The Use of Multi-Geophysical Methods to Determine the Geothermal Potential: A Case Study from the Humenné Unit (The Eastern Slovak Basin)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Determination of regional geothermal potential and basin modeling are much needed research goals in the EU. The authors conducted such a study for the eastern Slovak basin, which is part of the relatively well explored Pannonian basin. They used borehole data and various geophysical data. 

The comments relate to poor quantification of the potential - the rationale for this research is lacking, which could make this study novel instead of a regular geological analysis. The conclusion does not support the theme, which is geothermal potential. The potential should be supported by more detailed temperature data and possibly heat flow potential maps for perspective formations. The authors claim that there is elevated temperature (without spatial quantification of T versus depth) but no natural aquifer, which sounds a bit odd since some lithotypes (Table 2) have good porosity. The units for porosity in the text are confusing (e.g., in line 17), as are those for permeability (m2/s instead of mD = m2). The question is therefore what well productivity (or at least near-wellbore permeability) is estimated in the most promising regions, and if there is no aquifer in formations with porosity above 5%, what is the actual saturation (oil, gas?!?!?).

The authors need to clarify all of the above, which will require major changes (improvements) to the text and corresponding maps.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments, which help us modified the article.

Our answers are submitted in the attachment

sincerely

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors employed multi-geophysical methods to investigate the geothermal potential of an area in e Pannonian basin. However, there are a number of issues needed to be addressed prior to further consideration.

• Have the manuscript read by an English language expert. I have found some grammatical errors, and typos within the text.
• Line 14: The chosen multi-geophysical exploration methods, which price is often sensitive, should reveal the basic geological structure in the Humenne Unit. Sensitive to what? You need to clarify this. I found similar statements in the manuscript, causing confusion for readers.
• The introduction is short and does not provide enough background information neither about the study site, nor the employed methodologies. The authors should mention previous research investigating the geothermal potential of the study area, various approaches, and ..
• Improve the introduction using for instance https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102253
• Change “3. Research methodology” to “3. Methods and materials”
• Some of the information provided under section 3 belongs to the methodology section. Here, you need to add another chapter and/or sub-chapter where you describe the geological data used to conduct the study.
• The methodology described is short, and not clear. You need to re-write this part.
• Looking at the section 3, the whole part should be re-written.
• Similarly, results and discussion section require major improvements. Checking the validity of the employed methods.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments, which help us modify the article.

Our answers are submitted in the attachment

sincerely

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be considered for publication.