Premium
A comparison of receiver technologies in borehole MMR and EM surveys
Author(s) -
Elders J.A.,
Asten M.W.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
geophysical prospecting
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.735
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1365-2478
pISSN - 0016-8025
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2003.00406.x
Subject(s) - noise (video) , borehole , noise floor , stacking , waveform , acoustics , geology , economic geology , sensitivity (control systems) , regional geology , remote sensing , instrumentation (computer programming) , noise measurement , seismology , telmatology , electronic engineering , telecommunications , computer science , noise reduction , physics , engineering , tectonics , geotechnical engineering , nuclear magnetic resonance , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics) , operating system , radar
A series of downhole magnetometric resistivity (DHMMR) and downhole electromagnetic (DHEM) surveys were conducted near Broken Hill, New South Wales, Australia, and at Zinkgruvan, Sweden, to determine how probe and receiver equipment choices affect the amount of noise visible in borehole MMR and EM data. Noise analyses performed on the data, using the standard deviation to gauge the relative noise levels between different probes and receiver systems, indicate that high noise levels in MMR data result primarily from the use of a three‐component EM probe, which has a reduced effective area and hence a higher noise floor compared with a single‐component EM probe. High noise, attributable to cultural sources such as nearby power lines, in either MMR or EM data can be reduced through the use of full‐waveform, multipurpose receiver systems. These systems allow for the use of tapered stacking, which is a more effective method of eliminating coherent noise associated with power‐line transients than the boxcar‐stacking method used by traditional receiver systems.