GeoExplo

Ltda.

Santiago Chile

Geophysical Airborne Survey

ElectroMagnetic Methods (EM)

Electro-Magnetic Airborne Surveys

Abstract
Table of Contents
This paper on airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) techniques deals
with a number of topics relating
to airborne EM survey systems
and methods. These AEM topics
include: Basic Principles,
Transient Airborne Electromagnetics, Frequency Domain
Airborne Electro-magnetics,
Airborne VLF Electro-magnetics,
Factors Aecting Detectability,
Combined AEM/Magnetometer
Surveys, Survey Data
Presentation and Interpretation.

3. AIRBORNE ELECTROMAGNETIC
SURVEYS
3.1 Basic Principles
3.1a Transient Airborne
Electromagnetics
3.1b Frequency Domain
Airborne Electromagnetics
3.1c Airborne VLF
Electromagnetics
3.2 Factors Aecting Detectability
3.3 Combined AEM/Magnetometer
Surveys
3.4 Survey Data Presentation
3.5 Interpretation
3.5a Other Interpretation
Methods
Appendix 1. Typical Electrical Properties
Selected Bibliography

3. Airborne Electromagnetic Surveys

The general objective of AEM (Airborne ElectroMagnetic) surveys is to conduct
a rapid and relatively low-cost search for metallic conductors, e.g. massive
sulphides, located in bed-rock and often under a cover of overburden and/or
fresh water. This method can be applied in most geological environments except
where the country rock is highly conductive or where overburden is both thick
and conductive. It is equally well suited and applied to general geologic
mapping, as well as to a variety of engineering problems (e.g., fresh water
exploration.)
Semi-arid areas, particularly with internal drainage, are usually poor AEM
environments. Tidal coasts and estuaries should be avoided. Weathered maic
ows can provide strongly conductive backgrounds, particularly ows of Tertiary
or Quaternary age.
Conductivities of geological materials range over seven orders of magnitude,
with the strongest EM responses coming from massive sulphides, followed in
decreasing order of intensity by graphite, unconsolidated sediments (clay, tills,
and gravel/sand), and igneous and metamorphic rocks. Consolidated
sedimentary rocks can range in conductivity from the level of graphite (e.g.
shales) down to less than the most resistive igneous materials (e.g. dolomites
and limestones). Fresh water is highly resistive. However, when contaminated by
decay material, such lake bottom sediments, swamps, etc., it may display
conductivity roughly equivalent to clay and salt water to graphite and sulphides.

Typically, graphite, pyrite and or pyrrhotite are responsible for the observed
bedrock AEM responses. The following examples suggest possible target types
and we have indicate the grade of the AEM response that can be expected from
these targets.
Massive volcano-sedimentary stratabound sulphide ores of Cu, Pb, Zn, (and
precious metals), usually with pyrite and/or pyrrhotite. Fair to good AEM
targets accounting for the majority of AEM surveys.
Carbonate-hosted Pb-Zn, often with marcasite, pyrite, or pyrrhotite, and
sometimes associated with graphitic horizons. Fair to poor AEM targets.
Massive pyrrhotite-pentlandite bodies containing Ni and sometimes Cu and
precious metals associated with noritic or other mac/ultramac intrusive
rocks. Fair to good AEM targets.
Vein deposits of Ag, often with Sb, Cu, Co, Ni, and pyrite in volcanic and
sedimentary rocks. Generally poor AEM targets.
Quartz veins containing Au with pyrite, sometimes also with Sb, Ag, Bi, etc.,
in volcanic or sedimentary (and possibly intrusive) rocks. Poor AEM targets.
Skarn deposits of Cu, Zn, Pb, and precious metals, usually with pyrite and
magnetite, around igneous intrusions. Fair to poor AEM targets.
Conductive targets can be concealed by other geological conductors, "geological
noise", such as:
Lateral variations in conductive overburden.
Graphitic bands in metamorphosed country rock.
Altered (to clay facies) mac-ultramaic rocks.
Faults and shear-zones carrying appreciable groundwater and/or clay
gouge.
Magnetite bands in serpentinized ultramacs.

