1887
Volume 52, Issue 6
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

The recording of raw or streamed airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data, as done by CGG during MEGATEM surveys, allows for the extraction of passive EM signals also present, but not normally processed. These include (1) powerline responses, (2) responses in the very low frequency (VLF) range due to radio transmissions and (3) natural-source audio-frequency magnetic (AFMAG) and VLF responses in the frequency range 25 Hz–25 kHz extracted from individual atmospheric electrical discharges (sferics). The latter approach manages to extract good signal in the audio-frequency magnetotelluric (AMT) dead band (1–5 kHz) for one of the discussed data sets. The recording of the three-component AEM data allows for the vector processing of these passive EM responses, including the derivation and modelling of the vertical-to-horizontal magnetic field ratio (tipper) data. Conductivity information can be derived from the tipper data with an apparent conductivity transformation and, more rigorously, with 2D and 3D inversions that take into account the terrain’s topography. The extraction and modelling of passive EM responses is demonstrated on two data sets. A powerline apparent-conductivity grid derived from a MEGATEM survey near Timmins, Canada indicates conductivity structures similar to those in the corresponding active-source EM data. VLF and AFMAG responses derived from South American MEGATEM data show a strong correlation to topography. These data were successfully modelled with 2D and 3D inversions, and the derived shallow conductivity structures confirm and complement the information extracted from the active-source EM data.

