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

Abstract

Summary

Direct detection of drillable targets is among the primary goals of airborne electromagnetic surveys. As larger government funded regional surveys move towards large (> 5 km) line spacings, it is natural to question the likelihood of such surveys of directly detecting orebodies. A natural subsequent question relates to the degree to which data from such surveys can characterise orebodies. Here we model a Tempest prospecting system and address the first question though a numerical modelling study of 1024 targets with all model parameters randomised. We show that the likelihood of target detection decreases with increasing line spacing. A generally-conductive regolith as it is common in Australia means that target detectability increases with increasing time. We show that while over 80% targets are detectable at 16.2 ms using a line spacing of 1 km, at most 24% of targets are detectable with a 10 km line spacing. We address target characterisation by inverting numerical modelling data. We show that is possible to recover correct parameters within a few percentage points for targets with strike lengths less than 6.5 km provided such targets are bisected by a flight line. Our results suggest that Tempest-based surveys with line spacing less than 2.5 km are required to detect discrete targets in a tenement and that surveys with a line spacing of 1 km are optimal when direct target detection is a survey goal.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1080/22020586.2019.12073021
2019-12-01
2026-01-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Annetts, D., Munday, T., George, R. Wright, N., Raper, P. and Cahill, K., 2017, The application of AEM to mapping the aquifer and groundwater characteristics of the La Grange groundwater area, WA: Final Report. CSIRO Report EP161299.
  2. Costelloe, M. 2013, The Capricorn 2013 AEM Tempest Survey, Geoscience Australia, Geocat 81642.
  3. Green, A., Morrison, F. and Smith, R., 1998, Summaries, discussion and future trends, Exploration Geophysics 29, 263-271.
  4. Hauser, J. Gunning, J. and Annetts, D. 2015, Probabilistic inversion of airborne electromagnetic data under spatial constraints, Geophysics, 80(2), 135-146.
  5. Hauser, J., Gunning, J. and Annetts, D. 2016, Probabilistic inversion of airborne electromagnetic data for basement conductors, Geophysics, 81(5), 389-400.
  6. Poudjom Djomani, Y., 2018, Geophysics in the surveys, Preview, 196, p15-17
  7. Raiche, A. Sugeng, F. and Wilson, G. 2007, Practical 3D EM inversion – the P223F software suite, 19th ASEG International Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Perth, WA.
/content/journals/10.1080/22020586.2019.12073021
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