Welcome to Petroleum Geology Forums

This is a free online community that aims to bring petroleum professionals and geologists together and share valuable knowledge. Registration is easy so become a member now for instant free access.
  • Petroleum Geologists can stay up to date with industry related topics and exchange ideas and concepts.
  • Upstream Oil and Gas Consultants get a chance to share their expertise and gain exposure to land future projects.
  • Geology students and graduates can join the discussion and get into contact with potential future employees.

  >> Register Now





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Pilot‐scale field validation of the long electrode... 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:00 pm
Posts: 238
Post Pilot‐scale field validation of the long electrode...
Geophysical Prospecting: Pilot‐scale field validation of the long electrode electrical resistivity tomography method

A validation experiment, carried out in a scaled field setting, was attempted for the long electrode electrical resistivity tomography method in order to demonstrate the performance of the technique in imaging a simple buried target. The experiment was an approximately 1/17 scale mock‐up of a region encompassing a buried nuclear waste tank on the Hanford site. The target of focus was constructed by manually forming a simulated plume within the vadose zone using a tank waste simulant. The long electrode results were compared to results from conventional point electrodes on the surface and buried within the survey domain. Using a pole‐pole array, both point and long electrode imaging techniques identified the lateral extents of the pre‐formed plume with reasonable fidelity but the long electrode method was handicapped in reconstructing vertical boundaries. The pole‐dipole and dipole‐dipole arrays were also tested with the long electrode method and were shown to have the least favourable target properties, including the position of the reconstructed plume relative to the known plume and the intensity of false positive targets. The poor performance of the pole‐dipole and dipole‐dipole arrays was attributed to an inexhaustive and non‐optimal coverage of data at key electrodes, as well as an increased noise for electrode combinations with high geometric factors. However, when comparing the model resolution matrix among the different acquisition strategies, the pole‐dipole and dipole‐dipole arrays using long electrodes were shown to have significantly higher average and maximum values within the matrix than any pole‐pole array. The model resolution describes how well the inversion model resolves the subsurface. Given the model resolution performance of the pole‐dipole and dipole‐dipole arrays, it may be worth investing in tools to understand the optimum subset of randomly distributed electrode pairs to produce maximum performance from the inversion model.

Go to Article


Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:51 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 





Search for:
Jump to:  


Content on EPGeology.com is intended for personal use only and to supplement, not replace, professional judgment. EPGeology.com disclaims any and all liability for your use of its content. As most of our content is supplied by our users we can not check copyright, and stress that copyright remains at the original owner. If you suspect copyright infringement please use the contact form to report it.
Contact || © EPGeology.com. || Powered by phpBB Asteroid Mining

phpBB SEO