2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.03.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

3D modelling of Trompsburg Complex (in South Africa) using 3D focusing inversion of gravity data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Like the Molopo Farms and the Bushveld complexes, this conductor coincides with a large Paleoproterozoic mafic intrusive complex (1.9 Ga, Maier et al., 2003), the Trompsburg Complex (TC, Figure 1). Since it does not have surface exposure, existing knowledge about the complex is limited to gravitational modeling and few borehole measurements (Rezaie et al., 2017). We think the conductor here may be related to the emplacement of the mafic magmas and a metasomatized residue left from the event.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Like the Molopo Farms and the Bushveld complexes, this conductor coincides with a large Paleoproterozoic mafic intrusive complex (1.9 Ga, Maier et al., 2003), the Trompsburg Complex (TC, Figure 1). Since it does not have surface exposure, existing knowledge about the complex is limited to gravitational modeling and few borehole measurements (Rezaie et al., 2017). We think the conductor here may be related to the emplacement of the mafic magmas and a metasomatized residue left from the event.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Like the Molopo Farms and the Bushveld complexes, this conductor coincides with a large Paleoproterozoic mafic intrusive complex (1.9 Ga, Maier et al, 2003), the Trompsburg Complex (TC, Figure 1). Since it does not have surface exposure, existing knowledge about the complex is limited to gravitational modelling and few borehole measurements (Rezaie et al, 2017). We think the conductor here may be related to the emplacement of the mafic magmas and a metasomatised residue.…”
Section: Kimberleymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) Modelled surfaces may be pinned locally with hard data, such as drillhole intersections and reef outcrops; (2) Surfaces may be guided by non-contacting data, such as density contrasts from unconstrained geophysical data inversions [37]; (3) Surfaces may be adjusted by user-defined orientation values, in regions where there are no or only sparse available data [38,39]; (4) Extrapolation away from known or hard data, into areas where there is effectively no data, may be achieved intelligently and logically using trends. Such inputs remove, for example, instances where Merensky and UG2 reefs cross one another; and (5) Directional interpretation bias, inherent in section-based explicit modelling, is minimized.…”
Section: Geomodelling Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A structural trend was constructed per fault domain, to inform final surface construction trends within each individual domains. These structural trends incorporated field mapping, drillhole contacts, reef contours and geophysical inversion products [37,52,74], which all have disparate or different scales, densities and coverage [75].…”
Section: Construction Of Structural Trendsmentioning
confidence: 99%