DOCSLIB.ORG

Geophysical Methods for Evaluation of Plutonic Rocks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geophysical Methods for Evaluation of Plutonic Rocks AECL-8409 ATOMIC ENERGY L’ENERGIE ATOMIQUE OF CANADA LIMITED DU CANADA, LIMITEE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF PLUTONIC ROCKS METHODES GEOPHYSIQUES POUR DEVALUATION DES ROCHES PLUTONIQUES compiled by / compilee par R. A. Gibb, J. S. Scott Whiteshell Nuclear Research Etablissement de recherches Establishment nucleaires de Whiteshell Pinawa, Manitoba ROE 1 LO April 1986 avril Copyright © Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 1986 ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF PLUTONIC ROCKS Compiled by R.A. Gibb and J.S. Scott Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment Pinawa, Manitoba ROE 1L0 1986 April AECL-8409 METHODES GEOPHYSIQUES POUR L"EVALUATION DES ROCHES PLUTONIQUES Compile par R.A. Gibb et J.S. Scott RESUME On dScrit systSmatiquement des m€thodes gSophysiques salon le principe physique et le mode opiratoire de chaque mSthode, le type de reseignement produit, les limites de nature technique et/ou Sconomique et 1'applicabiliti de 1'Evaluation de la masse rocheuse dans les zones de recherches od ont lieu les travaux du Programme de Gestion des D€chets de Combustible Nucliaire. Les mSthodes gSophysiques se divisent en trois categories: (1) lev6s a€roport€s et autres lev6s d'exploration, (2) levSs (terrestres) precis ou superficiels et (3) lev&s en Bondages ou souterrains. On rSsume les rSles possibles de chaque m6thode dans les processus de selection et d'evaluation des sites conduisant au choix d’un site d'evacuation. L'Energie Atomique du Canada, Limit6e Etablissement de recherches nucleaires de Whiteshell Pinawa, Manitoba ROE 1L0 1986 avril AECL-8409 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF PLUTONIC ROCKS Compiled by R.A. Gibb and J.S. Scott ABSTRACT Geophysical methods are systematically described according to the physical principle and operational mode of each method, the type of informa­ tion produced, limitations of a technical and/or economic nature, and the applicability of the method to rock-mass evaluation at Research Areas of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program. The geophysical methods fall into three categories: (1) airborne and other reconnaissance surveys, (2) detailed or surface (ground) surveys, and (3) borehole or subsurface surveys. The possible roles of each method in the site-screening and site-evaluation processes of disposal vault site selection are summarized. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment Pinawa, Manitoba ROE 1L0 1986 April AECL-8409 1 CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 OBJECTIVES OF GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY 1 1.2 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS 1 REFERENCE 2 2. AEROMAGNETIC SURVEYS 3 2.1 DESCRIPTION 3 2.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 6 2.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 6 2.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 8 2.5 GROUND MAGNETIC SURVEYS 8 REFERENCES 9 3. GRAVITY METHOD 10 3.1 DESCRIPTION 10 3.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 11 3.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 11 3.4 LOGISTIC CONSTRAINTS 11 3.5 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 11 3.6 COSTS 13 REFERENCES 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY 14 4. REGIONAL SEISMICITY 15 4.1 DESCRIPTION 15 4.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 15 4.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 15 4.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASSEVALUATION 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY 15 5. HIGH-RESOLUTION SEISMIC REFLECTION METHOD 17 5.1 DESCRIPTION 17 5.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 17 5.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 17 5.4 LOGISTIC CONSTRAINTS 17 5.5 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 17 5.6 COSTS 22 REFERENCES 22 BIBLIOGRAPHY 22 continued - ii - CONTENTS (continued) Page 6. SUBSURFACE PROFILING RADAR 23 6.1 DESCRIPTION 23 6.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 23 6.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 23 6.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY 24 7. SONAR SURVEYS 26 7.1 DESCRIPTION 26 7.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 28 7.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 31 7.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 31 REFERENCES 32 8. SURFACE ELECTRICAL METHODS 33 8.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD 33 8.1.1 Standard VLF System 33 8.1.2 Local Loop VLF System 35 8.1.3 Max-Min II Multifrequency EM System 35 8.1.4 Geonics EM-34-3 System 37 8.1.5 Dipole-Dipole Resistivity System 37 8.1.6 Geonics EM-37 and Maxi-Probe Electromagnetic Systems 37 8.1.7 Dighem II and Aerodat Electromagnetic Systems 39 8.1.8 Dighem II and Aerodat Airborne VLF Systems 39 8.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 40 8.2.1 Standard VLF 40 8.2.2 Local Loop VLF 40 8.2.3 Max-Min II Multifrequency EM 40 8.2.4 Geonics EM-34-3 41 8.2.5 Dipole-Dipole Resistivity 41 8.2.6 Geonics EM-37 and Maxi-Probe Electromagnetic 41 8.2.7 Dighem II and Aerodat Airborne EM and VLF 43 8.