3.1 Basic Principles

Electromagnetic-induction prospecting methods, both airborne and (most)
ground techniques, make use of man-made primary electromagnetic elds in,
roughly, the following way: An alternating magnetic eld is established by
passing a current through a coil, (or along a long wire). The eld is measured
with a receiver consisting of a sensitive electronic amplier and meter or
potentiometer bridge. The frequency of the alternating current is chosen such
that an insignicant eddy-current eld is induced in the ground if it has an
average electrical conductivity,
If the source and receiver are brought near a more conductive zone, stronger
eddy currents may be caused to circulate within it and an appreciable secondary
magnetic eld will thereby be created. Close to the conductor, this secondary or
anomalous eld may be compared in magnitude to the primary or normal eld
(which prevails in the absence of conductors), in which case it can be detected
by the receiver. The secondary eld strength, Hs, is usually measured as a
proportion of the primary eld strength, Hp, at the receiver in percent or ppm
(parts per million).

Anomaly = Hs / Hp.
Increasing the primary eld strength increases the secondary eld strength
proportionally but the "anomaly" measured in ppm or percent remains the same.
Figure 3.1-1, from Grant and West, illustrates the general principle of
electromagnetic prospecting.

Figure 3.1-1: A generalized picture of electromagnetic induction prospecting.

Prospecting for anomalous zones is carried out by systematically traversing the
ground either with the receiver alone or with the source and receiver in
combination, depending on the system in use. In the case of airborne systems,
the receiver coils are usually in a towed bird and the transmitter may be a large
coil encircling a xed wing aircraft, e.g. INPUT systems, or one or more small
coils in the same bird that houses the transmitting coils, e.g. most HEM
(Helicopter EM) systems.
There are two dierent basic systems commonly used to generate and receive
the electromagnetic eld: transient or "time domain" systems like
INPUT,GEOTEM and MEGATEM and a/c. "frequency domain" systems like most
HEM systems.

Transient Airborne Electromagnetics

Historically, the most commonly encountered system of this type was the INPUT
system. The newer systems GEOTEM and MEGATEM (Fugro Airborne Surveys)
function in a similar way to INPUT, Thus for symplicity we will examine only the
INPUT system. For those who would like to know more about the newer systems
please link to GEOTEM, MEGATEM, or TEMPEST of Fugro Airborne Surveys.
In the INPUT system the transmitting coil, usually encircling a xed wing
aircraft, is energized by what is, essentially, a step current. In the absence of
conductors, a sharp transient pulse proportional to the time derivative of the
magnetic eld is induced in the receiver. When a conductor is present, however,
a sudden change in magnetic eld intensity will induce in it a ow of current in
the conductor which will tend to slow the decay of the eld. Figure 3.1-2
illustrates this situation. The switching is repeated several times a second as the
aircraft follows its ight line, so that the signal is virtually continuous.
The receiver "listens" only while the transmitter is "quiet" so that problems
arising out of relative motion between transmitter and receiver, because the
receiver is towed in a bird behind the aircraft, are virtually eliminated.
Moreover, if the entire decay of the secondary eld could be observed, the
response would be equivalent to AC measurements made over the whole of the
frequency spectrum. It is important to note in this connection, however, that not
the decay function itself but only its time derivative can be recorded if a coil is
used as the detector. This means that the anomalous elds which decay very
slowly are suppressed in amplitude more than the others, and since these are
the very ones generally associated with good conductors, there would seem to be
an inherent weakness in this system. Because it is dicult to precisely
synchronize the instant when the transmitter becomes "quiet" with the instant
that the receiver begins to "listen", it is nearly impossible to record the entire
function. This is equivalent to being unable to record many of the lower
frequencies in the a-c spectrum. Th should be noted, however, that in the past
several years, signicant progress has been made in measuring the early time
response.
Typically, the time derivative of the decay function is measured using from six to
twelve dierent time delays from the instant that transmitter stops transmitting
before recording the signal received.

