Feasibility of Tunnel TEM Advanced Prediction: A 3D Forward Modeling Study

<div>TEM response of the single-TX device. (a) <svg height="9.25202pt" id="M82" style="vertical-align:-3.29111pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -5.96091 10.8188 9.25202" width="10.8188pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M387 375C387 402 357 448 257 448C172 448 82 404 82 326C82 289 108 255 156 241V239C85 223 23 181 23 116C23 39 89 -12 182 -12C265 -12 336 31 378 91L361 114C320 73 269 47 216 47C157 47 115 82 115 137C115 191 160 219 218 219C243 219 262 218 272 217L304 259L302 266C295 265 281 264 255 264C195 264 163 294 163 335C163 377 200 416 249 416C293 416 321 389 329 342C331 332 335 329 341 329C355 329 387 352 387 375Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,5.005,3.132)"><path d="M545 403C545 425 527 451 498 451C448 451 400 404 312 286L290 341C262 412 246 451 219 451C182 451 138 404 92 345L112 323C152 368 169 378 181 378C192 378 201 359 216 321L257 214C184 115 142 69 113 69C102 69 93 73 88 79S78 89 68 89C47 89 24 61 24 40C24 8 49 -12 75 -12C125 -12 175 31 271 175L312 64C330 15 357 -12 382 -12C421 -12 475 35 515 98L496 121C466 88 439 62 420 62C402 62 384 92 363 147L325 247C349 280 374 309 397 333C422 361 446 381 462 381C471 381 481 374 488 366C493 360 499 357 505 357C521 357 545 380 545 403Z"></path></g></svg> response of the synthetic tunnel model without and with the low-resistivity anomaly at different positions. (b) Percentage relative difference of the <svg height="9.25202pt" id="M83" style="vertical-align:-3.29111pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -5.96091 10.8188 9.25202" width="10.8188pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M387 375C387 402 357 448 257 448C172 448 82 404 82 326C82 289 108 255 156 241V239C85 223 23 181 23 116C23 39 89 -12 182 -12C265 -12 336 31 378 91L361 114C320 73 269 47 216 47C157 47 115 82 115 137C115 191 160 219 218 219C243 219 262 218 272 217L304 259L302 266C295 265 281 264 255 264C195 264 163 294 163 335C163 377 200 416 249 416C293 416 321 389 329 342C331 332 335 329 341 329C355 329 387 352 387 375Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,5.005,3.132)"><path d="M545 403C545 425 527 451 498 451C448 451 400 404 312 286L290 341C262 412 246 451 219 451C182 451 138 404 92 345L112 323C152 368 169 378 181 378C192 378 201 359 216 321L257 214C184 115 142 69 113 69C102 69 93 73 88 79S78 89 68 89C47 89 24 61 24 40C24 8 49 -12 75 -12C125 -12 175 31 271 175L312 64C330 15 357 -12 382 -12C421 -12 475 35 515 98L496 121C466 88 439 62 420 62C402 62 384 92 363 147L325 247C349 280 374 309 397 333C422 361 446 381 462 381C471 381 481 374 488 366C493 360 499 357 505 357C521 357 545 380 545 403Z"></path></g></svg> response between models with and without the low-resistivity anomaly.</div>

Geofluids

fig4

Figure 4

Figure 4: Feasibility of Tunnel TEM Advanced Prediction: A 3D Forward Modeling Study 