<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">SE</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Solid Earth</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">SE</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Solid Earth</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1869-9529</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/se-11-829-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>Characteristics of a fracture network surrounding a hydrothermally altered shear zone from geophysical borehole logs</article-title><alt-title>Geophysical characteristics of a fracture network</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Geophysical characteristics of a fracture network}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{E. Caspari et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Caspari</surname><given-names>Eva</given-names></name>
          <email>eva.caspari@unil.ch</email><email>eva.caspari@unileoben.ac.at</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Greenwood</surname><given-names>Andrew</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Baron</surname><given-names>Ludovic</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Egli</surname><given-names>Daniel</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Toschini</surname><given-names>Enea</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff4">
          <name><surname>Hu</surname><given-names>Kaiyan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6721-1705</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff5">
          <name><surname>Holliger</surname><given-names>Klaus</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Chair of Applied Geophysics, Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Geophysics, Peking University, Beijing, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>School of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Eva Caspari (eva.caspari@unil.ch, eva.caspari@unileoben.ac.at)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>7</day><month>May</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>11</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>829</fpage><lpage>854</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>3</day><month>October</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>11</day><month>November</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>27</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>2</day><month>April</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://se.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://se.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e162">Hydrothermally active and altered fault/shear zones in crystalline rocks are of practical importance because of their potential similarities with petrothermal reservoirs and exploitable natural hydrothermal systems. The petrophysical and hydraulic characterization of such structures is therefore of significant interest. Here, we report the results of corresponding investigations on a prominent shear zone of this type located in the crystalline Aar massif of the central Swiss Alps. A shallow borehole was drilled, which acutely intersects the core of the shear zone and is entirely situated in its surrounding damage zone. The focus of this study is a detailed characterization of this damage zone based on geophysical borehole measurements. For this purpose, a comprehensive suite of borehole logs, comprising passive and active nuclear, full-waveform sonic, resistivity, self-potential, optical televiewer, and borehole radar data, was collected. The migrated images of the borehole radar reflection data together with the optical televiewer data reveal a complicated network of intersecting fractures in the damage zone. Consequently, the associated petrophysical properties, notably the sonic velocities and porosities, are distinctly different from intact granitic formations. Cluster analyses of the borehole logs in combination with the structural interpretations of the optical televiewer data illustrate that the variations in the petrophysical properties are predominantly governed by the intense brittle deformation. The imaged fracture network and the high-porosity zones associated with brittle deformation represent the main flow pathways. This interpretation is consistent with the available geophysical measurements as well as the analyses of the retrieved core material. Furthermore, the interpretation of the self-potential and fluid resistivity log data suggests a compartmentalized hydraulic behavior, as evidenced by inflows of water into the borehole from different sources, which is likely to be governed by the steeply dipping structures.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <?pagebreak page830?><p id="d1e174">As opposed to their sedimentary counterparts, crystalline rocks tend be characterized by very small matrix porosities, and hence fluid pathways are mostly associated with brittle deformation structures at scales ranging from micrometers to kilometers, such as fractures and fault/shear zones as well as their associated damage zones <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7 bib1.bibx4 bib1.bibx17 bib1.bibx9 bib1.bibx19" id="paren.1"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. These structures not only dominate the hydraulic behavior but also act as zones of weakness and thus substantially affect the mechanical behavior of the rock mass. For many applications, a thorough understanding of the mechanical and hydraulic characteristics of the examined rock volume is critical. For example, in tunneling operations and nuclear waste storage repositories, fractures provide undesired zones of weakness and hydraulic conductivity, while the same characteristics represent desirable features for the exploration and creation of enhanced geothermal systems <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18 bib1.bibx35 bib1.bibx48 bib1.bibx42" id="paren.2"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. The overarching importance of fractures and fracture networks inspired a wealth of research on their geometrical, hydraulic, and mechanical properties <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4 bib1.bibx37 bib1.bibx6 bib1.bibx53 bib1.bibx34" id="paren.3"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. Although it has been shown that geophysical borehole logs can provide petrophysical properties of individual fractures and fractures networks <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41 bib1.bibx26 bib1.bibx3" id="paren.4"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>, so far only a few studies systematically analyze fracture systems in crystalline rocks based on geophysical borehole logs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1 bib1.bibx40 bib1.bibx52" id="paren.5"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p id="d1e202">The structure of interest in this study is the Grimsel Breccia Fault (GBF), a major WSW–ENE-striking subvertical brittlely overprinted shear zone in the Southwestern Aar Granite of the central Swiss Alps, which exhibits evidence of both fossil and active hydrothermal activity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27 bib1.bibx5" id="paren.6"/>. To this end, a shallow borehole has been drilled into the GBF, which acutely intersects the main brecciated fault core and is entirely situated in its surrounding damage zone. A comprehensive suite of geophysical borehole logs, comprising passive and active nuclear, full-waveform sonic (FWS), resistivity, self-potential (SP), and borehole radar (BHR) measurements, were collected in 2015, 2016, and 2017. In a previous study <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="paren.7"/>, hydrophone vertical seismic profiling (VSP) data in combination with some of the borehole log data were used to image and characterize the main fault core of the GBF. The resulting seismic image allowed a  delineation of the targeted zone, and numerous tube waves in the hydrophone VSP data could be linked to hydraulically open fractures in the damage zone around the fault core. A quantitative analysis of the amplitudes of the hydrophone VSP data in terms of hydraulic conductivity was, however, not possible due to the abundance of tube wave events and the resulting interference of the various parts of the recorded seismic wavefield. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.8"/> performed a structural characterization of the GBF system and its evolution with a specific focus on porosity, permeability, fracture distribution, and fluid flow reconstruction based on the combined analysis of drill cores, optical televiewer (OTV) data, and geological mapping. Building on the results of these previous works, the focus of this study is a detailed characterization of the fracture network in the damage zone of the main fault core from geophysical borehole log data with a particular focus on the geometrical and petrophysical properties of the network as well as the links of the latter to brittle deformation.</p>
      <p id="d1e214">In contrast to the classically utilized OTV data and core samples, which identify the location, orientation, and dip of fractures along the borehole <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20 bib1.bibx53" id="paren.9"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>, geophysical borehole logs sample a more representative volume of the fractured rock mass away from the immediate vicinity of the borehole and, as such, are essential in intervals of core loss  <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="paren.10"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. However, a drawback of the larger sampling volume is that individual fractures and other smaller-scale structures tend to be difficult to discriminate and detect. Moreover, geophysical borehole log measurements tend to be sensitive to a combination of petrophysical properties, thus rendering quantitative estimations from single log-type measurements difficult and ambiguous. Correspondingly, an integrated workflow utilizing a variety of geophysical borehole log measurements is necessary to mitigate these ambiguities. Such an integrated analysis, in combination with evidence from OTV and core data, is used in this study to constrain geometrical and petrophysical properties of the GBF damage zone. BHR reflection data are employed to image the damage zone and to infer the geometrical characteristics of its fracture network. To analyze the distribution of petrophysical properties in the damage zone and their link to brittle deformation, a cluster analysis is performed for a selection of geophysical borehole logs. Finally, to shed light on the hydraulic characteristics of the GBF, we examine SP and fluid resistivity log data. To test and verify our findings, we assess their compatibility with the detailed structural characterization of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.11"/> and the results of previous studies by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="text.12"/>  and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.13"/> on the hydraulic nature of the GBF. The paper starts with a brief description of the geological setting, the challenges associated with the acquisition of the geophysical borehole logs in the intensely fractured crystalline environment, and their resulting impact on the quality and reliability of the data.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Geological setting and borehole conditions</title>
      <p id="d1e244">The GBF is a major WSW–ENE-striking subvertical ductile shear zone in the Southwestern Aar Granite, which has been exhumed from 3 to 4 km depth and brittlely overprinted. Indeed, ductile and brittle deformation often coincide along the GBF <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.14"/>. The GBF exhibits both fossil and current hydrothermal activity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27 bib1.bibx5" id="paren.15"/>, the latter being evidenced by warm springs in the village of Gletsch (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) and in the Transitgas AG tunnel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m (up to 28 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) below the Grimsel Pass <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27 bib1.bibx47" id="paren.16"/>, which is the site for this study (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>). The hydrothermal water in the tunnel consists of approximately equal parts of recent meteoric components and older geothermal components, which reached circulation depths of several kilometers and maximum temperatures of 230–250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="paren.17"/>. The GBF fault breccia exhibits an epithermal-style mineralization consisting of quartz, including microcrystalline varieties (locally chalcedony), adularia, hydrothermal clays, pyrite, marcasite, and molybdenite <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27 bib1.bibx5" id="paren.18"/>. For the section of the GBF drilled and under investigation in the current study, clay-rich gouge is not a major factor <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.19"/>.</p>
      <?pagebreak page831?><p id="d1e316"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The location of the GDP1 borehole and a schematic cross section are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>, which also illustrates the extreme topographic relief of the area. The borehole is orientated approximately SSE, orthogonal to geological strike, with a vertical deviation of 24<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and acutely intersects the GBF main breccia core between 82 and 86 m borehole depth. The GDP1 borehole was diamond-drilled with a so-called HQ bit (96 mm outer diameter, 76 mm inner diameter) to a length of 125.3 m. During the drilling operations, fluid circulation was lost at 76 m borehole depth, and, hence, the borehole was cemented and redrilled between 71 and 76 m depth. Due to the intense fracturing, enlargements are encountered along the entire length of the borehole and inherently affect the quality of the logging data.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e333">Lower left shows an aerial image (source: Federal Office of Topography, <uri>https://www.swisstopo.ch</uri>, last access: 10 February 2017) of the Grimsel Pass showing the trace of the GDP1 borehole, the extent of mineralized outcrops associated with the GBF <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.20"/>, and the location of the Transitgas AG tunnel with the interval of active hydrothermal inflow marked by the white stippled line (modified from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="altparen.21"/>). The lower right shows a schematic cross section through the plane of the borehole intersecting the GBF showing the extreme topographic relief in conjunction with the location and orientation of the borehole (modified from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="altparen.22"/>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e355">A list of all geophysical borehole datasets collected along the GDP1 borehole during 2015, 2016, and 2017 is shown in Table 1 together with the respective condition of the borehole at the time of their acquisition. Throughout this paper, all data are referred to and displayed with regard to measured depth along the borehole track. The most complete dataset was collected in 2015 directly after drilling under open borehole conditions. It comprises OTV, borehole caliper, passive and active nuclear, electrical resistivity, SP, temperature, and multiple center frequency FWS logs as well as constant offset BHR, ambient (and pumped) flow meter, and periodic pumping test measurements.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e361">List of borehole measurements performed in 2015, 2016, and 2017.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Borehole tools</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2015 (open)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2017</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2017 (open</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(cased: slotted PVC)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(cased: slotted PVC)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">108–121 m)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Polyprobe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Water table:  8 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Water table:  31 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Water table: 33 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(2PEA/2PGA- 1000 F)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Natural gamma (NG)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Normal resistivity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Polymer drilling mud</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Casing corrected</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Casing corrected</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(N08, N16, N32, N64)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">and pumping of lake water</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">N32, N64: noisy</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Single-point resistance (SPR)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Disturbed borehole cond.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Noisy</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Noisy</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Self-potential (SP)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Disturbed borehole cond.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Casing corrected</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Casing corrected</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Disturbed borehole cond.