See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228077453

A new formula to compute apparent resistivities from marine magnetometric

resistivity data

Article  in  Geophysics · May 2006

DOI: 10.1190/1.2194513

CITATIONS READS
6 132

2 authors:

Jiuping Chen Douglas W. Oldenburg

Schlumberger Limited University of British Columbia - Vancouver
30 PUBLICATIONS   361 CITATIONS    307 PUBLICATIONS   12,429 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ph.D: Towards Geologic inversion using machine learning: Petrophysically and Geologically Guided Geophysical Inversion View project

A numerical upscaling framework for the quasi-static Maxwell's equations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Douglas W. Oldenburg on 23 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 71, NO. 3 共MAY-JUNE 2006兲; P. G73–G81, 10 FIGS.
10.1190/1.2194513
A new formula to compute apparent resistivities
from marine magnetometric resistivity data
Jiuping Chen1 and Douglas W. Oldenburg2
ABSTRACT
Magnetometric resistivity 共MMR兲 is an electromagnetic
共EM兲 exploration method that has been used successfully to
investigate electrical-resistivity structures below the sea-
floor. Apparent resistivity, derived from the observed azi-
muthal component of the magnetic field, often is used as an
approximation to the resistivity of a layered earth. Two
commonly used formulas to compute the apparent resistiv-
ity have their own limitations and are invalid for a deep-sea
experiment. In this paper, we derive an apparent-resistivity
formula based upon the magnetic field resulting from a
semi-infinite electrode buried in a 1D layered earth. This
new formula can be applied to both shallow and deep ma-
rine MMR surveys. In addition, we address the effects that
arise from the transmitter-receiver 共Tx-Rx兲 depth difference
and the choice of the normalized range 共the radial distance
between transmitter and receiver, divided by the thickness
of seawater兲 on data interpretation and survey design. The
performance of the new formula is shown by processing
synthetic and field data.
INTRODUCTION
Among the marine electromagnetic 共EM兲 methods used to in-
vestigate resistivity structures below the seafloor, the magnetomet-
ric resistivity 共MMR兲 method has unique characteristics 共Edwards
and Nabighian, 1991兲. The method essentially involves measuring
the magnetic field associated with manmade, noninductive 共low-
frequency or pseudo-dc兲 current flow energized into the seawater
and seafloor through two vertically separated electrodes 共bipole兲.
The magnetic field measured at the ocean-bottom magnetometer
depends upon the total current flow at the seafloor and in the sea-
Manuscript received by the Editor August 27, 2004; revised manuscript received October 6, 2005; published online May 19, 2006.
1
Formerly University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada: presently Schlumberger-EMI Technology Center, 1301 South 46 Street, Building 300, Rich-
mond, California 94804. E-mail: jchen16@slb.com.
2
University of British Columbia, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, 6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. E-mail:
doug@eos.ubc.ca.
© 2006 Society of a Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
G73
water. In the presence of an isotropically layered seafloor, the mag-
netic field generated by the bipole source possesses an azimuthal
symmetry, and the bulk resistivity of the seafloor can be estimated
from the amplitude of the magnetic field.
Apparent resistivity is a commonly used form to present the
measured field data 共Chave et al., 1991兲. There are two advantages
of using the apparent resistivity versus Tx-Rx radial distance 共or
range兲 curve rather than the magnetic-field sounding curve. First,
the azimuthal component B␾ is always decreasing with increased
range, irrespective of whether the seafloor is more conductive or
more resistive at depth. Thus, B␾ versus range is not a sensitive in-
dicator of the resistivity depth variation. From the apparent-re-
sistivity curve, however, it is much easier to get a sense of the sea-
floor structure. Second, in a 1D or multidimensional inversion
共Chen et al., 2002兲, we usually are required to provide some back-
ground resistivity as a reference model to recover superimposed
targets. In this regard, the apparent resistivity is a handy tool, pro-
viding a first-order approximate background structure to the refer-
ence model used in a 1D inversion. The recovered 1D inversion
then may be used as a reference model in any subsequent multidi-
mensional inversions.
There are two formulas in the geophysical literature for comput-
ing the apparent resistivity ␳a from the measured B␾. The first is
given in Chave et al. 共1991兲 and provides
␮0IH␳0
␳a = , 共1兲
4 ␲ R 2B ␾
where B␾ is the measured azimuthal magnetic field at the receiver,
R is the radial distance between the Rx and Tx wire, ␮0 is the per-
meability of free space and nonmagnetic seafloor, I is the current
strength in the transmitter wire, H denotes the thickness of the sea-
water, and ␳0 is the resistivity of the seawater, which is presumably
known. Two assumptions are required in the derivation of this
equation: First, the range R must be large compared to the sea
G74 Chen and Oldenburg

