No abstract

No abstract

Depth of detection of a target can be defined as that depth below which the target cannot be detected with a given electrode array assuming that the minimum detectable anomaly is 10%. Following this definition, physical modelling was carried out to determine depths of detection of conductive targets of limited lateral extent such as a vertical sheet, a horizontal cylinder and a sphere (infinitely conducting). It is seen that the two‐electrode array has the greatest depth of detection followed by the three‐electrode array, while a Wenner array has the smallest depth of detection, when the array spread is in‐line (i.e. perpendicular to the strike direction). On the other hand, the depth of detection with a Wenner array improves considerably and is almost equal to that of the two‐electrode array when the array spread is broadside (i.e. along the strike direction). With an increase in the depth extent of the vertical sheet from 10 to 20 times its thickness, there is an increase in the depth of detection with all arrays except for the three‐electrode array when the array spread is in‐line, and with the Wenner array when the array spread is broadside.

SUMMARY A regional Magnetotelluric (MT) study, was carried out with 55 MT soundings, distributed along five traverses, across the Kutch Mainland Unit (KMU), on the west coast of India, a region characterized by a series of successive uplifts and intervening depressions in the form of half graben, bounded by master faults. We obtain the deeper electrical structure of the crust beneath Kutch, from 2‐D modelling of MT data along the 5 traverses, in order to evaluate the geo‐electrical signatures, if any, of the known primary tectonic structures in this region. The results show that the deeper electrical structure in the Kutch region presents a mosaic of high resistive crustal blocks separated by deep‐rooted conductive features. Two such crustal conductive features spatially correlate with the known tectonic features, viz., the Kutch Mainland Fault (KMF), and the Katrol Hill Fault (KHF). An impressive feature of the geo‐electrical sections is an additional, well‐defined conductive feature, running between Jakhau and Mundra, located at the southern end of each of the five MT traverses and interpreted to be the electrical signature of yet another hidden fault at the southern margin of the KMU. This new feature is named as Jakhau–Mundra Fault (JMF). It is inferred that the presence of JMF together with the Kathiawar Fault (NKF), further south, located at the northern boundary of the Saurashtra Horst, would enhance the possibility of occurrence of a thick sedimentary column in the Gulf of Kutch. The region between the newly delineated fault (JMF) and the Kathiawar fault (NKF) could thus be significant for Hydrocarbon Exploration.

Assuming the minimum detectable anomaly to be 10%, depths of detection of a 2D vertical resistive sheet of thickness t are found to be 4.0t, 3.0t, 4.0t and 4.0t with Wenner, two‐electrode, three‐electrode and dipole‐dipole (β‐Wenner) arrays, respectively, when the array spread is in‐line. On the other hand, the depths of detection obtained with a broadside spread of the arrays right over the sheet are much less and are correspondingly 2.5t, 2.0t, 2.5t and 2.5t. An increase in the depth extent W of the sheet from 10t to 20t does not increase its depth of detection with the arrays.  The depths of detection of an infinitely resistive horizontal cylinder of radius R are respectively 1.5R, 1.8R, 2.0R and 2.0R with the above‐listed arrays when the array spread is in‐line. With broadside spread of any of the arrays, the depth of detection is seen to be 2.5R.  In the case of a spherical target of radius R, the detection depths of any of the arrays are found to be small and to vary between 0.8R and 1.1R.  Comparatively, the detection depths of resistive targets are much lower than those of conductive targets of the same size and shape, with any electrode array. Among all the arrays studied, the two‐electrode array performs worst in the detection of resistive targets while it performs best in detecting conducting targets of limited lateral extent. In the case of a spherical target, either resistive or conductive, there is no distinct change in its detection depth with array.