Posted on by Jón Frímann

Special report: New magma intrusion into El Hierro volcano, Canary Islands, Spain

Few days ago a new magma intrusion did start in El Hierro volcano, Canary Islands, Spain. But this means that the pressure is increasing inside El Hierro current magma still. The new magma is going the same path as before, and is forming a new sill north-west part of El Hierro volcano. It seems that this magma has not yet encountered the magma that is already inside El Hierro volcano. What happens when the new magma encounters the slightly older magma is a open question. But I am sure what happens is going to be interesting and is going to create a new eruption vent in my opinion.


The new magma intrusion in El Hierro. It is not yet in contact with the existing magma in El Hierro. It is hard to know exactly what happens when the new magma gets into contact with the magma that is already in El Hierro. Copyright of this picture belongs to Instituto Geográfico Nacional.

What is really interesting about this new magma is that this seems to be a new intrusion from a new conduct below El Hierro. This conduct does not appear in the earthquakes that started in July 2011 to today. There is a great risk that more new conducts are going to open up under El Hierro in this same manner. But this means that new magma can start to flow into El Hierro at new point under El Hierro. But that is always marked by a increase in earthquake activity where a new magma intrusion starts in El Hierro. This new magma intrusion into El Hierro appears to be rather small at the moment. But it is most likely going to grow over the next few weeks.


Current harmonic tremor levels in El Hierro volcano. Given by the current harmonic tremor level this eruption remains small. But the harmonic tremor is poorly to not being detected on nearby Canary Islands. The spike in the tremor plot is a earthquake. Copyright of this picture belongs to Instituto Geográfico Nacional.

It seems that IGN did rescale the tremor plot in the early beginning of the eruption. Making me draw false conclusions on what was going on in El Hierro. But it seems that the eruption is stable and has been from the beginning. But so far this is a small eruption, based on the tremor data. I say it is small because the harmonic tremor is not detected about ~60 km away from El Hierro. As a example in the eruption of Grímsfjall volcano, the harmonic tremor was detected clearly up to ~200 km away from the eruption. But the harmonic tremor signals how much magma is moving inside a volcano up to the surface. But not how explosive the eruption is. But explosions can and are detected on seismometers when a eruption goes explosive.

If anything major happens in El Hierro. I am going to update this blog post.

568 Replies to “Special report: New magma intrusion into El Hierro volcano, Canary Islands, Spain”

    1. From these charts, I don’t think you can tell, they are only showing the change in the distance from one of the stations – the FRON.

      There’s two options for this mathematically, depending on how they produce the charts:
      1. either they calculate distance from FRON only in x,y (lat,long) plane and then there is no elevation info at all, it is just horizontal change that is plotted.
      2. or they calculate distance from FRON in x,y,z and then elevation is in the distance implicitly, but change in elevation is not directly related to the change in the distance and you can’t just see it from the graph.

      What IGN does, I am not sure, because they don’t specify it anywhere (or at least I haven’t seen it anywhere), but I think it probable that these graphs show only 1.

      It is more normal (or well, we are spoilt by IMO) to show changes in each coordinate separately, i.e. in N-S direction, in E-W direction and in elevation. But that is not the case here.

      Hope this helps?

      1. [I can also dance the chase-arooo]

        Ursula, I am quite certain that the GPS gives x, y, z co-ordinates like the Icelandic. But, IGN has chosen to show it as combined motion (probably combined measure of all 3 co-ordinates). Why? Because a landslide is after all the most likely reason for a geological event that could kill people, not volcanos. At least this was the case untill recent.
        Lurking have devised a way to “gleen” out the up component of the data from both the IGN GPS:es and the Nagoya GPS:es. His way to do that is so bloody ingenious that I have a problem understanding (not how he does it) but how the hell he came up with it. I could never have come up with it in a million years, and then I have worked with locationing for many years after I got my ph.d. in Physics. His mind works in a very unusual and brilliant way. It is dark arts magic we are seeing on a very high scale in his elevation plots.

      2. OK, correction to what I said (because it was not clear): I do not doubt that IGN gets all three coordinates from their GPS. 🙂 I am just not sure if the distances they show on their charts are in fact a measure of all three coordinates (as you say) or just two. This is because I’ve seen many mapping projects all over the place which ignore the third component – normally the reason given is that GPS elevation has a much higher uncertainty than x,y measurements and often it is simply not considered.

      4. Thanks a lot to you both, so glad to see that the answer is not as obvious as I feared. – If the graph only shows horizontal movement, I suppose a negative value means the IH station is coming closer to the refering point (FRON), and a positive value means the station is moving away from it. But – if there is an elevation included in one single value – I am back to zero with my understanding. Some Lurking magic needed!
        And as you say, Carl, horizontal movement is probably far the most important value if you are concerned about a landslide.

      5. @Sissel

        No magic involved, just perseverance and luck.

        As for pulling Lat and Lon changes from the data, that’s actually quite easy… but of little use unless you designate one station as the reference and do your guestimation from that.

        Elevation is a bit trickier, and requires a leap of faith. My method was to assume (warning, assumption in progress) that at the start of the reading, that a vertically oriented right triangle represented the orientation of the two stations and the depth of the magma body. I then calculated the other two angles, hypotenuse, and adjacent.

        I then skewed the adjacent by the lateral offset.

        Recalculating for what the opposite side had to change by in order to give that amount offset gave me an estimated vertical component.

        At this point I said @#$ it and got a beer, and switched back to using Sagiya’s network.

        In theory… that approach would work, but with the uncertainty of where the @#$ HI04 is at, it wasn’t worth the effort.

        About the only thing I can establish is that HI04 is most likely NOT “northwest near the coast.”

      6. For the other GPS stations on other islands, like LPAL, for example it doesn’t matter whether or not they include the z-component to calculate the change in distance.
        LPAL is som 105 km (or 10’500’000 cm) away from FRON. The vertical (or z) component doesn’t contribute much to the change in distance in this situation.
        With stations nearer to FROM, like HI04 and others, it may be different.
        The change in distance doesn’t tell you much about how the terrain is deforming. For that you need the changes in GPS coordinates.
        The University of Nagoya provides those, the link has been posted several times on this blog.