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 44 8.3.1 Standard VLF 44 8.3.2 Local Loop VLF 44 8.3.3 Max-Min II Multifrequency EM 44 8.3.4 Geonics EM-34-3 44 8.3.5 Dipole-Dipole Resistivity 44 continued.... - iii - CONTENTS (continued) Page 8.3.6 Geonics EM-37 and Maxi-Probe Electromagnetic 45 8.3.7 Dighem II and Aerodat AirborneEM and VLF 45 8.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 45 8.4.1 Standard VLF and Local Loop VLF 45 8.4.2 Max-Min II Multifrequency EM 45 8.4.3 Geonics EM-34-3 46 8.4.4 Dipole-Dipole Resistivity 46 8.4.5 Geonics EM-37 and Maxi-Probe Electromagnetic 46 8.4.6 Dighem II and Aerodat AirborneEM and VLF 46 8.5 COSTS 46 REFERENCES 47 9. MAGNETOTELLURICS 48 9.1 DESCRIPTION 48 9.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 48 9.2.1 Scalar Data 48 9.2.2 Tensor Data 49 9.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 49 9.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 52 9.5 COSTS 54 REFERENCES 54 10. MAGNETOMETRIC RESISTIVITY 55 10.1 DESCRIPTION 55 10.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 55 10.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 55 10.4 LOGISTIC CONSTRAINTS 57 10.5 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 57 10.6 COSTS 58 REFERENCES 58 11. STANDARD GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING 59 11.1 DESCRIPTION 59 11.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 59 11.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 61 11.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 63 11.4.1 Present 63 11.4.2 Future 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY 64 continued IV CONTENTS (continued) Page 12. BOREHOLE-TO-BOREHOLE SEISMIC LOGGING SYSTEM 66 12.1 DESCRIPTION 66 12.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 66 12.3 LIMITATION OF THE METHOD 66 12.4 LOGISTIC CONSTRAINTS 66 12.5 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 66 12.6 COSTS 70 REFERENCE 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY 70 13. BOREHOLE SEISMIC TUBE WAVE METHOD 71 13.1 DESCRIPTION 71 13.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 71 13.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 71 13.4 LOGISTIC CONSTRAINTS 74 13.5 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 74 13.6 COSTS 74 BIBLIOGRAPHY 74 14. BOREHOLE RADAR 76 14.1 DESCRIPTION 76 14.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 76 14.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 76 14.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 76 REFERENCE 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY 77 15. BOREHOLE VLF-EM METHOD 78 15.1 DESCRIPTION 78 15.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 78 15.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 80 15.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 80 REFERENCES 84 16. GEOTHERMAL LOGGING 85 16.1 DESCRIPTION 85 16-2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 85 16.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 87 continued.... V CONTENTS (concluded) Page 16.4 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 87 16.5 COSTS 87 REFERENCES 88 17. AQUIFER TIDE METHOD 89 17.1 DESCRIPTION 89 17.2 DATA AND/OR INFORMATION PRODUCED 90 17.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD 90 17.4 LOGISTIC CONSTRAINTS AND COSTS 90 17.5 APPLICABILITY TO ROCK-MASS EVALUATION 91 REFERENCE 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY 91 18. SUMMARY 92 18.1 SUMMARY OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR SITE SCREENING 92 18.2 SUMMARY OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR SITE EVALUATION 92 19. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 99 L. INTRODUCTION The joint Energy, Mines and Resources/Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (EMR/AECL) geoscience segment of the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program (NFWMP) is organized in an Activity/Task structure (Scott, 1979) comprising Geological, Geophysical and Rock Properties activi­ ties. This report describes methods currently employed in the Geophysical Activity of the NFWMP. 1.1 OBJECTIVES OF GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY The general scientific objectives of the joint EMR/AECL Geophysi­ cal Activity of the NFWMP are as follows: - to characterize the structure, lithology, physical properties, fracture pathways and long-term stability of selected crystal­ line rock masses, - to adapt, improve or develop geophysical methods for site char­ acterization, and - to provide geophysical inputs for predictive transport models of the geosphere containing hypothetical disposal vaults. 1.2 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS Geophysical methods have been an integral and essential part of mineral and petroleum exploration for over half a century. Each of the many available geophysical exploration techniques, as well as those currently under development, whether applied from airborne or surface platforms or by emplacement in boreholes, are based upon the measurement of some physical or physico-chemical property of the minerals and/or fluids contained within the rock mass. Some techniques, such as gravity and magnetic methods are capa­ ble of measuring the natural variations in the earth’s gravity and magnetic fields; others, such as electrical and reflection or refraction seismic methods require external sources of energy to provide a signal that can be detected and recorded. All geophysical techniques, regardless of operational platform or underlying principle, attempt to measure a natural or induced signal that can be interpreted as a variation or "anomaly" in comparison with signals received from the "background" levels produced by the rock mass.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preprint Arxiv:1806.10939, 2018
