Vertical seismoelectric profiling in a borehole penetrating glaciofluvial sediments

Abstract

[1] Seismoelectric signals have been measured as a function of depth in a borehole penetrating glaciofluvial sands, silts, and glacial till using a broadband surface seismic source, and a downhole electrode array. Transient electric field pulses, with amplitudes of 1 to 4 mV/m accompanied the arrival of seismic P-waves at the electrodes but no simultaneous interfacial signals were observed above the noise floor of approximately 0.2 mV/m. The co-seismic effect was strongest in a sand and gravel layer where its amplitude is consistent with the predictions of a simplified theoretical model. Normalization of the amplitude logs by measurements of seismic particle velocity and electrical conductivity enhanced their sensitivity to changes in lithology and porosity. The results of this experiment suggest that co-seismic seismoelectric effects show potential as a porosity/permeability logging tool in the borehole environment.

Seismoelectric interface response: Experimental results and forward model

“…Seismoelectric exploration can combine seismic resolution and the sensitivity to pore fluids of EM methods (Haines et al, 2007). Garambois and Dietrich (2001), Block and Harris (2006), and Dupuis and Butler (2006) The numerically predicted amplitude-decay pattern of the seismoelectric conversion at an interface (e.g., Haartsen and Pride, 1997;Garambois and Dietrich, 2002;Haines and Pride, 2006) has been observed by several workers (e.g., Butler et al, 1996;Mikhailov et al, 1997;Dupuis et al, 2007). Mikhailov et al (1997) compare field measurements of this pattern as a function of horizontal distance with a numerical model and find reasonable agreement, and Charara et al (2009) model and measure seismoelectric signals at a fluid/porous-medium interface in a laboratory experiment.…”

Electrokinetic Techniques for the Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity

“…Then signal processing needs filtering techniques such as Butler & Russell (1993). The advantage of this method is to detect the contrasts of permeability at depth from few meters to few hundreds of meters (Dupuis & Butler, 2006;Dupuis et al, 2007;Dupuis et al, 2009;Haines, Guitton & Biondi, 2007;Haines, Pride, Klemperer & Biondi, 2007;Strahser et al, 2007;2011;Thompson et al, 2005).…”

Coupled seismic and electromagnetic wave propagation

“…Full-waveform electroseismic simulations were performed by White & Zhou (2006); Hu et al (2007); Guan & Hu (2008) and Zyserman et al (2010). A wide range of field and laboratory measurements of the coseismic and interface response fields was presented (see e.g., Martner & Sparks, 1959;Thompson & Gist, 1993;Butler et al, 1996;Mikhailov et al, 1997;Beamish, 1999;Zhu et al, 1999;Mikhailov et al, 2000;Zhu et al, 2000;Garambois & Dietrich, 2001;Zhu & Toksöz, 2003, 2005Block & Harris, 2006;Bordes et al, 2006;Dupuis & Butler, 2006;Haines et al, 2007;Dupuis et al, 2007;Strahser et al, 2007;Liu et al, 2008;Zhu et al, 2008a,b;Dupuis et al, 2009). Zhu & Toksöz (2005) and Bordes et al (2006Bordes et al ( , 2008 reported on coseismic magnetic field measurements associated with a Stoneley wave and a shear wave, respectively.…”

“…Seismoelectric exploration can combine seismic resolution and the sensitivity to pore fluids of EM methods (Haines et al, 2007). Garambois & Dietrich (2001); Block & Harris (2006) and Dupuis & Butler (2006) compare measured and theoretically predicted coseismic electric field amplitudes. The numerically predicted amplitude decay pattern of the seismoelectric conversion at an interface (e.g., Haartsen & Pride, 1997;Garambois & Dietrich, 2002;Haines & Pride, 2006) has been observed by several workers (e.g., Butler et al, 1996;Mikhailov et al, 1997;Dupuis et al, 2007).…”