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fluid properties</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(STS data logger DLN 70)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Undisturbed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fluid resistivity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Undisturbed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EM flow meter (9722 Century)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Periodic pumping test<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Full-waveform sonic (FWS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Water table: 33 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(Mount Sopris, 2SAA-1000)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Continuous 25 kHz</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> High gain, two receivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> High gain, two receivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Continuous 2, 5, 10 kHz</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Low gain, two receivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Static multifrequency</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Selected positions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Selected positions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Selected positions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Borehole georadar (BHR)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Center-to-center antenna</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Center-to-center antenna</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(MALÅ 100 MHz Slimhole antenna)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">separation of 2.72 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">separation of 2.72 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nuclear</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Gamma–gamma</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(Mount Sopris KLP – 2780)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Neutron–neutron</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(Mount Sopris LLP-2676)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Caliper (Mount Sopris 2SNA-1000)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Optical televiewer (ALT, OBI-40)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Multiple runs</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e364"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.23"/>.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1083">After completion of the drilling operations, water from the adjacent lake was pumped into the borehole to flush out the polymer-based drilling mud and to enable OTV measurements. Although, the water in the borehole cleared up, remnants of the drilling fluid within the adjacent formation were likely to be present throughout the 2015 logging campaign. As a consequence, the SP data acquired in 2015 differ significantly from those measured in 2016 and 2017 since the polymer-based drilling mud changed the viscosity and the chemical composition of the pore fluid in the rock volume with regard to its ambient state. In addition to this, the 2015 SP data were also affected by changes in the flow regime in and around the borehole induced by the pumping of lake water. In the following, we therefore only consider the SP data acquired in 2016 and 2017. The addition of the lake water and the remnant presence of drilling mud also affected the 2015 electrical resistivity measurements. These were therefore repeated in 2016 and 2017 through the slotted PVC casing, which was installed to prevent borehole collapse. To analyze the effects of this casing as well as for data calibration purposes, a small section at the bottom of the borehole was remeasured under open borehole conditions in 2017. Details with regard to the data corrections applied to remove the casing effects are given in Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S2"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="text.24"/>. EM flow meter tests, recorded in 2015, are also affected by the severely disturbed flow system as well as the fact that the polymer drilling mud potentially kept clogging some of the flow paths. Thus, only the passive data will be shown here for completeness of information.</p>
      <p id="d1e1091">BHR measurements were repeated in 2016, as no zero-time correction was available for the data collected in 2015. However, the 2015 data were acquired with a smaller spatial sampling interval and thus produce more coherent signals. For this reason, we utilize the 2016 data for calibration of the 2015 dataset, which we then consider for the remainder of the paper. Corresponding details are given in Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S1"/>. Additionally, more detailed temperature and fluid resistivity measurements were conducted in 2016.  High-frequency (25 kHz nominal center frequency), high-gain three-receiver FWS data were acquired in 2016 for more reliable and robust compressional (P) and shear (S) wave velocity estimations by semblance analysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.25"/>.  In the intensely fractured zones, especially around the main fault core, the first arrivals are, however, still very weak, thus making reliable velocity estimations very difficult due to the inherent uncertainty and local variability in the picks. Therefore, the P-wave velocity estimates are smoothed, and the S-wave velocity is entirely discarded in this zone. Everywhere else, the P- and S-wave estimates are reasonably robust.</p>
      <p id="d1e1099">Overall, the logging data are affected by strong borehole enlargements, which complicates their quantitative analysis. The enlargements are primarily due to the intensely fractured nature of the rock volume rather than being purely<?pagebreak page832?> drilling-induced damage. Most of the enlargements can indeed be associated with distinct fractures or cataclastic features along the borehole track and thus present structural and petrophysical indicators in their own right. Geochemically the rock mass of the damage zone surrounding the GBF core is relatively homogeneous consisting of metagranite. The main heterogeneities are variations in fabric, ranging from granitic through gneissic, all the way to mylonitic as well as fractured and cataclastic zones, which are due to different degrees of ductile and/or brittle deformation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.26"/>. In the following, we seek to link these geological features inferred from the OTV and core data to the responses of the geophysical borehole logs. In a first step, we utilize the BHR data to image the fracture network situated in the damage zone. Then, the response of selected borehole log data is compared to different degrees of deformation encountered.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Borehole radar reflection data: imaging of the fracture network</title>
      <p id="d1e1113">In contrast to most other geophysical borehole logging techniques, which have a relatively limited range of investigation, the BHR reflection method allows one to image individual fractures, clusters of fractures, and cataclastic zones outside of the immediate vicinity of the borehole  <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38 bib1.bibx14" id="paren.27"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. As such, these data are much less affected by borehole enlargements than most other logging data. In the considered setting, the reflection coefficient is governed by the pronounced contrast of the dielectric permittivity between the host rock and the fluid-filled fractures, while the bulk electrical conductivity of the rock volume determines the attenuation of the BHR signals. This, in turn, makes resistive crystalline environments ideal sites for BHR measurements in general and for imaging fractures in particular. In the following, we first describe the processing of the BHR data and then proceed to analyze the migrated images.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Data processing</title>
      <p id="d1e1128">Steeply dipping reflections are already visible in the raw data (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>a). To extract these reflections, the direct wave is removed via an alpha-trimmed 2D spatial filter after applying a static correction to flatten out the first arrivals. Subsequently, this static correction is reversed to place the reflections back into their original position (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>b). Since, the dataset was acquired with omnidirectional antennae, we can only determine the relative dip of the reflectors with respect to the borehole trajectory. It is not possible to constrain the azimuthal orientation of the reflectors. However, the OTV data indicate that the azimuths of most brittle and ductile structural features are constrained to one quadrant (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>c). Hence, it is justified to treat the reflections as up- and down-going wavefields originating at the same reflectors. Correspondingly, these up- and down-going wavefields are separated by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> quadrant filters, then migrated using pre-stack Kirchhoff time-migration and converted to distance using a constant average velocity. Since the prevailing geological structure is near-vertical, the velocity is varying laterally, which was at least partially accounted for in the pre-stack time-migration process by a laterally varying velocity model derived from the first arrivals. Pertinent details of the processing and imaging flow applied to the BHR reflection data are given in Table 2.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1153"><bold>(a)</bold> Raw BHR reflection data and <bold>(b)</bold> after removal of the direct wave and reversed static corrections. <bold>(c)</bold> Relative dips and azimuths of fractures identified in the OTV data.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1173">Processing and imaging of BHR reflection data</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Processing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Removal of direct wave:</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Static correction, 2D alpha-trimmed filter, reverse static correction</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Geometrical spreading correction</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Separation of up- and down-going wavefields:</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> quadrant filter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Noise removal:</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Small window 2D median temporal and spatial filter, low-pass filter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Imaging</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2D pre-stack Kirchhoff time-migration with laterally varying velocity model</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Amplitude balancing</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Time-to-distance conversion (constant velocity)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Estimation of fracture dip</title>
      <p id="d1e1288">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a shows the final migrated and distance-converted BHR reflection image, which consists of the up- and down-going wavefields, plotted in positive distance orthogonally from the borehole trajectory. We observe an abundance of reflections, most of which intercept the borehole wall. It is straightforward to calculate the relative dip of these events. In zones of low attenuation, which correspond to large first-cycle amplitudes of the direct wave in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b, some of these events can be traced to distances of up to 10 m from the borehole. These zones are representative of more intact rock. Conversely, high signal attenuation, characterized by low first-cycle amplitudes in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>c, occurs in zones of intense brittle deformation, such as, for example, in the fault core and its vicinity.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1299"><bold>(a)</bold> Migrated BHR image consisting of the up- and down-going reflection data plotted in positive distance from the borehole trajectory. Red lines denote selected reflection events used for estimating the dips and locations of the associated fractures. <bold>(b)</bold> Maximum first-cycle amplitude of BHR first arrivals (black line), relative dip of fractures from OTV data (turquoise dots), and relative dips picked from the depth-converted BHR reflection image (red dots and squares). For the OTV data, the size of the dots is a relative measure of fracture aperture. The dips of events denoted by red lines in <bold>(a)</bold> are identified by red dots encircled in blue.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page834?><p id="d1e1316">From the image shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a, we manually pick the dips of the brightest reflections as well as some of the weaker cross-cutting events to capture the variety of dips encountered. A representative selection of the picked events is superimposed on the image as straight red lines, and their locations with regard to the borehole track and their dips are illustrated in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b by red dots encircled in blue. All picked events are plotted in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b, and their values are compared to the fracture dips inferred from the OTV data, which are shown as turquoise dots whose diameter is indicative of the fracture aperture <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.28"/>. Following <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.29"/>, fractures with very large apertures are classified as cataclastic zones; aperture refers here to the thickness of the fractures and not to the mean open space. Most of the fractures with a large aperture contain some infill. Overall, the range of dip angles picked from the imaged BHR reflection data is consistent with those inferred from the OTV data, although it is difficult to match individual reflection events with specific fractures in the OTV images. The reason for this is 2-fold. (1) Both datasets contain the signatures of an abundance of fractures, which, in turn, necessitates an inherently subjective selection; and (2) the depth locations and dips assigned to BHR reflectors might differ slightly with regard to those of the OTV data.</p>
      <p id="d1e1332">Nevertheless, the comparison of the two datasets confirms that in such an environment fluid-filled fractures and cataclastic zones are the most likely cause of BHR reflections. The BHR reflection image allows one to trace the associated brittle deformation structures several meters from the borehole into the adjacent formation. The BHR reflection image and the OTV data provide clear and consistent evidence for a dense and complex network of fluid-filled intersecting fractures and cataclastic zones above and below the main fault core. Such a network of fractures provides effective fluid pathways through the otherwise tight granitic host rock <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.30"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Characteristics of the damage zone from geophysical logs</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Full-waveform sonic data: identification of brittle deformation zones</title>
      <p id="d1e1356">As illustrated by Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b, the first-cycle amplitude of the BHR first arrivals is a good proxy for the degree of brittle deformation. Similarly, FWS data are expected to be sensitive to brittle deformation as the associated wave propagation is governed by the underlying elastic and hydraulic properties of the medium. Here, we utilize the 2 kHz low-gain FWS data, which are mainly sensitive to low-frequency Stoneley waves. This wave type is an interface wave traveling along the borehole wall. Its velocity depends predominately on the shear modulus of the formation and bulk modulus of the fluid. Its amplitude decreases across compliant and hydraulically transmissive features, such as fractures and cataclastic zones, due to transmission losses, reflections, and pressure diffusion processes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="paren.31"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. Following <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39" id="text.32"/>, the local Stoneley wave energy deficit can be used as an indicator of the hydraulic transmissivity of a system. For the considered data, a quantitative analysis is, however, not possible, since the data quality due to the roughness of the borehole wall caused by enlargements as well as the recording time are not sufficient, and the data recorded at receiver 1 is clipped even for the lowest possible gain of the tool. Nevertheless, we can still estimate the local energy deficit of the recorded<?pagebreak page835?> waveforms, which are dominated by Stoneley waves, and use this measure as a qualitative proxy. To account for borehole enlargements, we compare the FWS data with the caliper and the neutron–neutron log data. While the neutron–neutron log is also affected by the borehole enlargements, it is primarily sensitive to the water content and thus to the porosity, which in the considered environment is dominated by fracture porosity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.33"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1374"><bold>(a)</bold> Low-gain FWS data acquired with a nominal central frequency of 2 kHz overlain by the caliper log;  <bold>(b)</bold> corresponding power spectrum overlain by the neutron–neutron log; <bold>(c)</bold> relative energy deficit for two different frequency bands, one capturing the Stoneley wave and the other the complete spectrum, in conjunction with the first-cycle amplitude of the BHR direct wave and the brittle deformation data from the OTV; <bold>(d–g)</bold> examples of brittle deformation based on a comparison of OTV data and corresponding drill core sequences.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1396">Summary of the brittle deformation based on the OTV data <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.34"/> <bold>(a)</bold> fracture aperture, <bold>(b)</bold> relative dip, and <bold>(c)</bold> relative azimuth. All identified fractures are displayed in histographic form along the borehole. Fractures with measurable aperture (greater than 0.8 mm) are displayed as red dots. In <bold>(a)</bold> additionally cataclastic zones, the cementation zone, and main fault core are plotted.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1421">In Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>, we compare the aforementioned log data to the OTV-based brittle deformation data of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.35"/>. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>a shows the low-gain FWS log data recorded at receiver 2 for a nominal center frequency of 2 kHz and Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>b the corresponding power spectrum. The former is overlain by the caliper log and the latter by the neutron–neutron log. The color scale in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>a is chosen such that the primarily visible signal is the Stoneley wave. The first arrival P- and S-waves are much lower in amplitude. The local energy deficit is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>c for two frequency bands and overlain with the OTV-based brittle deformation data of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.36"/>. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>c also depicts the BHR first-cycle amplitude. From the FWS data, we can clearly distinguish five characteristic zones denoted as A through E, which also find their expressions in the first-cycle BHR amplitudes. In the following, we compare these zones to the brittle deformation data of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.37"/>, which is summarized in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>, comprising the apertures as well as the relative dip and azimuth of the fractures with respect to the horizontal of the borehole trajectory. Apertures below 0.8 mm were deemed not to be reliably measurable for the recorded resolution of the OTV data.</p>