depth H; second, the integrated conductivity of the sea layer ␴0H trode C is placed at the interface z = zs between layers s and s + 1
must be large compared with the parameter ␴1R, where ␴1 is sea- to simplify the mathematics. Each layer has a constant conductiv-
floor conductivity 共i.e., H ⬍ R ⬍ ␴0 /␴1H兲. These assumptions are ity ␴ j with thickness h j and a magnetic permeability equal to free
necessary so that the bipole current is channeled out to relatively space. There are a total of N − 1 interfaces, with ␴N as the termi-
large distances by the sea. Typical values of conductivities are ␴0 nating half-space. In the source-free region, the magnetic field B
= 3.3 S/m and ␴1 = 0.01 to 2.0 S/m. Therefore, the Chave et al. obeys
共1991兲 method for calculating apparent resistivity works best in
a shallow ocean, as in the MOSES experiment 共Edwards et al., 1
1985兲, where H = 200 m. However, in a deep-sea survey, R/H ⵜ⫻ ⵱ ⫻ B = 0. 共3兲
ranges from 0.1–3.0 共Evans et al., 1998; Evans et al., 2002兲. As a
␴
result, the first assumption fails, and the formula will not provide a
The problem is axisymmetric, and B has only an azimuthal com-
good approximation 共see Figure 1兲. Clearly, the apparent-resist-
ponent in cylindrical coordinates r, ␾,z. For simplicity, we use B to
ivity curve provides no indication of the layered-resistivity struc-
represent the azimuthal component in the following derivations.
ture of the seafloor, especially the deep, low-resistivity zone.
Expanding equation 3 and neglecting the conductivity, because ␴
The second formula is given in Wolfgram et al. 共1986兲, where ␳a
is a constant in each layer, yields
is obtained by
␮ 0I ␳ 0 H ⳵ 2B 1 ⳵ B 1 ⳵ 2B
␳a = − ␳0 . 共2兲
冑
2␲RB␾ H + R22
⳵r2
+
r ⳵r
−
r2
B +
⳵z2
= 0. 共4兲

The formula ignores the effect from the electrode on the sea sur- Following the Hankel transform method 共Edwards and Nabig-
face by assuming that the top electrode is located at infinity. To de- hian, 1991兲, we define a Hankel transform pair as
rive this equation, R must be smaller than H 共i.e., R ⬍ H兲. This as-

冕 ⬁
sumption limits the formula’s use in deep-sea MMR because the
Tx-Rx separation R can be greater than H. As Figure 1b illustrates, B̃共␭,z兲 = rB共r,z兲J1共␭r兲dr 共5兲
the Wolfgram et al. 共1986兲 method offers a poor indication of 0
three-layer structure. When R/H is small 共0.1 in this example兲, the
apparent resistivity approaches the true value 共7 ⍀.m兲; otherwise, and
the formula provides an inadequate approximation.

DERIVING A NEW APPARENT RESISTIVITY B共r,z兲 = 冕 0

⬁
␭B̃共␭,z兲J1共␭r兲d␭ , 共6兲

To derive a general apparent-resistivity formula for a marine

MMR survey, we need an analytic or semianalytic expression for where J1 is the Bessel function of the first kind of order one. The
the magnetic field resulting from a semi-infinite wire source with a Hankel transformation of equation 4 results in the simple, second-
point electrode buried in a layered seafloor. order equation in the wavenumber domain ␭

Magnetic field resulting from a ⳵2B̃

semi-infinite source in a 1D earth − ␭2B̃ = 0, 共7兲
⳵z2
As shown in Figure 2, a semi-infinite vertical wire AOC carries
an excitation current I and terminates at the location C. The elec- where B̃ is the magnetic field in the wavenumber domain. A
complementary solution to equation 7 in
any layer j is

