Critical Tectonic Limits for Geothermal Aquifer Use: Case Study from the East Slovakian Basin Rim
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review on the paper
Critical tectonic limits for geothermal aquifer use: Case study 2 from the East Slovakian basin rim
Stanislav Jacko,*, Roman Farkovšký, Igor Ďuriška, Barbora Ščerbáková and Kristína Bátorová
Dear Editorial and authors.
The paper shows the possible perspectives of the usage of non – carbon energy from the hydrothermal wells. Everybody understands that the usage of such energy will be much higher in the future. Of course, the importance of such a paper is very high. The economic effect is variable but judging by the high amount of the well in exploration it exists. As noted by the authors. “The cost is highly dependent on the quality of the geothermal resource and the investment needed for recovery, especially the number and depth of wells required and the distance from the wells to the point of use.”
The paper is illustrated very well with the maps and results of modeling. There is a lot of information about general and structural geology and some about geophysics. Of course, all this is quite sufficient information for publishing the paper in the present stage. But from my point of view, the thermal field is not shown well. Though the first map with the distribution of heat flow is very useful. It is also described by the words even one or two sections showing the isotherms in the will be more informative. No doubt that these data exist necessary to find them.
The paper also should be formatted according to the rules of Minerals. Figures and captions should be properly done. Also, Funding, the Contribution of authors, and Acknowledgments must be shown.
No doubt that paper should be published
But now major revision.
Best wishes Igor Ashchepkov
Author Response
Reviewer #1: recommendation
Though the first map with the distribution of heat flow is very useful. It is also described by the words even one or two sections showing the isotherms in the will be more informative.
Answer:
Figure 1 has only information character, because heat flow is calculated from regional data. But wat is interesting for readers is spatial heat value distribution to the north especially to East Slovakian basin.
Thermal cross-sections from west to east is described in well logs in the figure 5.
Sincerely
Stanislav Jacko
Reviewer 2 Report
Geothermal resources are really important on both international and national scales. The authors of the reviewed manuscript attempt to justify the knowledge of the geothermal resources of East Slovakian basin. While their study is interesting and scientifically sound, the manuscript needs better organization. The authors need to re-read it and to bring its logic in order (what have you done, what follow from what, where are results and where interpretations, etc.). This is not so difficult, but VERY important to do. This is my main requirement. The other requirements are specified below.
- Title: why to use the word "rim" if it is not considered widely in the main text? I suggest omission of this word.
- Section 1: please, avoid subsection specification – this only distracts the readers' attention.
- Figures 2 and 3 (check the other figures too): please, indicate the source(s) of these drawings.
- Line 118: Karpatian/Pannonian -> Neogene. Section 2 should include a simple scheme showing correspondence of the regional stages and the standard global stages. Alternatively, many things will be unclear for the readers unfamiliar with the Paratethyan stratigraphic nomenclature.
- Section 3 to be named Materials and Methods
- Section 4: I think you need to separate your tectonic and hydrogeological findings (make two sections). The hydrological descriptions should be strengthened.
- Tell more about your aquifer bodies. What about their basic peculiarities (e.g., temperature and geochemistry).
- All results should be communicated in a more systematic way. Now, these are described a bit chaotically, and this section looks like a collection of various information pieces.
- Three aquifer bodies are highlighted in the text in italics, but not the first one.
- Section 5: your discussion should be more consistent itself and correspond well to the objective and the results.
- Line 418: Karnian -> Carnian (please, check in other places too).
- This paper needs linguistic correction (preferably, by expert in either tectonics or hydrogeology because proper specific terminology is necessary to use).
Author Response
Reviewer #2: recommendation
The reviewer #2 has more requirements. We accepted almost all.
Q1:“Rim” in the title:
An1:The East Slovakian basin is not large basin but we can divided to two geologically parts (WEST and EAST) with different basement, different geothermal properties. We focus to west one "Košice depression", where we have basic data and excellent geothermal environment. The other side (EAST part) is out of our view.
Q2: Adding data to body properties
Ans.2 The Miocene sediments AQ2,3,4 has limited data (like geochemistry, hydrogeology), because the packet of sediments were not directly of interest. The past prospection activities related with drilling plan to verified oil and gas traps potential. Processing data from wells was not focus to hydrogeological conditions, its too limited.
Sincerely
Stanislav Jacko
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors carried out a numerical simulation study on the potential of geothermal energy in East Slovakian basin rim. The Petrel software was used for the structural simulation based on the well data, the seismic data, and the structural data of the Kosice basin. Four aquifer bodies were analyzed, and the data about the bulk volume, the thermal gradients and the potential for geothermal energy utilization were discussed. Here are some comments to improve the paper:
- The authors have to check the paper thoroughly on the English language. There are plenty of broken sentences throughout the paper: missing parts of the sentence (e.g., lines 126, and 217), typos (e.g., line 177) and extra spaces (e.g., lines 389 and 391).
- Since a commercial software is used, the authors have to document the methodology, and the detailed parameters used in the software for the simulation, such that the results can be reproduced easily.
- In Table 2, what is the format used for the numbers in bulk volume? It is very confusing when only one ‘,’ is used in the numbers.
- Starting from line 384, what can be implied based on the thermal conductivities of the sediments?
- Line 434, it should be ‘binary ORC power plant.’ Since the authors mentioned two examples in Alaska and Hawaii, please make sure to discuss about the current case discussed in this paper. What are the potential applications for the current conditions in East Slovakian basin rim?
- In the conclusions, the mineralization values and the size of the potential geothermal energy source values are all from the literature. This information that are not results from the simulation in the paper should not be put into the conclusion.
Author Response
Reviewer #3: requirements.
We accepted every recommendations from reviewer #3
We verified conclusions, language and we added more informations to methodology and discussion.
The 3D model in Petrel software depends mainly on: seismic interpretation (and it is most individually) and of seismic quality (coverage). We use 2D seismic sections, 3D is not made here. The steps we added to article.
If we compare the field geothermal data from the Košice depression, and other geothermal fields like in Turkey, we can consider the ORC geothermal power plant there. Discussion of ORC could be wery wide and in this moment also not accurate.
Sincerely
Stanislav Jacko
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper may be accepted after minor e the additional formatting of the references. It is beautifully illustrated and contains results of the 3D modeling and detail geological tectonic and geophysical data. What will be interesting the additional data about gases dissolved in the waters including radon. Please add two three sentences. Because this is important for human health.
Author Response
The article was corrected according to comments. The radon radiation (and other dissolved gasses) its interesting problem related with geochemistry and geological structure. But in this article we dont want open it, may be in the next one.
Reviewer 2 Report
I'm fully satisfied with the authors' revisions. I still feel certain language polishing is necessary, but this can be done together with the proof check and, thus, I do not wish to delay publication of this paper and recommend its acceptance.
Author Response
The article was corrected according to comments, we focus to the language corrections.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the updates.
Author Response
Thank you
Stanislav Jacko