      <p id="d1e1448"><list list-type="bullet">
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e1453">Zone A consists of three cataclastic zones. The OTV image and the core material of two cataclastic zones are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>d and e. These cataclastic zones are characterized by time-delayed, low-amplitude Stoneley waves with an energy reduction of 15 % as well as low BHR amplitudes. Moreover, they find their expression as prominent anomalies in the caliper and neutron–neutron logs. As such, zone A is likely to represent a hydraulically transmissive interval of low shear strength and high porosity.</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e1461">Compared to zone A, zone B is characterized by a smaller energy deficit and an overriding high-frequency wave corresponding to the pseudo-Rayleigh wave, which only exists in fast formations and thus suggests a zone of higher shear strength and less brittle deformation. The latter is consistent with the high BHR amplitudes. Nevertheless, even in this section, fractures are still present (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>), albeit with apertures below 0.8 mm.</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e1469">Conversely, the FWS signal in zone C is dominated by low frequencies in the power spectrum with a decrease in high frequencies towards zone D and the vanishing of the pseudo-Rayleigh wave, which is indicative of a decrease in shear strength. The BHR amplitudes decrease towards zone D as well, in which the borehole collapsed and had to be cemented and redrilled. The BHR amplitudes already show a strong decrease at 70 m depth, whereas the other logs (caliper, neutron–neutron, energy deficit) only show a pronounced changes around 75 m. Due to their small penetration depths, the latter are affected by the cemented section of the borehole, whereas the BHR measurements have a deeper penetration depth and are averaged over a larger support volume. Thus, the BHR measurements are likely to reflect the “true” formation properties better in this section. The core material in zone C (e.g., Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>f) is partly noncohesive due to intense brittle deformation, which explains the observed characteristics of the BHR amplitude and FWS data. Local vanishing of the FWS amplitudes in conjunction with anomalies in the caliper and neutron–neutron logs at 65  to 65.3 and 66.74 m are due to a cataclastic zone and an individual large-aperture fracture of 3.71 mm, respectively.</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e1477">Zone D comprises the wider zone of the main fault core where most of the FWS signal is lost. One reason is the large borehole enlargements and the associated rugosity of the borehole wall, which prevents the propagation of Stoneley waves. In the upper part of this zone, a weak signal is recorded between a  borehole depth of 82 and 86 m with a shift towards higher frequencies. This section corresponds to the GBF core consisting of fault gouge <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.38"/>.</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e1486">Finally, zone E is characterized by an alternating sequence of regions with pronounced low and high energy deficits, which is indicative of an overall rather compact rock volume with prominent isolated fractures (e.g., Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>g). This interpretation is consistent with a correspondingly alternating sequence in the BHR amplitudes.</p>
            </list-item>
          </list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Cluster analysis</title>
      <?pagebreak page837?><p id="d1e1501">To refine the zonation identified in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> and infer the associated petrophysical properties, we consider a pertinent selection of the logging data acquired in 2015 under open-hole conditions and in 2016 through a screened PVC casing. These are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> and include from left to right the caliper and natural gamma log, the sonic P- and S-wave velocities, the gamma–gamma and neutron–neutron logs, the BHR direct-wave velocity and amplitude, and electrical resistivity measurements. All logs are superimposed onto the brittle deformation data mapped from the OTV. The larger-scale trends of most of the logs are consistent with the previously inferred zonation A through E, which is depicted on the left-hand side of Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>. The GBF fault core, which is located between 82 and 86 m borehole depth, is marked by borehole enlargements and clearly defined across the entire suite of logs. Most of the remaining anomalies observed in the borehole log data correlate with caliper anomalies, which, in turn, are associated with enlargements and can be linked to zones of the brittle deformation identified in the OTV data. In the following, we analyze the relationship between the various borehole logs and address the question whether their response can be linked to the degree of brittle deformation. To this end, we perform a cluster analysis on a selection of the log data.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1512">Representative selection of borehole log data comprising from left to right caliper, natural gamma, sonic velocity, neutron–neutron and gamma–gamma, BHR direct-wave velocity, and amplitude as well as normal resistivity logs with a separation of 8 in. (0.2 m), 16 in. (0.4 m), 32 in. (0.8 m), and 64 in. (1.6 m). The brittle deformation features interpreted from the OTV data <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.39"/> are superimposed on the log data. The sizes of the circles are indicative of the relative fracture apertures. Zones A through E refer to zonation shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1526">In a first step, we perform a correlation analysis of the log data shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>. Before doing so, the datasets are normalized to account for the different unit scales. We obtain an overall good correlation between the BHR velocity and amplitude and the neutron–neutron, the P-wave velocity, and the normal resistivity logs. In the following, these datasets will be subjected to a cluster analysis. Although the S-wave velocity log shows a good correlation with other log data in the more intact parts of the borehole, it is not considered due to its unreliability around the main fault core. The gamma–gamma log is strongly affected by large borehole enlargements and shows otherwise little variation. The poor correlation of the natural gamma log with the other datasets is probably due to the fact that, in the crystalline environment, it is primarily sensitive to mineralogical alterations, which, compared to the brittle deformation structures, have a secondary effect on the other borehole logs. The BHR velocities and amplitudes are primarily sensitive to the fluid-filled porosity and the bulk electrical conductivity, respectively. The neutron–neutron log is sensitive to the total amount of hydrogen present in the formation, while the P-wave velocity log is sensitive to the mechanical properties, and the normal resistivity is sensitive to the bulk resistivity.</p>
      <p id="d1e1532">The upper triangular region in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> shows crossplots of the selected log data, which confirm the overall good correlation. The somewhat spurious nature of these crossplots is due to the fact that the various geophysical logs average the petrophysical properties over significantly differing support volumes. This is problematic when dealing with small-scale, high-contrast features, such as fractures, embedded in an otherwise relatively homogeneous matrix. An effective way to display such datasets is in histograms, as shown in the triangular region below the diagonal in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>, which clearly illustrate the overall strong correlation trends between the various datasets. The largest spread of values is observed for crossplots containing either the P-wave velocities or the BHR amplitudes, whereas the other properties show generally well-defined correlation trends.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1541">Lower triangle with regard to diagonal: histogram crossplots of selected borehole logs – BHR amplitude, neutron–neutron (NN), BHR velocity, P-wave velocity (Vp), and normal resistivity 16 in. (0.4 m) (Norm16 res.). Upper triangle with regard to diagonal: color-coded crossplots of groups identified based on cluster analysis. The diagonal shows the corresponding cluster boxplots for each property.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1550">To analyze these trends in more detail, we perform a cluster analysis using the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-means algorithm of the MATLAB Statistics Toolbox with a squared Euclidian distance criterion <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="paren.40"/>. The analysis is performed on the normalized data in two subsequent steps. First, we test for the optimal number of clusters to group the data into. To do this, we use the so-called silhouette and gap criteria <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="paren.41"/>, which both suggest an optimum of four clusters. Then, we apply the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-means algorithm to group the data into four clusters. The median, the 25th percentile, and the outliers of each cluster and each petrophysical property are shown in the form of boxplots along the diagonal of Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>.  Across all petrophysical properties, the identified clusters show a good separation with regard to each other.</p>
      <p id="d1e1575">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/> shows the borehole log data used for the above cluster analysis color-coded according to the four cluster groups identified in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>  and overlain by OTV-based brittle deformation data. Also shown is the sequence of clusters along the borehole track together with the fracture density inferred from OTV data as well as the caliper log. Comparing these various datasets allows the characterization of the clusters as follows: (1) GBF fault core, (2) zones of high fracture density or cataclastic deformation, (3) zones of moderate fracture density or large-aperture fractures, and (4) zones of low fracture density. There is a mismatch at the bottom of the borehole between the cluster-based interpretation of the borehole log data and fracture density estimated from the OTV data. The reason is that partially and fully closed fractures are accounted for in the OTV-based fracture density, while the logs are largely insensitive to these types of fractures. This problem only manifests itself at the bottom of the borehole, since the occurrence of closed fractures compared to open fractures is larger in this region than elsewhere along the borehole. An essential result of the cluster analysis is that the signatures of the selected borehole logs as well as their interrelations are predominantly governed by brittle deformation in general and that the individual clusters seem to<?pagebreak page838?> be clearly linked to the degree of deformation in particular. In this context, it is interesting to note that the sequence of clusters along the borehole displayed on the righthand side of Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/> is fully consistent with the more generic zonation A through E inferred from the Stoneley wave analysis (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1588">Borehole log data used for cluster analysis, color-coded according to the four cluster groups identified in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>  and overlain by brittle deformation inferred from the OTV data. The righthand column shows the sequence of clusters along the borehole together with the fracture density inferred from the OTV data, the ductile deformation intensity log <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.42"/>, the caliper data, and the zonation A through E inferred from the Stoneley wave analysis (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1605">Interestingly, the P-wave velocities and normal resistivity data exhibit a larger variability in cluster 4 than in the other petrophysical properties. This becomes especially apparent in zone B, which exhibits a comparatively low fracture density and variable degrees of ductile deformation (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>). In this partially intact zone, the P-wave velocity assumes maximum and minimum values of 5600 and 4600 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. The former is close to P-wave velocities of non-fractured granitic rocks, which typically range between 5700 and 6200 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>  <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28 bib1.bibx44" id="paren.43"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. The variability in the P-wave in these more intact zones might thus be an indication of variations in the ductile rock fabric. We also observe strong fluctuations in electrical resistivity and relatively low resistivity values on average for a granitic environment. The latter may point towards the influence of surface conductivity, most likely due to the abundance of mica notably in the gneissic and mylonitic parts of the formation, which, in turn, may result in regions of elevated conductivity compared to the unaltered granites <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="paren.44"/>. A recent study of electrical properties of mylonites from the Alpine Fault project in New Zealand found resistivity values ranging from 675 to 75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> m <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.45"/>. This is significantly lower than literature values of granite, which range from 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> m. The variability in the P-wave velocity and resistivity is also reflected in the natural gamma log, which, in turn, points to the potential influence of mineralogical changes associated with ductile deformation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Porosity distribution and fluid flow characteristics</title>
      <p id="d1e1688">Although the borehole logging data are clearly related to the degree of fracturing, which is expected to be a proxy for fluid flow, a quantitative analysis in terms of key hydraulic properties, such as porosity and permeability, in the studied environment is challenging. The reasons are manyfold. As previously mentioned, the Stoneley wave data are not of sufficient quality to allow for corresponding permeability estimations. The gamma–gamma and neutron–neutron logs, which are classically used to determine the porosity via the density and the hydrogen content, respectively, are affected by the large variations in the borehole diameter. These enlargements<?pagebreak page839?> make a calibration of the gamma–gamma log to obtain density and subsequently porosity essentially impossible.  The neutron–neutron log is less affected by the caliper variations than the gamma–gamma log, but calibrating it is still difficult due to its nonlinear relation to the hydrogen content and the lack of representative core material over a large enough porosity range. The resistivity logs, cannot not be converted into porosity, since the fluid resistivity is very high compared to common groundwater, the matrix porosity is quite low, and the surface conductivity can possibly not be ignored, which renders Archie's law inapplicable <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="paren.46"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. This is illustrated in Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S1"/> by comparing the resistivity logs with Archie's law. To circumvent these problems associated with the commonly used porosity logs, we use the 2015 BHR velocity measurements to derive porosity estimates. BHR measurements are not commonly utilized in oil and geothermal reservoirs, but there use is quite common in groundwater investigations to estimate water content or equivalently porosity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="paren.47"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. The approach is quite robust, since the method is strongly sensitive to the water content and has a large support volume, which makes it less susceptible to borehole enlargements. The resulting smooth porosity profile will be then used to calibrate the neutron–neutron log, which provides a detailed downscaled version of the porosity distribution along the borehole. In a subsequent step, we examine the fluid flow characteristics of the subsurface region based on a combined analysis of the SP, temperature, and resistivity logs.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Porosity estimation</title>
