Open Access

High-heat-producing granites of East Dharwar Craton around Gugi, Karnataka, and their possible influence on the evolution of Rajapur thermal springs, Deccan Volcanic Province, India

  • Hemant K Singh1Email author,
  • Yadvendra Kumar1,
  • Dornadula Chandrasekharam1,
  • Trupti Gurav1 and
  • Banambar Singh1, 2, 3
Geothermal Energy20142:2

DOI: 10.1186/s40517-014-0002-4

Received: 23 September 2013

Accepted: 30 January 2014

Published: 17 May 2014

Abstract

Background

The thermal springs of Rajapur situated along the west coast of Maharashtra and parts of high-heat-generating granites of Gugi in Karnataka (India) seem to be genetically related. The present investigation involves quantification of the heat generated by the Gugi Granites using the the U, Th and K contents in the rock samples and probing their possible influence on the evolution of the Rajapur springs, based on the geochemistry of the thermal waters, published Bouguer gravity anomaly data, and the overall geological setup.

Methods

Fourteen water samples from Rajapur including thermal and groundwater samples were analysed for major ions and five rock samples from the gugi area were analysed for U, Th and K.

Results

Rajapur thermal spring is of Na-HCO3 type, while other thermal springs along the west coast are either Na-Cl type or Na-Cl-CO3 type. The stable isotope data of the thermal waters signifies mixing with the ground water. The gravity anomaly data supports the extension of the Gugi Granites below the Deccan Volcanics of the study area.

Conclusions

The present investigation suggests that the Gugi Granites could be the main source of heat for these thermal springs, even though the springs issue through the Deccan volcanic flows.

Keywords

Heat source Rajapur thermal springs Gugi Granite Heat generation

Background

The Rajapur thermal springs belong to a group of thermal springs located along the west coast of India, which emerge through the 65 Ma Deccan Flood Basalt (DFB). The western margin of the Deccan Trap is characterized by these thermal springs, extending for a distance of about 300 km along the Konkan coast in the Thane, Raigad, and Ratnagiri districts of Maharashtra (Chandrasekharam [2005]; Kumar et al. [2011]). Although these springs discharge through the Deccan Volcanics, some of them show a close relationship to the Precambrian gneissic and granitic basement (Ramanathan and Chandrasekharam [1997]). Along the western margin of the Deccan Volcanic Province (DVP), an approximately 1,000-m-thick sequence of near horizontal lava flows is exposed, overlying Precambrian sedimentary and meta-sedimentary (Kaladgi and Dharwar) rocks and Archaean crystallized complex (Kumar et al. [2011]). Basaltic lava flows that overlie the older rocks of Dharwar and Kaladgi are both of ‘a’a and Pahoehoe types (Sahasrabudhe et al.: A geological report on the Koyna earthquake of 11.12.67, unpublished work; Ghodke et al.: West coast geothermal investigation, District Ratnagiri, unpublished work). In the southern portion of DVP, flows are characterized by the ‘a’a type, e.g., in the Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra (Kumar et al. [2011]). Large outcrops of these granites can be found towards the south and southeast of the DVP. The nearest location (350 km from Rajapur) of such an outcrop is encountered at Gugi in Karnataka (Figure 1), where granites with high U and Th content have been reported (Senthil Kumar and Srinivasan [2002]). Further, these granites also host uranium veins (Senthil Kumar and Srinivasan [2002]). Such granites also occur as inliers, as encountered south of Rajapur (Ramanathan and Chandrasekharam [1997]).
Figure 1

Location map of Rajapur and Gugi area (modified after Senthil Kumar et al.[2007]).

The present investigation deals with the possible influence of high-heat-producing granites of Gugi on the propagation of the Rajapur thermal springs. With the help of gravity anomaly data (GSI in 2006), an attempt has been made to find the extent of these granites below the volcanic flows at the thermal springs site.

