RB 202000011

Gawler Craton Airborne Geophysical
Survey Region 1B, Tallaringa South –

Enhanced geophysical imagery and
magnetic source depth models
Report Book
2020/00011
.au
ov
.g
C Foss, G Gouthas, L Katona,

a
g.s
M Hutchens and G Reed

in
in
m
gy
er
en
Gawler Craton Airborne
Geophysical Survey Region 1B,
Tallaringa South – Enhanced
geophysical imagery and
Clive Foss1, George Gouthas2, Laszlo Katona2,

Matthew Hutchens2 and Gary Reed2
1 CSIRO Mineral Resources

2 Geological Survey of South Australia
Department for Energy and Mining
April 2020
Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining
Level 4, 11 Waymouth Street, Adelaide
GPO Box 320, Adelaide SA 5001
Phone +61 8 8463 3000
Email dem.minerals@sa.gov.au
dem.petroleum@sa.gov.au
www.energymining.sa.gov.au
South Australian Resources Information Gateway (SARIG)

SARIG provides up-to-date views of mineral, petroleum and geothermal tenements and other geoscientific
data. You can search, view and download information relating to minerals and mining in South Australia
including tenement details, mines and mineral deposits, geological and geophysical data, publications and
reports (including company reports).
map.sarig.sa.gov.au
© Government of South Australia 2020

With the exception of the piping shrike emblem and where otherwise noted, this product is provided under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.
Disclaimer
The contents of this report are for general information only and are not intended as professional advice, and
the Department for Energy and Mining (and the Government of South Australia) make no representation,
express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information contained in this report or
as to the suitability of the information for any particular purpose. Use of or reliance upon the information
contained in this report is at the sole risk of the user in all things and the Department for Energy and Mining
(and the Government of South Australia) disclaim any responsibility for that use or reliance and any liability to
the user.
Preferred way to cite this publication

Foss CA, Gouthas G, Katona LF, Hutchens MF and Reed GD 2020. Gawler Craton Airborne Geophysical
Survey Region 1B, Tallaringa South – Enhanced geophysical imagery and magnetic source depth models,
Report Book 2020/00011. Department for Energy and Mining, South Australia, Adelaide.
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2
THE REGION 1B TALLARINGA SOUTH AEROMAGNETIC SURVEY ......................................... 2
MAGNETIC FIELD DATA ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................ 5
REDUCTION TO POLE (RTP) ................................................................................................... 5
THE FIRST VERTICAL DERIVATIVE OF REDUCED TO POLE TMI ......................................... 6
THE SECOND VERTICAL DERIVATIVE OF REDUCED TO POLE TMI .................................... 6
THE TOTAL GRADIENT OF TMI ............................................................................................... 6
THE TILT OF TMI....................................................................................................................... 6
THE TREND OF TMI .................................................................................................................. 7
TREND CONSISTENCY OF TMI ............................................................................................... 7
BZZ .............................................................................................................................................. 7
THE GRAVITY DATA ................................................................................................................... 16
BOUGUER GRAVITY............................................................................................................... 17
GRAVITY FIELD DATA ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 19
THE FIRST VERTICAL DERIVATIVE OF BOUGUER GRAVITY ............................................. 19
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE GRAVITY AND MAGNETIC FIELDS.................................... 19
PSEUDOGRAVITY .................................................................................................................. 19
PSEUDOMAGNETIC ............................................................................................................... 20
GRAVITY AND MAGNETIC EDGE LINEAMENTS (‘WORMS’) ................................................ 20
DYKE ANOMALIES ..................................................................................................................... 25
MAGNETIC SOURCE DEPTH ESTIMATION ............................................................................... 34
ESTIMATION OF THE MAGNETIC SOURCE DEPTHS .......................................................... 34
BASEMENT GEOLOGY AND DRILLHOLES ........................................................................... 35
THE MAGNETIC TRAVERSE DEPTH SOLUTIONS ................................................................ 36
THE INTERPOLATED MAGNETIC DEPTH SURFACE ........................................................... 38
MAGNETIC SOURCE DEPTH PRODUCTS ............................................................................ 40
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 46
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 48
APPENDIX 1. THE ‘SWEET-SPOT’ TRAVERSE INVERSION DEPTH-ESTIMATION
TECHNIQUE USED IN THIS STUDY ....................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX 2. MAGNETISATION SOLUTIONS........................................................................ 52
APPENDIX 3. BOREHOLES .................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX 4. AREA 1B TALLARINGA SOUTH DIGITAL APPENDIX ..................................... 65
Department for Energy and Mining iii Report Book 2020/00011

