1887
Geoelectrical Monitoring
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Electrical resistivity tomography is a technique widely used for the investigation of the structure and fluid dynamics of the shallow subsurface, particularly for hydro‐geophysical purposes, sometimes using cross‐borehole configurations. The results of electrical resistivity tomography inversion and their usefulness in solving hydrogeophysical problems, even though invariably limited by resolution issues, depend strongly on the accuracy of inversion, which in turn depends on a proper estimation and handling of data and model errors. Among model errors, one approximation often applied in cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography is that of neglecting the effects of boreholes and the fluids therein. Such effects inevitably impact the current and potential patterns as measured by electrodes in the boreholes themselves. In the presence of very saline fluids, in particular, this model approximation may prove inadequate and the tomographic inversion may yield images strongly contaminated by artefacts. In this paper, we present a case study where highly saline water was used for hydraulic fracturing to improve permeability of a shallow formation impacted by hydrocarbon contamination, with the final aim of improving the effectiveness of contaminant oxidation. The hydraulic fracturing was monitored via time‐lapse cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography. Arrival of the saline water in the monitoring borehole likely caused a strong borehole effect that significantly affected the quality and usefulness of electrical resistivity tomography inversions. In this paper, we analyse the experimental dataset and produce, via three‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography forward modelling, a viable explanation for the observed, paradoxical field results.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12111
2020-07-02
2020-09-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Binley, A., Cassiani, G., Middleton, R. and Winship, P. (2002) Vadose zone flow model parameterisation using cross‐borehole radar and resistivity imaging. Journal of Hydrology, 267(3–4), 147–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Binley, A. and Kemna, A. (2005) DC resistivity and induced polarization methods. In: Rubin, Y. and Hubbard, S.S. (Eds) Hydrogeophysics. Water Science and Technology Library, Vol. 50. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 129–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Binley, A., Ramirez, A. and Daily, W. (1995) Regularised image reconstruction of noisy electrical resistance tomography data. In: Beck, M.S., Hoyle, B.S., Morris, M.A., Waterfall, R.C. and Williams, R.A. (Eds.) Process Tomography — 1995. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop of the European Concerted Action on Process Tomography, Bergen, April 6–8, 1995. pp. 401– 410.
  4. Busato, L., Boaga, J., Perri, M.T., Majone, B., Bellin, A. and Cassiani, G. (2019) Hydrogeophysical characterization and monitoring of the hyporheic and riparian zones: the Vermigliana Creek case study. Science of the Total Environment, 648, 1105–1120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.179.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Camporese, M., Cassiani, G., Deiana, R., Salandin, P. and Binley, A. (2015) Coupled and uncoupled hydrogeophysical inversions using ensemble Kalman filter assimilation of ERT‐monitored tracer test data, Water Resources Research, 51(5), 3277–3291, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016017.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Camporese, M., Salandin, P., Cassiani, G. and Deiana, R. (2011) Assessment of local hydraulic properties from electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of a three‐dimensional synthetic tracer test experiment. Water Resources Research, 47, W12508, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010528.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cassiani, G., Bruno, V., Villa, A., Fusi, N. and Binley, A.M. (2006) A saline tracer test monitored via time‐lapse surface electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 59, 244–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cassiani, G., Godio, A., Stocco, S., Villa, A., Deiana, R., Frattini, P. and Rossi, M. (2009) Monitoring the hydrologic behaviour of steep slopes via time‐lapse electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics, 7, 475–486. Special issue on hydrogeophysics.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coggon, J.H. (1971) Electromagnetic and electrical modeling by the finite element method. Geophysics, 36, 132–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coscia, I., Linde, N., Greenhalgh, S., Vogt, T. and Green, A. (2012) Estimating traveltimes and groundwater flow patterns using 3D time‐lapse crosshole ERT imaging of electrical resistivity fluctuations induced by infiltrating river water. Geophysics, 77(4), E239–E250, https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2011-0328.1.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crestani, E., Camporese, M. and Salandin, P. (2015) Assessment of hydraulic conductivity distributions through assimilation of travel time data from ERT‐monitored tracer tests. Advances in Water Resources, 84, 23–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.07.022.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Daily, W. and Ramirez, A. (1995) Electrical‐resistance tomography during in‐situ trichloroethylene remediation at the Savanna River site. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 33, 239–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Daily, W., Ramirez, A., Binley, A. and LaBrecque, D. (2005) Electrical resistance tomography—Theory and practice. In Butler, D. K. (Ed.) Near Surface Geophysics, SEG Investigations in Geophysics, Series No. 13, Tulsa, OK.: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 525–550.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Daily, W., Ramirez, A., LaBrecque, D. and Nitao, J. (1992) Electrical resistivity tomography of vadose water movement. Water Resources Research, 28 (5), 1429–1442.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Daily, W.A., Ramirez, A., Binley, A. and LaBrecque, D. (2004) Electrical resistivity tomography. Leading Edge, 23(5), 438–442.