Geology of Rajapur thermal spring site

DVP is one of the world’s largest continental flood basalts, which are spread out over the north-western, central, and southern Indian Peninsula, with a total exposed area of about 5.0 × 105 km2. The total thickness of the basalt lava flows varies from 2,500 to 3,000 m along the west coast, decreasing gradually towards the east. The Deccan Trap flows are traversed by a large number of N-S trending faults and dyke swarms (Hooper [1990]). The thermal springs on the west coast are aligned along this major tectonic feature, i.e., the West Coast Fault (Chandrasekharam [1985]; Minissale et al. [2000]). The geothermal gradient, deciphered from the study of boreholes, is about 57°C/km (Chandrasekharam [2000]). In the Rajapur area, the thickness of the basalt flows is approximately 600 m (Figure 2) (Subbarao et al. [1994]). The study area is dominated by the highly fractured Deccan Basalt. In some places, scoria and layering in basalt are also present. This is where both cold springs (<27°C) and thermal springs (41°C to 72°C) are present.
Figure 2

North-south cross section of the Western Ghats (modified after Subbarao et al.,[1994]).

Geology of the Gugi Area

The major exposed rock type is Closepet Granite at the western margin of the Eastern Dharwar Craton (Swaminath and Ramakrishnan [1981]), where it meets with the Bhima Basin. The basement of Neoproterozoic Bhima Group consists of the Late Archean granitoid, which can be seen exposed along the southern margin of the Bhima Basin (Figure 3). These granitoid rocks are rich in U- and Th-containing minerals such as sphene, apatite, and zircon (Senthil Kumar and Srinivasan [2002]; Senthil Kumar and Reddy [2004]). Closepet Granite Suite also contains K-rich granitoids in which uranium mineralization is reported (Senthil Kumar and Srinivasan [2002]). Most of the uranium mineralization is within the Archean granitoids of Dharwar Craton and Neoproterozoic fault of Bhima Group of rocks (Pandit et al. [1999]; Dhana Raju et al. [1999]). The available heat flow data in the Dharwar Craton ranges between 25 and 51 mW/m2 (Senthil Kumar and Reddy [2004]).
Figure 3

Bhima Basin in East Dharwar craton and location of water and rock samples. Bhima Basin in East Dharwar craton and location of water and rock samples collected in parts of the Gugi area (modified after Kale and Peshwa [1995]; Vaidyanadhan and Ramakrishnan [2010]).

A detailed geological map was prepared based on the field observations around Gugi. The Archaean Granite is exposed with Proterozoic sediments, which are mostly carbonates of the Bhima Group. Both are in contact with an E-W trending reverse fault, steeply dipping towards the north, known as ‘Gugi-Karalagere fault’, extending up to Karalagere in the west with a maximum width of 500 m. This fault, cutting across the carbonate and granitoid rocks and horizontal beds of sedimentary formation of the Neoproterozoic Bhima group, forms steep dips in the fault zone. Lamination, brecciation, and asymmetric folds are clearly observed in the carbonate rocks.

Occasionally, small blocks of granite are exposed around Gugi. Grey and purple shale, limestone, and basement conglomerate of the Bhima Basin are exposed along the fault zone. Dark-colored, coarse-grained blocks of peninsular gneiss are also observed in several places. Grey soil is observed because of the presence of phosphate in the Bhima Basin sediments.

Methods

Sample collection and water analysis

Representative rock and water samples were collected from Gugi area (Figure 3), while only the water samples were collected from the Rajapur area (Figure 4). All the water samples were collected in two sets. One set of water samples was acidified with HNO3 (with 5 mL 14 M ultrapure HNO3/L) on site, and the other set was stored at a lower temperature for future analysis (Arnorsson [2000]; Marini [2010]). The water samples from Rajapur include samples from thermal springs, rivers, bore wells, and ponds. Temperature and pH were measured in the field using an ORION pH meter (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hudson, NH, USA).
Figure 4

Water samples location map in parts of Rajapur area.

The water samples were analyzed for major cation and anion concentrations. Cations and silica were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES). The sulphate concentration was measured with the aid of a UV spectrophotometer and alkalinity by a H2SO4 titration and chloride using the ion selective electrode method (Table 1). These analyses were conducted as per the standard procedures (APHA [1977]).
Table 1

Physical and chemical parameters of water samples from the study area

Serial no.