      <p id="d1e1710">The porosity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is obtained from the BHR velocity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> using the so-called complex refractive index method (CRIM)
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M59" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mtext>with</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the speed of light and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the velocity of the formation; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the relative dielectric permittivities of the formation, the pore water, and the solid material, respectively <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.48"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. For low porosities, the method is quite sensitive to the dielectric permittivity of the solid material  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. To find a representative value for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we constrain the possible range by laboratory-based density measurements. Archimedes-type density measurements have been performed along the entire core recovered from the GDP1 borehole. These measurements were taken at 20 to 30 cm intervals (Jörg Renner, personal communication, 2016). The inferred densities are compared to<?pagebreak page840?> densities calculated from BHR porosities for different values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a) using an average grain density of 2653 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> determined from corresponding laboratory analysis of eight samples measured. Subsequently, an upper and lower bound for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is chosen so that the laboratory-measured densities from competent samples fall between the resulting calculated density values from the BHR velocities. This provides well-constrained bounds for low and intermediate porosities. However, the estimation of high porosities is less reliable due to core loss and poor quality of the retrieved core material from the heavily fractured zones. The results are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>b together with the porosity curve for the median of the best-fitting dielectric permittivity. For the latter, we only consider the zones without borehole enlargements.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e1914"><bold>(a)</bold> Porosity estimates from BHR velocities for different dielectric permittivities of the solid material <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and from neutron–neutron (NN) data compared with laboratory-based measurements for selected core samples (Jörg Renner, personal communication, 2016).  <bold>(b)</bold> Inferred density from BHR porosities compared to Archimedes-type density measurements on the core samples (Jörg Renner, personal communication, 2016).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=304.444488pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1939">The resulting porosity logs obtained from the BHR velocity measurements are, as expected, smooth due to the large support volume of the method, and, hence, the strong fluctuations in response to the intense fracturing observed in other borehole logs are averaged out. To capture the variability in the porosity on a smaller scale, the neutron–neutron measurements are utilized to downscale the BHR porosity. Details are given in Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S1"/>. The resulting downscaled porosity log is compared to laboratory-measured porosities for selected core samples (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>) and to a multiscale porosity analysis of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.49"/>, which includes OTV data, thin sections, and He-pycnometry (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>a). Across all these different methods, the corresponding porosity estimates agree remarkably well. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>b shows the sequence of brittle deformation groups inferred from the cluster analysis for comparison along the borehole. The largest porosities prevail, as expected, in the main fault core with a decreasing trend away from this zone. Other high-porosity zones are associated with cataclastic zones and large aperture fractures. Even in the most intact zones, the porosity is, however, still higher than common values of the matrix porosity in crystalline rocks of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % or less <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="paren.50"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e1970"><bold>(a)</bold> Comparison of log-based porosity estimates with corresponding values from thin section image analysis and He-pycnometry <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.51"/> and <bold>(b)</bold> brittle deformation groups inferred from cluster analysis (Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>) with the caliper log and OTV-based fracture density log superimposed.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=318.670866pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Fluid flow characteristics</title>
      <p id="d1e1999">The prevailing fracture network and high-porosity zones associated with brittle deformation are the main flow pathways of the GBF system in its present state. To shed more light on the hydraulic characteristics of this system, we analyze a combination of SP logs from 2016 and 2017 in conjunction with temperature and fluid resistivity logs. The first part of this subsection describes the processing and interpretation of the SP data, while the second part focuses on the combined interpretation of the various log data with respect to the fluid flow characteristics.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<?pagebreak page841?><sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Self-potential data</title>
      <p id="d1e2008">The SP logs were acquired in the same logging run as the normal resistivity and single-point resistance logs. In this setup, the reference electrode for the SP measurements is the steel cable along which the logging tool is suspended. This causes a very strong drift in the measurements until <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m of the exposed steel cable is below the water level; afterwards the measurements start to stabilize. For this reason, we only show measurements from 60 m borehole depth onwards for the 2016 and 2017 SP logs, as the water table was at 33 m borehole depth at the time of the measurements. To compensate for the remaining drift of the data, we removed a linear background trend (Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S2"/>). The resulting logs are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/> and compared to the open-hole measurements at the bottom of the section acquired in 2017. There are some differences in the absolute values between the open- and cased-hole measurements, however, the main features of the data, especially the position and the character of the anomalies are the same. Overall, the anomalies in the SP logs along the entire considered depth range are pronounced and well defined and show remarkable repeatability between the data acquired in 2016 and 2017.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2027">Comparison of the trend-corrected SP data with complementary borehole logs. From left to right: electrical resistivity and zones of in- and outflow inferred from an analysis of natural hydraulic heads <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.52"/> as well as passive flow meter tests (2015), results of cluster analysis (Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>) overlain with the detrended SP data, the fluid resistivity log measured in 2016, the temperature logs, and the OTV-based brittle deformation logs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.53"/> overlain by the SP data. The fluid resistivity measurements are shown at ambient conditions and corrected to a constant temperature of 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The detrended temperature logs of the polyprobe tool (2016, 2017) and the STS tool (2016) as well as the not trend-corrected temperature profile (black line) acquired with the STS (2016) tool are displayed.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f11.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?pagebreak page842?><p id="d1e2055">SP anomalies can be of electrokinetic, electrochemical, and thermoelectric origin <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.54"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. In the studied fractured hydrothermal environment, SP anomalies are most likely of electrokinetic origin.  This assessment is supported by an analysis of flow meter data by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.55"/>, which identified zones of in- and outflow into the borehole associated with hydraulically open fractures. For SP signals of electrokinetic origin, the corresponding streaming potential <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be linked, to the first order, to the hydraulic pressure gradient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.56"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M76" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the electrokinetic coupling coefficient. The magnitude of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> depends on several factors. Notably, it scales with the electrical conductivity of the pore water over several orders of magnitude, thus justifying a simple empirical relation derived from laboratory data for estimating the coupling coefficient for field observations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="paren.57"/>. Given that, at ambient conditions, the average fluid resistivity along the GDP1 borehole is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">320</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> m (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>), which is high compared to common groundwater, this results in a large coupling coefficient of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6600</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mV MPa<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This, in turn, can explain the large magnitudes of the observed SP anomalies, even in the presence of moderate to weak hydraulic pressure gradients. The high resistivity of the water in the borehole is not unusual for the area. The adjacent lake water, which has a direct glacial inflow and mostly consists of melt water, has a resistivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> m.</p>
      <p id="d1e2193">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/> shows that the observed SP anomalies are abundant and reach values of up to 400 mV, which is indeed very large for signals of electrokinetic origin. Using the above estimate for the coupling coefficient of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6600</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mV MPa<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the largest SP anomalies in our data, imply hydraulic pressure gradients on the order of 0.06 MPa. This is approximately one order of magnitude lower than the pressure gradients estimated by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.58"/> in a saline artesian fractured hydrothermal system for maximum SP anomalies of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mV. Despite their unusually large magnitudes for SP signals of electrokinetic origin, the anomalies observed along the GDP1 borehole thus seem to be realistic for the specific setting. Indeed, SP anomalies of similar magnitude were recorded in the Grimsel Test Site <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.59"/>, which is situated in the same granitic formation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m below the Grimsel Pass. In this case, the anomalies could be attributed to electrokinetic responses of distinct fractures. An additional contribution to the measured SP signals along the GDP1 borehole could arise from variations in the bulk resistivity. This might come into play between 95 and 120 m borehole depth, where we observe relatively strong variations in resistivity, which are linked to the variable degree of<?pagebreak page843?> fracturing, as illustrated by the results of the cluster analysis (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>).</p>
      <p id="d1e2264">Considering the described uncertainties and the abundance of SP anomalies due to the intensely fractured nature of the formation, associating a single anomaly deterministically with in- or outflow is impossible. To overcome this problem, we apply a probability tomography based on <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="text.60"/>. This approach reconstructs an image of the most probable locations of SP sources, which explain the observed data by assuming that an anomaly measured at location <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">→</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> can be represented by a linear superposition of partial SP effects due to elementary electric source elements located at  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">→</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>. For the considered borehole measurements, we scan a region which cuts the borehole along its trajectory for such source elements with the scanning function
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M93" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">→</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">→</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">→</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">→</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∣</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">→</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">→</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:msup><mml:mo>∣</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            The result of this procedure is an electric charge occurrence probability (ECOP) map given by the cross-correlation between the scanning function and the electrical field associated with the SP measurements. For SP signals caused by a distribution of dipole sources, corresponding dipole occurrence probability (DOP) maps can be calculated for the horizontal and vertical component of the dipoles. A more detailed description of the method is given by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.61"/>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx36" id="text.62"/>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="text.63"/>, and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="text.64"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2429"><bold>(a)</bold> Electric charge occurrence probability (ECOP) and <bold>(b)</bold> dipole occurrence probability (DOP) maps along the borehole track overlain by the SP log and fractures from OTV data, and DOP vectors with an absolute probability larger than 0.15, respectively. <bold>(c)</bold> Most probable DOP vectors in each 1.2 m interval mapped onto the borehole track together with a projection of fracture planes and their color-coded apertures.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=298.753937pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f12.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2446">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>a and b show the resulting ECOP and DOP for the largest of the two dipole components at each location along the borehole track. The DOP map is overlain by DOP vectors constructed from the horizontal and vertical dipole components. These vectors are indicative of the direction of fluid flow at a specific location. For display purposes, a threshold has been chosen, and only vectors with an absolute probability larger than 0.15 are shown. Also shown are the most probable vectors, which are selected in subsequent 1.2 m intervals and mapped onto the borehole trajectory together with the orientation and aperture of the fractures identified from the OTV data in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>c. Positive and negative values in the ECOP map indicate regions that gain and loose water, respectively; as such they are possible locations of in- and outflow along the borehole. The selected DOP vectors in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>c are color-coded correspondingly and indicate possible in- and outflow scenarios. For the interpretation of the hydraulic behavior, we focus on these scenarios.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>Hydraulic zonation</title>
