
Renne, P.R., Swisher, C.C., Deino, A.L., Kyrner, D.B., Owens, T.L., DePaolo, D.J., 1998.
Intercalibration of standards, absolute ages and uncertainties in 40 Ar/39 Ar
dating. Chem. Geol. 145, 117–152.
Rojas, E., 2016. Litoestratigrafía, petrografía, y geoquímica de la Toba Llano, y su
relación con el cráter El Xalapazco, Caldera De Los Humeros, Puebla. MSc.
Thesis. IPYCYT, México.
Steiger, R.H., Jäger, E., 1977. Subcommission on Geochronology: convention on the
use of decay constants in Geo and Cosmochronology. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 36,
359–362.
Sun, S.S., McDonough, W.F., 1989. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic
basalts: Implications for mantle composition and processes. In: Saunders, A.D.,
Norry, M.J. (Eds.), Magmatism in Ocean Basins, 42. Geological Society of
London Special Publication, pp. 313–345.
Verma, S.P., 1983. Magma genesis and chamber processes at Los Humeros caldera,
Mexico—Nd and Sr isotope data. Nature 302, 52–55.
Verma, S.P., 2000. Geochemical evidence for a lithospheric source for magmas
from Los Humeros Caldera, Puebla, Mexico. Chem. Geol. 164, 35–60.
Viggiano, J.C., Flores-Armenta, M., 2008. Estudio petrográfico del pozo H 43 Los
Humeros, Pue., interpretación e indicadores mineralógicos de acidez. Internal
report C.F.E., DEX, DGL-HM-01-08. 30 pp.
Viggiano, J.C., Robles, J., 1988. Mineralogía hidrotermal en el campo geotérmico de
Los Humeros, Pue.: sus usos como indicadora de temperatura y del régimen
hidrológico. Geotermia Revista Mexicana de Geoenergía 4, 15–28.
Viniegra, F., 1965. Geología del Macizo de Teziutlán y la Cuenca Cenozoica de
Veracruz. Asociación Mexicana de Geólogos Petroleros, Boletín 17, 101–163.
Wilcox, C., 2011. Eruptive, magmatic and structural evolution of a large explosive
caldera volcano: Los Humeros México. PhD Thesis. University of Leicester, U.K.
Yáñez, C. y García, S., 1980. Exploración de la región geotérmica Los Humeros-Las
Derrumbadas, Estados de Puebla y Veracruz. C.F.E., Internal report 96 pp.
York, D., Evensen, N.M., López-Martínez, M., De Basabe-Delgado, J., 2004. Unified
equations for the slope, intercept, and standard errors of the best straight line.
Am. J. Phys. 73 (3), 367–375.