Sample name

Temp (°C)

pH

TDS

Na+

K+

Ca++

Mg++

Cl

SO42−

HCO3

SiO2

1

RGw

26.5

6.5

54

3.7

0.01

4

2.4

6.5

4.3

16

8.3

2

RGw

24

7

87

3.9

0.1

7

8.7

8.5

5.3

50

8.3

3

RTw

41

8.3

557

74.6

11.8

43.1

11.6

17.6

11.9

340

52.5

4

RGw

26

7

96

3.5

0.1

14

3.9

9.7

8.7

40

13.1

5

RGw

27

6

138

6.9

1.6

12.6

2.4

10.4

4.6

50

24

6

RGw

26

6.7

277

4.2

0.01

31.1

10.6

10.2

9.9

120

56.6

7

RSw

26.4

7.6

156

3.1

0.4

18

7.7

8.4

7.3

75

27.5

8

RGw

26

7

621

13.1

0.45

50.1

6.2

12.9

8.1

180

86.1

9

RSw

27

6.5

104

3.8

0.3

12

7.3

9

8.7

60

8.9

10

RSw

26

7

91

4.2

0.4

12

2.4

7.3

8.9

40

11.8

11

GWs

26.7

7.6

219

65.5

2.7

38.1

22.7

77.5

55.1

185

19.6

12

GWs

27

7.9

358

101.8

3.7

32.1

29.6

99.3

44.1

275

13

13

GWs

26

7.5

497

130.2

3

102.3

11.5

202

47.6

275

1.7

14

GWs

26

7

412

101.1

14.6

111.3

15.5

137

50.3

370

29.4

RTw, Rajapur thermal water; RGw, Rajapur groundwater; RSw Rajapur surface water; GWs, groundwater sample, Gugi.

Estimation of radioactive heat

The radioactive heat production (RHP in μW/m3) of granite was calculated by taking into account the heat generation constant (amount of heat released per gram U, Th, and K per unit time) and the uranium, thorium, and potassium concentration CU, CTh, CK present in rock (Rybach [1976]; Cermak et al. [1982]):
RHP = ρ 9.52 C U + 2.56 C Th + 3.48 C K × 10 5
(1)
where ρ is the bulk density of rock in kilogram per cubic meter, CU and CTh are in weight parts per million, and CK is in weight percent.
To determine the U and Th concentrations in rock samples, powdered samples of less than 200 mesh were mixed with cellulose in a 4:1 ratio (Bertin [1978]) to form pellets, which were analyzed by XRF. For potassium, powdered rock samples were diffused with lithium meta-borate and tetra-borate to make a rock solution then analyzed by ICP-AES. The RHP from the granites of Gugi is shown in Table 2. In the present investigation, the heat flow value of the area was measured by the relationship between the radioactive decay to the surface heat flow described by the following equation (Birch et al. [1968]; Lachenbruch [1968]):
Q = Q 0 + D × A
(2)
where Q is the heat flow at the surface, Q0 is an initial value for heat flow unrelated to the specific decay of radioactive element at the current time, D is the thickness of crust over which the distribution of radioactive elements is more or less homogeneous, and A is the heat production rate per volume of rock (Glassley [2010]). Assuming that the background heat flow is approximately 40 mW/m2 (Glassley [2010]), then heat flows of the location are given in Table 2.
Table 2

U, Th (in ppm), and K (%) values in selected rock samples

Sample no.

U (ppm)

Th (ppm)

K (wt.%)

RHP (μW/m3)

Heat flow (mW/m2)

L2

1.1

66.8

0.2

4.92

44.9

L3

6.1

4.7

5.8

2.43

42.4

L4

3.2

1.0

1.6

1.04

41.0

L5

4.8

5.7

5.3

2.13

42.1

L16

6.4

1.0

5.9

2.28

42.3

Gugi is located in the Eastern Dharwar Craton (EDC) where the heat flow values range between 25 and 51 mW/m2 (Senthil Kumar and Reddy [2004]), common to the all Archean provinces (Jaupart and Mareschal [1999]). In the Gugi granites, the observed concentration of U is at 1.1 to 6.4 ppm, Th at 1.0 to 66.8 ppm, and K at 0.2 to 5.9 ppm, and the average heat flow value is 42.5 mW/m2/m (Table 2). However, in the Deccan basalt province, the average concentration of U is at 0.64 to 1.79 ppm, Th at 0.54 to 1.32 ppm, and K at 0.17 to 0.34% (Paul et al. [1984]). These values indicate the RHP value to be in the range of 0.27 to 0.59 μW/m3 which is much less than that of the Gugi granites, signifying the role of Gugi granites in the propagation of the Rajapur thermal springs.

