the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Novel insights into deep groundwater exploration by geophysical estimation of hard rock permeability
Abstract. Deep groundwater exploration in hard rock is a global challenge. An accurate measurement of hydraulic parameters is essential for both effective groundwater management and the prediction of future scenarios. The permeability (k) of an aquifer is typically measured in groundwater studies. Boreholes are the traditional means of measuring k. However, conventional approaches have a lot of flaws, such as being intrusive, expensive, time-consuming, useful only for areas with relatively uniform topographies, and only providing point-scale k measurements. Moreover, traditional approaches may not be able to do deep groundwater assessments. In contrast, geophysical technologies may assess subsurface hydrogeological conditions across large areas with minimal disruption to existing structures in a shorter amount of time and at a reduced cost. Several geophysical investigations previously used empirical methods to estimate the k parameter. These studies, however, used the VES (vertical electrical sounding) method to estimate k in a homogeneous setting at shallow depths and only in 1D. It is difficult to quantify the aquifer potential in hard rock terrains using borehole or VES-based k due to the intrinsic heterogeneity of the terrain. For the first time, this work uses the CSAMT (controlled-source audio-frequency magnetotellurics) method to estimate 2D and 3D k over 1 km depth in the exceedingly diverse environments of different rocks. These findings enable the scientific planning and management of deep groundwater resources in highly varied hard rock terrains where hydrogeological data is unavailable, resulting in a more accurate hydrogeological model compared to prior studies. This, in turn, decreases the necessity for expensive pumping tests and enables a more comprehensive evaluation of aquifer potential.
- Preprint
(13992 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4191', Giacomo Medici, 23 Jan 2025
General comments
Very good and novel research in the area of deep hydrogeology with a variety of applications in the geo-energy sector. However, some detail is missing. Please, consider the following minor comments to improve the manuscript before publication.
Specific comments
Lines 69-72. “Consideration of hydraulic properties is crucial in groundwater evaluations. Permeability is the most popular aquifer measure and is mainly used to assess the water-holding capacity of rocks all over the world”. Insert these papers where there is discussion on the role of geophysical and hydrogeological methods to detect the hydraulic properties of fractured rocks to inform flow models in granites, metamorphic and sandstone lithologies.
- Medici, G., Ling, F., Shang, J. 2023. Review of discrete fracture network characterization for geothermal energy extraction. Frontiers in Earth Science 11, 1328397.
- McKeown, C., Haszeldine, R.S., Couples, G.D. 1999. Mathematical modelling of groundwater flow at Sellafield, UK. Engineering Geology 52(3-4), 231-250.
Lines 146-152. Lots of multiple objectives (5). Please, clarify the general aim of your hydrogeological research.
Lines 173-181. The geometrical relation between the different lithologies is unclear.
Lines 173-181. The detail is not enough on presence of faults. Which type of faults?
Lines 173-181. Nature of the joints? I am talking about the tectonic genesis.
Line 538. I prefer “Discussion”. You have a unique discussion on a scientific paper where you face different topics. This point also depends on the guidelines.
Lines 600-837. Insert the relevant literature suggested above on the hydraulic properties of deep aquifers in a variety of sites worldwide.
Figures and tables
Figure 1. Letters are too small in both the figures. Please, make the figure larger.
Figure 1. Pay lot of attention of figure 1b. This is a conceptual model and you can get citations from the figure. Make the figure larger and increase the font of the words.
Figure 2. There is room to make the figure larger.
Figure 4. Check the depth of the boreholes.
Figure 9. The words are too small. The figure is difficult to read. Please, improve it.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4191-CC1 - CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4191', y w, 10 Feb 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4191', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-4191/egusphere-2024-4191-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4191', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Feb 2025
This paper addresses the challenges associated with current groundwater exploration and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of various methods for measuring hydraulic parameters. The author highlights the application of a novel approach, by using Controlled Source Audio-Frequency Magnetotellurics (CSAMT) method, which is employed to estimate 2D and 3D permeability at depths exceeding 1 km in highly heterogeneous rock environments. The study presents its methods and findings in a well-structured manner, offering insights into deep groundwater exploration.
However, certain assertions appear overly generalized and could benefit from further substantiation. Additionally, more detailed descriptions of the methodologies and the study area would enhance the clarity, reproducibility, and robustness of the research.
Specific comments:
- Line108-119: the author might consider adding a little more evidence of the reason that CSAMT is selected for this study. For example, the author stated that VES method is used to evaluate groundwater resources in a single dimension by a broad of previous studies, but did not illustrate the background about why they did not use other methods, like CSAMT or ERT. Additionally, the author states that there are three main methods, but there are very few examples or introductions about ERT in this paragraph.
- Line 120- 138: the author might consider reorganizing this paragraph to make the significance of the resistivity method stand out.
- Line 139- 140: the statement is too arbitrary; the language can be modified or more evidence is provided.
- Line 161: in section 2.1 Study area, the author might consider adding more details about the rocks and geology of the study area.
- Line 204: what does “5-20%” represent for? More specific content is preferred for this sentence.
- Line 217: in section 2.2.2, why were 6 profiles selected? How did the author determine the locations of the profiles? The author might consider providing more evidence of the site location and data collection in the supporting material.
- Line 250-154: The author might consider providing more details of the static correction and the Hanning window spatial filtering method.
- Figure 1: typos in (b) , “uncertainty”; also the words are too small to read.
- Figure 7 and Figure 8: a little confused about the legend of the north direction in both figures
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4191-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
136 | 41 | 5 | 182 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 136
- PDF: 41
- XML: 5
- Total: 182
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 76 | 41 |
China | 2 | 21 | 11 |
France | 3 | 6 | 3 |
Germany | 4 | 5 | 2 |
United Kingdom | 5 | 5 | 2 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 76