1887
2nd Australasian Exploration Geoscience Conference: Data to Discovery
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Summary

Integration of geology and geophysics thinking requires a common earth model, that accommodates, with errors, all the features from the geophysics interpretation products, topological rules from geology, field mapping and drill logs, and the link between the two via physical rock property estimates. Automation of intelligent search, inference engines to this problem involves 200+ individual processes, to yield a family of plausible models. The true limiting factor is managing technical complexity and communicating to the geoscience team, not compute power.

All models are wrong and are destined to be replaced as further data or insights are gleaned. So, taking too much time trying to create the ultimate “correct” interpretation is wasteful, hence the need for automation.

An example of a simple pattern recognition technique to locate kimberlite pipes that have a magnetic and/or gravity response is given. This uses a range of pipe diameters, depths, topography, density and susceptibility, and variable directions of remanent magnetization vectors, in an automated manner.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1080/22020586.2019.12073000
2019-12-01
2026-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Calcagno, P., Courrioux, G., Guillen, A., Chiles, J.-P., 2008. Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge. Part I. Modelling method coupling 3D potentialfield interpolation and geological rules. Physics of the earth and planetary interiors. Vol 171
  2. FitzGerald, D. Holstein, H., Foss, C., 2011, Automatic modelling and inversion for dykes from magnetic tensor gradient profiles – recent progress: SEG Extended Abstracts, Houston.
  3. FitzGerald, D., and H. Holstein, 2014, Structural geology observations derived from full tensor gravity gradiometry over rift systems: 84th SEG Annual meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
  4. FitzGerald, D., Milligan, P., 2013, Defining a deep fault network for Australia, using 3D “worming”: ASEG Extended Abstracts, Melbourne.
  5. Guillen, A., Calcagno, P., Courrioux, G., Joly, A., Ledru, P., 2008. Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge, Part II. Modelling validation using gravity and magnetic data inversion. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 171, 158–169.
  6. Hatch, D. 2004. Evaluation of a full tensor gravity gradiometer for kimberlite exploration. Airborne Gravity 2004: Abstracts from the ASEG-PESA Airborne Gravity 2004 Workshop, 73-79.
  7. Jaques, A. L., 2005. Australian diamond deposits, kimberlites, and related rocks, 1:5 000 000 scale map, Geoscience Australia, Canberra. GA7562.pdf
  8. Keating, P, Sailhac, P. 2004. Use of the analytic signal to identify magnetic anomalies due to kimberlite pipes. Geophysics, Vol. 69, NO. 1 (January -February 2004); P. 180–190
  9. Meyer, T. 2015. Processing gravity gradients to detect kimberlite pipes. 24th ASEG-PESA 2015 Conference.
  10. Pakyuz-Charrier, E., Lindsay, M., Ogarko1, V., Giraud, J., Jessell, M., 2017, Monte Carlo Simulations for Uncertainty Estimation in 3D Geological Modeling, A Guide for Disturbance Distribution Selection and parameterization.
  11. Smith, G.B., 1991. Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques to the Interpretation of Geophysical Measurements. Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute. (available on request)
/content/journals/10.1080/22020586.2019.12073000
Loading
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