Figure 3.1-2: A sketch of the INPUT transient airborne EM system operation.

The primary eld is a step function and the receiver records the decay of the
eld after the transmitter stops transmitting. (Grant and West 1965)

3.1b Frequency Domain Airborne

Electromagnetics
Historically, all helicopter-borne electromagnetic (HEM) systems, where of this
type. There are a number of newer systems that employ the transient technique
similar to the INPUT system but these will not be discussed here as they are as
yet not widely used.
In the typical frequency domain helicopter EM system (HEM) both the
transmitting coil set and the receiver coil set are housed in a rigid boom or
"bird" that is towed beneath the helicopter. Commonly, this boom is from three to
ve meters long and contains from two to six coil pairs. Usually, half of the coils
in each of the transmitter set and the receiver set are "co-axial", i.e. an axis
normal to the plane of the coils passes through the centre of both coils. The
second half of the coil sets are normally "co-planar", being equivalent to both the
transmitting and receiving coil lying at on the ground. Other coplanar
orientations have been used occasionally. A diagram of this system is shown in
gure 3.1-3. For clarity, the boom is shown over sized in this diagram. Note the
stabilizing airfoil attached to one end of the bird.

Figure 3.1-3: Sketch of a typical HEM system conguration.

This system operates in precisely the manner described in section 3.1. The
receiver measures the in-phase and out-of-phase, or quadrature, of the
secondary eld, expressed in ppm of the primary eld. As we will discuss in the
interpretation section, the two dierent coil orientations provide data that is
useful in discriminating between dike like conductors that have considerable
vertical extent and may be ore bodies, and horizontal sheet like conductors that
are simply conductive overburden. The two coil orientations also provide
additional information about the geometry of the target body. As is illustrated in
the diagram, the system includes a second bird carrying a magnetometer. The
magnetic data is often useful in discriminating between metallic and non
metallic conductors and to assist in interpreting the geological setting of the
conductor. Sometimes a VLF receiver is also included.
Figure 3.1-4 shows a photograph of one of a
typical HEM systems being launched for
survey operations.
This system includes co-axial and co-planar
coil pairs to measure the electromagnetic eld
at four frequencies simultaneously.
Figure 3.1-4: The typical HEM bird
conguration being launched for survey
operations. Note that this system also includes
a magnetometer bird between the helicopter
and the EM bird.

3.1c Airborne VLF Electromagnetics

With VLF systems the primary eld is supplied by powerful radio transmitters
used for military communications and navigation. The receiver usually consists
of a coil and supporting electronics towed in a bird. Figure 3.1-5 shows the
positions of current VLF EM transmitters and approximate ranges of reception.

Figure 3.1-5: The locations and ranges of VLF EM transmitting stations.

Because the available frequencies are high (15-22 Khz) the systems are
particularly susceptible to geologic noise. Also, because the transmitters are
controlled by the military, they may not always be operating for the entire period
that a survey is in progress. They are also limited in terms of available primary
eld directions which will not always be well coupled with the favorable geologic
strike.
Note: A number of the stations shown in the above picture are no longer
operating.

3.2 Factors Aecting Detectability

There are at least six factors that determine whether or not a particular
conductor will be detectable with any EM system.