      1. Thanks KarenZ too. – I posted the comment again here as I thought it would not be read being the last of the old blog post. Wrong.
        Will have a look at the Sagiya page but do not really expect to understand, one probably needs some dark arts magic “:lol:”

    3. Okay.. first, my apologies for the data splat.

      This is part of what IGN gets from it’s GPS units. It’s the RINEX formated file for station IGNE.

      I’ve been wandering around the directory looking for the fabled HI04 with no success, but as you can see, they do obtain x, y, z from the units.

      From what I can tell, they use a combination of GPS and GLONASS for the positioning systems. I don’t have the requisite skill to convert the orbitals and residuals into Lat, Lon, and Elevation, so even if I find it I may not be able to do anything with it.

      18:00:00.000 18:59:45.000
      2011 Oct 24 2011 Oct 24

      *********************
      QC of RINEX file(s) : IGNE297S.11O
      input RnxNAV file(s) : IGNE297S.11N
      IGNE297S.11G
      *********************

      4-character ID : IGNE (# = 13411M001)
      Receiver type : LEICA GRX1200GGPRO (# = 355504) (fw = 8.10/3.019)
      Antenna type : LEIAT504GG LEIS (# = 200635)

      Time of start of window : 2011 Oct 24 18:00:00.000
      Time of end of window : 2011 Oct 24 18:59:45.000
      Time line window length : 59.75 minute(s), ticked every 10.0 minute(s)
      antenna WGS 84 (xyz) : 4851152.2307 -314490.7141 4116290.8253 (m)
      antenna WGS 84 (geo) : N 40 deg 26′ 44.96″ E 356 deg 17′ 26.94″
      antenna WGS 84 (geo) : 40.445822 deg 356.290817 deg (= -3.709183 deg)
      WGS 84 height : 782.3024 m
      |qc – header| position : 33 m
      Observation interval : 15.0000 seconds
      Total satellites w/ obs : 24
      NAVSTAR GPS SVs w/o OBS : 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 12 15 16 18 21
      22 24 25 26 27 29 30
      NAVSTAR GPS SVs w/o NAV : 2 5 9 12 15 25 26 29 30
      NAVSTAR GPS SVs w/o OBS : 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 12 15 16 18 21
      22 24 25 26 27 29 30
      NAVSTAR GPS SVs w/o NAV : 2 5 9 12 15 25 26 29 30
      GLONASS SVs w/o OBS : 2 3 4 5 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19
      20
      GLONASS SVs w/o NAV : 8 22 21 1 23 6 7 16 24 9 10
      GLONASS SVs w/o OBS : 2 3 4 5 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19
      20
      GLONASS SVs w/o NAV : 8 22 21 1 23 6 7 16 24 9 10
      Rx tracking capability : 26 SVs
      Poss. # of obs epochs : 240
      Epochs w/ observations : 240
      Epochs repeated : 0 (0.00%)

      1. @ Lurking
        I do not understand, no, no, no. Glad somebody does!
        Don’t think there is ANYTHING you should apology for.
        So nice of you to try to explain something like this.

        By the way: Any chance IH04 is north-northeast of Frontera, near the coast (measured horizontally)?

      2. No, if so it’s signal would have tracked similar to FRON-LPAL or FRON-MAZO.

        FRON-HI04 is most similar to FRON-HI03, and HI03 is on the west side of FRON near the beach according to the graphic on the site.

        Doing a correlation check between FRON-LPAL, FRON-TN03, and FRON-ALAJ, it has the most negative correlation with FRON-LPAL, FRON-TN03, and a more positive (but still negative) correlation with the signal for FRON-ALAJ.

        To me, that means that HI04 is on the opposite side of FRON.

        This fits with it being to the west of FRON and having a generally similar trend to HI03.

        Going a bit further, and comparing the correlation coefficients in a method that they aren’t really intended for, gives me a bearing cut somewhere up on the E-W spine of the island… pretty much in the ballpark that Carl thinks its at.

        At least thats what fits the data.

      3. My guess for the location of HI04. It must be near Tanganasoga. This is solely on the basis that HI04 is a new site so it must be near something that IGN wants to measure and is likely to be a risk.

      7. My apologies if this is someting already done, but have you tried asking prof Sagiya where the HI04 is- surely he would know or be able to find out? Outstanding plots and logic lurking; thank you.

  2. how comes the tremor charts of (some of the) other islands seem to show an slightly increasing amplitude?
    are they suddenly detecting el hierros tremor?

    1. Could it be that there is another volcanic activity “in preparation” between Gran Canaria and esp. Fuerteventura? There were some earthquakes also located in this area.

      Considering this: http://www.01.ign.es/ign/head/volcaSenalesAnterioresDia.do?nombreFichero=CFUE_2011-10-24&ver=s&estacion=CFUE&Anio=2011&Mes=10&Dia=24&tipo=2, there seems to be tremor (red) and also a lot of activity in the higher frequencies. If it would be just mirroring of El Hierro activity, wouldn’t there be more to see at Gomera which is considerably nearer than Gran Canaria and Fuerteventura. But there is on the contrary less activity at Gomera than on the other two islands.

    2. They are detecting El Hierro’s tremor. This was clearly visible earlier on at the time of the eruption.

      Sample pages only from IGN. You can see more if you select the required stations and use the yellow arrows to go back to the date(s) you want to see.

      http://www.ign.es/ign/head/volcaSenalesAnterioresDia.do?nombreFichero=CCAN_2011-10-15&ver=s&estacion=CCAN&Anio=2011&Mes=10&Dia=15&tipo=1
      http://www.ign.es/ign/head/volcaSenalesAnterioresDia.do?nombreFichero=CCAN_2011-10-15&ver=s&estacion=CCAN&Anio=2011&Mes=10&Dia=15&tipo=2

  4. Carl (from last thread):
    “The Greatest of All Plays”.
    I feel flattered and humble at a time. 🙂

    1. One of the great mysteries of life…….
      This man jumps from plane and “flies” over a volcano,lands and walks back to the plane……
      Yesterday I walk up 7 cm step into Kitchen and ehd up in Hospital and now I am confined to the sofa and learning how to use crutches!
      “Sigh” and this laptop is soooooooo slow! 🙂
      Thank you Jon for this posst and your Blog which takes my mind off my enforced rest .