B̃ j共␭,z兲 = D̃ je−␭共z−z j−1兲 + Ũ je␭共z−z j−1兲 ,

共8兲

where D̃ j and Ũ j are the downward- and

upward-propagation coefficients, inde-
pendent of the variable z but dependent
on conductivity ␴. The values D̃ j and Ũ j
can be determined through a propagator
matrix by applying boundary conditions
at the layer interfaces. To determine D̃ j
and Ũ j, we use boundary conditions in
which the azimuthal component of mag-
Figure 1. 共a兲 A three-layer seafloor resistivity model in a deep marine MMR survey. 共b兲 Ap- netic field B and the radial component Er
parent resistivities versus normalized radial Tx-Rx distance 共range兲 obtained using Chave et
al. 共1991兲, Wolfgram et al. 共1986兲, and our new formulas.
 Apparent resistivity for marine MMR G75

of the electric field are continuous across the interface, i.e., ␳0

共1 + e−2␭H兲
␮ 0I ␳1

冉 冊 冉 冊
B̃ j兩共␭,z兲兩z=z j = B̃ j+1兩共␭,z兲兩z=z j 共9兲 B̃+共␭,H兲 = . 共14兲
2␲␭ ␳0 ␳0 −2␭H
1+ − 1− e
␳1 ␳1
and

The total field resulting from the bipole is B̃共 ␭,H兲 = B̃+ + B̃−. The
Ẽrj 兩共␭,z兲兩z=z j = Ẽrj+1兩共␭,z兲兩z=z j . 共10兲
denominator term in both equations can be expanded in a binomial
approximation as
In addition, we have the constraints
1

ŨN = 0, 共11兲 冉 冊 冉 冊
1+
␳0
␳1
− 1−
␳0 −2␭H
␳1
e

冉 冊
冤 冥
i.e., there are no upcoming fields in the last layer, and ␳0
1−
兩␴Ez兩z=0 = 0. 共12兲 1 ␳1 −2␭H

冉 冊 冉 冊
= 1+ e + HOT , 共15兲
␳0 ␳0
1+ 1+
Constraint 12 requires that there is no current crossing the air- ␳1 ␳1
seawater interface. Therefore, the 2N unknown coefficients can be
determined from the 2共N − 1兲 + 2 equations. Further details can where HOT stands for higher-order terms of e−2␭H. Substituting
be found in Chen and Oldenburg 共2004兲. equation 15 into B̃+ and B̃− yields

Apparent-resistivity formulas ␳0
⬁
␮ 0I ␳ 1
Suppose the Tx bipole extends from the sea surface to the sea
bottom 共length L = H兲 and the seafloor is a uniform half-space
B̃共␭,H兲 =
2␲␭
兺 ␤ne−n␭H ,
␳0 n=0
共16兲
with resistivity ␳1 共see Figure 3兲. Using the wavenumber method 1+
␳1
above, we can compute the magnetic field at the seafloor 共depth H兲
resulting from one semi-infinite wire terminating at the sea surface
where
共the top electrode is assumed negative兲 in the wavenumber do-
main,

冦 冧
1 n=0
␳0 ␤n = − 2␥ m−1
n = 2m − 1 共17兲
4 e −␭H
␮ 0I ␳1 ␥ 共1 + ␥兲 n = 2m, m = 1,2, . . .
m−1

冉 冊 冉 冊
B̃−共␭,H兲 = − , 共13兲
4␲␭ ␳0 ␳0 −2␭H
1+ − 1− e
␳1 ␳1 and

and another semi-infinite wire terminating at the seafloor 共the bot-

␳0
tom positive electrode兲, 1−
␳1
␥= . 共18兲
␳0
1+
␳1

Figure 2. Schematic of a semi-infinite wire source buried in a lay- Figure 3. A two-layer 共including seawater兲 model for defining ap-
ered earth. parent resistivity.
G76 Chen and Oldenburg

Transforming back to the spatial domain and making use of the in-
冉 冊
R ␳0 2 1+␥

冑 冉冊 冑 冉 冊
tegral identity F2 , = − + ␥,
H ␳1 R 2
R 2
1+ 1+

冕 冋 册
⬁
H 2H
1 nH
e−n␭HJ1共␭R兲d␭ = 1− 共19兲 共23兲
0 R 冑R 2
+ 共nH兲2
and so on. Unfortunately, this is not a good approach because of
yields the oscillating nature of the coefficients ␤n, illustrated in Figure 5,
where ratio ␳0 /␳1 = 0.01 is used. Interestingly, if we look at F1 in
equation 22, we find that the Wolfgram et al. 共1986兲 formula ig-

冦 冤 冑 冉 冊 冥冧
⬁
␮ 0I ␳ 0 1 nores 共1/冑1 + 共R/H兲2兲 − 1; in other words,
B共R,H兲 =
2␲R ␳0 + ␳1
1+ 兺 ␤n 1− 2
.