1. Signal-to-noise ratio:
In practice, because of "system noise" (Ns) and "geological noise" (Ng), the
ability of a system to recognize and measure an anomaly is limited by the
"signal-to-noise" ratio:

Signal-to-noise = Hs / (Ns + Ng)

Because Hs and Ng are proportional to the primary eld strength Hp, and Ns, in
frequency-domain systems, usually contains elements proportional to Hp, there
is little to be gained by increasing the primary eld power. In time domain
systems Ns is not greatly aected by Hp, so extra power does result in increased
signal-to-noise. Attempts to increase the signal-to-noise are sometimes made by
increasing the distance between the transmitter and receiver. This results in
roughly the same Hs and Ng but often a lower system noise Ns. However the
longer bird required to achieve this is more prone to ex, and thus may actually
display increased system noise Ns. In addition, the larger bird is heavier and
more dicult to handle and thus may reduce survey productivity, increasing
cost. In conductive areas Ng may be higher, thereby osetting any advantage of
lower Ns.

2. Penetration
The penetration of an AEM system is its eective depth of exploration.
Commonly, this is taken to include the elevation of the system above ground, as
this is also aected by local environment and ying conditions.
In general, systems with large transmitter-receiver coil separation, usually
referred to as Tx-Rx, have greater penetration than those with small separations.
Penetration is closely related to signal-to-noise, as the system that produces a
larger anomaly from a given conductor can, of course, look further into the
ground. Penetration is usually dened as the maximum depth at which a large
vertical sheet will produce a recognizable anomaly of at least twice the
amplitude of the system noise.

3. Discrimination
The discrimination of an AEM system is the ability of the system to dierentiate
between conductors of dierent physical properties or geometric shapes.
Discrimination, particularly between at lying surcial conductors and steeply
dipping conductors, is vitally important. Good discrimination can be achieved in
HEM systems by using several frequencies and both co-axial and co-planar coil
pairs.

4. Resolution
Resolution refers to the ability of an AEM system to recognize and separate the
interfering eects of nearby conductors. A system that does this well also
produces sharp anomalies over isolated or discrete conductors. Resolution
generally increases with decreasing ight elevation and coil separation.
Typically the HEM systems have better resolution than the xed wing time
domain systems.

5. Conductivity-Width Aperture
All AEM systems are, to some extent, aperture-limited. Below a certain
"response factor", which includes the conductivity and dimensions of the
conductor, the anomaly produced by the system will be below the recognition
level. At the upper end of the response factor, some systems are limited and
others are not. The ones that are not limited sometimes cease to be multichannel systems and lose their discrimination. Time domain systems like INPUT
are aperture limited.

6. Lateral Coverage
In addition to penetration, the lateral coverage of an AEM system is important
because it dictates, to some extent, the maximum distance between survey lines,
which in turn aects the cost of exploration. Alternatively, at a given survey line
spacing, a system with good lateral coverage will have a better chance of
detecting a conductor that lies between two survey lines. Like penetration,
lateral coverage generally increases with increasing coil separation.

3.3 Combined AEM/Magnetometer Surveys

In general there are three steps involved in planning a survey of this type. We
will outline these steps and then give a few examples of how to plan the survey.

Step 1. Dene the Target and Geological Environment

Target

Dening parameters

Large massive sulphide lens

Type, attitude, strike and

composition.

Small massive sulphide lens

Type, shape, attitude and

composition

Veins or other discontinuous

mineralization

Type, extent, strike and

mineral assemblage.

Shear zone or fracture hosted

non-conductors

Type, strike, alteration, water

content

Geological environment criteria.

Depth and conductivity of the overburden. Consider the underlying
bed-rock geology, residual or transported soil, and the Quaternary history of
the area.
The conductivity of the bed-rock and the presence of bed-rock conductors.
The strike and dip of the formations.
The possible presence of magnetic bodies.
The depth range to the conductors of interest.

