An enhanced method for source parameter imaging of magnetic data collected for mineral exploration

References

1. BaranovV. and NaudyH.1964. Numerical calculation of the formula of the reduction to the magnetic pole. Geophysics29, 67–79.
   [Google Scholar]
2. BarbosaV.C.F., SilvaJ.B.C. and MedeirosW.E.1999. Stability analysis and improvement of structural index estimation in Euler deconvolution. Geophysics64, 48–60.
   [Google Scholar]
3. BlakelyR.J.1995. Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications . Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. BlakelyR.J. and SimpsonR.W.1986. Approximating edges of source bodies from magnetic or gravity anomalies (short note). Geophysics51, 1494–1498.
   [Google Scholar]
5. W.J.Hinze
   CordellL. and GrauchV.J.S.1985. Mapping basement magnetization zones from aeromagnetic data in the San Juan basin, New Mexico. In: The Utility of Regional Gravity and Magnetic Anomaly Maps (ed. W.J.Hinze ), pp. 181–197. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
   [Google Scholar]
6. FediM. and FlorioG.2001. Detection of potential fields source boundaries by enhanced horizontal derivative method. Geophysical Prospecting49, 40–58.
   [Google Scholar]
7. FediM. and FlorioG.2003. Decorrugation and removal of directional trends of magnetic fields by the wavelet transform: application to archaeological areas. Geophysical Prospecting51, 261–272.
   [Google Scholar]
8. HsuS.‐K., CoppensD. and ShyuC.‐T.1998. Depth to magnetic source using the generalized analytic signal. Geophysics63, 1947–1957.
   [Google Scholar]
9. HsuS.‐K., SibuetJ.‐C. and ShyuC.‐T.1996. High resolution detection of geologic boundaries from potential field anomalies: an enhanced analytic signal technique. Geophysics61, 373–386.
   [Google Scholar]
10. IrvineR.J., GodboutM.G. and WitherlyK.E.2000. Reid‐Mahaffy Field Guide: Comparison of Airborne EM Systems, Reid‐Mahaffy Test Site, Ontario Canada . Report 2000–5, Condor Consulting.
    [Google Scholar]
11. JensenL.S., BakerC.L. and TrowellN.F.1985. Preliminary results of bedrock samples from sonic drilling program in the Matheson area, Cochrane District, Map P. 2848, scale 1:100 000 . Ontario Geological Survey.
    [Google Scholar]
12. KeatingP. and PilkingtonM.2004. Euler deconvolution of the analytic signal and its application to magnetic interpretation. Geophysical Prospecting52, 165–182.
    [Google Scholar]
13. LiX.2003. On the use of different methods for estimating magnetic depth. The Leading Edge22, 1090–1099.
    [Google Scholar]
14. MurthyK.S.R. and MishraD.C.1980. Fourier transform of the general expression for the magnetic anomaly due to a long horizontal cylinder. Geophysics45, 1091–1093.
    [Google Scholar]
15. MushayandebvuM.F., DrielP., ReidA.B. and FairheadJ.D.2001. Magnetic source parameters of two‐dimensional structures using extended Euler deconvolution. Geophysics66, 814–823.
    [Google Scholar]
16. NabighianM.N.1972. The analytic signal of two‐dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross‐section; its properties and use for automated anomaly interpretation. Geophysics37, 507–517.
    [Google Scholar]
17. NabighianM.N. and AstenM.2002. Metalliferous mining geophysics – State of the art in the last decade of the 20th century and the beginning of the new millennium. Geophysics67, 964–978.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Ontario Geological Survey
    Ontario Geological Survey2002. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and electromagnetic data, profile data, Geosoft® format, Timmins area MEGATEM®; Geophysical Data set 1041d . Ontario Geological Survey.
    [Google Scholar]
19. PressW.H., TeukolskyS.A., VetterlingW.T. and FlanneryB.P.1992. Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing . Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. RefordM.S.1964. Magnetic anomalies over thin sheets. Geophysics29, 532–536.
    [Google Scholar]
21. ReidA.B.2003. Euler magnetic structural index of a thin‐bed fault. Geophysics68, 1255–1256.
    [Google Scholar]
22. ReidA.B., AllsopJ.M., GranserH., MilletA.J. and SomertonI.W.1990. Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution. Geophysics55, 80–91.
    [Google Scholar]
23. RoestW.R., VerhoefJ. and PilkingtonM.1992. Magnetic interpretation using the 3‐D analytic signal. Geophysics57, 116–125.
    [Google Scholar]
24. RoyK.K., AgarwalB.N.P. and ShawR.K.2000. A new concept in Euler deconvolution of isolated gravity anomalies. Geophysical Prospecting48, 559–576.
    [Google Scholar]
25. SalemA. and RavatD.2005. A combined analytic signal and Euler method (AN‐EUL) for automatic interpretation of magnetic data. Geophysics68, 1952–1961.
    [Google Scholar]
26. SalemA., RavatD., SmithR. and UshijimaK.2005. Interpretation of magnetic data using an enhanced local wavenumber (ELW) method. Geophysics70, L7–L12.
    [Google Scholar]
27. SalemA. and SmithR.S.2005. Depth and structural index from the normalized local wavenumber of 2D magnetic anomalies. Geophysical Prospecting53, 83–89.
    [Google Scholar]
28. SmellieD.W.1956. Elementary approximations in aeromagnetic interpretation. Geophysics21, 1021–1040.
    [Google Scholar]
29. SmithR.S., ThurstonJ.B., DaiT. and MacLeodI.N.1998. iSPI™– The improved source parameter imaging method. Geophysical Prospecting46, 141–151.
    [Google Scholar]
30. StavrevP.Y.1997. Euler deconvolution using differential similarity transformations of gravity or magnetic anomalies. Geophysical Prospecting45, 207–246.
    [Google Scholar]
31. ThompsonD.T.1982. ‘EULDPH’– A new technique for making computer‐assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics47, 31–37.
    [Google Scholar]
32. ThurstonJ.B. and SmithR.S.1997. Automatic conversion of magnetic data to depth, dip, susceptibility contrast using the SPI™ method. Geophysics62, 807–813.
    [Google Scholar]
33. ThurstonJ.B., SmithR.S. and GuillonJ.2002. A multimodel method for depth estimation from magnetic data. Geophysics67, 555–561.
    [Google Scholar]