      2. Dear Diana – So sorry to hear about your accident. Please recover quickly. But your spelling is very interesting today. Enjoy the meds lol.

        Best regards…

      4. Diana,

        I wish you strength and a quick recovery from your injury!

        Kind regards,

        Henk
        Holland

      6. Ouch! Hope you recover soon. Depending what your injury is, a visit to a good physio may help.

        May not only be your laptop that is slow; I am finding the internet slow this morning.

      9. mant thanks for all your best wishes. I would like to make it clear that I was not practising ice dancing in my red wellies. I was wearing very sensible walking shoes.
        I have studied the vid that Sissel kindly posted and so far I have maanaged to stay upright.
        As for the spelling it looks very correct at present which obviously means I need more medicinal alcohol….
        Ahhhh! Thatsh mush better 🙂

  6. I am moving this to the new thread since it contains a bit of data on the not so snoozing Theistareykjarbunga.

    It is bigger than the other shield-volcanos on Iceland, and the really stumping part of it is that it was created in one single eruption. The 2 other known more miniscule eruptions at GVP was lava-floods about the size of Eldgja. She is a brute.
    She has probably had a couple of small and slightly explosive vent eruptions that created a small Viti and a rather nice crater, but those are not even listed on GVP. By the way, GVP does not list the magma amount of Theistareykirhraun and Borgahraun eruptions. They also do not count the two other shield volcanos that is a part of Theistareykjarbunga, Storahversmor (370 meters) and Storaviti (540). Both created after Theistareykjarbunga shield volcano.

    So there has been at least 7 post-glacial eruptions, but the amount of hrauns seem to indicate a few more. In a way she is a trap-formation of her own. Especially if one count the glacial features.

    Data on the main shield volcano, 564 metres, created by the ejection of 30 cubic kilometres of lava in one juicy eruption, which as far as I know is the largest basaltic eruption on Iceland since de-glaciation (not Veidivötn Tjorsahraun at 25 cubic kilometres). GVP states the correct number on the front page, but the wrong number on the Eruption history page.
    So, we are talking about a volcano that has had a minimum of 5 instances of more than 10 cubic kilometre eruptions.
    That she has awoken from her deep slumber is very bad.
    Just the amount of tremoring that she throws up without (probably) being even close to an eruption is a sign of what could come if she does not goes back to bed.

    Then we have the little piddly thing that Theistarykjarbunga is (if I have understood the Fissure Zone-Map correct) the southern part of the Húsavik Flatey Transform Fault. For those who do not know it, in 1872 it produced 2 instances of 6,5M quakes somewhere roughly between the spot of Theistareykjarbunga and modern Húsavik, and in 1963 the adjacent TFZ produced a 7.0M quake. I would not be surprised if it was one of the 1872 quakes that started to wake her up.

    And for those who would think I am a bit alarmist, I would just like to say that she is that big, but I still would say the chance of her erupting during our lifetime is slim on a scale. Even if she went full steam for an eruption the magma-reservoir is so insanely large (about 4 km down reaching almost to the MOHO and flattened out like a half-rotten pumpkin), that it will probably take a minimum of a hundred years to top her off. And with more and more frequent harmonic tremorings like this, but bigger and bigger and bigger, and now and then pressure and gravimetrically induced quakes reaching up to heavy 6Ms and out to see as the rift is being shifted by her, 7s.
    But most likely she will calm down during the next hundred years and rest untill the next rifting era in about 270 years.

    Status: Potentially very bad, but very unlikely. Worst case scenario, cold winter and a bit gassy n Europe, Russia and North-America, not the end of the world at all.

    1. Wikipedia does not have a page on Theistareykjarbunga. May be you should contribute one.

    2. Effusive monster? Then El Hierro may be a remote little brother…

      What do we have already at El Hierro? Frankly, more or less surely only magma inflow and degassing, MAYBE also small magma eruption in to the sea.
      Taken the condition new magma is again entering the backstage, the real show IMHO has not yet even started. So, it could take weeks before anything much different happens…

      1. Yes, I think she still has just at best Fimmvörduhalsed us. But, I do think we would see a small basaltic effusion if we looked closer on the bottom of the ocean at the place of the swiming-pool.

        El Hierro would be a very tiny cousin alongside The Fat Lady that might sing 🙂

    3. Þeystareykjarbunga is slightly smaller then Krafla volcano and a lot smaller then Askja. But it is bigger then Fremrinámar volcano and Herðurbreiðartögl volcano.

      1. Yes Jón, heightwise it is not that imposing, but in volume of eruptive ejectae it is a brute. I compared it to the other shield volcanos, and as far as I know there is no shield-volcanic structures at either Krafla, nor Askja.

  7. I wrote some of the pages in my own field concerning wave dynamics. I will leave the Volcanology parts to the real volcanologists.
    I would not like to write anything that is really wrong there. I know how irritating it can be when someone writes in something really nutty. I stil remember when someone changed a particularly taxing mathematical formulation on quantum fractioning that had taken me a week to formulate and I had it replaced with a quote from a southern baptist pastor stating that Quantum mechanics is ungodly. But, please feel free to coax Sabrina Metzger, Sigurjón Jónsson, or Halldór Geirsson to write it. They seem to know what the hell they are talking about 🙂

      1. Well I don’t know what the hork I’m on about really, but I just created the stub based on the GVP entry – better to have something for other people to improve than nothing at all I figure.
        🙂

  8. There are several papers on El Hierro, and I have brought my reply forward to here from the previous thread’s discussion:

    Whereas I think that the gases and lighter ‘stuff’ make small holes, which leave caves, and in the long-standing crystallized pockets the magma is too thick to get up through them, so, with the hotter stuff pushing from below, then I fear the pressure may blow a section first, potentially catastrophically, even if the magma then finds a different exit for the main eruption.

