1887
Volume 72, Issue 9
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Surface geometry inversion of geophysical data has recently been introduced as an effective approach for generating surface‐based geological models. The models obtained through surface geometry inversion clearly delineate the contacts between distinct rock units, making them easily interpretable by geologists. Surface geometry inversion has shown promising preliminary results in other works, but the practical application of surface geometry inversion on real geophysical data has not been thoroughly investigated. To move towards a better understanding of the practicalities involved, we applied surface geometry inversion to a real magnetic dataset acquired over two kimberlite pipes located in north‐central Botswana. The objective was to assess the effectiveness and limitations of the surface geometry inversion approach in accurately characterizing the subsurface geometry and identifying the boundaries of the kimberlite pipes. We first perform an anomaly separation approach to isolate the magnetic anomalies associated with the kimberlite pipes. A surface geometry inversion algorithm was applied to the original and separated datasets using various initial models and other control parameters. Several tests were performed to investigate the effects that data processing, initial models, and other parameter choices have on the surface geometry inversion results. We successfully recover the geometry, extension and dip of the two kimberlite pipes. We discuss the results of our various tests and provide advice for practitioners interested in applying surface geometry inversion methods to their data. Our work indicates that surface geometry inversion can be used as a complementary approach to voxel inversion, and we propose an iterative surface geometry inversion algorithm as a possible alternative approach to voxel inversion for simple geological scenarios. This work provides valuable insights into the appropriate application of surface geometry inversion on real geophysical datasets.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 The Author(s). Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13588
2024-10-11
2026-02-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13588
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/72/9/gpr13588.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13588&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Belliveau, P. & Haber, E. (2023) Parametric level‐set inverse problems with stochastic background estimation. Inverse Problems, 39, 075003.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bijani, R., Lelièvre, P.G., Ponte‐Neto, C.F. & Farquharson, C.G. (2017) Physical‐property‐, lithology‐ and surface‐geometry‐based joint inversion using Pareto multi‐objective global optimization. Geophysical Journal International, 209(2), 730–748.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakely, R.J. (1996) Potential theory in gravity & magnetic applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Boulanger, O. & Chouteau, M. (2001) Constraints in 3D gravity inversion. Geophysical Prospecting, 49, 265–280.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Catuneanu, O., Wopfner, H., Eriksson, P., Cairncross, B., Rubidge, B., Smith, R. & Hancox, P. (2005) The Karoo Basins of south‐central Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 43, 211–253.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Farquharson, C.G. & Oldenburg, D.W. (2004) A comparison of automatic techniques for estimating the regularization parameter in non‐linear inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International, 156, 411–425.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Farquharson, C.G. (2008) Constructing piecewise‐constant models in multidimensional minimum‐structure inversions. Geophysics, 73(1), K1–K9.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Field, M., Gibson, J.G., Wilkes, T.S., Gababotse, J. & Khujwep, P. (1997) The geology of the Orapa A/K1 kimberlite, Botswana: Further insight into the emplacement of kimberlite pipes. In Proceedings of the 6th International Kimberlite Conference. Novosibirsk, Russia: United Institute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, pp. 155–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Field, M. & Scott Smith, B.H. (1999) Contrasting geology and near‐surface emplacement of kimberlite pipes in southern Africa and Canada. In Proceedings of the 7th International Kimberlite Conference. Cape Town, South Africa: Red Proof Design, pp. 214–237.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Fournier, D. & Oldenburg, D.W. (2019) Inversion using spatially variable mixed lp$l_p$ norms. Geophysical Journal International, 218, 268–282.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Galley, C.G., Lelièvre, P.G. & Farquharson, C.G. (2020) Geophysical inversion for 3D contact surface geometry. Geophysics, 85(6), K27–K45.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Galley, C.G., Lelievre, P.G., Haroon, A., Graber, S., Jamieson, J., Szitkar, F., et al. (2021) Magnetic and gravity surface geometry inverse modeling of the TAG active mound. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126, e2021JB022228.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Galley, C.G. (2022) The development of the surface geometry inversion method with applications to modeling seafloor hydrothermal alteration and associated mineralization. PhD thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
  14. Giraud, J., Caumon, G., Grose, L., Ogarko, V. & Cupillard, P. (2023) Integration of automatic implicit geological modelling in deterministic geophysical inversion. EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere‐2023‐129.
