Geophysical and hydrogeologic investigation of groundwater in the ...

Two other deep boreholes at Sawmills were documentedby MacDonald (1970) showing a consistent stratigraphydown to their maximum depths of 285 m (O3/117) and322 m (G3/378). The thickness of the basalt varies in thethree Sawmills boreholes: 39 m (G3/378), 48 m (G3/463),and 85 m (O3/117), indicating faulting and verticalmovement between the two production wells and theobservation well.The conductivity log shows fairly high values thatappear to be related to the groundwater conductivity ratherthan formation conductivity; formation conductivity isexpected to be lower. The conductivity of a mixed watersample from the borehole was measured in the laboratoryas 975 μS/cm (SWECO 1995). The conductivity logshows small but distinct changes at 975, 895, 850, 800,770, and 755 m above sea level (masl). Apart from thechanges at 895 m, all the other changes can be related toinflow zones identified in the hydrogeologic log. Thisresult indicates that the downhole conductivity log is auseful tool for identifying groundwater inflow zones. The850 m elevation is the interface between the Lower andthe Upper Karoo Groups.The gamma log correlates very well with the lithologyand, to some extent, with the inflow zones. The gamma logshows a change to slightly higher counts between 900 and850 masl. These higher counts represent the depth intervalfrom the first inflow zone down to the inflow zone at theUpper/Lower Karoo Group boundary. Between 850 and750 m, the gamma signature is dramatic and appears tochange at water interflow zones. The lithology in this zonehas been logged as Lower Karoo Group grits, sandstones,shales, and coal stringers. Below 740 masl, the lithology isthe Wankie Sandstone and the gamma signature changesmarkedly to a lower more stable signature.Geophysical data acquisition methodsTwo geophysical methods proved especially useful forsurface geophysical mapping: continuous vertical electricalsounding (CVES) and transient electromagneticsounding (TEM). CVES was used to delineate the nearsurfacegeological structures, whereas TEM was used todelineate the deeper structures.The transient electromagnetic (TEM) soundingmethodThe TEM method has been used in hydrogeologic studiesover the last 15 years. The usage of the method isdescribed by e.g. Fitterman and Stewart (1986); Danielsenet al. (2003). The TEM method makes use of a directcurrent transmitted into the transmitter loop lying on theground. The current creates a primary, stationary magneticfield. The direct current is switched off which induces aneddy current system in the ground. Due to ohmicresistance of the subsurface, the current system will decayand further induce a secondary magnetic field that ismeasured in an induction coil (the receiver coil). TheHydrogeology Journal (2007) 15: 945–960decay rate of the electromagnetic field depends on theresistivity distribution of the subsurface. The field decaysslower in a conductive rather than in a resistive medium.Consequently, the TEM method has excellent resolutionof conductive layers at depth, whereas the resolution ofresistive layers is limited (Christensen and Sørensen 1998).TEM soundings are usually made with spacing between150 and 250 m, depending on the exploration target. Thepenetration depth is dependent on the magnetic moment ofthe equipment (i.e. transmitter loop size and number ofturns and the transmitted current), the resistivity of theground, and the magnitude of electromagnetic backgroundnoise (Macnae et al. 1984; McCracken et al. 1986).Advantages of the TEM method are its sensitivity toconductors at great depths and the lightweight equipmentcompared to CVES. Drawbacks of the TEM method arelow resolution of resistive layers, relatively low lateralresolution in general, high degree of coupling to manmadeconductors (Danielsen et al. 2003), and that themethod is conceptually advanced.The continuous vertical electrical sounding (CVES)methodThe CVES method has been extensively used forgroundwater investigations over the past decades(Olayinka and Weller 1997; Rühlow et al. 1999; Sørensenet al. 2001) and for various other purposes by e.g.Bernstone and Dahlin (1999); Beresnev et al. (2002),and Wisén et al. (2004). The popularity of the CVESmethod is closely connected to its wide applicability, itsrobustness, and the availability of numerous two-dimensional(2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) inversion programs,e.g. Loke and Barker (1996a, b); Oldenburg and Li(1994), and Li and Oldenburg (2000).A number of electrodes secured into the ground andconnected by electrode cables are used with the method. Aswitching unit connected to a computer controls thetransmission of current into ground through two of theelectrodes, while potentials are measured over otherelectrode pairs. In this way, measurements are performedfor various electrode spacings along a profile line. The arrayconfiguration and the electrode spacings are dependent onthe target of a given exploration (Dahlin and Zhou 2004).The CVES method provides high data density and ithas a superior near-surface, horizontal resolution incomparison to e.g. the TEM method. The data are robust,as they are not appreciably affected by coupling to manmadeconductors and electromagnetic noise. The maindrawbacks of the method are the limited penetration depthand the dependency on galvanic contact to the ground.Galvanic contact is a problem particularly in dry areas.Data acquisition, processing, and interpretation951Of the 31 km of CVES profiling and 309 TEM soundingscollected around Sawmills, data presentation is limitedhere to the TEM soundings and CVES profiles ofDOI 10.1007/s10040-007-0191-z