Results and discussion

Hydrogeochemistry

Earlier studies carried out on the West Coast thermal springs have shown a high Na content (Ramanathan and Chandrasekharam [1997]; Minissale et al. [2000]), and most of the thermal springs are of the Na-Ca-Cl and Ca-Na-Cl types, mainly due to the interaction with seawater (Muthuraman [1986]). However, the Rajapur thermal spring which is also along the west coast is of Na-HCO3 type. The thermal spring is slightly alkaline in nature (pH = 8.3 at 25°C) with 557 mg/L total dissolved solids. The SiO2 concentration in the thermal water is slightly lower than some of the groundwater which can be attributed to the precipitation of SiO2 during its ascent. The ionic concentrations measured during the present investigation are shown in Table 1 and were plotted with water-rock interaction data from Singh et al. ([2012]) in Piper trilinear diagram (Piper; Figure 5). The plots clearly indicate that the thermal spring water is Na-HCO3 type. The data fall in the secondary alkalinity field (Figure 5) dominated by the alkaline earths (Ca2+, Mg2+) and weak acids (HCO3). Well, river, and pond water samples are also Ca-HCO3 type, and their chemistry is compatible with the chemistry of the rocks through which they flow. In the Piper diagram (Figure 5), surface and cold spring waters plot in almost the same field, indicating that they are recharged through meteoric water. The amount of total dissolved solids in the thermal water is found to be about 550 ppm in Rajapur, while in Gugi area it varies from 220 to 500 ppm in the water samples.
Figure 5

Piper ([1944]) trilinear diagram, showing the geochemical variation of different water types from study area.

To understand the circulation of the water through the Gugi granite, we conducted water-rock interaction experiment for selected granite samples. The granite samples were crushed to <1 mm. The water-rock interaction experiment was carried out in a glass chamber with fluid/solid ratio of 10:1 at 100°C. Rainwater was utilized in the experiment as the interacting fluid. Water-rock interaction experiment with samples derived from the granites shows wide range of geochemical variation. Most of them fall in the Na-SO4 field (Singh et al. [2012]), while the thermal springs and the surface waters fall in the Ca-HCO3 field (Figure 5). It indicates circulation of meteoric water within the granites (host of the thermal reservoir) and emerging through the Deccan Basalt flows, after mixing with the near-surface groundwater and thus becoming rich in Ca-HCO3 component. It further strengthens our earlier view (Chandrasekharam and Chandrasekhar [2010]) that the granites are the main source of heat for the thermal springs in several geothermal provinces of India.

Isotope data

The stable (δ18O and δ2H) isotope data is taken from an unpublished work (Ramanathan: Geochemistry of the thermal springs located along the West Coast, unpublished work) and plotted in the δ18O vs. δ2H diagram (Figure 6). The δ18O and δ2H for thermal water is −1.6‰ and −5‰ and for Rajapur river water is −2.2‰ and −6‰, respectively. The thermal spring does not show significant ‘oxygen shift’ indicating that the spring is not of high-temperature type, which does not attain more than 220°C (Nuti [1991]), or the residence time may not be sufficient for the exchange to occur.
Figure 6

Oxygen and hydrogen isotope variation in the Rajapur thermal spring.

Geothermometry

Silica geothermometry

In 1973, Fournier gave the silica geothermometry for the estimation of the reservoir temperature as follows (Fournier [1973]):Quartz geothermometer with no steam loss:
T ° C = 1 , 309 5.19 log S 273.15
(3)
Quartz geothermometer with maximum steam loss:
T ° C = 1 , 522 5.75 log S 273.15
(4)
where S is the concentration of silica in thermal water. The estimated reservoir temperatures based on quartz is always lower than that of the ion-exchange geothermometry because of the quick re-equilibration of quartz to the surroundings ([Fournier 1977]). The estimated reservoir temperature of 104°C and 105°C, respectively, is considered as the minimum reservoir temperature.

Cation geothermometry

Cation geothermometers are used to estimate the reservoir temperatures. We have calculated the reservoir temperature using the following formula (Giggenbach [1988]):
T C kn = 1 , 390 1.75 log K Na
(5)
where ‘kn’ represents ‘K and Na’ and K and Na are in milligram per liter.
T C km = 4 , 410 14 log K 2 Mg
(6)
where ‘km’ represents ‘K and Mg’ K and Mg are in milligram per liter.