    This concept comes from the different ideas proposed in the Muenn paper, and the Hernandez paper on the volcanic caves, and the Day paper on the magma pockets and J C Carredo on topography and rifting.

    There are caves all over the island and I wonder that they may be weak spots for further landslips to be ‘burst’ from.

    Just my two penn’orth, but it worries me nonetheless.

    1. I live 2 miles from the Atlantic on the east coast of Florida.I am sure that I have a 10,000x more risk of being bitten by a pygmy rattler than ever seeing a tsunami.Still,if any of you lived where I do,wouldn’t you at least keep your eyes on El Hierro until the current eruptive phase has passed?

      2. And then we have the little known fact that it could all of a sudden tilt, and the entire sheeebang go into the water by itself, from the combined weight of votes for Jeb Bush.

      4. I would be looking down so a swamp brother hadn’t placed his hunting alligator where my foot was going…

        Personally I could have -50C during the winter (had it, didn’t die while in the wilderness), 2 metres of snow slumping down, a hurricane hitting me again while sailing (during hurricane Mike I learnt to wind-surf a 50′ ketch), but personally I am more afraid of a person somewhere saying humanitys last word very quietly to himself (Oops… is the word) than anything nature could do to me.
        But to be seious, even if half the Island slid down into the water the displaced water would be smaller than the slip-fault that caused the Japanese tsunami. I guess if you stood on a beach you would get wet, but that would be about all. It is simply hydrodynamics after all. Do not read newspapers that quite simply do not have anything to do with the truth of things.

      6. -50C during the winter ???? my gosh¡¡¡, come to Spain and enjoy the good weather and Boblíkarekkiafturstigstærð! too 🙂

      7. I have only been subject to that horrible temperature once, and that 0f course happened when I was out on manouvre during my army days. A piddle tent is not much protection then.
        Every winter I wonder what the hork I am doing here…

    2. As Bob appears to have been de-gassing rather than a magma event (but we have not seen anything conclusive on this), the magma is yet to follow. “How?” is the $64million question.

      I think that two scenarios are possible, but please note that I am not an expert:

      1) opening of a new fissure somewhere along the NS line following the pattern of the EQs. This assumes that rifting is a significant cause of the EQ pattern we have seen since July; and / or,
      2) eruption of the magma that has been rising to the magma reservoir. This occur somewhere on Tanganasoga.

      The next $64million question is “When?”. I can’t answer that one except to say that we are hoping that it will be preceded by a strongish EQ.

      1. Don’t forget option 3.

        Nothing. Degassed magma sits in place and cools into just another pluton.

      3. Also should have said that ” This MAY occur somewhere on Tanganasoga.”

        Obviously past my bedtime so I am saying good night. Hope all is quiet in Iceland and El Hierro.

      5. When? – in “…2-588 days” . Quote is from Stronik paper. Magma stagnates at 20-30km depth, which is where the EQS are at present. But it rises fast from shallower depths, which is where the swarm of EQs took place ( 8-14km). That magma wont stagnate if Hierro is to follow its past behaviour as recorded by Stronik, so eruption seems the more likely.

  9. Phew over 900 posts from the last thread, wow there is so much going on and fantastic information shared by everyone. I am in awe of Lurking’s ability to extract data and plot it into readable graphs and Carl, Jon’s, Karen everybody’s ability to predict and explain what is happening in “real” terms out there…and I can resonate with Diane’s 1st coffee every morning!. I have leant so much in the last year or so…thanks.
    What I can’t get my head around (and sorry Carl for another stupid question) is how long we (generally speaking) have been able to actually read the data that understands volcanoes? We now have GPS and monitoring equipment that tells us the exact location of movement which gives us the ability to plots tremor charts etc which may predict where an eruption may be and when. We have equipment that can read the depth and size of Earthquakes, we have equipment that can monitor inflation and deflation of magna movement and we have equipment that can monitor almost anything, accept (for the present) an “x-ray” machine that can actually see what is going on inside our planet…..and predict exactly what will happen and when..Or do we!
    By my reckoning we have only had this Intel for the past 30-50 years or so which is a millisecond blip in the life of a volcano……So how do we know what happened before we had all this equipment? And how do we compare it to the data we have now? I know the GVP has been collating data to better understand all volcanoes out there, but how do they “really” know what happened and when, how large the eruptions were etc. I have visions of a little geologist with a spade digging away in a crater to find the depth of the eruption before the eruption before that….. And I was just getting used to these warm summers!

    Thanks for letting me ask a stupid question, afraid the closest I get to quantum physics is trying to understand the Schrödinger equation! And with all this movement in our Earth at the movement I still get this avatar feeling…

    1. “…except (for the present) an “x-ray” machine that can actually see what is going on inside our planet…”

      Don’t be so quick in that assumption. Seismic tomography is getting better at locating “slow wave” areas. That would be a region of likely hotter rock with a greater melt percentage. Additionally, tellurics (conductivity and pulsed electrical signal), and ground penetrating radar and interferometry (INSAR/SAR) are coming along quite nicely.

      Earlier, I referenced the IASP91 model, while looking for the up to date version I ran across the more up to date AK135. Both of those are travel time models based on the structure of the Earth.

      Of these, tomography essentially uses technology we have been using for years, but applies more advanced mathematical concepts and some brute force computer power to solve.

    2. I will say that you are basically correct in that we have a very short timespan of the behavious of Volcanos due to the nice equipment we have now.
      But, we also have a limited ability of forensic detective work on volcanos. We can often rumage in ash-layers (tephra-cronology), drill-core samples, map lava-flows, chemical analyzis and so on. Thankfully the evidence is still there in the form of ejecta.
      But, we still now very little. And that in a way is what is so interesting in volcanology, that it is a very young science. 🙂

      1. @Lurking, Thank You. I would love to be able to understand and see the “maps” generated from data in the form of Seismic tomography and (INSAR/SAR). I am fascinated by such information and to be able to view a picture of our inner planet in the same way we study the universe is incredible… I am in complete awe of your mathematical mind and will view data tables in a completely different light.

