Reply by R. C. Sage and J. W. Lloyd

Abstract

The authors would like to thank Mr Worthington for his comments and agree that the implications are beyond local considerations. In producing the interpretations, full use of the existing borehole and geophysical data has naturally been made so that any geological maps or sections are based on such data. The objective of the paper, however, is not to emphasize the value of hydrophysics, which would appear in any event to be unnecessary, or to examine the pros and cons of primary versus secondary permeability, but primarily to show the significance of the Pleistocene geology in relation to the recharge of the Triassic Sandstones. While the hydrochemical changes in parts of the Triassic Sandstone aquifer may be attributable to permeability differences in the sandstones, as has been pointed out in the paper, the integrity of low bicarbonate concentration areas correlated with Pleistocene sand deposits over significant distances, may well indicate that the sand permeability is locally an overriding factor at shallow levels in the aquifer system.