      <p id="d1e2464">The observed SP anomalies can be associated with fractures and cataclastic zones identified in the OTV data (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>). The representative DOP vectors and corresponding ECOP values indicate that above 95 m borehole depth inflow is dominating. Inflow into the borehole can be caused by flow from fractures and downflow along the borehole. Both scenarios are likely to occur. The former is supported by DOP vectors coinciding with the direction of the fracture dip suggesting flow along fractures and the latter by flow meter measurements conducted in 2015 indicating a generic downflow regime along the entire borehole (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>). Below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m borehole depth, the character of the SP data and the associated DOP vectors and ECOP values are more variable, including both inflow and outflow with an increase in the number of outflow regions towards the bottom of the borehole and a dominant outflow around 120 m borehole depth. These observations are generally consistent with results from flow meter measurements and an analysis of natural hydraulic heads by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.65"/>. The study identified inflow between 81 and 119 m and a zone of prominent outflow below 119 m borehole depth, as indicated by the blue and green rectangles in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e2486">With regard to the zonation derived from the analysis of Stoneley waves (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>), the relevant zones in the given context are C, D, and E (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>). Zone C consists of partially noncohesive core material and contains nine fractures with apertures above 3 mm, the largest one being 6.4 mm; zone D is the wider zone of the main fault core, which is largely brecciated, and zone E is represented by more compact rock with prominent individual fractures (16 fractures with apertures above 3 mm, the largest one being 16.4 mm). The largest SP anomalies are observed in zone E and some distinct signals in zone C, whereas the zone around the main fault core shows much less variability and smaller anomalies. This suggests that zones of in- and outflow are likely to be dominated by individual fractures or localized fracture clusters. Furthermore, the fluid resistivity shows a very distinct layering along the borehole track (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>). Although, the corresponding variations are not large in magnitude, they clearly imply distinct variations in salinity, which, in turn, point to differing origins and flow paths of the water in the borehole. Potential sources of water in the steeply dipping, fracture-dominated geological structure around the GBF may comprise direct infiltration of meteoric water through the outcropping parts of the GBF, shallow groundwater flow, and upflow from greater depth along the GBF zone. There is a hydraulic connection between the Transitgas AG tunnel and the GDP1 borehole, as evidenced by polymers from the drilling operation found in the tunnel. Two zones with relatively low fluid resistivities prevail around the main fault core (cluster 1) and below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m borehole depth, whereas above the main fault core and in the intensely fractured interval between 85 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m borehole depth relatively high fluid resistivities are observed. The latter coincide with a small low-temperature anomaly in the detrended temperature data. These observations suggest infiltration of meteoric water along the fracture network in the more resistive zones, whereas in the other zones inflow of more mineralized water, possibly from greater depth, occurs. One explanation might be the presence of two distinctively different reservoirs: a shallow, less saline one, above 95 m,<?pagebreak page844?> where meteoric water penetrates into the formation through the fracture network exposed at the Earth's surface; and a deeper more saline one below 95 m depth alimented by hydrothermal water rising up from depth <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54" id="paren.66"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. However, there is no clear evidence of a hydraulic barrier between the two zones.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e2530">The BHR reflection image reveals a network of fluid-filled fractures in the damage zones above and below the main fault core. A projection of the reflections identified in this image onto the borehole track is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/>. Reflections with relative dips above 55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are well captured by the image and in good agreement with the interpretation of the OTV data. Conversely, events with smaller dips are more difficult to detect due to the single-hole setup and the limited offset. The extent and continuity of reflections away from the borehole can only be assessed in zones with low signal attenuation, as evidenced by high first-cycle amplitudes. In these zones, fractures can be tracked up to 5 m into the formation, revealing an interconnected fracture network. High signal attenuation, as evidenced by low first-cycle amplitudes, occurs in several zones characterized by intense brittle deformation. This also prevents a more quantitative analysis of the reflection amplitudes, which could be theoretically related to fracture apertures in a more favorable environment.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e2546">From left to right: projection of imaged BHR reflections onto the borehole track together with associated dip, tadpoles illustrating the azimuth, and dip for the fractures identified from the OTV data; results of cluster analysis overlain by BHR porosity and BHR amplitudes; tube wave stack overlain by tube wave energy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="paren.67"/> and Stoneley energy deficit; brittle deformation data overlain by the corrected SP  log (2017); and summary of transmissivities estimated from pumping tests <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.68"/>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f13.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2564">Petrophysical properties of the cluster groups (25th and 75th percentile) and core measurements.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cluster analysis</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Cluster 1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Cluster 2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Cluster 3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Cluster 4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Drill core</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Porosity (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.84–14.73<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BHR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9–12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.7–6.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3–4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.8–2.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Neutron–neutron</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10–16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.5–6.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.8–3.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2–2.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(max: 26)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(max: 12.2)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(min: 1.6)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P-wave velocity (m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2920–3377</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3548–3849</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4056–4482</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4464–5013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5386–5861<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(min: 2613)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(max: 5603)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(4657–5448)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">S-wave velocity (m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1878–2225</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2135–2352</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2347–2549</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2523–2744</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2952–3380<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(min: 1732)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(max: 3024)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Rock type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fault breccia</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Cataclasite</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mylonite/ultramylonite</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Gneiss</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Granite</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean matrix and micro-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">14.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3–4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">fracture porosity<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>  (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e2567"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Jörg Renner (personal communication, 2016), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Ultrasonic measurements for saturated (and dry) samples under ambient conditions (Jörg Renner, personal communication, 2018), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.69"/> multiscale analysis.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2925">Although there are uncertainties in the absolute values of the measurements due to borehole enlargements, the relative variations in the petrophysical properties are clearly dominated by the different degrees of brittle deformation. Table 3 summarizes the range (25th and 75th percentiles of the median) of porosity and P- and S-wave velocities for the groups identified in the cluster analysis and compares them to core measurements and average matrix and micro-fracture porosity estimates of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.70"/>. These authors differentiate matrix porosity types by their mineralogy and texture. Quartz-dominated zones are governed by inter- and intragranular porosity (0.8 %), feldspar-dominated areas by solution porosity (1.4 %), fine-grained mica (75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)  and coarse grained mica by inter- and intragranular porosity (2.8 % and 4.6 %), whereas breccia porosity is significantly higher. A summary of their estimates for mean matrix and fracture porosity is provided in Table 3. These estimates obviously do not account for larger fractures, which are captured by the log data. Nevertheless, for the cataclasites and the fault breccia the mean porosity estimates fall within the range of values obtained for clusters 1 and 2, which are categorized as the main fault core and regions of high fracture density or cataclastic zones, respectively. The values for clusters 3 and 4, which cover sections of the borehole with moderate to low fracture density, are quite similar to mean matrix and micro-fracture porosity values of the granites, gneisses and mylonites. However, a more detailed differentiation between these tectonic groups based on the log data is not possible. Ultrasonic velocity measurements performed on selected core samples generally provide higher values than the sonic log measurements. However, the maximum velocity values of the sonic log data in cluster 4, which comprises the most<?pagebreak page846?> intact rocks, fall within the range of these laboratory measurements. The chosen core samples cover different types of fabric variations (granitoids, gneiss, and mylonites) and are from the more intact parts of the recovered drill core. Nevertheless, even these core samples still seem to contain fractures, as evidenced by the non-negligible difference between dry and saturated ultrasonic P-wave velocity measurements. This suggests that the elastic response of the damage zone of the GBF is dominated by the mechanical compliance of fractures at multiple scales.</p>
      <p id="d1e2939">The energy deficit of the Stoneley wave is related to the hydraulic transmissivity. At lower frequencies, this wave type is referred to as a tube wave and commonly encountered in hydrophone VSP surveys. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.71"/> linked the tube waves along the GDP1 borehole to hydraulically open fractures. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/> compares the tube wave energy along the borehole with the energy deficit of the low-frequency FWS data. Both measures respond to hydraulically open fractures along the borehole.  For the cataclastic zones and some of the large-scale fractures, we observe a good correlation between the two energy measures. In the zone around the main fault core, the agreement is less good, since borehole enlargements and the rugosity of the borehole wall prevent the propagation of tube waves. However, tube waves are still created in this region as shown by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.72"/>. Thus suggesting that these are zones/features of increased hydraulic transmissivity. Furthermore, the distinct anomalies in the wave energy deficit in the damage zone below the GBF show a very good correlation with the anomalies encountered in the SP data. This supports our interpretation that the SP anomalies are related to fluid flow governed by hydraulically open fractures.</p>
      <p id="d1e2950">For specifically targeted zones, indicated in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.73"/> performed conventional and periodic pumping tests in the GDP1 borehole in 2015. The resulting transmissivity estimates are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/>. The highest values are obtained for the intervals i2 and i5, which feature a large aperture fracture of 16.4 mm at 105 m borehole depth. This fracture can be associated with a distinct anomaly in the SP data and the energy deficit. However, no clear trend can be established between the magnitude of the anomalies in the two log attributes and the estimated transmissivity from the pumping tests. One reason is that the pumping test only provides a few values of transmissivity averaged over relatively large intervals. The logs analyzed in this study do, however, point to a  compartmentalized system with distinct hydraulic zones with water of different origins. A hypothesis is the existence of a shallow water reservoir above 95 m depth where meteoric water penetrates into the formation through the exposed fracture network, whereas below 95 m depth, a deeper and more saline hydrothermal water reservoir may prevail. Even though, there is no clear evidence of a hydraulic barrier between the two zones, below 95 m depth, a zone of increased ductile deformation with fracture apertures smaller than 3 mm followed by a zone of weakly deformed granite may act as such a barrier. Furthermore, the results of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.74"/> suggest a complex and variable flow geometry on the decameter scale in the studied subsurface region of the GBF associated with a heterogeneous system dominated by steeply dipping structures with a pipe-like hydraulic behavior. No chemical analysis of the water in the GDP1 borehole was conducted. However, the interpretation of different water sources is consistent with a recent hydrogeochemical study <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12 bib1.bibx54" id="paren.75"/> carried out in the Transitgas AG tunnel situated 200 m below the GDP1 borehole. The study identified two types of springs along the tunnel: (i) cold springs with a low mineralization (total dissolved solids TDS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and (ii) warm springs with elevated mineralization (TDS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 250 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The composition of the warm springs can be well explained by a binary mixture between a geothermal component characterized by elevated salinity and temperature and weakly mineralized cold meteoric water from the surface.</p>
      <p id="d1e3005">All of this points to the presence of distinctively different sources and passages of fluid flow in the studied subsurface region of the GBF (GDP1 borehole), thus suggesting a compartmentalization of fluid pathways in the hydraulic system along steeply dipping intersecting fractures and cataclastic zones. The main flow paths are associated with the intensely fractured nature of the exhumed ductile shear zone. Fracture permeability is expected to decrease with depth due to its inherent pressure-dependence, but cataclastic zones may retain a part of their porosity due to hydrothermal processes. Furthermore, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.76"/> suggested that fault intersections act as regions of high permeability in the Grimsel Pass hydrothermal zones. These intersections inferred from the drill hole data and observed in the BHR data may prevail on a larger scale along the GBF, effectively feeding a hydrothermal reservoir with meteoric water and allowing localized upflow of hydrothermal water along cataclastic zones (subsidiary fault cores) and fault intersections <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.77"/>. This interpretation is supported by the study of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="text.78"/>, which analyzed the architecture and hydrothermal activity of the GBF on a  larger scale and concluded that the hydraulic characteristics are controlled by localized subvertically oriented pipe-like upflow zones. Furthermore, a recent study of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54" id="text.79"/> based on 3D thermal-hydraulic modeling constrained by surface observations of warm springs and fossil hydrothermal mineralization, suggested that the thermal anomaly at the Grimsel Pass may reach down to 9 km depth. The authors did, however, argue that, this specific anomaly is not a suitable candidate for petrothermal power production due to its comparatively low flow rates.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page847?><sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>7</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e3028">With the objective to characterize the fracture network of the damage zone surrounding the GBF and its petrophysical properties, we have performed an integrated analysis of the geophysical borehole log measurements. Although the log data are affected by challenging borehole conditions, notably numerous and large enlargements, the dataset contains a multitude of valuable information, which is in agreement with previous studies and adds to their findings. The BHR reflection data in combination with the OTV data suggest a complex network of fluid-filled fractures in the damage zone surrounding the main fault core of the GBF.  Larger-scale fractures can be tracked several meters into the formation in the BHR reflection image, which, in turn, confirms that the borehole enlargements can generally be related to geological features and are not primarily drilling-induced damage. A comparison of the borehole logs to the fracture characteristics inferred from the OTV data confirms that the response of the logs, and thus the variations in petrophysical properties, are predominantly governed by the intensity of brittle deformation. A clear influence of ductile deformation on the petrophysical properties cannot be discerned. Overall, the measured petrophysical properties correlate very well with each other. Many of the petrophysical properties show distinctly different values than those expected for intact granitic formations, such as P-wave and S-wave velocities ranging between 2600 to 5600 and 1600 to 3200 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, and porosities ranging between 3 % and 15 %. The compliant high-porosity zones associated with cataclastic structures and fractures are the main fluid pathways of the system. The SP data show an abundance of anomalies, which can be linked to fractures and are most likely of electrokinetic origin. The results of the SP probability tomography suggest that above 95 m inflow is dominating, and below inflow and outflow occurs with a dominant outflow region around 120 m borehole depth. Furthermore, the distinct layering observed in the fluid resistivity points to a  compartmentalized pipe-like hydraulic behavior dominated by the steeply dipping geological structures as well as to the inflow of water from various different sources.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<?pagebreak page848?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title/>