        @Carl Thanks again for NOT making me feel stupid. I love the way you explain things and now have a picture of you rummaging in the ash-layers digging away as a forensic physicists understanding the age old concept of volcanoes. Though I know you don’t do that , I am ever the humourist.
        I get the feeling that you both really understand the workings volcanoes and that your predictions come true, though you profess not to be volcanologists I wouldn’t be so sure of that!

        @Diana. Get better soon, Do you have someone who can make you coffee in the morning, I would more than happily help if you need someone…..as I also live in England and the world is not as large as we think……

        I do think though that the world is waking up a little………………..

      2. Many thanks for your kind thought. Yes , I have a very patient husband who goes to work at 5.00 am. So I get a very nice early cup of coffee. 🙂

      3. Oh my, are you waken enough by then to even understand the concept of coffee?
        For me that is way to early, only time I get up that early is to take the Fakir-flight.
        A good morning for me starts at 9, then coffee untill eleven, a brisk walk and then lunch. Mornings are best left to their own devices without my cooperation 🙂
        Work is best left to the afternoon.

  10. Just checked IMO to make sure that all was quiet in Iceland before I went to bed and saw this:

    Tuesday
    25.10.2011 01:13:43 63.653 -19.110 1.1 km 3.5 79.39 7.1 km ENE of Goðabunga

    However, IMO has not awarded it a green star.

    1. Yes, and yet another one, yesterday, also hasn’t been granted a star:
      Monday
      24.10.2011 07:13:34 63.663 -19.142 1.1 km 3.3 73.45 5.9 km ENE of Goðabunga

      2. The 3.3 is still bad quality. You were probably right. No wind down on the sandur of course doesn’t mean the same up in 1400 m height.

  12. Sorry to hear that, I hope you didn’t break anything 🙁

    Hopefully you’ll make a quick recovery 🙂

  14. Just like KarenZ ans Renato Rio I to wondered too why IMO didn’t grant a star to both Katla quakes.
    Like Renato I noticed the poor quality of the quakes, so I thought that IMO after recalculation would downgrade it to less 3 events.
    I can understand this for a quake which has occured very recently (like the MW 3.5), because it takes some time to recalculate, but the MW 3.3 of yesterday is also still there with no change in quality or having received a star!
    Does anyone of you knows what is going on, or is this just normal behaviour from IMO?
    Maybe the two quakes are ghosts? But isn’t that too coincidental?

    Henk Weijerstrass

    1. Most probably the amplitudes of the waves at distant stations that are not related to the earthquakes are included in the calculation of the magnitude. In the alert file for the first event there were large amplitudes measured at ASK of high frequency clearly not related to that event. The magnitudes are probably closer to the calculated magnitudes in the alert-page, i.e 1.4 resp 1.0. Another way to calculate the magnitudes for Katla earthquakes, look at the blue spikes in tremor graphs of RJU and SML (2-4 Hz). The magnitude is about 1.8 +(RJU+SML-10000)/4400. For the first event RJU is about 3500 and SML about 4200, gives magnitude 1.3. In 8 out of 10 the difference from the final ML from IMO is less than 0.3 units.

  16. Good morning everyone.
    I have just posted a fresh RapidEye image in my site (the image is fresh, the satellite pictures dates from October 23).
    http://www.rapideye.de/images/flood/el_hierro_23-10_3.jpg (thats not my site :))
    I want to throw it in the panel here. Other opinions are welcome.
    I have written the following :
    Update 25/10 – 07:42 UTC : The RapidEeye image below reveals the probable location of the strongest emitting point. The dark grey colored stain in between La Restinga and Puerto Naos is almost certainly the second eruption point also called the “Burbuja” or “Las Calmas jacuzzi”. The first eruption fissure could clearly be seen on the first set RapidEye published (second image). The green stain color should be studied by scientists to find out where it come from, but our opinion is that it is not related to direct eruption but due to the dilution of the strong emission point by the water currents. We congratulate RapidEye (a private satellite imaging company) in publishing these images in the open internet. They are simply a lot better than the NASA pictures we have seen so far and will be a major study object for scientists.
    What is even more amazing to Earthquake-Report.com is that satellite image was taken on October 23 when the Jacuzzi or Burbuja was halted. The picture clearly revails that this was NOT the case. A new major discussion subject for the next meeting of PEVOLCA. We also think that the eruption is till continuing based on the harmonic tremors still present (same frequency as on October 23)
    (We do thank reader Markus who told us that the picture was published)

  18. Jon, did you ban links to other sites ? (2 times published and it is not appearing)
    Here was the url to RapidEye El Hierro picture
    The opinion of the crowd here is highly appreciated. That’s what i made of it :
    he RapidEeye image below reveals the probable location of the strongest emitting point. The dark grey colored stain in between La Restinga and Puerto Naos is almost certainly the second eruption point also called the “Burbuja” or “Las Calmas jacuzzi”. The first eruption fissure could clearly be seen on the first set RapidEye published (second image). The green stain color should be studied by scientists to find out where it come from, but our opinion is that it is not related to direct eruption but due to the dilution of the strong emission point by the water currents. We congratulate RapidEye (a private satellite imaging company) in publishing these images in the open internet. They are simply a lot better than the NASA pictures we have seen so far and will be a major study object for scientists.
    What is even more amazing to Earthquake-Report.com is that satellite image was taken on October 23 when the Jacuzzi or Burbuja was halted. The picture clearly revails that this was NOT the case. A new major discussion subject for the next meeting of PEVOLCA. We also think that the eruption is till continuing based on the harmonic tremors still present (same frequency as on October 23)

    2. Very interesting and revealing information in this image. I think the jacuzzi spot works intermittent and it was accidently off during the overflight by plane the other day.