The reservoir temperature calculated using the above equations individually gives two different values (281°C and 70°C respectively) since the reaction involved K-Na equilibrates at high temperatures while K/√Mg equilibrates at low temperatures. Further, the reaction involving K and Mg equilibrates is faster, and their temperatures estimated from surface geothermal waters give very low reservoir temperatures. Reactions involving K and Na do not adjust quickly to the physical environment at shallow depths. So in this case, cation geothermometry overestimates the reservoir temperature.

Cation composition geothermometer

Nieva and Nieva ([1987]) developed the cation composition geothermometer; the relationship between cations is as follows:
T K = 14 , 990 7 log Na + K + + 2 log Ca 2 + Na + + 2 log Mg 2 + Na + 2 + 29.39
(7)
where [x] is the mole concentration of species x (mol kg−1).He divided this equation into four subgroups, and according to this division our data fall in the first subgroup. In the first subgroup, the equation is modified as follows:
T K = 11 , 140 6 log Na + K + + log Mg 2 + Na + 2 + 18.30
(8)

With the cation composition geothermometer (CCG), estimated reservoir temperature is 157°C.

Gravity anomaly

A gravity contour map was prepared based on the terrain-corrected Bouguer gravity anomaly map of India (2006). The study area shown in Figure 7 is characterized by large negative anomalies (−80 mGal). In parts of Gugi and Rajapur areas, low gravity anomaly was observed.
Figure 7

Complete Bouguer corrected map; black spots indicate location of rock and water samples were investigated.

A gravity profile along the line connecting Rajapur and Gugi (Figure 7) is shown in Figure 8. Near Rajapur, a large gravity anomaly is found due to the presence of the Koyna Rift having an average thickness of 50 km (Krishna Brahmam and Negi [1973]; Dobrin [1976]; Telford et al. [1990]). Another gravity anomaly may be due to the presence of dyke or some high-density rock below the Deccan Trap. The exposed granitic rock in parts of Gugi area resulted in negative gravity anomaly. Therefore, a low gravity anomaly near the Rajapur area suggests the presence of granitic terrain below DVP.
Figure 8

Gravity anomaly profile from Gugi to Rajapur study area.

Conclusions

The Rajapur thermal waters are of Na-Ca-HCO3 type, and the stable isotope analysis of thermal and river waters shows a close relationship, which indicates mixing of the geothermal water with the near-surface groundwater. The thermal water is rich in Na+, K+, Mg++, and HCO3. Water-rock interaction experimental result shows the circulation of the meteoritic water through granites and emerging as the Rajapur thermal springs. Higher total dissolved solids in thermal water can be ascribed to high-temperature water-rock interaction at great depth. Due to the basalt-water interaction at Rajapur, the Na to K and Mg to Na ratio and excessive Ca become less sensitive to temperature variation. The concentration of silica showed a great variation (70 to 400 ppm; Chandrasekharam et al. [1992]; Ramanathan: Geochemistry of the thermal springs located along the West Coast, unpublished work). Reservoir temperature estimation based on CCG is here considered as reliable, which gave a reservoir temperature of 157°C. Also, the surface and groundwater from Rajapur show very low concentration of other major ions in comparison to the thermal water in the area (Minissale et al. [2000]), whereas the surface and groundwater from Gugi have higher concentrations of major ions with high total dissolved solids. There is no indication of an interaction of seawater with the thermal spring water as is the case of other west coast springs. Thus, the geochemistry of thermal water confirms the location of thermal reservoir to the Precambrian granites underlying the Deccan Basalt.

Radioactive heat production data of granites of Gugi show high values on an average of 42.6 mW/m2, which are similar to many other potentially viable areas around the world. This is, hence, considered as the greatest possible heat source of the reservoir of the Rajapur thermal springs.

The gravity profile (Figure 7) from Gugi to Rajapur shows a disparity in gravity anomaly, perhaps due to the variation in thickness of the Deccan Flood Basalt. The gravity anomaly in Rajapur is 10 mGal, which is lower than others observed in the Gugi area. If we apply complete Bouguer correction in the Rajapur area for the 600-m-thick basalt layer, we find a comparatively similar gravity anomaly as in the Gugi area. Also, the existence of low density rock like granite underlying the DFB cannot be ruled out. With the help of the gravity anomaly, it can be predicted that the main heat source for the Rajapur thermal springs is the granitic batholith, which extends from Gugi to the Rajapur. Finally looking at all these aspects, it can be postulated that the thermal waters from Rajapur area, coming from underneath Dharwar Granitic Batholith and underlying the basaltic terrain, interact with the near-surface groundwater on their way to the surface, to emerge as thermal springs.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to Prof. S. Vishwanathan for his valuable suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
(2)
IITB-Monash Research Academy, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
(3)
Civil Engineering Department, Monash University