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Day‐Lewis, F.D., Singha, K. and Binley, A. (2005) Applying petrophysical models to radar travel time and electrical resistivity tomograms: Resolution‐dependent limitations. Journal of Geophysical Research—Solid Earth, 110 (B8), B08206.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DeGroot‐Hedlin, C. and Constable, S. (1990) Occam's inversion to generate smooth, two dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics, 55, 1613–1624.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Deiana, R., Cassiani, G., Kemna, A., Villa, A., Bruno, V. and Bagliani, A. (2007) An experiment of non‐invasive characterization of the vadose zone via water injection and cross‐hole time‐lapse geophysical monitoring. Near Surface Geophysics, 5, 183–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Doetsch, J.A., Coscia, I., Greenhalgh, S., Linde, N., Green, A. and Gunther, T. (2010) The borehole‐fluid effect in electrical resistivity imaging. Geophysics75, F107, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3467824.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Günther, T., Rücker, C. and Spitzer, K. (2006) Three‐dimensional modelling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography ‐ II. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 166(2), pp. 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03011.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Keller, G.V. and Frischknecht, F.C. (1966) Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting. International Series of Monographs in Electromagnetic Waves, Vol. 10. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, p. 525.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kemna, A., Binley, A., Day‐Lewis, F., Englert, A., Tezkan, B., Vanderborght, J. and Winship, P. (2006) Solute transport processes. In: Vereecken, H., Binley, A., Cassiani, G., Revil, A., and Titov, K. (Eds.) Applied Geophysics. Berlin: Springer‐Verlag, pp. 117–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kemna, A., Vanderborght, J., Kulessa, B. and Vereecken, H. (2002) Imaging and characterisation of subsurface solute transport using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and equivalent transport models. Journal of Hydrology,267, 125–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Keys, W.S. and MacCary, L.M. (1971) Application of Borehole Geophysics to Water Resources Investigations. Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of the USGS, Book 2, Ch. E1. Washington, DC: US Geological Survey, p. 126.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LaBrecque, D.J., Miletto, M., Daily, W., Ramirez, A. and Owen, E. (1996b) The effects of noise on Occam's inversion of resistivity tomography data. Geophysics, 61, 538–548.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LaBrecque, D.J., Ramirez, A.L., Daily, W.D., Binley, A.M. and Schima, S.A. (1996a) ERT monitoring on environmental remediation processes. Measurements Science & Technology, 7, 375–383.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lekmine, G., Auradou, H., Pessel, M. and Rayner, J.L. (2017) Quantification of tracer plume transport parameters in 2D saturated porous media by cross‐hole ERT imaging. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 139, 291–305, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.02.024.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lowry, T., Allen, M.B. and Shive, P.N. (1989) Singularity removal: a refinement of resistivity modeling techniques. Geophysics, 54(6), 766–774.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nimmer, R.E., Osiensky, J.L., Binley, A.M. and Williams, B.C. (2008) Three‐dimensional effects causing artefacts in two‐dimensional, cross‐borehole, electrical imaging. Journal of Hydrology, 359, 59–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Osiensky, J.L., Nimmer, R. and Binley, A.M. (2004) Borehole cylindrical noise during hole‐surface and hole‐hole resistivity measurements. Journal of Hydrology, 289, 78–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Parasnis, D.S. (1988) Reciprocity theorems in geoelectric and geoelectromagnetic work. Geoexploration, 25(3), 177–198, https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7142(88)90014-2.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Perri, M.T., Cassiani, G., Gervasio, I., Deiana, R. and Binley, A.M. (2012) A saline tracer test monitored via both surface and cross‐borehole electrical resistivity tomography: comparison of time‐lapse results. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 79, 6–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.12.011.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Slater, L., Binley, A., Daily, W. and Johnson, R. (2000) Cross‐hole electrical imaging of a controlled saline tracer injection. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 44, 85–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P. and Sheriff, R.E. (1990) Applied Geophysics, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 645–700.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Tso, C‐h, Kuras, O., Wilkinson, P.B., Uhlemann, S., Chamber, J.E., Meldrum, P.I., Graham, J., Sherlock, E.F. and Binley, A. (2017) Improved characterisation and modelling of measurement errors in electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 146, 103–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.09.009.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. WagnerF.M., BergmannP., RückerC., WieseB., LabitzkeT., Schmidt‐HattenbergerC., and MaurerH. (2015) Impact and mitigation of borehole related effects in permanent crosshole resistivity imaging: An example from the Ketzin CO2 storage site. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 123, 102–111. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.10.005.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wenner, F. (1912) The four‐terminal conductor and the Thomson bridge. U.S. Bur. Standards Bull., 8, 559–610. Resistivity theory.
  38. Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L. and Zhu, J.Z. (2005) The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals. Oxford: Elsevier, 769 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12111
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12111
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Borehole effect , Cross‐hole methods , ERT and Tracer test
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error