
%0 Journal Article
%A A. Hatch, Michael 
%A J. Mutton, Andrew 
%T The effect of dipole position errors on E-field measurements in electrical geophysical surveys: is close enough good enough?
%J ASEG Extended Abstracts
%D 2003/08/01
%V 2003
%N 2
%P 1-4
%K 
%R https://doi.org/10.1071/ASEG2003AB116
%U https://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ASEG2003AB116 
%X Anomalous conductive responses that could not be related to obvious geological sources were observed in field data from a CSAMT survey in the Cobar area, New South Wales. Repeat measurements over the anomalous stations were made, yielding a substantially different resistivity response. Approximate positioning of the E-field dipole stations due to the presence of thick scrub was believed to be one possible source of error contributing to the differing responses. Subsequent test measurements in which the E-field dipole angle was varied by 10 degrees east and west of the correct direction demonstrated that such an orientation change resulted in resistivity variations of up to 50% from the true value. This is significantly larger than expected from simple theory, which suggests that the results from location errors up to 10 degrees from correct should only be a few percent. This large variation observed in the Cobar area is believed to be due to a strong geo-electrical anisotropy within the steeply dipping and highly cleaved meta-sedimentary rocks of the Cobar Basin. It was concluded that relatively small errors in receiver orientation could have a large effect on the magnitude of the received signal, which can potentially generate `false' anomalies in the derived resistivity pseudosections and inversions. It is possible that such location errors are commonly made when a standard GPS is used to locate stations on a grid. Based on the experience from the Cobar area, accurate station positioning is clearly a pre-requisite for reliable electrical surveys in any geological terrain. This paper presents field examples demonstrating the potential errors, and the results of applying more-accurate positioning techniques. Recommended methods to gauge the magnitude of the potential errors in any survey area are proposed. 