    3. Very interesting. The images shown from the overflight are similar.

      In the latter it was possible to see what looked like bubbles or floating rock in one of the gaps in the green stain. You can see a trail of this on the left side of the top green stain in the Rapideye picture (the faint white traces). So still some de-gassing, the source of which is not so clear.

      However, the sea is showing as being clearer just outside La Restinga, even though the stain is still in the harbour. However, this could just be a result of local sea currents (which I know nothing about) and may change.

      We really do need to see the results from the Ramon margalef ROV.

      1. Good detection Karen. We are currently tracing the rumor that “an instrument” has been lost in the sea. Press service Tenerife government says that the dive was only planned on Wednesday, but we know the the Margalef (ROV ship) was many times out in the sea. JV, my local contact had made a couple of pictures this morning. Everybode talked to on El Hierro says they do not know about it, or decline to comment …

  19. I have a question I’ve been asking myself now for some time: Most of the Katla quakes appear at Godabunga or Habunga, switching between the two.
    When an eruption should occur at Katla, could that be a fissure event between Godabunga and Habunga, or is this not possible?
    Like most of the writers on this blog, I am just somebody who became more interested in volcanoes after Fimmvörduhals and Eyjafjalla. I am no expert at all, so my appologies if this question is a dummy one!

    Henk

    1. Another dizzy sheep I suppose, why on Earth they do not drink coffe in the morning?
      Di? Can you explain them the benefit?

      1. Ok looking back and fore in time – using the arrows on the right of that page

        perhaps the question would be better asked – why the lull in the harmonic tremor there ?

  22. My guess is that Tanasoga is the more slow and congealed lava being pushed up by the hotter stuff below, and the degassing below the waterline to the north is forming more caves, of which there are already many on El Hierro.

    http://www.vulcanospeleology.org/sym06/ISV6x31.pdf

    Whether Tanasoga will vent the old stuff followed by the new, or whether it will be too slow and have a second vent in El Goilfo, I have no idea. There are 3 concepts here simultaneously possible, if I include the caves as fumaroles or ‘perforations’. Another scenario might be that once the old stuff has erupted it will settle again.

    2. Or de-gassing could be using existing caves or rock fissures; it does not need a large vent. Magma is viscous so does need a larger vent. This could occur anywhere – either in the crater of Tanganasoga or on the flanks.

      Given that Bob is de-gassing under water, what are the chances of water going down the fissure when the pressure drops? And is it likely to meet hot magma? Or is Bob sufficiently far away from the main magma reservoir for this to be low risk?

      What worries me is that the rock specimens analysed by Carl’s colleague may have been very hot before they were erupted (~ 1000C) so hot magma might not far from Bob.

  25. “”Tomorrow starts the international meeting of volcanology Teneguía MAKAVOL 2011 Workshop with the participation of about 70 people from 14 countries. This event is organized by the ITER volcanological group to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the eruption of Teneguía (1971). The first three days (24, 25 and 26 October) will be developed in Fuencaliente (Island of La Palma) and given the recent El Hierro today in the last two will be held in Meridian Island (27 and 28 October)””

    Note “Meridian Island” is Hierro
    Let’s hope the current activities are on the agenda – anyone going to be fly on the wall?

    1. i replied earlier to the wrong link, this is the interesting one. I wonder how long before this one blows.

    2. This can continue thousands of years without any local noticing anything peculiar…

    1. So the cone volume is very roughly 10million cubic metres of what?- scoria?
      That would need around 5 million cu metres of magma.
      So Bob erupted roughly 10% of the total magma volume IGN reported from inflation data.
      So its no wonder the GPS inflation has not reversed during the eruption.
      Much more to come- perhaps.

  29. MARGALEF : El equipo científico, dirigido por Juan Acosta y Francisco Sánchez, ha localizado un edificio volcánico de nueva creación de forma cónica, con un diámetro en la base de 700 metros, una altura de 100 metros y un cráter de unos 120 metros de anchura. La base del cráter se encuentra situada a 300 metros de profundidad. Asimismo, y mediante la utilización de ecosondas de mayor frecuencia, ha sido posible localizar las columnas de gases y fluidos que emite el volcán y otros puntos de emisión (fisuras).

    The scientific team directed by Juan Acosta and Francisco Sánchez, has located a volcanic building of new creation of conical form, with a diameter in the base of 700 meters, a height of 100 meters and a crater of approximately 120 meters wide. The base of the crater is placed to 300 meters deep. Also, and by means of the use of echo sounders of major frequency, it has been possible to locate the gas columns and fluids that it expresses the volcano and other points of emission (fissures).

    2. Thank you. An interesting photo.

      The crater is clear and dark in the image so the eruption site was / is somewhere else?

    3. Looks like like the first “Ultrasound”(?)-picture of the new baby!
      Thank you, Maria!

  33. off topic but can anyone tell me please whether it is still “safe” to visit El Heirro. My aunt is due to holiday there a week on Friday and obviously we are a little worried about her going..
    many thanks

    1. A 100% guarantee on safety is not possible, irrespective of where you take your holiday. However, for El Hierro it is known that there is a higher risk than may be usual of volcanic activity. So check with your tour operator, the Foreign Office and for local advisories before departure and during your stay. And also check what your travel insurance covers.

    2. If I were visiting I’d keep away from Restinga obviously, but also the western limb of the island beyond the centre including Sabinosa. Day trips could be OK but as for staying there – I would not. I’d seek to stay in Valverde area, and make forays. Unlike Iceland the local population has no experience of eruptions so she will have little local expertise to draw upon for advice apart from web sites.

  34. Thanks Maria

    Interesting to see the location of the cone in between the volcanic caves: Hoyo to the east and Mauricio and S. la Palomes to the west, along a similar gradient.

    1. Alyson do you think in +- two weeks Bob put the head out the water? if it has grown 100 meters from October 1o, perhaps…

  35. Update 25/10 – 15:18 UTC : The image doesn’t look very spectacular but the findings are. The base diameter of the new volcano shape (as they call it) is 700 meters. It has a present height of 100 meter and a crater of 120 meter. The base of the crater is measured at a depth of 300 meter.

    1. But the cone embraces only – very roughly- 10% of total magma deposited under Hierro. It would be interesting to know IGN’s estimate

  36. Not only a new volcano also a new stone:

    “With each new outbreak caused by the lava rock mixtures, which of course also need a name. In an interview the new lava mixture is to be baptized “Restingolitas”. If not a new island, but a new stone.” (giggle translation)

    http://elhierro1.blogspot.com/

    1. Nope, since I do believe we where the first to actually make an analyzis of it I hereby claim the name of the mineral to be SvampurinnBob.
      I will for the hork of it actually send an official claim.

      3. Now this is fun 🙂 By the way the on site that Mafl quotes below they call you ” Strange Carl ” after Giggle translation!

      4. Yes, and the quote was from the time I still belieaved the Cabildes first name was Perfidio… I think I was just attributed to a deadly insult to their governor.

  37. It would be good if Bob did rise above the surface and steadily build new land to the south of El Hierro.

    I know very little however.

    And even less sometimes…

    1. Not so good if you have to use the harbour. Life could become interesting for the fishermen of La Restinga, and not in a good way.

      2. I’ve locked up my machine three times while trying to juggle the image files and extract a trend… I’m gonna stop for now and go do a service call. (job thing)

  39. I’m learning so much here (especially compared to what I’m learning at college lol), unfortunately our visit to Iceland has been pushed back by 2 weeks but I’m hoping this might work to my advantage and I see ‘something’.

  40. Just an observation, probably wrong, but an alternative explanation of the recent earthquake loci over the past few days, isn’t a new upwelling of magma from below, but a “draining down” of magma from the higher locus of earthquakes from the past months. If true, it could explain the deflation we are seeing in some of the readings.

    1. I have a problem logically squaring that with magma forcibly pushing it’s way deeper into higher pressure areas with quakes ranging from Mag 2 to 2.8.

      The region above there (the lid) was fracturing at Mag 0.6 to 1.8 about 5 to 6 km above this area.

      An alternate view is that these deeper quakes represent melt forming and/or draining upward into the area that was vacated (pressure released) by the gas dominated eruption.

      http://i55.tinypic.com/6oml9u.png

      Another interesting thing is that the new cluster seems to make a “V” towards the bottom of the group, and seems to be aligned in a rough cylinder sloping upward to the NW… probably following the trend of the existing crust or representing the bottom/floor of the “reservoir.”

      Note: I’m not implying a chamber, but a loose cluster of interconnected cracks and weaknesses in the structure of the crust. The “tubing mesh” thing that Carl is always referring to.

      1. Can’t help but wonder if there is an upward feed at your left graph 27.85-27.90. I recall an earlier cross-section of yours that raised this idea and that it was creeping up to landmass to the north of La Restinga. Then again, might be seeing things.

      2. This looks to me as though we are now seeing an injection of magma from within the site of the old caldera of El Golfo. There were a few EQs in this area in the period July to Sept but nothing like the extent shown in Lurking’s latest plot.

        From what I remember of the topography, the v shape may be underneath Malposa or part of the ridge near there to the east of Tanganasoga.

      3. Fascinating plots as ever: thank you Lurking.
        EQs start ‘shallow’ and progress deeper with time. To me that does not suggest EQ generation by magma forcibly rising at all. I wonder if the EQ mechanism might be gravitational? I envisage a scenario in which the mantle plume exerting upward pressure at depth (below 30km) centrally on Hierro with the pressure falling away towards the periphery of the structure ( this would include its entire 1.5My old erupted volume (ie big). Result: central uplift, putting Hierro under radial tension, which will be greatest at shallower depths. Result: tensile failures (EQs) at shallow depths precede deeper ones.
        Why does EQ magnitude increase with depth? – maybe small tensile stresses are accomodated by the greater temperature and hence ductility of the rock so small EQS do not happen only bigger ones.
        Why no EQs above 8km? The Jurassic sedimentary rock layers slide a-seismically to accomodate the tensile forces. So above 8km Hierro is protected from the tensile forces.
        In this mechanism magma intrusion – into a meshwork of small pockets,sills and dykes – is secondary to tensile forces that fracture the crust and permit magma to rise.

      4. The EQs are mainly to the west of Frontera and Malpaso and east of Sabinosa in an almost rectangular block if you look at the cumulative pattern from July to date.

        Also there were deep EQs at the start, just not as many as we are seeing now – whether more occurred over a longer period preceding the swarms that attracted our interest, I could not say.

        So I think that you have to both add potential rifting to and keep magma injection in the picture. These may well have caused additional gravitional settling to occur.

    2. There’s another station like that a bit ot the west:
      27°43’51.38″ N 18°05’26.62″ W
      Problem is the GE images were probably taken before the H104 was installed…..

      1. Yes, that is BINTO, also a possible location. But there is nothing at all to see on the ground. Malposa is somehow equipped. Suppose it is an “old” installation which recently has been activated.

    3. Somewhere in the depths of the many posts and the discussions, where the station is, there was a grid reference, that pointed to the water tank (in GoggleMaps) that is a little south. That would suit …
      but I do not remember who referred to the data.

    4. Found some information about the network to which the Malpaso station belongs (or belonged):

      “GPS Networks for deformation monitoring at the Canarian Archipelago”
      http://www.iag-lgl.csic.es/CD/archivos/Miguel%20Sevilla_-_UCM.pdf

      Part of the text:
      “REGCAN95 is the Geodetic Network of the Canary Islands, similar to REGENTE (Spanish Geodetic Network of the IGNe) in observation methods and quality, it is referred to ITRF93, epoch 94.9, and it is compatible with WGS84 for practical applications. The observation of the stations by the IGNe
      started with the Connection Network of the Canary Islands, that was previously observed and which fundamental point is the VLBI station of Maspalomas in the island of Gran Canaria (IGNe, 2010). The stations of REGCAN95, observed on this work are: Bocinegro and Chinobre in Tenerife; Arrecife, Batería and Papagayo in Lanzarote; Baja del Trabajo in Fuerteventura; Garajonay in La Gomera and Malpaso in the island of El Hierro.”