  15. Kjarsgaard, B. (2007) Kimberlite pipe models: significance for exploration. In Milkereit, B. (ed.), Proceedings of Exploration 07: Fifth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration. Toronto, Canada: Decennial Mineral Exploration Conferences, pp. 667–677.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Last, B.J. & Kubik, K. (1983) Compact gravity inversion. Geophysics, 48(6), 713–721.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lelièvre, P.G. & Oldenburg, D.W. (2009) A comprehensive study of including structural orientation information in geophysical inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 178, 623–637.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Lelièvre, P.G., Farquharson, C.G. & Hurich, C.A. (2012) Joint inversion of seismic traveltimes and gravity data on unstructured grids with application to mineral exploration. Geophysics, 77(1), K1–K15.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lelièvre, P.G., Farquharson, C.G. & Bijani, R. (2015) 3D potential field inversion for wireframe surface geometry. In 85th Annual International Meeting, SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1563–1567.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Lelièvre, P.G., Carter‐McAuslan, A.E., Dunham, M.W., Jones, D.J., Nalepa, M., Squires, C.L., Tycholiz, C.J., Vallée, M.A. & Farquharson, C.G. (2018) FacetModeller: Software for manual creation, manipulation and analysis of 3D surface‐based models. SoftwareX, 7, 41–46,
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, Y. & Oldenburg, D.W. (1996) 3‐D inversion of magnetic data. Geophysics, 61(2), 394–408.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, Y. & Oldenburg, D.W. (1998) Separation of regional and residual magnetic field data. Geophysics, 63(2), 431–439.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Matende, K. & Mickus, K. (2021) Magnetic and gravity investigation of kimberlites in north‐central Botswana. Geophysics, 86(2), B67–B78.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Miller, G.L., Talmor, D., Teng, S., Walkington, N. & Wang, H. (1996) Control volume meshes using sphere packing: generation, refinement and coarsening. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Meshing Roundtable, Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, pp. 47–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Möller, T. (1997) A fast triangle‐triangle intersection test. Journal of Graphics Tools, 2(2), 25–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Okabe, M. (1979) Analytic expressions for gravity anomalies due to homogeneous polyhedral bodies and translations into magnetic anomalies. Geophysics, 44, 730–741.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Oldenburg, D.W. & Li, Y. (2005) Inversion for applied geophysics: a tutorial. Investigations in Geophysics, 89–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Oldenburg, D.W. & Pratt, D.A. (2007) Geophysical inversion for mineral exploration: a decade of progress in theory and practice. In Proceedings of Exploration 07: Fifth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration. Toronto, Canada: Decennial Mineral Exploration Conferences, pp. 61–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Pilkington, M. (1997) 3‐D magnetic imaging using conjugate gradients. Geophysics, 62(4), 1132–1142.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Portniaguine, O. & Zhdanov, M.S. (1999) Focusing geophysical inversion images. Geophysics, 64(3), 874–887.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Rashidifard, M., Giraud, J., Lindsay, M., Jessell, M. & Ogarko, V. (2021) Constraining 3D geometric gravity inversion with a 2D reflection seismic profile using a generalized level set approach: application to the eastern Yilgarn Craton. Solid Earth, 12, 2387–2406, https://doi.org/10.5194/se‐12‐2387‐2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Si, H. (2015) TetGen, a Delaunay‐based quality tetrahedral mesh generator. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 41(2), 1–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Tsai, V.C., Huber, C. & Dalton, C.A. (2023) Toward the geological parametrization of seismic tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 234, 1447–1462.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Vatankhah, S., Renaut, R.A. & Liu, S. (2020) Research note: a unifying framework for the widely used stabilization of potential field inverse problems. Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 1416–1421.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Vatankhah, S., Renaut, R.A., Mickus, K., Liu, S. & Matende, K. (2022) A comparison of the joint and independent inversions for magnetic and gravity data over kimberlites in Botswana. Geophysical Prospecting, 70, 1602–1616.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13588
Loading
Magnetic surface geometry inversion of Kimberlites in Botswana
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 3524 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13588
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13588
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13588
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): data processing; inverse problem; inversion; magnetics

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