FIGURES
Figure 1. Locality map of Gawler Craton Airborne Survey (GCAS) survey regions. ..................... 3
Figure 2. Total Magnetic Intensity image. .................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. TMI for an induced dipole magnetisation (left) and the RTP transform (right). ............... 5
Figure 4. The reduced-to-pole TMI image. ................................................................................... 8
Figure 5. The vertical derivative of the reduced-to-pole TMI. ....................................................... 9
Figure 6. The second vertical derivative of the reduced-to-pole TMI. ......................................... 10
Figure 7. The total gradient of TMI. ............................................................................................ 11
Figure 8. The tilt angle of the reduced-to-pole TMI..................................................................... 12
Figure 9. The trend of TMI. ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 10. The consistency of trend of TMI. ................................................................................. 14
Figure 11. The vertical derivative of the vertical component of the magnetic field Bzz. ................. 15
Figure 12. The distribution of ground gravity stations. .................................................................. 16
Figure 13. The digital elevation model derived from the aircraft GPS and radar altimeter data. ... 17
Figure 14. Bouguer gravity........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 15. The vertical derivative of Bouguer gravity (image) and RTP of TMI (contours). ........... 21
Figure 16. The pseudogravity image. ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 17. The pseudomagnetic image. ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 18. ‘worm’ edge vectors of the gravity field (blue) and magnetic field (red). ...................... 24
Figure 19. Magnetic ‘worms’ (red) and gravity ‘worms’ (blue) shown in Google EarthTM............... 25
Figure 20. Dyke model study areas over an image of the vertical derivative of RTP. ................... 26
Figure 21. Area “A” (Fig. 20) TMI image with model depth values (metres subsurface). .............. 27
Figure 22. Area “A” model sections (locations shown in Fig. 21). ................................................. 27
Figure 23. Area “B” (Fig. 20) TMI image with model depth values (metres subsurface). .............. 28
Figure 24. Area “B” model sections (locations shown in Fig. 23). ................................................. 28
Figure 25. Area “C” (Fig. 20) TMI image with inversion test areas. .............................................. 29
Figure 26. Area “A” (Fig. 25) measured TMI (left) and model computed TMI (right). .................... 29
Figure 27. Area “A” (Fig. 25) inversion model and TMI anomaly. ................................................. 30
Figure 28. Area “B” (Fig. 25) measured TMI (top) and model computed TMI (bottom). ................ 31
Figure 29. Area “B” (Fig. 25) inversion model and TMI anomaly. ................................................. 31
Figure 30. Area “C” (Fig. 20) total gradient (left) and grayscale with dyke overlay (right). ............ 32
Figure 31. Gairdner Dolerite model flight-line segments over TMI (left) and Bzz (right). ................ 32
Figure 32. Inversion sections for the central portion of the Gairdner Dolerite model..................... 33
Figure 33. Gairdner Dolerite model, three sections combined. ..................................................... 33
Figure 34. Borehole cover thickness (pseudocolour) over greyscale RTP-fvd image. .................. 35
Figure 35. Borehole cover thickness cross-plot with gridded depth to magnetisation. .................. 36
Figure 36. Example model traverse. The estimated depth is the top of the magnetisation. .......... 37
Figure 37. Apparent magnetic susceptibility values for the magnetic depth sources. ................... 37
Figure 38. Distribution of apparent magnetic susceptibilities over TMI image. ............................. 38
Figure 39. Unconstrained top of magnetisation elevation. ............................................................ 39
Figure 40. Magnetic traverses and depth solutions with annotated depth below surface, on TMI. 41
Figure 41. Magnetic depth solutions with depth to top of magnetisation over solid geology. ........ 42
Figure 42. Depth to magnetisation contours over greyscale vertical derivative of TMI-RTP. ........ 43
Figure 43. Contours of the top of magnetisation surface over solid geology image. ..................... 44
Figure 44. Contours of the depth below surface to magnetisation over solid geology image. ....... 45
Figure 45. 3-D visualisation of geology drape on the top of magnetisation surface and
magnetisation models. V:H exaggeration 10:1. ........................................................... 46
Figure 46. TMI profiles over a source with vertical displacements of +/- 50%. ............................. 49
Figure 47. TMI profiles over a source with +/- 50% vertical offset, after inversion of thickness and
magnetisation to minimise TMI differences. ................................................................ 49
Figure 48. TMI profiles over sources with +/- 20% vertical offset, after inversion of thickness and
magnetisation intensity to minimise resulting TMI misfit. ............................................. 50
Figure 49. Example magnetic source depth estimate................................................................... 51
Department for Energy and Mining iv Report Book 2020/00011

Gawler Craton Airborne Geophysical
Survey Region 1B, Tallaringa South –
Enhanced geophysical imagery and
Clive Foss, George Gouthas, Laszlo Katona,
Matthew Hutchens and Gary Reed
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a study by the Geological Survey of South Australia and
CSIRO Mineral Resources to enhance the expression of geological structure in geophysical
images and derive depth to magnetic sources over region 1B of the Gawler Craton airborne
survey; the Tallaringa South area. The study is based on magnetic field data acquired on
the 2017–19 airborne magnetic and radiometric survey commissioned by the Geological
Survey of South Australia, combined with ground gravity data from the South Australia
state gravity database.
The 2017–19 Gawler Craton airborne geophysical survey provides a higher resolution and
more consistent mapping of the magnetic field than is available from the previous multi-
survey coverage. Advantages of the new survey data are evident on inspection of the
primary total magnetic intensity (TMI) data, but it is on enhancement of that TMI data to
assist recovery of geological information that the advantages are most clearly expressed.
Many of the enhancements presented in this report are of limited application to the previous
TMI data across the area because of insufficiencies and imperfections in that data together
with abrupt contrasts on passing between surveys of different line spacing, flying height or
flight-line orientation. The advantage of consistency and close line spacing also supports
higher resolution and more confident source depth mapping from the magnetic field data.
Local magnetic field variations arise exclusively from ferromagnetic minerals which may
only constitute of the order of 2% or less of the rock (even for what are considered strongly
magnetised rocks), and lateral variations in geology which have no associated variation in
magnetisation have no direct expression in the magnetic field imagery. In contrast, gravity
data responds to variations in density to which all components of the rock contribute.
Gravity field variations therefore provide a complementary mapping of geology. Suitable
combinations and contrasts of gravity and magnetic fields provide more diagnostic
information about the subsurface than does the sum of the two fields processed and
imaged independently.
The output of this study is a collection of images and digital data products generated to
facilitate geological interpretation. The products are not themselves interpretive but provide
more direct access to interpretation than does the directly measured data itself. These
products, and in particular the magnetic source depth estimates, are designed to provide
the genesis of a ‘live’ resource which can be progressively upgraded rather than simply
replaced as further studies are undertaken in the area, the depth solution database is added
to, or new drillholes are reported.
Department for Energy and Mining 1 Report Book 2020/00011