    Solid Earth Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2019-4 Manuscript under review for journal Solid Earth Discussion started: 15 January 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Bayesian geological and geophysical data fusion for the construction and uncertainty quantification of 3D geological models Hugo K. H. Olierook1, Richard Scalzo2, David Kohn3, Rohitash Chandra2,4, Ehsan Farahbakhsh2,4, Gregory Houseman3, Chris Clark1, Steven M. Reddy1, R. Dietmar Müller4 5 1School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia 2Centre for Translational Data Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 3Sydney Informatics Hub, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 4EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia Correspondence to: Hugo K. H. Olierook ([email protected]) 10 Abstract. Traditional approaches to develop 3D geological models employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative scientific techniques, which do not fully provide quantification of uncertainty in the constructed models and fail to optimally weight geological field observations against constraints from geophysical data. Here, we demonstrate a Bayesian methodology to fuse geological field observations with aeromagnetic and gravity data to build robust 3D models in a 13.5 × 13.5 km region of the Gascoyne Province, Western Australia. Our approach is validated by comparing model results to independently-constrained 15 geological maps and cross-sections produced by the Geological Survey of Western Australia. By fusing geological field data with magnetics and gravity surveys, we show that at 89% of the modelled region has >95% certainty. The boundaries between geological units are characterized by narrow regions with <95% certainty, which are typically 400–1000 m wide at the Earth’s surface and 500–2000 m wide at depth.
    [Show full text]
  • Guides to Understanding the Aeromagnetic Expression of Faults in Sedimentary Basins: Lessons Learned from the Central Rio Grande Rift, New Mexico
    Guides to understanding the aeromagnetic expression of faults in sedimentary basins: Lessons learned from the central Rio Grande rift, New Mexico V.J.S. Grauch U.S. Geological Survey, MS 964, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0046, USA Mark R. Hudson U.S. Geological Survey, MS 980, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0046, USA ABSTRACT cho, northwest of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Fig. 2). Linear anomalies are interpreted as faults that offset basin-fi ll sediments based on their High-resolution aeromagnetic data acquired over several basins in consistent correspondence to isolated exposures of mapped faults, follow- the central Rio Grande rift, north-central New Mexico, prominently up investigations at individual sites, and geophysical modeling (Grauch, display low-amplitude (5–15 nT) linear anomalies associated with 2001; Grauch et al., 2001, 2006). faults that offset basin-fi ll sediments. The linear anomalies give an As in many sedimentary basins, mapping faults in the central Rio unparalleled view of concealed faults within the basins that has sig- Grande rift is diffi cult because of the extensive alluvial cover. As a conse- nifi cant implications for future basin studies. These implications pro- quence, geologists have used the linear aeromagnetic anomalies to delin- vide the impetus for understanding the aeromagnetic expression of eate partially concealed faults and denote possible locations of totally faults in greater detail. Lessons learned from the central Rio Grande buried faults on geologic maps (e.g., Connell, 2006) and in fault compila- rift help to understand the utility of aeromagnetic data for examin- tions (Machette et al., 1998; Personius et al., 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • SOP14 Geophysical Survey