冉 冊
n=1 R
1+ R ␳0 1

冑 冉冊
nH Fw , = , 共24兲
H ␳1 R 2
共20兲 1+
To obtain a simple approximate relation between B and ␳0 /␳1, we
H
define F共R/H, ␳0 /␳1兲, which is a function of R/H and ␳0 /␳1, to rep-
resent the content within the brackets: which does a better job than F1 to approximate to the infinite se-
ries.
Following that insight, we begin to develop a formula using two

冉 冊
冤 冑 冉 冊冥
⬁ terms in the series expansion 共n = 2兲. As we note from Figure 5, F2
R ␳0 1
F ,
H ␳1
=1+ 兺 ␤n
n=1
1−
R 2
. 共21兲 is not a good approximation, but when we delete terms ␥ − 共 ␥ /
冑1 + 共R/共2H兲兲2兲 from equation 23, the remainder performs better
1+
nH in terms of getting closer to the true F when R/H increases. As a
Function F共R/H, ␳0 /␳1兲 is displayed in Figure 4, where R/H ranges further modification, we replace unity by ␣ in the second term, so
from 0.01 to 10 while the ratio ␳0 /␳1 is 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 0.5, re- our expression has the form

冉 冊
spectively. When R/H ⱕ 0.2, the function F is independent of
␳0 /␳1. In addition, when ␳0 /␳1 ⱕ 0.01, F depends only on R/H. We R ␳0 2 ␣

冑 冉冊 冑 冉 冊
F␣ , = − . 共25兲
will take advantage of this feature to develop a simple relationship H ␳1 R 2
R 2
in the following derivation. 1+ 1+
One approach to obtain an approximate form of equation 21 is to H 2H
truncate the infinite series in that equation at some value of n and
represent the result as Fn共R/H, ␳0 /␳1兲. For example, The unknown ␣, a function of R/H and ␳0 /␳1, can be obtained by
fitting to the curves shown in Figure 4. To conveniently pick an ␣

冉 冊
value, Figure 6a shows the lookup curve of ␣ versus R/H and
R ␳0 2 ␳0 /␳1, and Figure 6b is a contour map for ␣. Alternatively, ␣ can be

冑 冉冊
F1 , = − 1, 共22兲
H ␳1 R 2 computed through an explicit expression
1+
H

Figure 5. Four truncated functions Fn共R/H, ␳0 /␳1兲 to approximate

Figure 4. Infinite series function F共R/H, ␳0 /␳1兲 changes with R/H the infinite series function 共the true function F兲. A resistivity ratio
for different ␳0 /␳1 ratios. ␳0 /␳1 = 0.01 was used.
 Apparent resistivity for marine MMR G77

冦 冧
R value of ␣ is not extremely sensitive to ␳0 /␳1. From Figure 6a, even
1.0 if ⬍ 0.2 where ␳0 /␳1 varies almost three decades 共0.001 to 0.5兲, ␣ only
H

冉冊 冉冊
␣= , changes in the range of 0.75–1.0. This means that even a poor esti-
R ␳0
˜␣共x,y兲, x = log10 , y = log10 otherwise mation of ␳0 /␳1 will not make a significant impact on selecting an
H ␳1 ␣ from the lookup curve. In this sense, determination of ␣ in equa-
共26兲 tion 26 is robust and stable. Finding a good truncated function F␣,
we can define the corresponding apparent resistivity by
where