References

  1. APHA (1977) Standard methods for examination of water and waste water. American Public Health Association, Water and Waste Product Control Federation. Washington DC, Springer series in statistics, p 1193Google Scholar
  2. Arnorsson S: Isotopic and chemical techniques in geothermal exploration, development and use. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria; 2000.Google Scholar
  3. Bertin EP: Introduction to X-ray spectrometric analysis. Plenum, New York; 1978.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Birch F, Roy RF, Decker ER: Heat flow and thermal history in New England and New York. In Studies of Appalacian geology: northern and maritime. E. Zen, W.S. White, J.B. Hadley and J.B. Thompson Jr, New York: Interscience; 1968:437–451.Google Scholar
  5. Cermak V, Huckenholz HG, Rybach L, Schmid R: Radioactive heat generation in rocks. In Hellwege, K. (Ed.), Landolt-Bornstein numerical data and functional relationships in science and technology. New Series, Group V. Geophysics and Space Research, vol. 1, Physical properties of rocks, subvolume b. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York; 1982:433–481.Google Scholar
  6. Chandrasekharam D: Structure and evolution of western continental margin of India deduced from gravity, seismic, geomagnetic and geochronological studies. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 1985, 41: 186–198. 10.1016/0031-9201(85)90033-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandrasekharam D: Geothermal energy resources of India - facts. Proceedings Geothermal Power Asia 2000 Conference, Manila; 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Chandrasekharam D (2005) Geothermal energy resource of India: Past and present. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress:1–9 Chandrasekharam D (2005) Geothermal energy resource of India: Past and present. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress:1–9
  9. Chandrasekharam D, Chandrasekhar V: Geothermal energy resource, India: country update. In Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, 25–29 April 2010. World Geothermal Congress, Bali; 2010:1–11.Google Scholar
  10. Chandrasekharam D, Ramanathan A, Selvakumar RL: Thermal springs in the Puttur crystallines of the western continental margin of India—field and experimental results in water-rock interaction 7. Kharaka, K. and S. Maest (eds.) , AA Balkema, Netherlands; 1992.Google Scholar
  11. Dhana RR, Kumar MK, Babu EVSS, Pandit SA (1999) Field workshop on integrated evolution of the Kaladgi and Bhima Basins. Geological Society of India:47–53 Dhana RR, Kumar MK, Babu EVSS, Pandit SA (1999) Field workshop on integrated evolution of the Kaladgi and Bhima Basins. Geological Society of India:47–53
  12. Dobrin MB: Introduction to geophysical prospecting. McGraw-Hill, New York; 1976.Google Scholar
  13. Fournier RO: Silica in thermal waters: laboratory and field investigations. Proceedings International Symposium on Hydrogeochemistry and Biogeochemistry, Tokyo 1973, 1: 122–139.Google Scholar
  14. Fournier RO: Chemical geothermometers and mixing models for geothermal systems. Geothermics 1977, 5: 41–50. 10.1016/0375-6505(77)90007-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Giggenbach WF: Geothermal solute equilibria. Derivation of Na-K-Mg-Ca geoindicators. Geochica et Cosmochimica Acta 1988, 52: 2749–2765. 10.1016/0016-7037(88)90143-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Glassley EW: Geothermal energy renewable energy and the environment. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, U.S.; 2010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Hooper PR: The timing of crustal extension and the eruption of continental flood basalts. Nature 1990, 345: 246–249. 10.1038/345246a0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaupart C, Marescha JCI: The thermal structure and thickness of continental roots. Lithos 1999, 48: 93–114. 10.1016/S0024-4937(99)00023-7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Kale VS, Peshwa VV: Bhima basin. Field workshop on Bhima Basin-Field guide. Geological Society of India, Bangalore; 1995.Google Scholar
  20. Krishna BN, Negi JG: Rift valleys beneath Deccan Traps (India). Geophysical Research Bulletin 1973, 11: 207–237.Google Scholar