      <p id="d1e3054">To derive reliable porosity estimates from the first-arrival travel times of the BHR data, we have to apply a zero-time correction. For the data collected in 2015, a zero-time correction was not available. Thus, we used the corresponding information for the 2016 data (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F14"/>) to first correct the 2016 picks (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F15"/>). This is followed by a static shift of the 2015 picks corresponding to the mean difference in travel times with regard to the corrected 2016 picks. The resulting corrected travel times of the 2015 BHR data are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F15"/> and are used for the porosity estimation in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5.SS1"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3065">To downscale the porosity estimates obtained from the BHR data, we utilize the neutron–neutron log. Therefore, we calibrate the neutron–neutron log with the BHR porosity estimates above and below the main fault core by fitting a power-law relationship. The calibration interval is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F16"/>a and the resulting fit in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F16"/>b. The data in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F16"/>b is displayed in terms of a histogram crossplot. For comparison, we have also plotted porosities measured in the laboratory for selected core samples, which are in good agreement with the data fit. Subsequently, we used the inferred power law to convert the counts of the neutron–neutron log into porosities along the entire borehole.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F14"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e3076"><bold>(a)</bold> Data collected in 2016 for zero-time correction showing 10 recordings per distance as well as the first arrival picks. <bold>(b)</bold> Picked first arrivals vs. distance with the corresponding linear regression fit. First and last 10 stacks are not considered.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f14.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3093"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>As mentioned in Sect. 5 Archie's law is not suitable to estimate porosity from the resistivity data. To illustrate this we plot in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F17"/> the formation factor calculated from the normal resistivity measurements of 16 in. (0.4 m) and 32 in. (0.8 m) (recorded in 2016) and the fluid resistivity obtained from the STS measurement at ambient conditions (2016) as a function of the porosity estimates obtained from the BHR data. For the comparison depth intervals above and below the main fault zone are chosen. The data clearly plots outside the validity range of Archie's law (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F17"/>) and exhibits a different functional relationship between the formation factor and porosity than the simple power law of Archie. One possible reason might be the influence of surface conductivity. Interestingly the data in the upper section of the borehole (42–72 m) would suggest a higher matrix conductivity than in the lower part of the borehole (105–120 m). The upper section contains stronger ductile deformation and thus more mylonitic zones. A recent study of electrical properties of mylonites from the Alpine Fault project in New Zealand found values ranging from 675 to 75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> m <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.80"/>.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F15"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A2}?><label>Figure A2</label><caption><p id="d1e3113">Comparison of zero-time corrected travel times of the 2015 and 2016 BHR data.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f15.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F16"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A3}?><label>Figure A3</label><caption><p id="d1e3126"><bold>(a)</bold> Neutron–neutron counts and best-fitting BHR porosity. <bold>(b)</bold> Fitted relation between the neutron–neutron and the BHR porosity overlaying a corresponding histogram crossplot.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f16.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F17"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A4}?><label>Figure A4</label><caption><p id="d1e3144">Formation factor vs. porosity obtained from the borehole radar for a permittivity of the solid of 5.69. The formation factor is calculated from the normal resistivity measurements of 16 in. (0.4 m) and 32 in. (0.8 m) (2016) and the fluid resistivity obtained from the STS measurement at ambient conditions (2016). For comparison Archie's law with a cementation factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is shown.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f17.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>

<?pagebreak page850?><app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{B}?><label>Appendix B</label><title/>
      <p id="d1e3188">The resistivity logs were acquired in 3 consecutive years. The 2015 data correspond to open-hole conditions. They are affected by the pumping of lake water into the borehole as well as by the remnants of polymer-based drilling mud in the formation. Conversely, the 2016 and 2017 data were measured through slotted PVC casing. As a result, the logs contain spikes at the positions of the casing joints as illustrated in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F18"/> for the normal resistivity, single point resistance, and SP data. We corrected the data by removing the spikes and subsequent linear interpolation of the gaps. For the normal resistivity data, we recovered the variability in the logs by replacing the interpolated sections with the 2015 data shifted to the respective baseline of the 2016 or 2017 data <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="paren.81"/>. The resulting logs are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F19"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3198">The SP measurements are additionally affected by a very strong drift, since the steel cable suspending the tool serves as the reference electrode. The data are unusable until the exposed cable is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m below the water level. Since the water table was at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m borehole depth at the time of the measurements in 2016 and 2017,  the logs can only be used from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m onwards. To compensate for the remaining drift in the data below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m borehole depth, we remove a linear background trend for each dataset separately instead of normalizing the data to a constant baseline value (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F18"/>).</p>
      <p id="d1e3243">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F19"/> shows a selection of the casing-corrected resistivity data measured in 2016 and 2017 in comparison to the 2015 open-hole data. Across all 3 years, the normal resistivity (N16) measurements are consistent. The biggest differences occur in the high-porosity zone A and around the cementation region of the borehole. The most likely reason is a change in water resistivity possibly due to the drilling mud. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="text.82"/> performed a modeling study to account for the effect of the PVC casing on the resistivity values after correcting for the joints and found that the impact was not significant.</p>
      <p id="d1e3251"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The single-point resistivity measurements allow the detection of individual fractures more precisely than normal resistivity measurements, but they are very sensitive to the fluid resistivity, which was significantly different in 2015 compared to the other 2 years. There are differences between the 2015 and the 2016/2017 logs around 70 to 86 and 113 to 122 m borehole depth, which most likely are due to the remnant presence of drilling fluid in the adjacent formation as well as to the pumping of lake water into the borehole. Interestingly, a series of repeat measurements in 2015 showed that, in these two zones, the fluid resistivity equilibrates more slowly than in other zones of the borehole. Furthermore, the single-point resistivity logs seem to be more strongly affected by the PVC casing and are generally noisier than the normal resistivity measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e3256">For the SP data, we observe a marked difference between the data acquired in 2015 and those acquired in 2016 and 2017. The 2015 dataset is quite noisy, and the only anomaly visible is in the vicinity of the cemented zone. One reason for the difference between the datasets might again be the remnant presence of polymer-based drilling mud, which changed the viscosity and the chemical composition of the water in the adjacent formation. Apart from this, lake water was pumped into the borehole. This raised the water level to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m borehole depth, which is 20 m above the ambient levels found in 2016 and 2017. Correspondingly, the SP data measured in 2015 do not reflect hydraulic steady-state conditions of the borehole and its vicinity.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F18"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B1}?><label>Figure B1</label><caption><p id="d1e3271">Comparison of open- and cased-hole data. From left to right: normal resistivity, single-point resistance, and SP logs for 2015, 2016, and 2017 with casing joints marked in grey, casing-corrected SP log, and background-trend-corrected SP log.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f18.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F19"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B2}?><label>Figure B2</label><caption><p id="d1e3284">Comparison of open-hole and casing-corrected logs.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/11/829/2020/se-11-829-2020-f19.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e3301">The data can be downloaded at <uri>https://github.com/rockphysicsUNIL/GDP1_Well_log_data</uri> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="altparen.83"/>) and are also available upon request.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e3313">EC was responsible for data processing, analysis, and interpretation and preparation of the paper.
AG was responsible for data acquisition and conditioning, processing of borehole radar data, and contributing to the overall data interpretation.
LB was responsible for the design of the logging campaign, data acquisition, and support with the data analysis.
DE was responsible for geological interpretation, analysis of the OTV data, and porosity estimation from image analysis.
ET was responsible for acquisition and processing of the normal resistivity data.
KH was responsible for probability tomography of the self potential data and support with the interpretation of the self potential data.
KH was responsible for project leadership, contributions to data interpretation, and paper preparation.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e3319">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3325">This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation through the National Research Programme 70 “Energy Turnaround” and completed within the Swiss Competence Center on Energy Research – Supply of Electricity, with the support of the Swiss Innovation Agency. We thank Tobias Zahner for his active involvement in the 2015 and 2016 data acquisition campaign, Yannick Forth and Jörg Renner from Ruhr-University Bochum for providing Archimedes type density measurements and porosity measurements performed on the core samples, and Jörg Renner for the ultrasonic velocity measurements.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e3331">This research has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 407040_153889).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3337">This paper was edited by Charlotte Krawczyk and reviewed by Thomas Doe and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Ahlbom et al.(1989)</label><?label ahlbom1989characterization?><mixed-citation>
Ahlbom, K., Smeallie, J., Tirén, S., Andersson, J.-E., Ekman, L.,
Nordquist, R., Wikberg, P., Andersson, P., and Gustafsson, E.:
Characterization of fracture zone 2, Finnsjön study-site, SKB Technical
Report 89-19, Tech. rep., Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, Swedish
Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Arthur and Vassilvitskii(2007)</label><?label arthur2007k?><mixed-citation>Arthur, D. and Vassilvitskii, S.: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-means++: The advantages of careful seeding,
in: Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete
algorithms, 1027–1035, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Barbosa et al.(2019)</label><?label barbosa2019estimation?><mixed-citation>
Barbosa, N. D., Caspari, E., Rubino, J. G., Greenwood, A., Baron, L., and
Holliger, K.: Estimation of fracture compliance from attenuation and velocity
analysis of full-waveform sonic log data, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 124, 2738–2761, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Barton et al.(1995)</label><?label barton1995fluid?><mixed-citation>
Barton, C. A., Zoback, M. D., and Moos, D.: Fluid flow along potentially active
faults in crystalline rock, Geology, 23, 683–686, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Belgrano et al.(2016)</label><?label belgrano2016inherited?><mixed-citation>
Belgrano, T. M., Herwegh, M., and Berger, A.: Inherited structural controls on
fault geometry, architecture and hydrothermal activity: an example from
Grimsel Pass, Switzerland, Swiss J. Geosci., 109, 345–364, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Berkowitz(2002)</label><?label berkowitz2002characterizing?><mixed-citation>
Berkowitz, B.: Characterizing flow and transport in fractured geological media:
A review, Adv. Water Resour., 25, 861–884, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Brace(1980)</label><?label brace1980permeability?><mixed-citation>
Brace, W.: Permeability of crystalline and argillaceous rocks, in:
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &amp; Geomechanics
Abstracts, Vol. 17, 241–251, Elsevier, Pergamon, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Bradford et al.(2009)</label><?label Bradford?><mixed-citation>
Bradford, J. H., Clement, W. P., and Barrash, W.: Estimating porosity with
ground-penetrating radar reflection tomography: A controlled 3-D experiment
at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site, Water Resour. Res., 45,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Caine et al.(1996)</label><?label caine1996fault?><mixed-citation>
Caine, J. S., Evans, J. P., and Forster, C. B.: Fault zone architecture and
permeability structure, Geology, 24, 1025–1028, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Caspari(2020)</label><?label casp2020?><mixed-citation>Caspari, E.: GDP1 well log data from a hydrothermally altered shear zone, available at: <uri>https://github.com/rockphysicsUNIL/GDP1_Well_log_data</uri>, last access: 17 March 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Cheng and Renner(2017)</label><?label cheng2017exploratory?><mixed-citation>
Cheng, Y. and Renner, J.: Exploratory use of periodic pumping tests for
hydraulic characterization of faults, Geophys. J. Int., 212,
543–565, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Diamond et al.(2018)</label><?label DiamondG?><mixed-citation>
Diamond, L. W., Wanner, C., and Waber, H. N.: Penetration depth of meteoric
water in orogenic geothermal systems, Geology, 46, 1063–1066, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Di Maio and Patella(1994)</label><?label di1994self?><mixed-citation>
Di Maio, R. and Patella, D.: Self-potential anomaly generation in volcanic
areas. The Mt, Etna case-history, Acta Vulcanol., 4, 119–124, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Dorn et al.(2012)</label><?label dorn2012fracture?><mixed-citation>
Dorn, C., Linde, N., Doetsch, J., Le Borgne, T., and Bour, O.: Fracture imaging
within a granitic rock aquifer using multiple-offset single-hole and
cross-hole GPR reflection data, J. Appl. Geophys., 78, 123–132,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Egli et al.(2018)</label><?label egli2018structural?><mixed-citation>
Egli, D., Baumann, R., Küng, S., Berger, A., Baron, L., and Herwegh, M.:
Structural characteristics, bulk porosity and evolution of an exhumed
long-lived hydrothermal system, Tectonophysics, 747, 239–258, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Ellis and Singer(2007)</label><?label ellis2007well?><mixed-citation>
Ellis, D. V. and Singer, J. M.: Well logging for earth scientists, Vol. 692,
Springer, Dordrecht, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Evans et al.(1997)</label><?label evans1997permeability?><mixed-citation>
Evans, J. P., Forster, C. B., and Goddard, J. V.: Permeability of fault-related
rocks, and implications for hydraulic structure of fault zones, J.
