Bushveld Complex
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
G R A V I T Y M O D E L L I N G I N T H E W E S T E R N B U S H V E L D C O M P L E X, S O U T H A F R I C A, U S I N G I N T E G R A T E D G E O P H Y S I C A L D A T A Stephen John Coomber A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. Johannesburg, 2008 DECLARATION I declare that this dissertation is my own, unaided work. It is being submitted for the degree of Master of Science in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any other University. ________________________________ Stephen John Coomber _______ day of _________________________ 2008 ii ABSTRACT A 10 km x 10 km study area in the western Bushveld Complex, south of the Pilanesberg Complex, was selected for testing the inversion of vertical component gravity (Gz) data to determine the geometry of the Bushveld Complex/Transvaal Supergroup contact. This contact has a density contrast of ~0.350 g.cm-3 making it a suitable target for gravity inversion. The resulting 3D gravity model agrees well with the 3D seismic interpretation, indicating that the depths determined from the seismic data are appropriate. The gravity inversion could be extended laterally to investigate regions without seismic data coverage. This methodology may prove useful where upwellings in the floor of the Bushveld Complex distort seismic data, but can be imaged by gravity inversions. The Gz dataset was created from converted Airborne Gradient Gravity (AGG) data, combined with upward continued ground Gz gravity data, providing extensive coverage. This combined dataset was used in an interactive, iterative 3D gravity inversion methodology used to model the geometry of the Bushveld Complex/Transvaal Supergroup contact and densities of the Bushveld Complex, Transvaal Supergroup and Iron-Rich Ultramafic Pegmatoids (IRUPs). The resulting 3D gravity model provides an acceptable first-pass model of the Bushveld Complex/Transvaal Supergroup contact. In the shallow south-west region of the study area, the steeply dipping contact was determined from borehole intersections. 3D seismic data was the only constraint towards the north-east, where the contact flattens out to a sub-parallel contact, at ~2 000 m depth. In the north-western section, the Bushveld Complex/Transvaal Supergroup contact is fault-bounded by a conjugate set of the Rustenburg Fault, causing the Bushveld to onlap the Transvaal sediments. In the southern region, the contact changes as the conjugate fault dies out, and the Bushveld Complex becomes layered/sub-parallel to Transvaal sediments. This, and other geological features (e.g. faulting, folding, dykes), can be explained in relation to the regional tectonic history, relating to motion along the Thabazimbi-Murchison iii Lineament (TML). Pre-Bushveld emplacement NW-SE far-field stress caused NW trending extensional features in the region (e.g. Rustenburg Fault). Re-orientation of the compressive force to NE-SW, in syn- to post-emplacement, caused compressive features in the region (e.g. open folds with axes trending NW). Ground gravity data (100 m x 100 m station- and line-spacing) were also inverted to obtain a 3D model of the overburden, constrained by borehole data. However, the inversion failed to satisfy the gravity data and borehole data simultaneously, relating to difficulties in modelling the regional gravity field and the gradational nature of the weathered contact. Several rapid variations in overburden thickness were mapped, with particular success in the high frequency ground gravity survey (30 m x 30 m station- and line-spacing) with the identification of a deeply weathered (~10 m deep) channel relating to an mapped fault. iv Dedicated to my Mom and Dad, for all the love, support and friendship v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As in any major academic work, this would have not have been possible without the support of many incredible people and organisations. My supervisor, Sue Webb, gave ever-positive advice, insight and support. Her knowledge of the field of geophysics is dumb-founding and awe-inspiring. Plus, she let me row as much as I wanted. Gordon Chunnett (Anglo Platinum) provided incredible financial support and permission to work on the project. Dr. Andy Rompel (Anglo Technical Division) provided access to technical support and allowed me to finalise my Masters during working hours, which all allowed for a considerably less stressed two years of study. Many technical experts gave their advice and above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty support for the project, especially Kevin Fisher and Nick Parker (Geosoft), Peter Fullagar and Glenn Pears (VPmg), Jennifer Levett (Gocad), Des Fitzgerald and Dominik Argast (Intrepid) and Paul Wouters (Anglo Platinum). Tim and Bronwyn Chalke also provided a clear understanding on the structure of an MSc and many crash-courses in various computer programs. The benefactors of the SEG’s Lucien Lacoste Scholarship supplied a most unexpected and immensely fulfilling grant. Stephanie Scheiber, Shawn Letts and Mark Hamilton provided incredible friendship and inspirational insight and ideas into the world of geophysics. Guys, thanks for all the adventures, all the laughs and Steph, especially, thanks for all the tea. Finally, to the three people who made the last two years count. To Mom and Dad, there are no words for how much I appreciate and love you guys. To Michelle, I’ve got you under my skin… vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................ xi LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................. xx CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1 1.1 Geology.............................................................................................1 1.2 Geophysics........................................................................................3 1.2.1 Geophysical Methods .......................................................................3 1.2.2 Geophysical Modelling.....................................................................5 1.3 Goals of the Dissertation ..................................................................6 1.4 Dissertation Structure .......................................................................7 CHAPTER 2: METHOD – GROUND GRAVITY ........................................ 9 2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................9 2.1.1 Gravity Theory..................................................................................9 2.1.2 Gravitational Potential....................................................................10 2.1.3 Reductions to Ground Gravity Data ...............................................11 2.1.4 Factors Affecting Rock Density .....................................................12 2.1.5 Gravity Measurement .....................................................................13 2.2 Scintrex CG-3 Autograv Gravity Meter .........................................14 2.2.1 In-Field Setup & Operation ............................................................16 2.3 Differential Global Positioning Systems (DGPS) ..........................17 2.3.1 Theory.............................................................................................18 2.3.2 Instrument.......................................................................................20 2.3.3 Quality Control ...............................................................................20 2.3.4 Downloading Data..........................................................................21 2.3.5 Data.................................................................................................21 2.4 Survey Design.................................................................................21 2.5 Quality Control ...............................................................................23 2.6 Office Processing............................................................................24 2.6.1 Downloading Data..........................................................................24 2.6.2 Drift Correction ..............................................................................24 2.6.3 Latitude Correction.........................................................................25 2.6.4 free-air Correction ..........................................................................26 2.6.5 Bouguer Correction ........................................................................27 2.6.6 Terrain Correction ..........................................................................27 2.6.7 Gravity Anomalies..........................................................................28 2.7 Final Ground Gravity Dataset.........................................................29 CHAPTER 3: METHOD – AIRBORNE FULL TENSOR GRADIENT GRAVITY................................................................................ 30 3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................30