INTRODUCTION
Modern magnetic field surveys almost exclusively measure the strength of the magnetic field,
known as Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI) primarily because of the instrumental advantage of the
low directional sensitivity of the sensors. The data are used both in digital database formats (e.g.
for modelling and inversion) and in image formats, generally accessing look-up tables to translate
values to colours. The magnetic field imagery may also incorporate processes such as histogram
equalisation to maximise sensitivity across a large dynamic range, and sun-shading (artificial
illumination as of a three-dimensional surface) to emphasise local perturbations from shallow
irregularities in the appropriate physical property of density and/or magnetisation. The
enhancements we present in this study do not generate new data but emphasise specific aspects
of the data which in the primary field images may be obscured or overwhelmed by other field
variations. There is a substantial literature on the various enhancements available and their values
in emphasising particular aspects of potential field variations (e.g. Blakely 1996; Milligan and Gunn
1997; Dentith et al. 2000; Foss 2011).
In this study we have also incorporated studies of the gravity field based on the state-wide
compilation of ground gravity measurements. The gravity and magnetic fields follow identical
potential field laws of behaviour. Specifically, the vertical derivative of the gravity field (arising from
distributions of point masses) is identical to the reduced-to-pole (RTP) magnetic field (the vertical
component of the magnetic field generated from a distribution of point vertical magnetisation
dipoles). There are however substantial differences between the expression of geology in the
gravity and magnetic fields. Gravity field variations are dependent on differences in bulk densities
between rock units to which all parts of the rock contribute (including pore fluids). Conversely,
magnetic field variations are generated by contrasts in only the ferromagnetic minerals in the rock,
which even for strongly magnetic rocks rarely exceed one to two percent. Furthermore, the
magnetisation of those ferromagnetic minerals is a complex function of their Fe:Ti ratio, oxidation
state, and grain size and shape. Rock magnetisations are far more variable and less predictable
than density variations. In some cases the common geological control on both density and
magnetisation give rise to correlations of gravity and magnetic fields, but conversely many
geological structures give rise to predominantly gravity-only or magnetic field-only variations. This
provides advantage in combined study of gravity and magnetic fields, as each field may highlight
different geological features, whereas common study of highly correlated fields adds little to the
study of either field independently. In this study we present a suite of enhancements of both gravity
and magnetic fields as an aide to their combined interpretation.
THE REGION 1B TALLARINGA SOUTH

AEROMAGNETIC SURVEY
The 2017–18 airborne magnetic and radiometric survey was flown by Thompson Aviation as part
of the Geological Survey of South Australia (GSSA) PACE Copper Program between September
2017 and May 2018 using a Cessna 210M aircraft (Thompson Aviation 2019). The survey was
flown at 60 m terrain clearance on east-west flight-lines at 200 m spacing. Approximately
13,326 line km of data was acquired. The location of the survey as part of the Gawler Craton
Airborne Geophysical Survey is shown in Figure 1. The survey data are available in both flight-line
and grid formats from the South Australian Resources Information Gateway (SARIG) website and
from the Geoscience Australia GADDS utility. An image of the processed TMI grid data is shown in
Figure 2. The data was processed by Thompson Aviation as described by Thompson Aviation,
2019 with quality control provided by GSSA and Baigent Geophysics.
Region 1B contains geological features evident in the TMI image. From north-west to south-east
these are the Nawa Domain, Mabel Creek Ridge, Tallaringa Trough, Karari Shear Zone and
Christie Domain. These are overlain by Neoproterozoic to Cambrian Officer Basin Sediments,
which in turn are overlain by sediments of the Arckaringa and Eucla Basins. In region 1B the
directional trend of dyke anomalies becomes more variable with differing source magnetisation
directions, suggesting there may be multiple dyke events present in this area. This is discussed in
greater detail in this report.

Figure 1. Locality map of Gawler Craton Airborne Survey (GCAS) survey regions.

Figure 2. Total Magnetic Intensity image.

MAGNETIC FIELD DATA ENHANCEMENTS
Enhancements of gravity or magnetic fields rarely succeed in completely isolating field variations
from a single geological source, which generally requires a more interpretive model-based
approach. There is also no reliable formulaic approach to the interpretation of the various images,
and it is important to have at least a basic understanding of what each transform means, and of the
possible pitfalls in their interpretation.
REDUCTION TO POLE (RTP)
Figure 3. TMI for an induced dipole magnetisation (left) and the RTP transform (right).
The IGRF definition of the background geomagnetic field across the survey area at the time of the
survey was: Intensity 56980 nT, inclination -62.6°, declination +4.9°. Figure 3 shows an image of
TMI due to a dipole of induced magnetisation in this field. The horizontal location of the dipole is
marked by the cross, which is displaced to the south of the anomaly peak by 26% of the depth to
the centre of the dipole. There is also a broad negative zone forming the southern extent of the
anomaly (with a trough value 3.3% of the peak value). We can consider the magnetisation
distributed throughout the area as an array of dipoles generating superimposed magnetic fields.
Clearly one complication in estimating that distribution of magnetisation from the measured
magnetic field data is that each dipole centre is displaced from its peak expression, and that there
is both destructive and positive summation of fields due to the overlap of negative and positive field
variations. Figure 3 also shows a ‘reduced-to-pole’ transform of the data generated by a Fast
Fourier Transform (FFT). This is essentially a phase transformation of the steeply inclined
geomagnetic field at the site to a vertical field (as if at the geomagnetic pole), together with a
corresponding correction of the magnetisation direction from an assumed direction of the local
geomagnetic field to a vertical direction (Baranov and Naudy 1964). The ideal RTP expression
peaks above the source magnetisation and is only positive. Provided the assumed magnetisation
direction and the specified geomagnetic field direction are both correct, the RTP image is better
suited for magnetic field interpretation than the TMI image. The RTP image of the Tallaringa South
survey area is shown in Figure 4.

