Geological Uncertainty and Geophysical Ambiguity: Friends or Foes?

Laurent Ailleres and Robin Armit and Teagan Blaike and Thomas Carmichael and Lachlan Grose and Gautier Laurent and Peter Betts and Mark Jessell and Mark Lindsay. ( 2015 )
in: Proceeding of the 13th Biennial SGA Meeting, 24-27 August 2015, Nancy, France, pages 1693--1696

Abstract

We present two case studies of sensitivity analysis of 2.5D forward and 3D inverse potential field modelling at the scale of a volcano and of a tectonic belt. The results show that geophysical ambiguity and geological uncertainty can be used to reduce each other and knowledge can be derived from the residual field (differences between observed and calculated fields) utilising the variability allowed by potential field ambiguity. Recent research on geological uncertainty shows that a better sampling of the geological model space is possible. Although still a manual procedure, sampling the geophysical model space is also possible. The combination of both allows for building a more consistent suite of 3D geological models that are consistent with both the geological input data and the geophysical response of the terrane modelled.

Download / Links

    BibTeX Reference

    @INPROCEEDINGS{,
        author = { Ailleres, Laurent and Armit, Robin and Blaike, Teagan and Carmichael, Thomas and Grose, Lachlan and Laurent, Gautier and Betts, Peter and Jessell, Mark and Lindsay, Mark },
         title = { Geological Uncertainty and Geophysical Ambiguity: Friends or Foes? },
     booktitle = { Proceeding of the 13th Biennial SGA Meeting, 24-27 August 2015, Nancy, France },
        volume = { 5 },
          year = { 2015 },
         pages = { 1693--1696 },
      abstract = { We present two case studies of sensitivity analysis of 2.5D forward and 3D inverse potential field modelling at the scale of a volcano and of a tectonic belt. The results show that geophysical ambiguity and geological uncertainty can be used to reduce each other and knowledge can be derived from the residual field (differences between observed and calculated fields) utilising the variability allowed by potential field ambiguity. Recent research on geological uncertainty shows that a better sampling of the geological model space is possible. Although still a manual procedure, sampling the geophysical model space is also possible. The combination of both allows for building a more consistent suite of 3D geological models that are consistent with both the geological input data and the geophysical response of the terrane modelled. }
    }