Step 2. Determine Factors Aecting Survey Performance

The topography and physiography of the area:
Is the area at or hilly? Only a helicopter can maintain required ground
clearance safely in hilly terrain.
The extent and height of tree cover will eect ight elevation.
Presence of cultural features like pipelines or other conductors and or
interference from power lines may be important.
Determine access to the area and the required logistics. These factors will
aect survey production and therefore cost.
Mobilization to and from the area: how far and how long?
Ferry distance from base camp to the survey area(s).
The shape and size of survey block(s). Line length, spacing and the total
kilometerage will aect survey production and therefore cost.
Presence of obstructions such as power lines or towers that my cause a
safety risk for low ying aircraft and/or bird and cable assembly

Step 3. Select the AEM System

The following are examples of dierent targets in three areas in Canada
(Seminar presented by Dr. N. Paterson). The target, and
topographic/physiographic conditions also dier between these areas.

Target 1:
A large stratabound volcanogenic Cu-Zn sulphide body somewhere in a 1000
km2 area in north west Quebec. Thick (30 to 60 meter), partly conductive
overburden covers a country rock that is a mixture of felsic and intermediate
metavolcanics, greywacke, quartzite, banded iron formation, intrusive granite
and minor gabbro. The area is at and swampy and the only access is from
Mattagami, 150 km. away. The area is to be own in summer.
AEM system requirements:
Good penetration.
Tolerance to conductive overburden.
Good discrimination because geologic conductors such as graphite,
sulphide and iron formation are likely.
Good lateral coverage and aperture are desirable.
Low ying cost if possible.
Appropriate systems:
Helicopter EM: - will require a y camp and gasoline dump. May be
relatively expensive, especially if the line spacing must be reduced because
of limited lateral coverage of the system. This system will produce the best
discrimination between graphitic and sulphide conductors and has good
surcial to bedrock discrimination.

INPUT: - has the necessary characteristics but could have a problem with
atmospheric noise in the summer months. A 400 meter line spacing would
be appropriate so cost would be relatively low but does not have as good
discrimination as the HEM system.

Target 2:
A large stratabound massive Pb-Zn body in 150 km2 area in the Yukon. Very
steep topography. Little overburden except in valleys. High tree cover. Country
rock is phyllite, argillite, shist, intermediate volcanics and granite. The area is
130 km. from Ross River, Yukon and 25 km from a private airstrip at Anvil. The
area is to be surveyed in summer.
AEM system requirements:
Good discrimination and resolution because the expected graphitic
conductors are important markers.
Good sensitivity to poor conductors. This requires that high frequencies be
available.
Good performance in steep terrain.
Adequate penetration of at least 75 meters.
Flight lines are short so the aircraft must have good turn-around capability.
Because the program is small, mobilization costs must be low.
Appropriate systems:
Multi coil Helicopter EM with at least one frequency over 3000 Hz has all of
the necessary characteristics. This type of system can be installed in a local
helicopter are preferable in order to reduce mobilization costs. 150 m line
spacing is appropriate.

Target 3:
Small Cu-Zn sulphide lenses somewhere in a 500 km2 kilometre area of north
west Newfoundland. The bed-rock is intermediate-mac metavolcanics with
some ultramac intrusives and minor metasediments. The terrain is moderately
hilly covered by 10-20 meter high trees. There is little overburden and what
there is, is virtually non-conductive. There is good access to villages in the area
by road and the nearest airstrip, Cornerbrook, is 120 km. away. The area is to be
own in winter.
AEM system requirements:
Good resolution because the mineralization is, typically, in small pods, often
in graphitic host rock and sometimes as steeply dipping pipes.
Good response to poor conductors. Typical massive sulphide conductance in
the area is 1-3 mhos. The host rock and the overburden are relatively
non-conductive.
Good lateral coverage is required because the conductors are of irregular
strike and dip.
A depth of penetration of about 75 meters is adequate.

Appropriate systems:
A multicoil helicopter EM system with at least one frequency over 3000 hz
and, perhaps, with VLF. In this case the VLF may add aperture, lateral
coverage and penetration, and help to discriminate between long
(formational) and short (lens type) conductors at very low additional cost.
The system can be based in a village in the area.

3.4 Survey Data Presentation

In addition to a digital data le, the results of an AEM survey, the data, is
presented in a variety of formats. Some contractors only present the EM
anomaly locations plotted on the ight path maps, together with a coding
indicating anomaly strengths and certain parameters derived by computermodeling the anomaly sources as vertical sheets. Before the advent of personal
computers with their interactive display capabilities, stacked proles of the EM,
altimeter, magnetic, and sometimes, spheric noise data used to be a common
form of data presentation. However, because handling the large amount of paper
involved was always an onerous task and most explorationists can now display
proles, using their computer, directly from the digital data base, it is no longer
common to produce hard copy prole displays.

Typically contractors present EM data in two principle

formats:
As prole maps showing the in-phase and quadrature components of
complimentary co-axial and co-planar frequency pairs plotted as coloured
proles on the ight path. This map also shows the locations of signicant
EM anomalies displayed using an icon code to indicate the calculated
conductivity-thickness product of the source assuming that it is a vertical
sheet. The process of "picking" and modeling these anomalies will be
described in more detail in the interpretation section.
As a coloured map of the apparent resistivity with embedded contours
calculated from the coplanar or coaxial EM data. This map shows the
apparent ground resistivity assuming the ground to be of uniform
conductivity both laterally and vertically. These maps are helpful in
outlining conductive overburden and showing discrete bed-rock conductors.
Actual values of resistivity bear little relation to the true resistivities of the
overburden or bed-rock features.

TFM

VDV

EM_Profiles

RES

Figure 3.4-1 illustrates a typical suite of nal maps of both the magnetic data
and the EM data, including the interpretation map, that survey contractor would
deliver after the completion of a combination Magnetic-HEM survey operations
and the required compilation and interpretation phases of data analysis.

Figure 3.4-1: A typical Interpretation map that result combined HEM and
magnetic survey.

3.5 Interpretation
Most survey contractors limit their interpretation to a systematic analysis of the
more promising anomalies using a vertical sheet as the conductor model. This is
normally done, using a computer program, after the local base level for
estimating anomaly amplitudes has been carefully determined. Anomaly
selection is done by, judiciously, using the shape of calculated models of various
conductors, vertical sheets, at lying surcial sheets, etc. similar to the ones
shown in gure 3.5-1.

Figure 3.5-1: A sketch illustrating the theoretical HEM anomalies caused by

simple conductor shapes. When multiple conductors are present, the shapes
illustrated will be modied by neighbouring anomalies.
Nomograms exist, such as the one illustrated in gure 3.5-2 by which similar
analysis can be made from prole data. Both procedures produce estimates of
conductance, called the conductivity-thickness product (which is the product of
the conductivity of the tabular source and its thickness), and the depth to the
source from the sensor. The sensor height, as recorded by the radar altimeter, is
then subtracted from the depth to give an apparent depth below ground.
Some contractors have developed interactive computer programs that allows the
interpreter to "pick" the anomalies directly from a display on the computer
screen and immediately see the results of the conductance/depth calculation.
This permits the interpreter to alter both the map scale and the prole data
scale quickly to insure that all features, regardless of amplitude, are fully
assessed.

Figure 3.5-2: A nomogram used to estimate the conductivity-thickness product

and depth to the source.

Figure 3.5-3: This prole map shows a typical bed-rock conductor anomaly.
In gure 3.5-3, note that the anomaly has a characteristic signature. The positive
coaxial response (the red line for the inphase component and the blue for the
quadrature) is mirrored by a low in the coplanar response (maroon for inphase
and teal for quadrature).
Figures 3.5-4 and 3.5-5 illustrate the signatures of a surcial conductor and of a
conductor which contains signicant magnetite content. Note that the surcial
conductor is broad and lacks the high coaxial / low coplanar response of the
vertical sheet anomaly in gure 3.5-3. The magnetite response is negative in the
in-phase component.

Figure 3.5-4: Typical signature of an HEM anomalies due to near surface

"surcial" material. Note that the quadrature response of the coaxial, (blue), and
coplanar, (teal), proles are nearly identical while there is no inphase response
for either coil pairs.

Figure 3.5-5: Typical HEM response of a conductor that contains a signicant

amount of magnetite.
In gure 3.5-5: Note that both the coaxial and coplanar in-phase response is
strongly negative while there is little or no quadrature response from either coil
pair.
While the process described above does produce very useful information about
the relative importance of various anomalies in the EM data, it has severe
limitations including:
The assumption of vertical dip: If the conductor is non vertical, its apparent
depth will be underestimated but the conductance estimate will not be
greatly aected.
The assumption of semi-innite size: The depth estimate tends to be too
great and the conductance too low.

The assumption of non-conductive host rock and overburden: If the

conductor is in contact with a conductive host rock or overburden, the
quadrature anomaly will be enhanced and the depth and the conductance
will both be underestimated. If the conductor underlies, but does not
contact the conductive overburden the depth and conductance will both be
overestimated.
Failure to correctly remove local EM background: If the residual eect of
local EM background has shifted the assumed EM base level used in the
calculation, the depth estimates will be too low and the conductance
underestimated.
Presence of magnetite: suppression of the in-phase anomaly by magnetic
susceptibility in the case of conductors in magnetic environments will lead
to underestimating conductance and wild line to line variations in the
estimate.

3.5a Other Interpretation Methods

For reasons similar to those suggested in the section on magnetic interpretation,
detailed interpretation of specic anomalies on a map is almost always done by
the exploration managers personnel. Many of these methods rely on the
application of sophisticated modeling algorithms. Figure 3.5-6 shows an example
of an HEM model of two conductive plates in one such modeling program.

Figure 3.5-6: A calculated theoretical coaxial inphase electromagnetic response

of two dipping conductive dikes.

Appendix 1: Typical Electrical Properties of Earth Materials.

Rock, Mineral, etc.

Conductivity
(mohs/meter)

Resistivity
(ohm-meters)

Bornite

330

3 x 10-3

Chalcocite

104

10-4

Chalcopyrite

250

4 x 10-3

Galena

500

2 x 10-3

Graphite

103

10-3

Marcasite

20

5 x 10-2

Magnetite

17 x 10-4 - 2 x 104

5 x 10-5 - 6 x 10-3

Pyrite

0.3

Phrrhotite

104

10-4

Sphalerite

10-2

102

Igneous and
Metamorphic Rocks

10-7 - 10-2

100 - 107

Sediments

10-5 - 5 x 10-2

20 - 105

Soils

10-3 - 0.5

2 - 103

Fresh Water

5 x 10-3 - 0.1

10 - 200

Saline Overburden

0.1 - 5

0.2 - 1

Salt Water

5 - 20

0.05 - 2

Sulphide Ores

10-2 - 10

0.1 - 100

Granite Beds and

Slates

10-2 - 1

1 - 100

Altered Ultramacs

10-3 - 0.8

1.25 - 103

Water-lled
faults/shears

10-3 - 1

1 - 103

Selected Bibliography -- Airborne

ElectroMagnetic Surveys
Grant, F.S. and West, G.F., 1965, Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics,
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Fraser, Douglas C., 1976, Resistivity Mapping with an Airborne Multicoil
Electromagnetic System: Geophysics, vol. 41, no. 1 (Fedbruary 1976).
Fraser, Douglas C., 1979, The Multicoil II Airborne Electromagnetic System:
Geophysics, vol. 44, no. 8 (August 1979).
Paterson, Norman R., 1982, Use of Airborne E.M. (AEM) in Exploration for
Bedrock Conductors, in Mining Geophysics Workshop., Paterson Grant and
Watson Limited.
Paterson, Norman R., 1982, Prospecting by Combined AEM/Magnetometer
Surveys, in Mining Geophysics Workshop., Paterson Grant and Watson Limited.