冦冑 冉 冊 冑 冋 册冧
␮ 0I ␳ 0 2 ␣
˜␣共x,y兲 = 共− 0.023 − 0.055y + 0.101y 2兲 + 共− 0.012 ␳a = − − ␳0 .
2␲R B␾ R 2
R 2
− 0.029y + 0.005y + 0.087y 兲x + 共0.023
2 3 1+ 1+
H 共2H兲
+ 0.080y − 0.124y 2兲x2 + 共0.021 + 0.064y 共28兲
− 0.136y 2兲x3 + 共0.005 + 0.016y + 0.964y 2兲x4 .
Equation 28 is actually the simplest situation encountered in a
共27兲 practical survey. Because of the bathymetry of the ocean bottom,
the lower electrode of the transmitter might be located at a depth
All of the coefficients are obtained by fitting a polynomial of order different from the depth of the receiver. A general model can be
four in x and order three in y in a least-squares sense. presented by locating both the lower electrode and the receiver at
In general, we do not know exactly what ␳0 /␳1 is; fortunately, the different depths in the seawater. Depending upon the relative
depth, we consider the problem in two cases, as shown in Figure 7.

Case A
In this case, the magnetometer is located at depth Zr共Zr ⱕ L
ⱕ H兲, simulating the situation in which the transmitter is near the
sea bottom while the receiver is at a hill because of bathymetry of
the seafloor. Generally, we follow the same procedure as above to
derive the magnetic field. However, this derivation is more compli-
cated because we have two additional depths, Zr and L, and have
more combinations among Zr, L, and H. More importantly, truncat-
ing the infinite series in the spatial domain has proven unsatis-
factory because of its oscillating behavior. We have resorted to a
slightly different method to find an optimum ␣共R/H, ␳0 /␳1兲 in this
case. First, we truncate the infinite series directly in the wavenum-
ber domain and retain exponential terms up to n = 2 for the mag-
netic field 共e.g., we only have exponential terms such as e−␭H, e−2␭H,
e−␭Zr, e−␭共2H−Zr兲, etc.兲. Second, we transform these related terms into
the spatial domain using the integral identity 共equation 19兲. Finally,
assembling them yields the total magnetic field

B共R,Zr兲 =
␮ 0I ␳ 1 ␳0
4␲R ␳0 + ␳1 ␳1
冋
A1 + A2 , 册 共29兲

where the coefficients are

Figure 6. Alphas can be determined from 共a兲 lookup curve or 共b兲

contour map for different R/H and ␳0 /␳1. Note ␣ = 1 when R/H Figure 7. Two general scenarios for Tx-Rx configuration in marine
⬍ 0.2 in 共b兲. The grayscale bar for ␣ is unitless. MMR: 共a兲 Zr ⱕ L ⱕ H and 共b兲 L ⱕ Zr ⱕ H.
G78 Chen and Oldenburg

2Zr 2共2H − Zr兲 Case B

A1 = +
冑R 2
+ Zr2 冑R 2
+ 共2H − Zr兲 2 In this case, the magnetometer might be below the lower elec-
trode 共L ⱕ Zr ⱕ H兲, simulating the situation in which the trans-
2H + Zr − L L − Zr mitter wire is seated at a hill while the receiver is at a valley. Simi-
+ +
冑R2 + 共2H + Zr − L兲2 冑R2 + 共L − Zr兲2 lar to case A, the total azimuthal field is

−
冑R 2
4H
+ 共2H兲 2
−
冑R 2
Zr + L
+ 共Zr + L兲2 B共R,Zr兲 =
␮ 0I ␳ 1 ␳0
4␲R ␳0 + ␳1 ␳1
冋
A4 + A5 , 册 共35兲

2H − Zr − L
− 共30兲
冑R2 + 共2H − Zr − L兲2 where the coefficients are

and 2Zr 2共2H − Zr兲 Zr − L

A4 = + −
冑R 2
+ Zr2 冑R2 + 共2H − Zr兲2 冑R2 + 共Zr − L兲2
2Zr 2H − Zr − L 4H
A2 =
冑R2 + Zr2 + 冑R2 + 共2H − Zr − L兲2 + 冑R2 + 共2H兲2 −
Zr + L
−
2H + L − Zr
冑R2 + 共Zr + L兲2 冑R2 + 共2H + L − Zr兲2
L − Zr 2共2H − Zr兲
+ − 2H − Zr − L
冑R 2
+ 共L − Zr兲 2 冑R 2
+ 共2H − Zr兲2 − 共36兲
冑R2 + 共2H − Zr − L兲2
Zr + L 2H + Zr − L
− − 共31兲
冑R2 + 共Zr + L兲2 冑R2 + 共2H + Zr − L兲2 . and