THE FIRST VERTICAL DERIVATIVE OF REDUCED TO POLE TMI
Many FFT based enhancement transforms can be applied sequentially (theoreticaly without
dependence on the sequence of operations). As decribed above, the RTP transform provides the
advantage of better positioning the source magnetisations provided their magnetisation directions
are as assumed. An independent advantage can be gained by calculating by FFT the vertical
gradient of the magnetic field, and these two trasforms can be combined to derive the vertical
gradient of the reduced-to-pole TMI. The vertical derivative of a field attenuates with distance more
rapidly than does the field itself (a 1/r4 attenuation for a magnetic dipole compared to a 1/r3
attenuation for the field). The vertical derivative filter therefore accentuates the magnetic field
expression of shallow sources. The anomalies are also sharper, providing improved lateral
resolution of adjacent sources and details of the horizontal shape of sources. The vertical
derivative of the field is derived by FFT analysis through the potential field rule that the horizontal
and vertical gradients form a Hilbert pair, allowing the vertical gradient to be calculated from a
mapping of the horizontal gradients. The vertical gradient of RTP is imaged in Figure 5. This image
is shown in greyscale (without application of sun-shading which would interfere with the greyscale
coding of the gradient values). The greyscale image is preferred because the absolute amplitude
(well conveyed in colour) is less significant for the gradient values than for imaging of the field
values, and the smooother graduations of grey tone provide a superior mapping of the sharpness
of the gradients, which is controlled primarily by depth to the source magnetisation.
THE SECOND VERTICAL DERIVATIVE OF REDUCED TO POLE TMI

The second vertical derivative of RTP (Fig. 6) extends the advantage of the first vertical derivative
at the cost of further amplification of any short-wavelength noise. The second vertical derivative
has the added characteristic that the zero contour approximately maps the edge of magnetic
sources. However, this feature is of little value for the Tallaringa South survey area where there are
few wide sources.
THE TOTAL GRADIENT OF TMI

The total gradient of TMI (also known as the ‘analytic signal’, or more correctly as the modulus of
the analytic signal) is imaged in Figure 7. This transform is the square root of the sum of the
squares of horizontal and vertical gradients. It has similar characteristics to the individual gradients
in accentuating the expression of the shallowest sources and improving horizontal resolution of the
fields of adjacent sources (although the use of all gradients reduces the resolution relative to
images of the individual gradients). One notable characteristic of the total gradient is that it is
independent of the polarity of the local change in field intensity, with low sensitivity to the influence
of source magnetisation direction (Nabigian 1984; Roest et al. 1992). This transform is therefore
effective in mapping the distribution of shallow magnetisations independent of their direction.
THE TILT OF TMI

Figure 8 images the tilt of reduced-to-pole TMI. This filter is derived from the ratio of vertical and
horizontal gradients transformed to an angle (range -90° to +90°) using the arc-tangent function
(Miller and Singh 1994). This ratio is independent of the magnitude of the gradients and is
everywhere defined, which means that it is subject to noise across regions of low gradient. The
transform is effective in mapping the local trend of thin magnetic sources as well as the edges of
wider magnetic sources and dislocations in this trend (Salem et al. 2008). It has slightly reduced
resolution compared to the corresponding primary gradient filters (such as the first vertical
derivative). With an assumption of source geometry (such as vertical edges of magnetisation
distributions) depth estimates can be derived from the local widths of the tilt anomalies (for
instance as measured between the -45° and +45° contours).

THE TREND OF TMI
Figure 9 images the local trend direction of variation in the TMI field in a 0° to 180° azimuth band.
While most enhancements are made for use as images in assisting magnetic field interpretation,
the primary value of the trend data is as a digital resource for operations such as assigning
azimuths to model representations of source magnetisation. The image of the trend data is itself of
little interpretational value, in some part because of the unavoidable step discontinuity that arises
between the top and base of the phase range, whereas phase variation wraps continuously across
this artificial step.
TREND CONSISTENCY OF TMI

Figure 10 is an image generated from an intermediary processing term used in generation of the
trend values mapped in Figure 9. In contrast to the trend values themselves this term, loosely
referred to as ‘consistency’, has little numeric significance, but its image more clearly conveys
regions of coherent trend. The same general compartmentalisation of the survey into three areas
can be recognised in the trend consistency image as in the other enhancement images.
BZZ
Figure 11 is an image of Bzz, the vertical gradient of the vertical component of the magnetic field
Bz. The vertical component is derived as a phase transform of the total field (TMI) assuming that
TMI is the vector in the local geomagnetic field direction. Provided this assumption is honoured, the
TMI to Bz transform is independent of magnetisation direction (Lourenco and Morrison 1973). Bz
provides a similar advantage to the RTP (and Bzz provides a similar advantage to the vertical
gradient of RTP) without the dependence on source magnetisation direction of the RTP transform.
Note that an inverted colour mapping is used in Figure 11 because in the southern hemisphere Bzz
produces a negative anomaly above a normally magnetised source.

Figure 4. The reduced-to-pole TMI image.

Figure 5. The vertical derivative of the reduced-to-pole TMI.

Figure 6. The second vertical derivative of the reduced-to-pole TMI.

Figure 7. The total gradient of TMI.

Figure 8. The tilt angle of the reduced-to-pole TMI.

Figure 9. The trend of TMI.

Figure 10. The consistency of trend of TMI.

Figure 11. The vertical derivative of the vertical component of the magnetic field Bzz.