    5. But with modern technology, how much would you see on the ground?

      A station no longer has to be large. With solar power and wireless, it does not need a power or land line connection. It does however need easy access for maintenance so being near a road would be an advantage.

      1. No, it might ve very small, but if not inside a building, it must be visible. Wish somebody would go and see what it looks like up there at the moment.

      1. Could it be the same place?? I cannot find the exact location of Tinganar tower and do not see it on GE, but regarding this picture / location
        http://www.panoramio.com/photo/59951219
        it seems to be very close to Malpaso station.
        Almost same place, different names?
        Do you have the coordinates of Tinganar Tower?

      2. It IS the same place…. have checked the blog back some days. Lurking, Renato, Carl – we found the same place, with different methods. HI04 is no secret anymore.

  42. You have found the crane and what might be a rusty statue of Picasso! Been searching for it for ages.

      2. Spain is filled with real Picasso statues at the most odd places…
        You take a walk, and all of a sudden you go, “What the hork is that?”, and you walk over and look at the inevitably small plaque and read… Pablo Picasso, ‘Muerte’ 1959, Statue of a bird in 3000 tons of concrete.

  45. 1107780 25/10/2011 18:50:18 27.6697 -18.0593 12 1.8 4 SW PINAR.IHI [+]

    Does this mean anything very shallow at 12 kms and SW Pinar

    1. Magnitude 1.8 EQ with a depth of 12km SW of Pinar at latitude 27.6697 and longitude -18.0593.

      You can use Google to translate the table headings etc on the page.

      1. Sorry, that probably not what you were asking to be clarified. Too long without coffee.

        I don’t know what the significance of what so far appears to be an isolated EQ in that location is. But 12km is not very shallow; most EQs have been occuring between 25km and 8km.

  47. Magnitude 5.0 – JAN MAYEN ISLAND REGION 2011 October 25 02:32:22 UTC
    A little pulse of tectonic activity for Iceland possible shortly. If past EQ’s at Jan Mayen are anything to go by.

      1. Sort of a correction… H2S yields a relatively weaker acid when it goes into straight solution in water… but SO2 is generally in the makeup of a volcano and that yields the H2SO4.

    2. No, I have seen no official reports.

      Generally, H2S and CO2 are safe bets, and when you start messing with H2S and water you start getting H2SO4. CO2 with water will yield H2CO3. Both of those are acids.

  49. ROUGH calculations.

    Armand Vervaeck says:

    “…The base diameter of the new volcano shape (as they call it) is 700 meters. It has a present height of 100 meter …”

    With an angle of repose of about 30° to 35° (basaltic tuff at Yellowstone), that yields a cone of about 17107 to 23089 cubic meters, after you lop off the top and an equal volume inside the top. (providing that the angle of repose doesn’t’ change much for being underwater)

    Peter Cobbold says:

    “…But the cone embraces only – very roughly- 10% of total magma deposited under Hierro…”

    So, that puts us in the ballpark of 171,077 to 230,891 cubic meters of eruptive volume.

    Can you say tiny?

    0.00017 to 0.00023 km³

    2. Yeas, thats our baby (Bob Le Gassing). No way denying that. I think (not shure) that lava has also run down the slope´s creek. What nobody seems have noticed, a little to east and south of Bob, there appears have some medium slice of hillside run-a-way. A trace of debris of this landslide can be seen in map-view. I think this happened after erption started, possibly in smaller chunks, even on eruption start (if large chump, time 14:30 on 12 Oct 2011 springs to mind). So I think 0.00017 ~ 0.00023 km/3 is “good” under-estimate, considering it might have partly built up twice. But I am no expert, first such I see.

    4. Going for a pure cone — (1/3)*pi*h*(r^2) — I get about 13 million m3, or 0.013 km3, or 1/80th km3.

      (1/3) *3.14*100*(350^2) = 12.8*10^6 m3

      Which suits the observations better I think. Imagine a paroxysm at Etna which gives 1*10^6 m3 and compare it to this vent for over a week already.

  50. Well, as a Canary islander, I have discovered this blog while looking for more information about el Hierro, but reading this new report makes me have to ask some questions. Can we really take for granted that this new series of quakes represent a new magmatic intrusion and not a stabilization of the system after the pressure release (eruption)? If so, shouldn’t this new swarm be followed by more deformation recorded in all stations, like the first series of quakes before the eruption?
    To end this post I would like to thank Jon for all the time he has invested in writing these reports which help people like me ( with no previous knowledge about volcanoes) to understand a little bit more bout such fascinating events ; )

    1. That’s the thing. The quakes could be interpreted either way.

      With where they are located, there is no way to know if there is inflation unless you have a continuing high resolution survey of the sea floor.

      It’s very rare that those two events coincide. As it is, the only way to tell is if a follow-on survey of the sea floor to compare with a previous one. I don’t know if that has occurred, but it’s likely that it has since Spain operates a submarine fleet, and knowing where the bottom is at is fairly important for submarine operations.

      But that level of detail is probably classified.

      1. And after having worked with submarines.
        There is not a navy in existance that have that level of detail and accuracy for their submarine charts that you could see if there is inflation or deflation unless it was truly stumping in size.
        Yes, the level of accuracy is good, as it must be. But the accuracy is far from measured in centimetres. I do not know the spannish accuracy, but it is not higher then the US, Brittish, French, Australian and Swedish (those I know), to be honest their accuracy is most likely lower.
        I will not specify the accuracy, but let me just say state for the record that the best accuracy is far worse than the combined changes onland at El Hierro.
        There are numerous reasons for this, but it mainly has to do with the error margin of the equipment you have measured with, and the material down at the bottom, combined with piddly things like water-temperatures, salinities and so on.

Comments are closed.