Accordingly, the apparent resistivity can be defined as 2Zr 2H + L − Zr

A5 =
冑R2 + Zr2 + 冑R2 + 共2H + L − Zr兲2
␮ 0I ␳ 0 1 ␳0
␳a = A1 − , 共32兲 2H − L − Zr L + Zr
4␲R B␾ A3 A3 + −
冑R2 + 共2H − L − Zr兲2 冑R2 + 共L + Zr兲2
where
2共2H − Zr兲 Zr − L
− − . 共37兲
␮0IA2
冑R 2
+ 共2H − Zr兲 2 冑R 2
+ 共Zr − L兲2
A3 = 1 − . 共33兲
4␲RB␾
The apparent resistivity can be expressed as
If Zr = L = H, then A1 = 4H/冑R2 + H2 − 4H/冑R2 + 共2H兲2, A2 = 0,
A3 = 1, and equation 32 is identical to equation 28. Since similar ␮ 0I ␳ 0 1 ␳0
␳a = A4 − , 共38兲
assumptions also are made in the derivation, we must correct for 4␲R B␾ A6 A6
equation 28 with ␣ = 1. This means A1 can be modified as
where
2 2

冑 冉冊 冑 冋 册
A1 = 2
+ 2
R R ␮0IA5
1+ 1+ A6 = 1 − . 共39兲
Zr 共2H − Zr兲 4␲RB␾
␣ L − Zr

冑 冋 册
+ +
R 2 冑R 2
+ 共L − Zr兲2
After correction, coefficient A4 reads
1+
共2H + Zr − L兲 2 2

冑 冉冊 冑 冋 册
A4 = +
2␣ ␣ R 2
R 2

冑 冋 册 冑 冋 册
− − 1+ 1+
R 2
R 2
Zr 共2H − Zr兲
1+ 1+
共2H兲 共Zr + L兲 ␣ ␣

冑 冋 册 冑 冋 册
− 2
− 2
2H − Zr − L R R
− , 共34兲
冑R 2
+ 共2H − Zr − L兲 2 1+
共L + Zr兲
1+
共2H + L − Zr兲
Zr − L 2H − Zr − L
where ␣ can be approximately determined by equation 26. The ef- − − 共40兲
fect of ␣ on A2 and A3 is very small and can be neglected. 冑R2 + 共Zr − L兲2 冑R2 + 共2H − Zr − L兲2 .
 Apparent resistivity for marine MMR G79

As a consistency check, when Zr = L ⫽ H, cases A and B should
be identical. In other words, we will have A1 ⬅ A4 and A2 ⬅ A5.
This is true for our derivations.
Verification
As a verification, we use the new formula derived in equation 28
to compute the apparent resistivity for the three-layer model shown
in Figure 1a. We assume ␳0 /␳1 = 0.01, and corresponding values of
␣ are computed from equation 26. The new sounding curve cor-
rectly reveals the three-layer structure and gives a good approxi-
mation to both the first layer and basement resistivity. More impor-
tantly, there is no restriction on the normalized distance R/H. The
new formula works over a wider range 共0.01 ⱕ R/H ⱕ 10兲.
APPLICATIONS
The new apparent-resistivity formula provides a useful tool to
address some practical issues that arise in a marine MMR survey.
First, we look at the effect of the relative vertical offset between
the transmitter and the receiver. We then show that it is necessary
to acquire data over a large range of R/H. Finally, we apply the de-
rived formula to field data from the East Pacific Rise.
The transmitters are located 2700 m below the sea surface, while
the magnetometer is at 2500 m depth. This simulates the case
where the magnetometer is situated on the ridge axis without tak-
ing the bathymetry into account. Figure 8a shows the azimuthal B␾
versus the normalized distance R/H for the on-axis magnetometer.
For comparison, the off-axis magnetic field is plotted also. Surpris-
ingly, the amplitudes for the on-axis receiver are much larger
共about one order of magnitude兲 than those for the off-axis receiver.
This significant difference results purely from the vertical shift of
receiver location. Without taking the transmitter-receiver geomet-
ric difference into account, the derived resistivities of the on-axis
response varies from 0.2–15 ⍀.m, while the off-axis response
yields values from 10–18 ⍀.m 共solid dots and circles in Figure 8b,
obtained using Wolfgram et al., 1986兲. Obviously, these results are
unsatisfactory. When we use the new formula to obtain the appar-
ent resistivity, both curves 共solid and dashed lines in Figure 8b兲 of-
fer a good approximation to the model value 共10 ⍀.m兲.
Effect of normalized range
Analysis of the apparent-resistivity curve reveals the importance
of the normalized distance on the data interpretation and survey de-