    SSFL Use Only SSFL SOP 14 Geophysical Survey Revision: 0 Date: April 2012 Prepared: C. Werden Technical Review: J. Plevniak Approved and QA Review: J. Oxford Issued: 4/6/2012 Signature/Date 1.0 Objective The purpose of this technical standard operating procedure (SOP) is to introduce the procedures for non-invasive geophysical investigations in areas suspected of being used for disposal of debris or where landfill operations may have been conducted. Specifics of the geophysical surveys will be discussed in the Geophysical Survey Field Sampling Plan Addendum. Geophysical methods that will be used to accurately locate and record buried geophysical anomalies are: . Total Field Magnetometry (TFM) . Frequency Domain Electromagnetic Method (FDEM) . Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) TFM and FDEM will be applied to all areas of interest while GPR will be applied only to areas of interest that require further and/or higher resolution of geophysical anomaly. The geophysical investigation (survey) will be conducted by geophysical subcontractor personnel trained, experienced, and qualified in shallow subsurface geophysics necessary to successfully perform any of the above geophysical methods. CDM Smith will provide oversight of the geophysical contractor. 2.0 Background 2.1 Discussion This SOP is based on geophysical methods employed by US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) subcontractor Hydrogeologic Inc. (HGL) while conducted geophysical surveys of portions of Area IV during 2010 and 2011. The Data Gap Investigation conducted as part of Phase 3 identified additional locations of suspected buried materials not surveyed by HGL. To be consistent with the recently collected subsurface information, HGL procedures are being adopted. The areas of interest and survey limits will be determined prior to field mobilization.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire
    In Cooperation with the NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES o Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4183 U.S. Department of the Interior / U.S. Geological Survey The base map on the front cover shows geophysical survey locations overlaying a geologic map of U.S. Geological Survey, Windham, New Hampshire, 1:24,000-scale quadrangle. Geology is by G.S. Walsh and S.F. Clark, Jr. (1999) and lineaments are from Ferguson and others (1997) and R.B. Moore and Garrick Marcoux, 1998. The photographs and graphics overlying the base map are showing, counterclockwise from the left, a USGS scientist using a resistivity meter and surveying equipment (background) to survey the bedrock beneath the surface using a geophysical method called azimuthal square-array direct- current resistivity. In the lower left, this cross section is showing the results of a survey along line 3 in Windham, N.H., using another method called two-dimensional direct-current resistivity. In the lower right, the photograph is showing a bedrock outcrop located between red lines 3 and 4 (on base map) at Windham, in which the fractures and parting parallel to foliation have the same strike as the azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey results, and remotely sensed lineaments (purple and green lines on base map). The upper right graphic shows a polar plot of the results of an azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey at Windham for array 1 (red circle on base map). U.S. Department of the Interior U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, 3E
    An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION AN INTRODUCTION TO GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION © 2002 by The right of the Authors to be distributors Blackwell Science Ltd identified as the Authors of this Work Marston Book Services Ltd Editorial Offices: has been asserted in accordance PO Box 269 Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0EL with the Copyright, Designs and Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4YN 25 John Street, London WC1N 2BS Patents Act 1988. (Orders: Tel: 01235 465500 23 Ainslie Place, Edinburgh EH3 6AJ Fax: 01235 465555) 350 Main Street, Malden All rights reserved. No part of MA 02148-5018, USA this publication may be reproduced, The Americas 54 University Street, Carlton stored in a retrieval system, or Blackwell Publishing Victoria 3053,Australia transmitted, in any form or by any c/o AIDC 10, rue Casimir Delavigne means, electronic, mechanical, PO Box 20 75006 Paris, France photocopying, recording or otherwise, 50 Winter Sport Lane except as permitted by the UK Williston,VT 05495-0020 Other Editorial Offices: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (Orders: Tel: 800 216 2522 Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag GmbH 1988, without the prior
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C130 October 2008 Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Vice Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008–2009 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Paul H. Bingham, Principal, Global Insight, Inc., Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair Shelly R. Brown, Principal, Shelly Brown Associates, Seattle, Washington, Legal Resources Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Leanna Depue, Director, Highway Safety Division, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, System Users Group Chair Arlene L. Dietz, A&C Dietz and Associates, LLC, Salem, Oregon, Marine Group Chair Robert M. Dorer, Acting Director, Office of Surface Transportation Programs, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Rail Group Chair Karla H. Karash, Vice President, TranSystems Corporation, Medford, Massachusetts, Public Transportation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Katherine F. Turnbull, Associate Director, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Planning and Environment Group Chair Daniel S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Field Mapping
