After data analysis and preprocessing, the resistivity pseudo sections are converted in resistivity by inversion. The inversion can be done in 1D, 2D or 3D. We show the results obtained by 1D and 2D inversion on profile P52. Additional 3D results and sliced maps couldn’t be shown here.

• play
  Step 1: 1D inversion on profile P52
  The data analysis has put into evidence the following: MT responses have different behavior whether they are collected over the know deposit or away from it. The main structural N-S fault is visible and seems to control the Eastern trap of the reservoir. There may be a western trap and below the reservoir, at large depth, we see in the MT parameters (skew, polar diagrams and resistivity pseudo section) some consistent anomalies that yet cannot be interpreted.
  As a quick first pass, a 1D Inversion is performed on profile P52. Some evidence of 5the Eastward fault is again visible but not clearly, especially at depth. At least 2D inversion should be performed as the overall dimensionality of the measurements requires it.


• play
  Step 2: 2D inversion on profile P52
  Results of the 2D inversions conducted on P52. The overall 2D results bring lots of additional information. Tabular, conductive, features seen on many profile interpreted as shale’s from well logging analysis of the boreholes. Most interesting two almost vertical conductive anomalies interpreted as faults that can delimitate the extent of the reservoir. And finally, this profile, as with many other profiles shows a deep conductive feature through the resistive basement. This type of electrical anomaly is symptomatic of upward deep hydrothermal fluids percolating through the basement which can explain the skew levels and the polar diagram in the area. Good porosity is expected and connection with the reservoir is likely.