Effect of Tx-Rx vertical offset

Although marine MMR surveys have
been conducted in several places 共Ed-
wards et al., 1985; Evans et al., 1998;
Evans et al., 2002兲, we feel there are still
some important practical questions to an-
swer in order to apply this method more
effectively. For simplicity of data pro-
cessing and interpretation, it usually is as-
sumed that the transmitter and receiver
are located at the same depth below the
sea surface. In practice, receivers are al-
ways dropped on the seafloor. However,
the transmitter wire is often hanging in
the seawater, not in contact with the sea-
floor, or the transmitter and receiver are
located at different depths because of the
bathymetry of the seafloor. For example,
the receiver might be on the ridge crest
with the transmitter deployed at a deeper
depth. If the vertical distance between the
lower end of the transmitter wire and the
magnetometer is much less than the
thickness of the seawater 共e.g., the ratio is
1%兲, the geometric difference may be
negligible. However, if the ratio is ap-
proximately 10%, then the difference has
a significant effect on the measured mag-
netic fields. Without taking the geometric
difference into account, the interpretation
will be compromised. A synthetic ex-
ample is presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8c assumes a layered model
where the resistivities of the seawater and Figure 8. Effect of the on-axis and off-axis magnetometers on 共a兲 the observed magnetic fields
seafloor are 0.3 and 10 ⍀.m, respectively. and 共b兲 the derived apparent resistivity. 共c兲 The 1D model used to investigate the effect.
G80
sign. As shown in Figure 9a, the apparent-resistivity curve ob-
tained with a normalized range 0.04 ⱕ R/H ⱕ 4 共labeled full
Figure 9. Effect of the normalized range on data inversion and survey design. 共a兲 apparent re-
sistivities for the three-layer seafloor model. 共b兲 Recovered 1D resistivities with a small range
共R/H = 0.3–4兲 and a full data range 共0.04–4兲.
Chen and Oldenburg
range兲 clearly shows a three-layer model of the seafloor. The inset
is the true 1D model. When we carry out a 1D inversion based
upon a generalized cross-validation tech-
nique with full-range data, the recovered
structure reveals the lower-resistivity
layer in a three-layer model 共see Figure
9b兲. Conversely, if we only use the data in
the normalized range 0.3 ⱕ R/H ⱕ 4 共la-
beled small range兲, the recovered model
from a 1D inversion indicates a two-layer
structure. While this can be explained
easily from the apparent-resistivity curve,
it is not as obvious if we look at the
magnetic-field curve. This simple exam-
ple suggests that if the normalized dis-
tance is not covered widely enough, we
will likely miss the shallow-resistivity in-
formation, resulting in a poor 1D model.
In this regard, choice of the normalized
range has a definitive impact on the sur-
vey design.
Figure 10. Apparent-resistivity map associated with instrument
five at EPR using 共a兲 the Wolfgram et al. 共1986兲 formula and 共b兲
our formula. 共c兲 Comparison of the apparent resistivity along the
Rx 5-A profile marked in 共a兲 and 共b兲. The large red dot is the loca-
tion of Rx instrument five. Note that the apparent resistivity com-
puted for each transmitter is plotted at the transmitter location. The
color scales 共in ⍀.m兲 are slightly different, for it is difficult to
make them identical.
 Apparent resistivity for marine MMR
Data set
A marine MMR experiment recently was conducted at the East
Pacific Rise 共EPR兲 to study the electrical resistivity of the shallow
crust in the vicinity of the ridge 共Evans et al., 2002兲. More than 200
transmitter bipoles and 10 magnetometers were deployed in this
experiment. The magnetometers could be categorized into two
groups: on axis and off axis. For the on axis magnetometers, the
depth of the receiver was approximately 2500 m; the depth for the
transmitters varied from 2500–2700 m. We chose instrument five,
which was on the crest of the ridge, and its associated 160 transmit-
ters as an example. The apparent resistivities obtained using Wolf-
gram et al. 共1986兲 and our formulas are shown in Figures 10a and