THE GRAVITY DATA
The gravity data used in this study are ground gravity stations measured in many different surveys
and collated in the South Australia gravity database. Metadata for the gravity database is briefly
described in the document Metadata SA Gravity 2016 (Department of State Development). Ground
gravity meters are relative measurement instruments. The absolute values of the observed gravity
measurements requires that each survey is tied to an absolute gravity network. The base-levels of
the data have been empirically adjusted as necessary as the data has been added to the database
to minimise step discontinuities between measurements of different surveys arising from
differences in their base levels. Each gravity measurement has a corresponding elevation value,
and those elevation values are critical in processing of the data. The error budget of the processed
gravity values depends on errors in elevation estimations and measurements as much as on errors
in the actual measurements of gravity. Observed gravity values depend on the elevation of the
gravity station and on gravitational attraction of nearby terrain. The distribution of gravity stations In
the Tallaringa South area is shown in Figure 12. Much of the area has only a sparse coverage with
a station spacing of 7 km. The far eastern part of the area has stations on a 2 km by 4 km grid, and
also in the eastern half of the area there are surveys with station spacings of 2 km and 1 km.
Elevation of the area derived from radar altimeter measurements of the airborne survey is shown in
Figure 13. Many parts of the area are flat, some with dunes forming the main topography, but there
are also some large-scale ridges and areas of rough but generally low amplitude terrain.
Figure 12. The distribution of ground gravity stations.

Figure 13. The digital elevation model derived from the aircraft GPS and radar altimeter
data.
BOUGUER GRAVITY
The gravity data from the South Australian gravity database used in this study are complete
(terrain-corrected) Bouguer gravity values with a correction density value of 2670 kg/m3. The
distribution of gravity stations shown in Figure 12 is at variable density across the study area. This
raises problems in gridding the data to simultaneously minimise artefacts in regions of low station
density and loss of resolution and curvature over-shoot in regions of higher station density. A novel
and highly effective method of gridding the data has been applied in generating the Bouguer
gravity grid as described by Katona (2017). The high quality of output from this gridding algorithm
has supported subsequent enhancement of the gravity data. The Bouguer gravity image is shown
in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Bouguer gravity.

GRAVITY FIELD DATA ENHANCEMENTS
The lower density of gravity stations compared to magnetic field measurements, coupled with the
longer wavelength of most gravity variations compared to many magnetic field variations, reduces
the typical range of wavelengths of gravity field measurements compared to magnetic field
measurements, and this in turn reduces the advantages of data enhancements. Furthermore, for
gravity data there is no requirement for transforms such as RTP to address inclined field
components, or for transforms such as the total gradient to address issues of an unknown source
property orientation. Nevertheless, many of the advantages of enhancement of magnetic field data
extend similarly to application to gravity data.
THE FIRST VERTICAL DERIVATIVE OF BOUGUER GRAVITY

The vertical derivative of the gravity field as imaged in Figure 15 provides similar enhancement
characteristics and advantages as does the vertical derivative of the magnetic field, namely an
increased emphasis on field variations due to shallow property contrasts, and improved lateral
resolution of overlapping field variations due to adjacent sources. Airborne gravity gradiometry
(AGG) directly measures gradients of the gravity field. Derivation of gradients by transform of field
measurements has lower resolution than could be achieved by low-noise direct gradient
measurements. The vertical derivative of Bouguer gravity is imaged in Figure 15 with an overlay of
RTP contours. This figure shows broad correlation between the gravity and magnetic fields. In the
western 1/3rd of the area both fields have predominant north-south trend, whereas towards the east
the two fields both have general southwest-northeast trend.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE GRAVITY AND

MAGNETIC FIELDS
Gravity and magnetic fields behave according to a common potential field theory. The most
substantial differences between measured gravity and magnetic fields for geological mapping is
due to differences between density variations which give rise to the gravity field variations and
magnetisation variations which give rise to magnetic field variations. Magnetic field variations are
due almost completely to contrasts in magnetisations carried by ferromagnetic minerals which for
most rocks constitute only a few percent of the rock. If the ferromagnetic mineral content of a rock
of density 2670 kg/m3 is doubled from 1% to 2% the magnetisation can reasonably be considered
to double but the density increases by less than 1%. Therefore, for very few rocks are density
variations directly due to variation in ferromagnetic mineral content. In certain cases however
density and magnetisation are strongly correlated due to their common dependence on lithology. In
other cases large density contrasts may exist between rocks none of which carry a significant
magnetisation or substantial magnetisation contrasts may exist between rocks of similar density.
The combination of gravity and magnetic field mapping can therefore provide considerable
advantage over the individual mapping of either field in discrimination between complex
combinations of different rock units.
PSEUDOGRAVITY
The ideal relationship between gravity and magnetic fields which would exist for an ideal
relationship between density and magnetisation allows the prediction of gravity field variations from
magnetic field measurements (Garland 1951; Baranov 1957; Bott and Ingles 1972). This is
achieved by suitable transform of the magnetic field data, namely a reduction to pole and
integration known as the pseudogravity transform. Figure 16 shows the pseudogravity transform of
the airborne TMI data. This image shows only partial correlation with the measured Bouguer
gravity image of Figure 14. In the southwest of the area both Bouguer gravity and pseudogravity
have a pronounced north-south trending high with a smaller positive feature to the north. However,
in the central and eastern parts of the area large, high amplitude positive features in the Bouguer
gravity have no corresponding feature in the pseudogravity (although the much smaller and lower
amplitude features in pseudogravity do have similar trend).

