The analysis of ZTEM data across the Humble magnetic anomaly, Alaska
Daniel Sattel 1 3 Ken Witherly 21 EM Solutions LLC, 1101 Illinois Street, Golden, CO 80401, USA.
2 Condor Consulting, Inc., 2201 Kipling Street, Suite 150, Lakewood, CO 80215, USA.
3 Corresponding author. Email: dsattel@comcast.net
Exploration Geophysics 46(1) 19-26 https://doi.org/10.1071/EG14006
Submitted: 21 January 2014 Accepted: 19 June 2014 Published: 11 September 2014
Abstract
ZTEM data acquired across the Humble magnetic anomaly of almost 30 000 nT were analysed for the presence of a magnetic gradient response and the effects from elevated magnetic susceptibilities. Mag3D inversion of the magnetic data indicates magnetic susceptibility values as high as 2.0 (SI).
The response of moving the receiver coil through the magnetic-field gradient peaks at 0.01 Hz and drops off strongly with frequency. Lacking information about the field strength at the base station precludes the comparison of amplitudes between computed gradient responses and the survey data, but the comparison of response shapes suggests that the gradient responses are too small to have a noticeable effect on the survey data.
ZTEM responses were forward modelled with a 3D algorithm developed at the University of British Columbia Geophysical Inversion Facility (UBC-GIF) that takes into account electric conductivities σ and magnetic susceptibilities κ, in order to assess the impact of the elevated κ−values derived from the Mag3D inversion. Computing the ZTEM response for these κ-values combined with resistive half-spaces indicates that the response amplitudes and shapes strongly depend on the background resistivities. Ignoring the elevated κ-values during an inversion can result in patterns that resemble crop circles.
The approximate conductivity structure of the survey area was derived with a UBC-GIF 3D ZTEM inversion, which models κ = 0. Forward-model results of these conductivities combined with the elevated κ-values derived from the Mag3D inversion indicate that the conductivities are underestimated with the κ = 0 assumption. For an environment such as Humble, with deep-seated zones of elevated κ-values, the shallow inverted conductivity structure appears to be reliable, but the deeper structure should be interpreted with caution.
Key words: airborne electromagnetics, AFMAG, EM data modelling, inversion, magnetic susceptibility, ZTEM.
References
Cao, J., Li, X., Sun, Y., He, Z., and Morgan, F. D., 2005, An approach for simultaneously inverting MT data for resistivity and susceptibility: 75nd International Exposition and Annual Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 613–616.deGroot-Hedlin, C., and Constable, S., 1990, Occam’s inversion to generate smooth two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data: Geophysics, 55, 1613–1624
| Occam’s inversion to generate smooth two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farquharson, C. G., Oldenburg, D. W., Haber, E., and Shekhtman, R., 2002, An algorithm for the three-dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric data: 72nd International Exposition and Annual Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 649–652.
Guo, W., Dentith, M. C., Bird, R. T., and Clark, D. A., 2001, Systematic error analysis of demagnetization and implications for magnetic interpretation: Geophysics, 66, 562–570
| Systematic error analysis of demagnetization and implications for magnetic interpretation:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Holtham, E., and Oldenburg, D. W., 2010, Three-dimensional inversion of ZTEM data: Geophysical Journal International, 182, 168–182
Labson, V. F., Becker, A., Morrison, H. F., and Conti, U., 1985, Geophysical exploration with audiofrequency natural magnetic fields: Geophysics, 50, 656–664
| Geophysical exploration with audiofrequency natural magnetic fields:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Legault, J. M., 2012, Ten years of passive airborne AFMAG EM development for mineral exploration: 82nd International Exposition and Annual Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1–6.
Legault, J., Wilson, G. A., Gribenko, A. V., Zhdanov, M. S., Zhao, S., and Fisk, K., 2012, An overview of the ZTEM and AirMt airborne EM systems: a case study from the Nebo-Babel Ni-Cu-PGE deposit, West Musgrave, W.A.: Preview, 158, 26–32
Li, Y., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1996, 3-D inversion of magnetic data: Geophysics, 61, 394–408
| 3-D inversion of magnetic data:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lo, B., and Zang, M., 2008, Numerical modelling of Z-TEM (airborne AFMAG) responses to guide exploration strategies: 78th International Exposition and Annual Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1098–1101.
Sattel, D., 2000, The effect of magnetic anomalies on transient electromagnetic data: Exploration Geophysics, 31, 140–149
| The effect of magnetic anomalies on transient electromagnetic data:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sattel, D., and Witherly, K., 2012, An overview of ZTEM interpretation tools, in R. J. L. Lane, ed., Abstracts from the ASEG Natural Fields EM Forum 2012: Geoscience Australia, Geoscience Australia Record 2012/04.
Wannamaker, P. E., Stodt, J. A., and Rijo, L., 1987, A stable finite-element solution for two-dimensional magnetotelluric modeling: Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 88, 277–296
| A stable finite-element solution for two-dimensional magnetotelluric modeling:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ward, S. H., 1959, AFMAG – airborne and ground: Geophysics, 24, 761–787
| AFMAG – airborne and ground:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ward, S. H., O’Donnell, J. O., Rivera, R., Ware, G. H., and Fraser, D. C., 1966, AFMAG – applications and limitations: Geophysics, 31, 576–605
| AFMAG – applications and limitations:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ward, S. H., O’Brien, D. P., Parry, J. R., and McKnight, B. K., 1968, AFMAG – interpretation: Geophysics, 33, 621–644
| AFMAG – interpretation:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |