Remanent magnetization in

geophysical data
interpretation: how to
recognize it, how to measure
it, and how to model it

Hernan Ugalde & Bill Morris

Lunes 20 de Mayo, 2019
Remanent magnetization in
geophysical data
interpretation: how to
recognize it, how to measure it,
and how to model it
Hernan Ugalde & Bill Morris
Brock University
hugalde@brocku.ca

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 2
 Motivation
• We know that remanent magnetization is a problem for modelling,
interpreting and actually understanding magnetic data. The goal of this
talk is to show some ideas on what to do with it.

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 3
Dipping Dike Model – No remanence
Effective magnetic field direction Inducing field parameters:
(Just inducing field, no remanence) I=60
D=0

Dipping dike:
Dip = 60
Dip direction: N

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 4
 Dipping Dike Model – Add remanence
Inducing field parameters:
I=60
D=0
Remanent field:
NRM Inc = 60
NRM Dec = 180
Q=10

Dipping dike:
Dip = 60
Dip direction: S
Effective magnetic field direction
(Induced + remanence)
v v v
JT  Jr Ji

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 5
 Dipping Dike Model – Add remanence

Without remanence:
However, this could be the real situation. The
Regular interpretations assume this scenario.
previous borehole would miss the intersection!
Boreholes would be planned like the red
arrow.

Remanent Magnetization 6
 How can we identify remanence?
• Earth’s Magnetic field is oriented NS.
Depending on the inclination of the
field, the regular signature of a
vertically dipping, magnetized body
will be a NS-oriented dipole.
• Any rotations of that dipole, or
departures from the “standard”
negative-positive (Northern magnetic
hemisphere) or positive-negative
(Southern magnetic hemisphere),
could be attributed to remanence.
• However, remember the previous
Victoria Island, Nunavut & NWT
model: dip can have a similar effect.
I=86; D=-8

A standard RTP assumes induced

magnetization, so it leaves the negative
May 2019
anomaly untouched.

Remanent Magnetization 7
How can we find areas of remanent magnetization? FDEM

Fraser gives equations to compute apparent susceptibility

out of EM data. This is implemented in EM Flow

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 8
We then compare the EM derived susceptibility with
Mag derived apparent suscep
Suscep difference

EM derived suscep Apparent Suscep from mag

Here we are just plotting one distribution against the other.

Another approach is to use the histogram of the difference…

May 2019 k_EM = 0.65208*k_mag + 0.00054654

Remanent Magnetization 9
Finding areas of remanent magnetization: FDEM
Since we have 2 independent measures of susceptibility, the difference is quite likely
related to remanence. Here we take the 2 end-members of the susceptibility difference
histogram

+/- 1% clips on Susceptibility

difference. This yields about 2800
points at each end.

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 10
 How can we estimate remanence

• Not as easy as it seems, since we need

to estimate the intensity as well as the
direction of the NRM vector.
• As pointed by Bill in 2007, the main
problem area is when Q~1.

Jind: D=0, I=75

Jr: D=90, I=-15

Q floating from 0.1 to 100 (Morris and Ugalde, 2007)

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 11
 How can we estimate remanence: Inversion
• Regarding the direction…
• One option is to invert for the NRM Victoria
vector, or estimate it via other means Island,
like Helbig. Nunavut &
• However, the key is that the NRM NWT
direction, after correction for folding or I=86; D=-8
tilting effects, must be constrained by
the APWP for the location and age of
the rock formation being modelled
Through inversion, Danemmiller and Li
(2006) obtained a NRM of I=-78, D=-3.
However…
• Kimberlites in this area are of
(Morris and Ugalde, 2007)
Permian age
• Using APWP for that age, we
estimate D=315, I=54…which is the
May 2019

same direction of the dipole as

marked in the figure above Remanent Magnetization 12
 How can we estimate remanence: MVI Inversion
(McLeod and Ellis, ASEG 2013)

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 13
 How can we estimate remanence: Helbig Using the location of
the area, and the
potential age for the
kimberlite, we obtain
the following possible
L50370
Not so good in the combinations for the
northern line remanence vector
L50390
(Torsvik et al, 2012; Morris,
pers. comm)
Normal Reverse
Age [Ma] Decl Incl Decl Incl
30 344.8 75.3 164.8 -75.3
40 344.1 75.6 164.1 -75.6
50 339 75.6 159 -75.6
Better fit in the 60 332.2 75.9 152.2 -75.9
70 336.9 75.9 156.9 -75.9
south line 80 337.3 76.7 157.3 -76.7

Helbig’s analysis (Helbig, 1963; Foss, Jnrm = 0.78 The main difference
2017), utilizes the magnetic A/m (for between 30 and 80 Ma is
moments of the components of the k=0.015 SI) the declination of the field.
magnetic field to estimate the Inrm = -52.1 So potentially we could
effective magnetization. Dnrm = 168.2 constrain the age of the
14
May 2019
kimberlite as well.

Remanent Magnetization 14
 How can we estimate remanence: Helbig
Jnrm = 0.78 A/m (for k=0.015 SI) Normal Reverse
Inrm = -52.1 Age [Ma] Decl Incl Decl Incl
30 344.8 75.3 164.8 -75.3
Dnrm = 168.2 40 344.1 75.6 164.1 -75.6
50 339 75.6 159 -75.6
60 332.2 75.9 152.2 -75.9
70 336.9 75.9 156.9 -75.9
80 337.3 76.7 157.3 -76.7
• We are off by 20 degrees in the
Inclination.
• Option 1: Helbig didn’t get it quite
right. Possible causes: dip of the
kimberlite, wrong susceptibility.
• Option 2: we need another component
that combined with the Helbig NRM
can give us the APWP (reverse) one we
need (Morris and Ugalde, 2007)

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 15
 Viscous Remanent Magnetization
Reverse NRM for 30 Ma Reverse NRM for 60 Ma
164.8, -75.3 152.2, -75.9

Present day’s EMF

D=14.4, I=84.4 Helbig’s solution
D=168.2, -52.1)

Reverse NRM for 80 Ma

Viscous Remanent Magnetization is a soft remanent component that is 157.3, -76.7
parallel to the present day’s EMF.

The solid dots represent the present Earth’s Magnetic Field for Lac de Gras
(D=14.4, I=84.4).

For an age of 30 Ma, Helbig’s solution lies on a great circle between the 3
directions. Which means, a combination of the 2 directions (VRM parallel to
current’s EMF and Helbig’s estimation) amounts to the NRM for that age.

May 2019 Remanent Magnetization 16

 How can we estimate remanence: Forward & Inverse
Modelling combined
An area in South
America. I=-2; D=-19

Option 1: an
anticline-like
structure

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 17
How can we estimate remanence: Forward & Inverse
Modelling combined

An area in South
America. I=-2; D=-19

Option 2: 2 parallel
sheets

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 18
How can we estimate remanence: Forward & Inverse
Modelling combined

BEDDING PALEOMAG
POINTS IN BLUE BODIES ON SOUTH SIDE, RED ON NORTH SIDE

This shows, once again, that

without proper geological
constraints we are in “how much
would you like it to be?”
territory. Both inversions show
very good fits, but the NRM’s are BEDDING PALEOMAG
not consistent.
May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 19
 Direct measurements of Remanence

• Option 1: Paleomag
• Option 2: Q-meter

(Schmidt & Lackie, 2014)

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 20
 Direct measurements of Remanence

• Option 1: Paleomag Borehole magnetics:

• Option 2: Q-meter • Excellent for definition of

on-hole/off-hole
• Option 3: Vector Mag / Borehole Mag anomalies, as well as full
3D vector mag (e.g.
orientation of remanence
down the hole and through
stratigraphy)

(Morris et al, 2018)

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 21
 Direct measurements of Remanence

• Option 1: Paleomag
• Option 2: Q-meter
• Option 3: Vector Mag / Borehole Mag

(Morris et al, 2018)

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 22
 Summary and Conclusions
• We have great tools available for finding the location and
estimating the amplitude and direction of remanence (Helbig,
MVI, direct inversion, combined forward model and inversion
along sections). However, we can’t just look at RMS.
o Remanence directions have to be unfolded first, and then
they must follow the APWP. Both processes involve
geological constraints!

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 23
 Acknowledgements

• Tensor Research (Model Vision)

• Northwest Territories Geological Survey (funding for kimberlite study in

NWT)

May 2019

Remanent Magnetization 24