Struct. Geol., 19, 1393–1404, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Evans et al.(2005)</label><?label evans2005permeability?><mixed-citation>Evans, K. F., Genter, A., and Sausse, J.: Permeability creation and damage due
to massive fluid injections into granite at 3.5 km at Soultz: 1. Borehole
observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 110, B04203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003168" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JB003168</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Faulkner and Armitage(2013)</label><?label faulkner2013effect?><mixed-citation>
Faulkner, D. and Armitage, P.: The effect of tectonic environment on
permeability development around faults and in the brittle crust, Earth
Planet. Sc. Lett., 375, 71–77, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Genter et al.(1997)</label><?label genter1997comparative?><mixed-citation>
Genter, A., Castaing, C., Dezayes, C., Tenzer, H., Traineau, H., and Villemin,
T.: Comparative analysis of direct (core) and indirect (borehole imaging
tools) collection of fracture data in the Hot Dry Rock Soultz reservoir
(France), J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 102,
15419–15431, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page853?><ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Glover(2015)</label><?label glover2015geophysical?><mixed-citation>
Glover, P.: Geophysical properties of the near surface Earth: Electrical
properties, in: Treatise on Geophysics, 2nd Edn., 89–137,
Elsevier, Oxford, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Greaves et al.(1996)</label><?label greaves1996velocity?><mixed-citation>
Greaves, R. J., Lesmes, D. P., Lee, J. M., and Toksöz, M. N.: Velocity
variations and water content estimated from multi-offset, ground-penetrating
radar, Geophysics, 61, 683–695, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Greenwood et al.(2019)</label><?label greenwood2019characterization?><mixed-citation>
Greenwood, A., Caspari, E., Egli, D., Baron, L., Zahner, T., Hunziker, J., and
Holliger, K.: Characterization and imaging of a hydrothermally active
near-vertical fault zone in crystalline rocks based on hydrophone VSP data,
Tectonophysics, 750, 153–176, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{H{\"{a}}mmann et~al.(1997)}}?><label>Hämmann et al.(1997)</label><?label hammann1997self?><mixed-citation>
Hämmann, M., Maurer, H., Green, A., and Horstmeyer, H.: Self-potential
image reconstruction: capabilities and limitations, J. Environ. Eng. Geoph., 2, 21–35, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Himmelsbach et al.(2003)</label><?label himmelsbach2003grimsel?><mixed-citation>
Himmelsbach, T., Shao, H., Wieczorek, K., Flach, D., Schuster, K., Alheid,
H.-J., Liou, T.-S., Bartlakowski, J., and Krekeler, T.: Grimsel Test Site
Investigation Phase V Effective Field Parameter EFP, Technischer
Bericht-NAGRA NTB, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Hobday and Worthington(2012)</label><?label hobday2012field?><mixed-citation>
Hobday, C. and Worthington, M.: Field measurements of normal and shear fracture
compliance, Geophys. Prospect., 60, 488–499, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Hofmann et al.(2004)</label><?label hofmann2004topography?><mixed-citation>
Hofmann, B. A., Helfer, M., Diamond, L. W., Villa, I. M., Frei, R., and
Eikenberg, J.: Topography-driven hydrothermal breccia mineralization of
Pliocene age at Grimsel Pass, Aar massif, Central Swiss Alps, Schweiz.
Miner. Petrog., 84, 271–302, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Holbrook et al.(1992)</label><?label holbrook1992seismic?><mixed-citation>
Holbrook, W. S., Mooney, W. D., and Christensen, N. I.: The seismic velocity
structure of the deep continental crust, in: Continental Lower Crust,
Developments in Geotectonics, edited by: Fountain, D. M., Arculus, R., and Kay,
R. W.,  1–43, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Hornby(1989)</label><?label hornby1989imaging?><mixed-citation>
Hornby, B. E.: Imaging of near-borehole structure using full-waveform sonic
data, Geophysics, 54, 747–757, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Iuliano et al.(2002)</label><?label iuliano2002looking?><mixed-citation>
Iuliano, T., Mauriello, P., and Patella, D.: Looking inside Mount Vesuvius by
potential fields integrated probability tomographies, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 113, 363–378, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Jackson(2015)</label><?label jackson2015tools?><mixed-citation>
Jackson, M.: Tools and techniques: Self-potential methods, in: Treatise on
Geophysics, 2nd Edn.,  261–293, Elsevier, Oxford, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Keys and Sullivan(1979)</label><?label keys1979role?><mixed-citation>
Keys, W. S. and Sullivan, J. K.: Role of borehole geophysics in defining the
physical characteristics of the Raft River geothermal reservoir, Idaho,
Geophysics, 44, 1116–1141, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Kluge et al.(2017)</label><?label Kluge?><mixed-citation>
Kluge, K., Toy, V., Ohneiser, C., and Lockner, D.: Electrical
properties of schist and mylonite from the South Island, New Zealand:
Exploring the source of the Southern Alps Anomalous Conductor,
Geophys. Res. Abstr.,
EGU2017-10139, EGU General Assembly 2017, Vienna, Austria, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Liu and Martinez(2014)</label><?label liu2014seismic?><mixed-citation>
Liu, E. and Martinez, A.: Seismic fracture characterization, EAGE,  Oxford, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Loew et al.(2010)</label><?label loew2010engineering?><mixed-citation>
Loew, S., Barla, G., and Diederichs, M.: Engineering geology of Alpine tunnels:
Past, present and future, in: Geologically active, Proceedings of the 11th
IAEG Congress, 201–253, CRC press, Auckland, NZ, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Mauriello and Patella(1999)</label><?label mauriello1999resistivity?><mixed-citation>
Mauriello, P. and Patella, D.: Resistivity anomaly imaging by probability
tomography, Geophys. Prospect., 47, 411–429, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Nelson(2001)</label><?label nelson2001geologic?><mixed-citation>
Nelson, R. A.: Geological analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs, 2nd Edn., Gulf Professional Publishing, Woburn, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Olsson et al.(1992)</label><?label olsson1992borehole?><mixed-citation>
Olsson, O., Falk, L., Forslund, O., Lundmark, L., and Sandberg, E.: Borehole
radar applied to the characterization of hydraulically conductive fracture
zones in crystalline rock 1, Geophys. Prospect., 40, 109–142, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Paillet(1983)</label><?label paillet1983acoustic?><mixed-citation>
Paillet, F. L.: Acoustic characterization of fracture permeability at Chalk
River, Ontario, Can. Geotech. J., 20, 468–476, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Paillet(1994)</label><?label paillet1994application?><mixed-citation>Paillet, F. L.: Application of borehole geophysics in the characterization of
flow in fractured rocks, Water-Resources Investigations Report, 93, 4214, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3133/wri934214" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3133/wri934214</ext-link>,
1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Prioul and Jocker(2009)</label><?label prioul2009fracture?><mixed-citation>
Prioul, R. and Jocker, J.: Fracture characterization at multiple scales using
borehole images, sonic logs, and walkaround vertical seismic profile, AAPG
Bull., 93, 1503–1516, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Regenauer-Lieb et al.(2015)</label><?label regenauer2015deep?><mixed-citation>
Regenauer-Lieb, K., Bunger, A., Chua, H. T., Dyskin, A., Fusseis, F., Gaede,
O., Jeffrey, R., Karrech, A., Kohl, T., Liu, J., Lyakhovsky, V., Pasternak, E., Podgorney, R., Poulet, T., Rahman, S., Schrank, C., Trefry, M., Veveakis, M., Wu, B., Yuen, D. A., Wellmann, F., and Zhang, X.: Deep geothermal: The
“Moon Landing” mission in the unconventional energy and minerals space,
J. Earth Sci., 26, 2–10, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Revil et al.(2003)</label><?label revil2003principles?><mixed-citation>Revil, A., Naudet, V., Nouzaret, J., and Pessel, M.: Principles of
electrography applied to self-potential electrokinetic sources and
hydrogeological applications, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1114, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000916" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001WR000916</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>Salisbury et al.(2003)</label><?label salisbury2003acoustic?><mixed-citation>
Salisbury, M. H., Harvey, C. W., Matthews, L., Eaton, D., and Milkereit, B.:
The acoustic properties of ores and host rocks in hardrock terranes, Hardrock
seismic exploration, edited by: Eaton, D. W., Milkereit, B., and Salisbury, M. H.,
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Okla, 9–19, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Saracco et al.(2004)</label><?label saracco2004localization?><mixed-citation>Saracco, G., Labazuy, P., and Moreau, F.: Localization of self-potential
sources in volcano-electric effect with complex continuous wavelet transform
and electrical tomography methods for an active volcano, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 31, L12610, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019554" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GL019554</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Schmitt et al.(2003)</label><?label schmitt2003geophysical?><mixed-citation>
Schmitt, D. R., Mwenifumbo, C. J., Pflug, K. A., and Meglis, I. L.: Geophysical
logging for elastic properties in hard rock: a tutorial, Hardrock seismic
exploration, edited by: Eaton, D. W.,  Milkereit, B., and Salisbury, M. H., Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Okla,  20–42, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Sonney and Vuataz(2008)</label><?label sonney2008properties?><mixed-citation>
Sonney, R. and Vuataz, F.-D.: Properties of geothermal fluids in Switzerland: a
new interactive database, Geothermics, 37, 496–509, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Stephens et al.(2015)</label><?label stephens2015review?><mixed-citation>
Stephens, M. B., Follin, S., Petersson, J., Isaksson, H., Juhlin, C., and
Simeonov, A.: Review of the deterministic modelling of deformation zones and
fracture domains at the site proposed for a spent nuclear fuel repository,
Sweden, and consequences of structural anisotropy, Tectonophysics, 653,
68–94, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Suski et al.(2008)</label><?label suski2008detection?><mixed-citation>
Suski, B., Ladner, F., Baron, L., Vuataz, F.-D., Philippossian, F., and
Holliger, K.: Detection and characterization of hydraulically active
fractures in a carbonate aquifer: results from self-potential, temperature
and fluid electrical conductivity logging in the Combioula hydrothermal
system in the southwestern Swiss alps, Hydrogeol. J., 16, 1319–1328,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Tibshirani et al.(2001)</label><?label tibshirani2001estimating?><mixed-citation>
Tibshirani, R., Walther, G., and Hastie, T.: Estimating the number of clusters
in a data set via the gap statistic, J. R. Stat.
Soc. B, 63, 411–423, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Toschini(2018)</label><?label Toschini?><mixed-citation>
Toschini, E.: Exploration et caractérisation d'une zone hydrothermale
fracturée active: acquisition, traitement et interprétation de mesures
géoelectriques dans un puits, Master's thesis, University of Lausanne, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><label>Townend et al.(2013)</label><?label townend2013late?><mixed-citation>
Townend, J., Sutherland, R., Toy, V., Eccles, J., Boulton, C., Cox, S., and
McNamara, D.: Late-interseismic state of a continental plate-bounding fault:
Petrophysical results from <?pagebreak page854?>DFDP-1 wireline logging and core analysis, Alpine
Fault, New Zealand, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 14, 3801–3820,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><label>Valley(2007)</label><?label valley2007relation?><mixed-citation>Valley, B. C.: The relation between natural fracturing and stress
heterogeneities in deep-seated crystalline rocks at Soultz-sous-Forêts
(France), PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, 2007.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>Wanner et al.(2019)</label><?label WANNER2019?><mixed-citation>
Wanner, C., Diamond, L. W., and Alt-Epping, P.: Quantification of 3-D Thermal
Anomalies From Surface Observations of an Orogenic Geothermal System (Grimsel
Pass, Swiss Alps), J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 124,
10839–10854, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Characteristics of a fracture network surrounding a hydrothermally altered shear zone from geophysical borehole logs</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Hydrothermally active and altered fault/shear zones in crystalline rocks are of practical importance because of their potential similarities with petrothermal reservoirs and exploitable natural hydrothermal systems. The petrophysical and hydraulic characterization of such structures is therefore of significant interest. Here, we report the results of corresponding investigations on a prominent shear zone of this type located in the crystalline Aar massif of the central Swiss Alps. A shallow borehole was drilled, which acutely intersects the core of the shear zone and is entirely situated in its surrounding damage zone. The focus of this study is a detailed characterization of this damage zone based on geophysical borehole measurements. For this purpose, a comprehensive suite of borehole logs, comprising passive and active nuclear, full-waveform sonic, resistivity, self-potential, optical televiewer, and borehole radar data, was collected. The migrated images of the borehole radar reflection data together with the optical televiewer data reveal a complicated network of intersecting fractures in the damage zone. Consequently, the associated petrophysical properties, notably the sonic velocities and porosities, are distinctly different from intact granitic formations. Cluster analyses of the borehole logs in combination with the structural interpretations of the optical televiewer data illustrate that the variations in the petrophysical properties are predominantly governed by the intense brittle deformation. The imaged fracture network and the high-porosity zones associated with brittle deformation represent the main flow pathways. This interpretation is consistent with the available geophysical measurements as well as the analyses of the retrieved core material. Furthermore, the interpretation of the self-potential and fluid resistivity log data suggests a compartmentalized hydraulic behavior, as evidenced by inflows of water into the borehole from different sources, which is likely to be governed by the steeply dipping structures.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Ahlbom et al.(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Ahlbom, K., Smeallie, J., Tirén, S., Andersson, J.-E., Ekman, L.,
Nordquist, R., Wikberg, P., Andersson, P., and Gustafsson, E.:
Characterization of fracture zone 2, Finnsjön study-site, SKB Technical
Report 89-19, Tech. rep., Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, Swedish
Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Arthur and Vassilvitskii(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Arthur, D. and Vassilvitskii, S.: <i>k</i>-means++: The advantages of careful seeding,
in: Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete
algorithms, 1027–1035, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Barbosa et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Barbosa, N. D., Caspari, E., Rubino, J. G., Greenwood, A., Baron, L., and
Holliger, K.: Estimation of fracture compliance from attenuation and velocity
analysis of full-waveform sonic log data, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 124, 2738–2761, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Barton et al.(1995)</label><mixed-citation>
Barton, C. A., Zoback, M. D., and Moos, D.: Fluid flow along potentially active
faults in crystalline rock, Geology, 23, 683–686, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Belgrano et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Belgrano, T. M., Herwegh, M., and Berger, A.: Inherited structural controls on
fault geometry, architecture and hydrothermal activity: an example from
Grimsel Pass, Switzerland, Swiss J. Geosci., 109, 345–364, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Berkowitz(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Berkowitz, B.: Characterizing flow and transport in fractured geological media:
A review, Adv. Water Resour., 25, 861–884, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Brace(1980)</label><mixed-citation>
Brace, W.: Permeability of crystalline and argillaceous rocks, in:
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &amp; Geomechanics
Abstracts, Vol. 17, 241–251, Elsevier, Pergamon, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Bradford et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Bradford, J. H., Clement, W. P., and Barrash, W.: Estimating porosity with
ground-penetrating radar reflection tomography: A controlled 3-D experiment
at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site, Water Resour. Res., 45,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Caine et al.(1996)</label><mixed-citation>
Caine, J. S., Evans, J. P., and Forster, C. B.: Fault zone architecture and
permeability structure, Geology, 24, 1025–1028, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Caspari(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Caspari, E.: GDP1 well log data from a hydrothermally altered shear zone, available at: <a href="https://github.com/rockphysicsUNIL/GDP1_Well_log_data" target="_blank"/>, last access: 17 March 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Cheng and Renner(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Cheng, Y. and Renner, J.: Exploratory use of periodic pumping tests for
hydraulic characterization of faults, Geophys. J. Int., 212,
543–565, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Diamond et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Diamond, L. W., Wanner, C., and Waber, H. N.: Penetration depth of meteoric
water in orogenic geothermal systems, Geology, 46, 1063–1066, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Di Maio and Patella(1994)</label><mixed-citation>
Di Maio, R. and Patella, D.: Self-potential anomaly generation in volcanic
areas. The Mt, Etna case-history, Acta Vulcanol., 4, 119–124, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Dorn et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Dorn, C., Linde, N., Doetsch, J., Le Borgne, T., and Bour, O.: Fracture imaging
within a granitic rock aquifer using multiple-offset single-hole and
cross-hole GPR reflection data, J. Appl. Geophys., 78, 123–132,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Egli et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Egli, D., Baumann, R., Küng, S., Berger, A., Baron, L., and Herwegh, M.:
Structural characteristics, bulk porosity and evolution of an exhumed
long-lived hydrothermal system, Tectonophysics, 747, 239–258, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Ellis and Singer(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Ellis, D. V. and Singer, J. M.: Well logging for earth scientists, Vol. 692,
Springer, Dordrecht, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Evans et al.(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Evans, J. P., Forster, C. B., and Goddard, J. V.: Permeability of fault-related
rocks, and implications for hydraulic structure of fault zones, J.