  21. Kumar D, Thiagarnajan S, Rai SN: Deciphering geothermal resources in Deccan Trap region using electrical resistivity tomography technique. Journal Geological Society of India 2011, 78: 541–548. 10.1007/s12594-011-0123-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Lachenbruch AH: Preliminary geothermal model of the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research 1968, 73: 6977–89. 10.1029/JB073i022p06977View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Marini L: Geochemical techniques for the exploration and exploration of geothermal energy. Universita degli Studi di Genova, Italia; 2010.Google Scholar
  24. Minissale A, Vaselli O, Chandrasekharam D, Magro G, Tassi F, Casiglia A: Origin and evolution of ‘intracratonic’ thermal fluids from central-western peninsular India. Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters 2000, 181: 377–394. 10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00200-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Muthuraman K: Sea water-basalt interactions and genesis of the coastal thermal waters of Maharashtra, India. Geothermics 1986, 15: 689–703. 10.1016/0375-6505(86)90080-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Nieva D, Nieva R: Developments in geothermal energy in Mexico-part twelve. A cationic geothermometer for prospecting of geothermal resources. Heat Recovery Systems & CHP 1987, 7: 243–258. 10.1016/0890-4332(87)90138-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Nuti S: Isotope techniques in geothermal studies. In Applications of geochemistry in geothermal reservoir development, series of technical guides on the use of geothermal energy. Edited by: D’amore F. UNITAR/UNDP center on small energy resources, Rome, Italy; 1991:215–251.Google Scholar
  28. Pandit SA, Ali MA, Swarnkar BM, Banerjee DC (1999) Field workshop on integrated evolution of the Kaladgi and Bhima Basins. Geological Society of India:53–56 Pandit SA, Ali MA, Swarnkar BM, Banerjee DC (1999) Field workshop on integrated evolution of the Kaladgi and Bhima Basins. Geological Society of India:53–56
  29. Paul DK, Kresten P, Barman TR, McNutt RH, Brunfelt AO: Geochemical and petrological relation in some Deccan Basalts, Western Maharashtra, India. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 1984, 21: 165–176. 10.1016/0377-0273(84)90021-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Piper M: A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water-analyses. American Geophysical Union 1944, 25: 914–923. 10.1029/TR025i006p00914View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramanathan A, Chandrasekharam D: Geochemistry of Rajapur and Puttur Thermal Springs of the West Coast, India. Journal of Geological Society of India 1997, 49: 559–565.Google Scholar
  32. Rybach L: Radioactive heat production: a physical property determined by the chemistry in the physical and chemistry of minerals and rocks. Strens, R.G.J. (Ed.), Wiley-Interscience, New York; 1976:309–318.Google Scholar
  33. Senthil Kumar P, Reddy GK: Radioelements and heat production of an exposed Archaean crustal cross-section, Dharwar craton, south India. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 2004, 224: 309–324. 10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.032View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Senthil Kumar P, Srinivasan R: Fertility of Late Archaean basement granite in the vicinity of U-mineralized Neoproterozoic Bhima basin, peninsular India. Current Science 2002, 82: 571–576.Google Scholar
  35. Senthil Kumar P, Menon R, Reddy GK: Crustal geothermal in southern Deccan Basalt Province, India: the Moho is as cold as adjoining cratons. GSA Special Paper 2007, 430: 275–284.Google Scholar
  36. Singh HK, Singh B, Kumar Y, Chandrasekharam D: Evolution of the Rajapur thermal spring, Maharashtra through the Gugi, Karnatka granites with an experimental approach. In 7th European Congress on Regional Geoscientific Cartography and Sustainable Information Geo-Management Systems. Euregeo, Bologna; 2012:467–468.Google Scholar
  37. Subbarao KV, Chandrasekharam D, Navneethakrishnan P, Hooper PR: Stratigraphy and structure of parts of the Central Deccan Basalt Province: eruptive models. In Volcanism. Edited by: Subbarao KV. Wiley, New Delhi; 1994:321–332.Google Scholar
  38. Swaminath J, Ramakrishnan M: Early Precambrian supracrustals of southern Karnataka. Mem. Geological Survey of India 1981, 112: 350.Google Scholar
  39. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE: Applied geophysics. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York; 1990.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Vaidyanadhan R, Ramakrishnan M: Geology of India. Geological Society of India, Bangalore, India 2010, 1: 556.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Singh et al.; licensee Springer 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.