10b. There are some similarities in these two plots. It appears that
the shallow material has low resistivity, and deep material has a
relatively increasing resistivity. The difference can be seen from
the apparent-resistivity profile along receiver 5-A 共see Figure 10c兲.
Our curve shows a resistivity low between 1.5 and 4.5 km, while
Wolfgram et al. 共1986兲 does not. This resistivity low suggests there
may be a fairly low-resistive layer at depth. Because of limited in-
formation, we cannot make the judgment that our result is better
than that of Wolfgram et al. 共1986兲 for this example. More work on
a 3D inversion must be carried out to obtain a 3D electrical struc-
ture in this region.
CONCLUSION
We have derived a new apparent-resistivity formula based upon
the semianalytic expression for the magnetic field resulting from a
semi-infinite electrode source buried in a 1D earth. The new for-
mula is superior to the two most commonly used formulas in that it
is accurate for a full range of the normalized transmitter-receiver
distance. We have also investigated the effects of transmitter-re-
ceiver geometric difference and the choice of normalized range on
data interpretation and survey design. The utility of the derived for-
mula is demonstrated with synthetic and field data sets. We believe
that first-order approximate resistivity information can be obtained
by converting the observed magnetic field to apparent resistivity,
and that this can assist data interpretation, survey design, and esti-
mation of a background model for 3D inversion.
View publication stats
G81
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented here was funded by NSERC and the
IMAGE Consortium, of which the following are members: AGIP,
Anglo American Corporation, BHP Billiton, EMI Inc., Falcon-
bridge Ltd., INCO Exploration and Technical Services Inc., Ken-
necott Exploration, MIM Exploration Party Ltd., Muskox Minerals
Corp., Newmont Exploration Ltd., Placer Dome Inc., and Teck
Cominco Ltd. We are grateful for their participation. Thanks also
go to Robert Evans of Woods Hole Oceanography Institute for pro-
viding the East Pacific Rise data and marine MMR background in-
formation. The editing staff, including Jerry Schuster, Yonghe Sun,
Mark Everett, and three anonymous reviewers, offered insightful
comments on the original manuscript, prompting a much-refined
version. We are indebted for their help.
REFERENCES
Chave, A. D., S. C. Constable, and R. N. Edwards, 1991, Electrical explo-
ration methods for the seafloor, in M. N. Nabighian, ed., Electromagnetic
methods in applied geophysics: Investigations in geophysics: SEG, 931–
966.
Chen, J., E. Haber, and D. W. Oldenburg, 2002, Three-dimensional numeri-
cal modeling and inversion of magnetometric resistivity data: Geophysi-
cal Journal International, 149, 679–697.
Chen, J., and D. W. Oldenburg, 2004, Magnetic and electric fields of direct
currents in a layered earth: Exploration Geophysics 35, 157–163.
Edwards, R. N., L. K. Law, P. A. Wolfgram, D. C. Nobes, M. N. Bone, D.
F. Trigg, and J. M. DeLaurier, 1985, First results of the MOSES experi-
ment: Sea sediment conductivity and thickness determination, Bute In-
let, British Columbia, by magnetometric offshore electrical sounding:
Geophysics, 50, 153–160.
Edwards, R. N., and M. N. Nabighian, 1991, The magnetometric resistivity
method, in M. N. Nabighian, ed., Electromagnetic methods in applied
geophysics: Investigations in geophysics: SEG, 47–104.
Evans, R. L., S. C. Webb, and the RIFT-UMC Team, 2002, Crustal resistiv-
ity structure at 9° 50⬘N on the East Pacific Rise: Results of an electro-
magnetic survey: Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 10.1029/2001-
GL014106.
Evans, R. L., S. C. Webb, M. Jegen, and K. Sananikone, 1998, Hydrother-
mal circulation at the cleft-vance overlapping spreading center: Results
of a magnetometric resistivity survey: Journal of Geophysical Research
103, 12321–12338.
Wolfgram, P. A., R. N. Edwards, L. K. Law, and M. N. Bone, 1986, Poly-
metallic sulfide exploration on the deep sea floor: The feasibility of the
MINI-MOSES technique: Geophysics 51, 1808–1818.