PSEUDOMAGNETIC
The pseudomagnetic transform is based on identical theory to the pseudogravity transform and
investigates the same relationship between density and magnetisation (Robinson 1973). There
are, however, two substantial differences between the two. Firstly, the pseudogravity transform
involves reducing the curvature of the magnetic field while the pseudomagnetic transform involves
increasing the curvature of the gravity field. The pseudomagnetic transform (just as directly
measured TMI) therefore has a higher weighting to shallow property contrasts than does the
pseudogravity transform. Secondly, the individual magnetic field measurements from which the
pseudogravity transform is derived would provide a superb sampling of the gravity field were they
direct gravity measurements, but the much sparser gravity measurements from which the
pseudomagnetic transform is derived provide a poor sampling of the shorter wavelength magnetic
field variations. As for the Bouguer gravity and pseudogravity, the pseudomagnetic image of
Figure 17 shows weak correlation to the TMI image of Figure 2, other than a slight correlation
between positive features in the west of the area, and a general correlation of trend across the
centre and east of the area.
GRAVITY AND MAGNETIC EDGE LINEAMENTS (‘WORMS’)

The peak horizontal gradient and/or the peak total gradient in Bouguer gravity/RTP magnetics can
be used to approximately map steeply-dipping density/magnetisation contrasts (Blakely and
Simpson 1986; Grauch and Cordell 1987). If the contrast surface is dipping then the trace of the
maxima in the same transform following an upward continuation of the data will migrate in the
direction of dip (Archibald et al. 1999; Hornsby et al 1999). The concept that a narrow wavelength
bandpass filter can isolate gravity or magnetic field variations from a specific depth (as implied or
specifically claimed for ‘depth’, ‘pseudo-depth’ or ‘matched’ filters) is now correctly discounted, but
nevertheless a series of increasing upward continuations does progressively increase the
representation of field variations from structures at progressively greater depths. The process of
deriving sets of vectors mapping maxima in gradient functions from progressive upward
continuations of data is known as multiscale edge analysis or worming’ (Boschetti et al. 2001). In
this study two sets of ‘worms’ have been generated at different upward continuations: one from
peaks in the total horizontal gradient of Bouguer gravity, and the other from identical peaks in the
total horizontal gradient of RTP. There is no clear and reliable horizontal migration in these vector
sets generated from different upward continuations (beyond minor apparent migration due to
progressive wavelength limitations of the upward continuations), implying that the causative
density and magnetisation contrast surfaces are sub-vertical. The principal difference between the
different upward continuations is a progressive loss of detail with increase of continuation height
(equivalent to increase in weighted investigation depth).
Figure 18 shows examples of vectors from both the Bouguer gravity and the RTP ‘worm’ sets. The
particular continuation heights of the two vector sets was chosen to display similar levels of detail,
helping to highlight a stronger conformity between these fields than is evident in comparison on
their images and the pseudogravity and pseudomagnetic cross-transforms as described above.
Because the main correlations recognised between the two fields are in their trends rather than
amplitudes, the worm vectors provide by far the strongest correlation between the gravity and
magnetic fields. The worm vectors mostly act as approximate markers of the horizontal location of
density or magnetisation contrasts (or as the axes of such contrasts where they are too narrow for
the individual edges to be resolved at that particular upward continuation of the field). Terminations
and abrupt discontinuities in trend of the vectors mostly map transverse faulting which terminates
or horizontally displaces those density/magnetisation contrast surfaces or units. These vectors, in
conjunction with the various enhancements of the fields from which they are derived, are of
considerable value to structural mapping and interpretation (Holden et al. 2000) and an analysis of
the area has already been performed using the previous magnetic field coverage (Heath et al.
2009). Figure 19 shows an example of gravity and magnetic ‘worms’ displayed in Google Earth.

Figure 15. The vertical derivative of Bouguer gravity (image) and RTP of TMI (contours).

Figure 16. The pseudogravity image.

Figure 17. The pseudomagnetic image.

Figure 18. ‘worm’ edge vectors of the gravity field (blue) and magnetic field (red).

Figure 19. Magnetic ‘worms’ (red) and gravity ‘worms’ (blue) shown in Google EarthTM.
DYKE ANOMALIES
There is a wide variety of linear magnetic anomalies of various trends and different source
magnetisation directions across the 1B Tallaringa South survey area. Across much of the Gawler
Craton these anomalies predominantly mark the Gairdner Dolerite dyke swarm but the variety of
anomalies in the 1B survey area suggests that there may be multiple dyke events present in this
area. The Neoproterozoic (c. 820–830 Ma) Gairdner Dolerite dykes have a predominant NNW-SSE
trend and intrude to the highest stratigraphic level of the lowermost Adelaidean (Callana Group)
above basement. Dykes of this trend are found across much of the 1B survey area but are less
common than in many of the other GCAS survey areas. Dykes of Gairdner trend have been
modelled in area “A” in Figure 20. Area “B” in Figure 20 contains prominent dykes similar to those
in Area “A” but with almost due east-west trend which is rarely observed in other GCAS survey
areas. Dykes in Area “C” have a low-inclination reverse polarity magnetisation not recognised
across the rest of the GCAS area. Another anomaly due to reverse magnetisation has been
modelled in area “D” in Figure 20.

Figure 20. Dyke model study areas over an image of the vertical derivative of RTP.
Figure 21 shows the TMI image for area “A” in Figure 20. There are 3 discontinuous dykes of
Gairdner trend at 3 km spacing and also minor short segments of dykes of orthogonal trend. The
model derived depths of the dykes are mostly 40–50 m below surface. Three of the modelled dyke
intersections from a single east-west flight-line are shown in Figure 22. Most dykes have apparent
magnetic susceptibility values of approximately .02 SI and thicknesses of 50–100 m.

