Comparison between VLF and RMT methods

We compare the resolution power of single frequency very low frequency (VLF) electromagnetic data (real and imaginary parts of the tipper) and multi-frequency RadioMagnetoTelluric (RMT) data in delineating conductive structures typical for the sedimentary cover over crystalline basement in Scandinavia. Using VLF field data from five parallel profiles reveals that the estimated models have responses that fit the observed data well, and the models show an overall agreement with more detailed models derived from broadband RMT data. It is suggested that VLF data be used as a fast mapping tool to fill in the gaps between profiles along which more detailed RMT measurements are made. A generic model with conductive clay lenses and sandy formations over crystalline basement is used to generate synthetic data for the two cases. Using regularized inversion the corresponding estimated models clearly shows the strength and the weakness of both methods. Being inductive methods, they both have difficulties in clearly resolving the depth transition from conductive to resistive units. Especially the single frequency VLF data can be interpreted with very smooth models at depth. However, both methods resolve very well the lateral boundaries of the clay lenses and the RMT data also constrain the thickness of the clays quite well compared with the VLF models, which are less distinct at depth. Single frequency scalar VLF data emphasize those conductive structures that have dominant strikes in the direction of the transmitter. Multi-frequency VLF (tensor VLF) measurements provide the tipper vector which depends upon the underlying conductivity structure only. Real conductivity structures have significant 3D components which can be delineated easily by tensor VLF measurements. We propose that new VLF instrumentation be developed with this in mind.