© 2021 Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1882846
2021-11-02
2026-01-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1882846
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abtahi, S.M., L.B.Pedersen, J.Kamm, and T.Kalscheuer. 2016. Extracting geoelectrical maps from vintage very-low-frequency airborne data, tipper inversion, and interpretation: a case study from northern Sweden. Geophysics81 no. 5: B135–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bastani, M., and L.B.Pedersen. 1997. The reliability of aeroplane attitude determination using the main geomagnetic field with application to tensor VLF data analysis. Geophysical Prospecting45: 831–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Becken, M., and L.B.Pedersen. 2003. Transformation of VLF anomaly maps into apparent resistivity and phase. Geophysics68: 497–505.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bosch, F.P., and I.Műller. 2005. Improved karst exploration by VLF-EM-gradient survey: comparison with other geophysical methods. Near Surface Geophysics3: 299–310.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. DeGroot-Hedlin, C., and S.Constable. 1990. Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics55: 1613–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DeLugao, P.P., and P.Wannamaker. 1996. Calculating the two-dimensional magnetotelluric Jacobian in finite elements using reciprocity. Geophysical Journal International127: 806–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Farquharson, C.G., D.W.Oldenburg, E.Haber, and R.Shekhtman. 2002. An algorithm for the three-dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric data. SEG expanded abstracts 2002. 72nd annual international meeting, Salt Lake City, 649–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Garcia, X., and A.G.Jones. 2008. Robust processing of magnetotelluric data in the AMT dead band using the continuous wavelet transform. Geophysics73 no. 6: F223–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Garner, S.J., and D.V.Thiel. 2000. Broadband (ULF-VLF) surface impedance measurements using MIMDAS. Exploration Geophysics31: 173–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldak, D.K., and S.M.Goldak. 2001. Transient magnetotellurics with adaptive polarization stacking. SEG expanded abstracts 2001. 71st annual international meeting, San Antonio, 1509–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Golkowski, M., and U.S.Inan. 2008. Magnetospheric amplification and emission triggering by ELF/VLF waves injected by the 3.6 MW HAARP ionospheric heater. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics113: A08210, 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Haber, E., E.Holtham, J.Granek, D.Marchant, D.Oldenburg, C.Schwarzbach, and R.Shekhtman. 2012. An adaptive mesh method for electromagnetic inverse problems. SEG expanded abstracts 2012. 82nd annual international meeting, Las Vegas, 1–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hennessy, L., and J.Macnae. 2018. Source-dependent bias of sferics in magnetotelluric responses. Geophysics83 no. 3: E161–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Holtham, E., and D.W.Oldenburg. 2010. Three-dimensional inversion of ZTEM data. Geophysical Journal International182: 168–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Korpisalo, A., and E.Pohjolainen. 2019. The 50 Hz EM method at the Pyhäsalmi massive sulphide deposit. Exploration Geophysics50: 233–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Labson, V.F., A.Becker, H.F.Morrison, and U.Conti. 1985. Geophysical exploration with audiofrequency natural magnetic fields. Geophysics50: 656–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Labson, V.F., and H.G.Medberry. 1989. Airborne resistivity mapping using powerline sources. SEG expanded abstracts 1989. 59th annual international meeting, Dallas, 138–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Legault, J.M.2012. Ten years of passive airborne AFMAG EM development for mineral exploration. SEG expanded abstracts 2012. 82nd annual international meeting, Las Vegas, 1–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lane, R., A.Green, C.Golding, M.Owers, P.Pik, C.Plunkett, D.Sattel, and B.Thorn. 2000. An example of 3D conductivity mapping using the TEMPEST airborne electromagnetic system. Exploration Geophysics31: 162–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Lane, R., C.Plunkett, A.Price, A.Green, and Y.Hu. 1998. Streamed data – a source of insight and improvement for time domain airborne EM. Exploration Geophysics29: 16–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lo, B., J.Legault, P.Kuzmin, and M.Combrinck. 2009. Z-TEM (airborne AFMAG) tests over unconformity uranium deposits. ASEG extended abstracts 2009. 20th International Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Adelaide, 1–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Macnae, J.1984. Survey design for multicomponent electromagnetic systems. Geophysics49: 265–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Macnae, J.2015. Stripping very low frequency communication signals with minimum shift keying encoding from streamed time-domain electromagnetic data. Geophysics80 no. 6: E343–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Macnae, J., A.King, N.Stolz, A.Osmakoff, and A.Blaha. 1998. Fast AEM data processing and inversion. Exploration Geophysics29: 163–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Maxworth, A.S., M.Golkowski, M.B.Cohen, R.C.Moore, H.T.Chorsi, and S.D.Gedney. 2015. Multistation observations of the azimuth, polarization, and frequency dependence of ELF/VLF waves generated by electrojet modulation. Radio Science50: 1008–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. McCollor, D.C., T.Watanabe, W.F.Slanson, and R.M.Shier. 1983. An E.M. method for earth resistivity measurements using power line harmonic fields. Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity35: 221–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Nabighian, M.N.1984. Toward a three-dimensional automatic interpretation of potential field data via generalized Hilbert transforms: Fundamental relations. Geophysics49: 780–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Nyboe, N.S, and S.S.Mai. 2017. Recent advances in Skytem receiver system technologies. EAGE extended abstracts 2017 Near Surface Geoscience Conference, Paris.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ontario Geological Survey. 2002. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and electromagnetic data, Timmins area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1041.
  30. Ontario Geological Survey. 2011. 1:250 000 scale bedrock geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release, Data 126-Revision 1.
  31. Pedersen, L.B., L.Persson, M.Bastani, and S.Byström. 2009. Airborne VLF measurements and mapping of ground conductivity in Sweden. Journal of Applied Geophysics67: 250–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Pedersen, L.B., W.Qian, L.Dynesius, and P.Zhang. 1994. An airborne tensor VLF system. from concept to realization1. Geophysical Prospecting42: 863–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Qian, W., and L.B.Pedersen. 1991. Industrial interference magnetotellurics: An example from the Tangshan area, China. Geophysics56: 265–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Rasmussen, S., N.S.Nyboe, S.S.Mai, and J.J.Larsen. 2017. A robust framework for cancellation of MSK interference in TEM data. EAGE extended Abstracts 2017 near surface geoscience conference, Paris.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Rosenkjaer, G.K., W.Cumming, and K.Christopherson. 2016. The CSIMT method combining natural MT signals and cultural noise as sources. SEG expanded abstracts 2016. 86th annual international meeting, Dallas, 889–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Sattel, D., and E.Battig. 2016. Reprocessing streaming MEGATEM data for square-wave EM, VLF and AFMAG responses. SEG expanded abstracts 2016. 86th annual international meeting, Dallas, 2144–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Sattel, D., and E.Battig. 2018a. Square-wave processing of MEGATEM data. ASEG extended abstracts 2018. 26th international geophysical conference and exhibition, Sydney, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Sattel, D., and E.Battig. 2018b. Passive EM processing of MEGATEM and HELITEM data. ASEG extended abstracts 2018. 26th international geophysical conference and exhibition, Sydney, 1–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Sattel, D., and K.Witherly. 2012. An overview of ZTEM interpretation tools. In Natural fields EM Forum 2012: Abstracts from the ASEG natural fields EM Forum 2012, ed. R.J.L.Lane, 156–75. Geoscience Australia, Geoscience Australia Record, Brisbane, 2012/04.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sattel, D., K.Witherly, and V.Kaminski. 2019. A brief analysis of MobileMT data. SEG expanded abstracts 2019. 89th annual international meeting, San Antonio, 2138–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Schmucker, U.1973. Regional induction studies: A review of methods and results. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors7: 365–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, R.S., A.P.Annan, and P.D.McGowan. 2001. A comparison of data from airborne, semi-airborne, and ground electromagnetic systems. Geophysics66: 1379–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Stolz, E.S., and J.Macnae. 1998. Evaluating EM waveforms by singular-value decomposition of exponential basis functions. Geophysics63: 64–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Vallee, M.A., R.S.Smith, and P.Keating. 2010. Case history of combined airborne time-domain electromagnetics and power-line field survey in Chibougamau, Canada. Geophysics75 no. 2: B67–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Vozoff, K.1972. The magnetotelluric method in the exploration of sedimentary basins. Geophysics37: 98–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Wannamaker, P.E., J.A.Stodt, and L.Rijo. 1987. A stable finite element solution for two-dimensional magnetotelluric modelling. Geophysical Journal International88: 277–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Ward, S.H., J.O.O’Donnell, R.Rivera, G.H.Ware, and D.C.Fraser. 1966. AFMAG—applications and limitations. Geophysics31: 576–605.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Yin, C., and R.Wang. 2015. Power line ground resistance detection using helicopter electromagnetic systems. Geophysics80 no. 2: E125–33.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1882846
Loading
Processing of passive EM fields acquired during active-source airborne EM surveys
Exploration Geophysics 52, 680 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2021.1882846
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1882846
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1882846
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 2D modelling; 3D modelling; Airborne electromagnetics; electromagnetic geophysics; inversion; processing

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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