Figure 21. Area “A” (Fig. 20) TMI image with model depth values (metres subsurface).
Figure 22. Area “A” model sections (locations shown in Fig. 21).
The TMI image of area “B” in Figure 20 is shown in Figure 23. These dykes are similar to those of
Gairdner trend in area “A” but have an almost due east-west trend poorly suited to mapping with
the east-west flight-lines. These dykes were modelled on the north-south tie-lines with examples
shown in Figure 24. The dykes mostly have apparent magnetic susceptibilities of .01 to .02 SI,
widths of approximately 100 m and predominant westerly dips.

Figure 23. Area “B” (Fig. 20) TMI image with model depth values (metres subsurface).
Figure 24. Area “B” model sections (locations shown in Fig. 23).
Dyke anomalies in area “C” (Fig. 20) shown in Figure 25 are more cryptic than those in areas “A”
and “B” because there are multiple, abrupt changes in trend of individual anomalies, the anomalies
have significant positive and negative lobes, and the dykes cut across regions of complex

magnetisation (except in the easterly part of the area). The positive and negative pattern of the
dyke anomalies reveals that they are due to a magnetisation of lower inclination than the local
geomagnetic field. It is not possible to resolve magnetisation direction or structural dip from
inversion of magnetic profiles across a planar thin sheet because magnetisation components
parallel to the axis of the sheet do not contribute to the magnetic field and the inclination of
magnetisation perpendicular to the sheet and the dip of the sheet combine into a single term from
which they cannot be separated. The dyke segments in area “C” provide some opportunities to
resolve magnetisation direction and thereby also determine structural dip, but their similarity to
planar sheets limits sensitivity in those resulting magnetisation and dip estimates. To estimate
magnetisation direction we selected two relatively simple dyke segments in the eastern part of the
area (areas “A” and “B” in Fig. 25) where the dyke anomalies are more easily separated from the
background field. Figure 26 shows the input measured field and the field forward computed from
the inversion model. Clearly the inversion has reasonably matched the main features of the input
field but that does not validate the model because of the considerable ambiguity for this model
geometry. Figure 27 shows the relationship of the steeply dipping inversion model to the measured
anomaly. The model magnetisation is 0.8 A/m with inclination +42˚, declination 022˚.
Figure 25. Area “C” (Fig. 20) TMI image with inversion test areas.
Figure 26. Area “A” (Fig. 25) measured TMI (left) and model computed TMI (right).

Figure 27. Area “A” (Fig. 25) inversion model and TMI anomaly.
To test reliability of the magnetisation estimate determined from inversion of the data in area “A”
we repeated the process with an independent data set “B” (Fig. 25). This inversion also achieved a
reasonable match to the main features of the input data (Fig. 28) with a steeply dipping source
model (Fig. 29). The model magnetisation is 0.3 A/m with inclination +44˚, declination 038˚. There
is a difference of only 8˚ between these two independent magnetisation estimates.
This magnetisation direction can be used for modelling and inversion of dyke segments in more
problematic conditions for which it is not feasible to estimate magnetisation direction. Alternatively,
there are magnetic field transforms such as the total gradient (Fig. 30) which map distribution of
magnetisation with only low sensitivity to its direction. Figure 30 includes vectors tracing the axes
of the predominantly negative dyke anomalies such as those in areas “A” and “B”. Similar total
gradient anomalies which are not marked with a vector are predominantly positive anomalies,
suggesting that this may be a mixed polarity dyke set (most probably intruded through a period of
one or more geomagnetic field reversals).

Figure 28. Area “B” (Fig. 25) measured TMI (top) and model computed TMI (bottom).
Figure 29. Area “B” (Fig. 25) inversion model and TMI anomaly.

Figure 30. Area “C” (Fig. 20) total gradient (left) and grayscale with dyke overlay (right).
Area “D” (Fig. 20) is a further anomaly due predominantly to reverse remanent magnetisation, but
with an anomaly pattern quite different to the anomalies in area “C”. TMI and total gradient images
of the area are shown in Figure 31. The anomaly occurs in distinct parts due either to separate
intrusions or to subsequent fault disruption of a single intrusion. The major challenge in modelling
and inversion of this anomaly is in removal of the background field. This is difficult because the
anomaly is in a zone of sharp field variation, apparently because it is located at the contact
between two materials of different magnetisation. With the need to address this complex regional
field separation, and taking advantage of the disrupted nature of the anomaly, we inverted the
anomaly in three separate parts as indicated in Figure 31. Figure 32 shows the inversion model
sections for the central part of the model. The fit to the observed data is good, but it is not certain
that the assumed regional field is a valid anomaly separation.
Figure 31. Gairdner Dolerite model flight-line segments over TMI (left) and Bzz (right).

Figure 32. Inversion sections for the central portion of the Gairdner Dolerite model.
Figure 33 shows that the three individual inversion models combine quite reasonably into a
feasible model of a disrupted plunging sheet of magnetisation. The northern body has a
magnetisation of 0.5 A/m, inclination +52˚, declination 137˚, the central body has a magnetisation
of 0.5 A/m, inclination +55˚, declination 123˚ and the southern body has a magnetisation of 0.4
A/m, inclination +17˚, declination 113˚. The mean magnetisation direction of these three bodies is
inclination +43˚, declination 116˚, and the departures of the individual body magnetisations from
this mean are: northern 17˚, central 13˚, southern 26˚. There is a difference of only 9˚ between
magnetisations of the northern and central bodies, and a difference of 39˚ between the
magnetisation of the southern body and the mean of the central and northern bodies. This might
highlight error in estimation of the magnetisation of the southern body, or that body may have a
different magnetisation direction.
Figure 33. Gairdner Dolerite model, three sections combined.