Struct. Geol., 19, 1393–1404, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Evans et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Evans, K. F., Genter, A., and Sausse, J.: Permeability creation and damage due
to massive fluid injections into granite at 3.5&thinsp;km at Soultz: 1. Borehole
observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 110, B04203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003168" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003168</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Faulkner and Armitage(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Faulkner, D. and Armitage, P.: The effect of tectonic environment on
permeability development around faults and in the brittle crust, Earth
Planet. Sc. Lett., 375, 71–77, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Genter et al.(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Genter, A., Castaing, C., Dezayes, C., Tenzer, H., Traineau, H., and Villemin,
T.: Comparative analysis of direct (core) and indirect (borehole imaging
tools) collection of fracture data in the Hot Dry Rock Soultz reservoir
(France), J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 102,
15419–15431, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Glover(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Glover, P.: Geophysical properties of the near surface Earth: Electrical
properties, in: Treatise on Geophysics, 2nd Edn., 89–137,
Elsevier, Oxford, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Greaves et al.(1996)</label><mixed-citation>
Greaves, R. J., Lesmes, D. P., Lee, J. M., and Toksöz, M. N.: Velocity
variations and water content estimated from multi-offset, ground-penetrating
radar, Geophysics, 61, 683–695, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Greenwood et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Greenwood, A., Caspari, E., Egli, D., Baron, L., Zahner, T., Hunziker, J., and
Holliger, K.: Characterization and imaging of a hydrothermally active
near-vertical fault zone in crystalline rocks based on hydrophone VSP data,
Tectonophysics, 750, 153–176, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Hämmann et al.(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Hämmann, M., Maurer, H., Green, A., and Horstmeyer, H.: Self-potential
image reconstruction: capabilities and limitations, J. Environ. Eng. Geoph., 2, 21–35, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Himmelsbach et al.(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Himmelsbach, T., Shao, H., Wieczorek, K., Flach, D., Schuster, K., Alheid,
H.-J., Liou, T.-S., Bartlakowski, J., and Krekeler, T.: Grimsel Test Site
Investigation Phase V Effective Field Parameter EFP, Technischer
Bericht-NAGRA NTB, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Hobday and Worthington(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Hobday, C. and Worthington, M.: Field measurements of normal and shear fracture
compliance, Geophys. Prospect., 60, 488–499, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Hofmann et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Hofmann, B. A., Helfer, M., Diamond, L. W., Villa, I. M., Frei, R., and
Eikenberg, J.: Topography-driven hydrothermal breccia mineralization of
Pliocene age at Grimsel Pass, Aar massif, Central Swiss Alps, Schweiz.
Miner. Petrog., 84, 271–302, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Holbrook et al.(1992)</label><mixed-citation>
Holbrook, W. S., Mooney, W. D., and Christensen, N. I.: The seismic velocity
structure of the deep continental crust, in: Continental Lower Crust,
Developments in Geotectonics, edited by: Fountain, D. M., Arculus, R., and Kay,
R. W.,  1–43, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Hornby(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Hornby, B. E.: Imaging of near-borehole structure using full-waveform sonic
data, Geophysics, 54, 747–757, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Iuliano et al.(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Iuliano, T., Mauriello, P., and Patella, D.: Looking inside Mount Vesuvius by
potential fields integrated probability tomographies, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 113, 363–378, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Jackson(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Jackson, M.: Tools and techniques: Self-potential methods, in: Treatise on
Geophysics, 2nd Edn.,  261–293, Elsevier, Oxford, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Keys and Sullivan(1979)</label><mixed-citation>
Keys, W. S. and Sullivan, J. K.: Role of borehole geophysics in defining the
physical characteristics of the Raft River geothermal reservoir, Idaho,
Geophysics, 44, 1116–1141, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Kluge et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Kluge, K., Toy, V., Ohneiser, C., and Lockner, D.: Electrical
properties of schist and mylonite from the South Island, New Zealand:
Exploring the source of the Southern Alps Anomalous Conductor,
Geophys. Res. Abstr.,
EGU2017-10139, EGU General Assembly 2017, Vienna, Austria, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Liu and Martinez(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, E. and Martinez, A.: Seismic fracture characterization, EAGE,  Oxford, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Loew et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Loew, S., Barla, G., and Diederichs, M.: Engineering geology of Alpine tunnels:
Past, present and future, in: Geologically active, Proceedings of the 11th
IAEG Congress, 201–253, CRC press, Auckland, NZ, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Mauriello and Patella(1999)</label><mixed-citation>
Mauriello, P. and Patella, D.: Resistivity anomaly imaging by probability
tomography, Geophys. Prospect., 47, 411–429, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Nelson(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Nelson, R. A.: Geological analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs, 2nd Edn., Gulf Professional Publishing, Woburn, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Olsson et al.(1992)</label><mixed-citation>
Olsson, O., Falk, L., Forslund, O., Lundmark, L., and Sandberg, E.: Borehole
radar applied to the characterization of hydraulically conductive fracture
zones in crystalline rock 1, Geophys. Prospect., 40, 109–142, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Paillet(1983)</label><mixed-citation>
Paillet, F. L.: Acoustic characterization of fracture permeability at Chalk
River, Ontario, Can. Geotech. J., 20, 468–476, 1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Paillet(1994)</label><mixed-citation>
Paillet, F. L.: Application of borehole geophysics in the characterization of
flow in fractured rocks, Water-Resources Investigations Report, 93, 4214, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/wri934214" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3133/wri934214</a>,
1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>Prioul and Jocker(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Prioul, R. and Jocker, J.: Fracture characterization at multiple scales using
borehole images, sonic logs, and walkaround vertical seismic profile, AAPG
Bull., 93, 1503–1516, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>Regenauer-Lieb et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Regenauer-Lieb, K., Bunger, A., Chua, H. T., Dyskin, A., Fusseis, F., Gaede,
O., Jeffrey, R., Karrech, A., Kohl, T., Liu, J., Lyakhovsky, V., Pasternak, E., Podgorney, R., Poulet, T., Rahman, S., Schrank, C., Trefry, M., Veveakis, M., Wu, B., Yuen, D. A., Wellmann, F., and Zhang, X.: Deep geothermal: The
“Moon Landing” mission in the unconventional energy and minerals space,
J. Earth Sci., 26, 2–10, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Revil et al.(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Revil, A., Naudet, V., Nouzaret, J., and Pessel, M.: Principles of
electrography applied to self-potential electrokinetic sources and
hydrogeological applications, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1114, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000916" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000916</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Salisbury et al.(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Salisbury, M. H., Harvey, C. W., Matthews, L., Eaton, D., and Milkereit, B.:
The acoustic properties of ores and host rocks in hardrock terranes, Hardrock
seismic exploration, edited by: Eaton, D. W., Milkereit, B., and Salisbury, M. H.,
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Okla, 9–19, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>Saracco et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Saracco, G., Labazuy, P., and Moreau, F.: Localization of self-potential
sources in volcano-electric effect with complex continuous wavelet transform
and electrical tomography methods for an active volcano, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 31, L12610, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019554" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019554</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Schmitt et al.(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Schmitt, D. R., Mwenifumbo, C. J., Pflug, K. A., and Meglis, I. L.: Geophysical
logging for elastic properties in hard rock: a tutorial, Hardrock seismic
exploration, edited by: Eaton, D. W.,  Milkereit, B., and Salisbury, M. H., Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Okla,  20–42, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Sonney and Vuataz(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Sonney, R. and Vuataz, F.-D.: Properties of geothermal fluids in Switzerland: a
new interactive database, Geothermics, 37, 496–509, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Stephens et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Stephens, M. B., Follin, S., Petersson, J., Isaksson, H., Juhlin, C., and
Simeonov, A.: Review of the deterministic modelling of deformation zones and
fracture domains at the site proposed for a spent nuclear fuel repository,
Sweden, and consequences of structural anisotropy, Tectonophysics, 653,
68–94, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Suski et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Suski, B., Ladner, F., Baron, L., Vuataz, F.-D., Philippossian, F., and
Holliger, K.: Detection and characterization of hydraulically active
fractures in a carbonate aquifer: results from self-potential, temperature
and fluid electrical conductivity logging in the Combioula hydrothermal
system in the southwestern Swiss alps, Hydrogeol. J., 16, 1319–1328,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>Tibshirani et al.(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Tibshirani, R., Walther, G., and Hastie, T.: Estimating the number of clusters
in a data set via the gap statistic, J. R. Stat.
Soc. B, 63, 411–423, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Toschini(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Toschini, E.: Exploration et caractérisation d'une zone hydrothermale
fracturée active: acquisition, traitement et interprétation de mesures
géoelectriques dans un puits, Master's thesis, University of Lausanne, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Townend et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Townend, J., Sutherland, R., Toy, V., Eccles, J., Boulton, C., Cox, S., and
McNamara, D.: Late-interseismic state of a continental plate-bounding fault:
Petrophysical results from DFDP-1 wireline logging and core analysis, Alpine
Fault, New Zealand, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 14, 3801–3820,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>Valley(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Valley, B. C.: The relation between natural fracturing and stress
heterogeneities in deep-seated crystalline rocks at Soultz-sous-Forêts
(France), PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, 2007.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>Wanner et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Wanner, C., Diamond, L. W., and Alt-Epping, P.: Quantification of 3-D Thermal
Anomalies From Surface Observations of an Orogenic Geothermal System (Grimsel
Pass, Swiss Alps), J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 124,
10839–10854, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