    Presented at Short Course IX on Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP, GDC and KenGen, at Lake Bogoria and Lake Naivasha, Kenya, Nov. 2-23, 2014. Kenya Electricity Generating Co., Ltd. GEOPHYSICAL FIELD MAPPING Anastasia W. Wanjohi, Kenya Electricity Generating Company Ltd. Olkaria Geothermal Project P.O. Box 785-20117, Naivasha KENYA [email protected] or [email protected] ABSTRACT Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. Geophysical field mapping is the process of selecting an area of interest and identifying all the geophysical aspects of the area with the purpose of preparing a detailed geophysical report. The objective of geophysical field work is to understand all physical parameters of a geothermal field and be able to relate them with geological phenomenons and come up with plausible inferences about the system. Four phases are involved and include planning/desktop studies, reconnaissance, actual data aquisition and report writing. Equipments must be prepared and calibrated well. Geophysical results should be processed, analysed and presented in the appropriate form. A detailed geophysical report should be compiled. This paper presents the reader with an overview of how to carry out geophysical mapping in a geothermal field. 1. INTRODUCTION Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. In lay man’s language, geophysics is all about x-raying the earth and involves sending signals into the earth and monitoring the outcome or monitoring natural signals from the earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnetic Airborne Survey – Geophysical Flight
    Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 5, 181–192, 2016 www.geosci-instrum-method-data-syst.net/5/181/2016/ doi:10.5194/gi-5-181-2016 © Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Magnetic airborne survey – geophysical flight Erick de Barros Camara1 and Suze Nei Pereira Guimarães2 1Brucelandair, Ontario, Canada 2Prospectors Aerolevantamentos e Sistemas Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Correspondence to: Erick de Barros Camara ([email protected]) Received: 16 December 2015 – Published in Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst. Discuss.: 2 February 2016 Revised: 9 May 2016 – Accepted: 19 May 2016 – Published: 6 June 2016 Abstract. This paper provides a technical review process in utilized both magnetic and radiometric methods. The fixed- the area of airborne acquisition of geophysical data, with em- wing aircraft PBY-5 (Catalina) was used in the survey. It was phasis for magnetometry. In summary, it addresses the cali- equipped with a Fluxgate magnetometer in the tail of the air- bration processes of geophysical equipment as well as the craft, which measured the total magnetic field (Hildebrand, aircraft to minimize possible errors in measurements. The 2004). The system was entirely analogue type, constructed corrections used in data processing and filtering are demon- using electromechanical units and an infinite series of valves. strated with the same results as well as the evolution of these All the data processing was done manually because, at that techniques in Brazil and worldwide. time, analogue data were recorded, tabulated, corrected, in- terpolated, and plotted on a cartographic base. The data were then presented in the form of a profile overlay on contour maps.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Abstracts 136-139 January-December 1949 (Numbers 10737-11678)
    Geophysical Abstracts 136-139 January-December 1949 (Numbers 10737-11678) Abstracts of world literature t contained in periodicals, books, and patents OHIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director \ « For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S._ Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 5 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS [The letters in parentheses are those used]to designate the chapters for separate publication] Page <A) Geophysical Abstracts 136, January-March 1949 (nos. 10737-11001). 1 <B) Geophysical Abstracts 137, April-June 1949 (nos. 11002-11201__ 95 <C) Geophysical Abstracts 138, July-September 1949 (nos. 11202-11441). 167 (D) Geophysical Abstracts 139, October-December, 1949 (nos. 11442- 11678....._________________________________________________ 253 Under Departmental orders, Geophysical Abstracts have been published at different times by the Bureau of Mines or the Geological Survey as noted below: 1-86, May 1929-June 1936, Bureau of Mines, Information Circulars. [Mimeo­ graphed.] 87, July-December 1937, Geological Survey, Bulletin 887. 88-91, January-December 1937, Geological Survey, Bulletin 895. 92-95, January-December 1938, Geological Survey Bulletin 909. 96-99, January-December 1939, Geological Survey, Bulletin 915. 100-103, January-December 1940, Geological Survey, Bulletin 925. 104-107, January-December 1941, Geological Survey, Bulletin 932. 108-111, January-December 1942, Geological Survey, Bulletin 939. 112-127, January 1943-December 1946, Bureau of Mines, Information Circulars. [Mimeographed.] 128-131, January-December 1947, Geological Survey, Bulletin 957. 132-135, January-December 1948, Geological Survey, Bulletin 959. in Geophysical Abstracts 136 January-March 1949 (Numbers 10737-11001) By V.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett's Dump Site
    EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 248323 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT BENNETT'S DUMP SITE BLOOMINGTON PROJECT Bloomington, Indiana CBS Corporation 11 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1384 February 22,1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Summary of Field Activities 2 2.1 Site Preparation 2 2.2 Geophysical Survey 3 3.0 Summary of Findings 6 3.1 Electromagnetic and Magnetometer Results 6 3.2 Seismic Refraction Study Results 7 4.0 Conclusions 11 List of Figures 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Layout Map 3 Geophysical Sample Location Map 4 Generalized Electromagnetic Anomaly Map 5 Lithologic Profiles 6 Bedrock Contour Map 7 Top of Clay Layer Contour Map Appendices A Geosphere Inc. Report B Soil Boring Logs 1.0 INTRODUCTION Previous investigations led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the Bennett's Dump site have identified various electromagnetic anomalies. Since the primary method of site cleanup will involve excavation of portions of the site, a refined understanding of the subsurface conditions was required to aid in planning of future delineation studies. A geophysical survey, including an electromagnetic survey, a magnetometer survey, and a seismic refraction study, were performed at the Bennett's Dump site during the week of December 14,1998. This report summarizes the geophysical survey, presents the geophysicist's findings, and, based on data gathered herein as well as from previous boring projects, provides a summary of the local geology. The complete report of the geophysical results provided by the geophysics contractor is included in Appendix A. The seismic investigation was conducted to provide an understanding of the subsurface structures in areas most likely to contain large amounts of fill.
    [Show full text]
  • SEG Near-Surface Geophysics Technical Section Annual Meeting
    The 2018 SEG Near-Surface Geophysics Technical Section Proposed Technical Sessions (Please note, the identified session topics here are not inclusive of all possible near-surface geophysics technical sessions, but have been identified at this point.) Session topic/title Session description and objective Coupled above and below-ground Description: There have been significant advances in a variety of geophysical techniques in the past decades to characterize near- monitoring using geophysics, UAV, surface critical zone heterogeneity, including hydrological and biogeochemical properties, as well as near-surface spatiotemporal and remote sensing dynamics such as temperature, soil moisture and geochemical changes. At the same time, above-ground characterization is evolving significantly – particularly in airborne platforms and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) – to capture the spatiotemporal dynamics in microtopography, vegetation and others. The critical link between near-surface and surface properties has been recognized, since surface processes dictates the evolution of near-surface environments evolve (e.g., topography influences surface/subsurface flow, affecting bedrock weathering), while near-surface properties (such as soil texture) control vegetation and topography. Now that geophysics and airborne technologies can capture both surface and near-surface spatiotemporal dynamics at high resolution in a spatially extensive manner, there is a great opportunity to advance the understanding of this coupled surface and near-surface system. This session calls for a variety of contributions on this topic, including coupled above/below-ground sensing technologies, new geophysical techniques to characterize the interactions between near-surface and surface environments. Near-surface modeling using Description: The first few meters of the subsurface is of paramount importance to the engineering and environmental industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Geophysical Methods for Site Characterization of Nuclear Waste Disposal Sites
    REVIEW OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contract NRC−02−07−006 Prepared by Ronald N. McGinnis,1 Stewart K. Sandberg,2 Ronald T. Green,1 and David A. Ferrill1 1Department of Earth, Material, and Planetary Sciences Geosciences and Engineering Division Southwest Research Institute® 2Consulting Geophysicist Houston, Texas October 2011 CONTENTS Section Page FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... iii TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. vi 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1 2 CURRENT UNDERSTANDING AND RELEVANCE OF GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES TO CHARACTERIZE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ............................................ 2-1 2.1 Relationships Between Physical Properties and Nuclear Waste Disposal Site Characterization ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.1 Tectonic Processes .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]