MAGNETIC SOURCE DEPTH ESTIMATION
Local magnetisations cause local variations (‘anomalies’) in the magnetic field. The sedimentary
package of rocks above crystalline basement generally has only weak magnetisations, with
possibilities of stronger magnetisations where there are any volcanics or shallow intrusions into
those sediments. Most strongly magnetised rocks are believed to occur within the crystalline
basement. In the event that those rocks are truncated at the basement unconformity, estimates of
depth to the top of the magnetisations provides a local estimate of depth to that unconformity
surface. If this unconformity surface was long-lived with deep weathering there may be a
discrepancy between the top of fresh basement within which strong magnetisations are preserved
and the base of cover. Depth estimates derived from magnetic field inversion of selected local
anomalies provide estimates of depth to the top of the source magnetisation, of its thickness, dip
and depth extent. This combination of factors may be suggestive of the source geology (for
instance a volcanic unit may be expected to have relatively restricted depth extent), but generally
the parameters are not diagnostic of geology. The depth estimates therefore provide estimates of
depth to a magnetisation but not of their geological attribution. This study also provides a more
speculative synthesis of those depth solutions as a proposed depth surface. The generation of a
surface from the discrete depth solutions faces two major challenges: firstly, the magnetisations
whose depths have been estimated, are not necessarily all samples of a common surface, and
secondly, they provide only a sparse sampling of a geological surface which may be both highly
irregular and offset by faulting at a set of step discontinuities. In the Tallaringa South area we have
339 drillholes recorded as penetrating basement but only 3 in the western half of the area providing
a highly variable and incomplete geological guidance in interpretation of the magnetic depth
values.
ESTIMATION OF THE MAGNETIC SOURCE DEPTHS

There are numerous methods to derive magnetic source depth estimates. Many are based on fully
automated single-pass analysis, generally in pre-selected and systematically deployed windows. In
this study we have attempted to optimise the precision of individual depth estimates by selecting
only the data most appropriate for source depth estimation, and by applying intensive, multi-pass
inversions to simultaneously optimise all source parameter estimates from each data selection
individually. A large proportion of the data is not used in this ‘sweet-spot’ analysis. The magnetic
field provides more opportunities to generate a higher spatial density of solutions from other
suitable discrete anomalies but only at specific appropriate locations above subsurface
magnetisation contrasts. Between those suitable locations it is not possible to generate meaningful
source depth estimates.
The survey data used was acquired at 200 m line spacing, and the magnetic sources within
basement are at almost all locations more than 150 m below the magnetic sensor. This allows
source depth estimates to be reliably generated from the grid data, with little or no influence on the
resulting depth estimates from smoothing during gridding. Optimal grid traverses were selected to
pass through anomaly minima and maxima perpendicular to the field trend. The magnetic field
measurements are of the total geomagnetic field of amplitude c. 56,000 nT. This field arises
substantially from the earth’s core, but also includes contributions from crustal sources distributed
across and considerably beyond the survey area. There is no analytic process to confidently strip
the field variation due to the specific magnetisation of interest from the field due to other sources.
Separation of the field of interest (the ‘anomaly’ or ‘residual’) from other fields (the ‘regional’) is
made by interpretation of a smoothly varying function along the selected traverse. Where the
anomaly of interest is abruptly terminated at an immediately adjacent anomaly, estimation of the
background field is necessarily more speculative. The regional field for the anomaly inversions
made in this study was computed from a 2nd order polynomial curve controlled by (usually 3)
sample points manipulated by the interpreter, and optionally adjusted during the inversion process.
This depth study is not exhaustive. If a more detailed mapping of basement depth is required there
are remaining field variations which could supply infill depth estimates. Any new depth estimates
can then be combined with those supplied in the digital data package for this report.

BASEMENT GEOLOGY AND DRILLHOLES
A clip of the state-wide solid geology is used as a backdrop for several of the figures in this report.
The mapping is necessarily speculative rather than definitive, based on sparse drillhole control and
interpretation of previous magnetic field surveys. This study does not include interpretive upgrading
of that geological map. The appropriate geological map unit age was assigned to all overlying
magnetic source solutions (which can be upgraded in any subsequent geological interpretation of
the area).
The drillholes used as constraints in generating a proposed basement surface were downloaded
from the state-wide database of drillholes intersecting basement that is available in SARIG. 339
drillholes were used in this study with drillhole locations listed in Appendix 3. Of the 339 drillholes
only 3 are in the western half of the area providing an inadequate sampling of that region. Half of
the drillhole intersections are reported to be 20 m or less. This preponderance of very shallow
depths is inconsistent with the magnetic field variations that are almost all clearly from a greater
depth. This discrepancy suggests that there is in most cases a significant depth between the
reported top of basement and the top of fresh basement which is the uppermost limit of strong
magnetisations. 291 drillhole intersections are reported to be 50 m or less, with only 8 >100 m and
a maximum depth of 520 m. The top of basement gridded from the drillhole intersections is imaged
in Figure 34, but that grid can only be generated in the eastern half of the area where there are
sufficient drillholes. Figure 35 shows a cross-plot of the reported drillhole basement intersections
and the subsurface depth to top of magnetisation derived by interpolation from the gridded
magnetic depth values. There is clearly poor correlation between the two values, except that in
almost all cases the magnetic depth values are greater than the drillhole intersections. For the
majority of drillhole intersections <100 m the increase in depth to the top of magnetisation is
between 0 and 200 m, with a significant minority of solutions with increased depths of up to 400 m.
This pattern is explained as predominantly due to a thickness of up to 200 m of weathered material
at the top of basement (and in some cases more). The poor correlation may also in part be due to
limitations in the grid interpolation of the magnetic depth values as well as imperfections in the
depths themselves and in some cases the reported drillhole intersections. The poor correlation
also implies significant variation in the weathering thickness.
Figure 34. Borehole cover thickness (pseudocolour) over greyscale RTP-fvd image.

Figure 35. Borehole cover thickness cross-plot with gridded depth to magnetisation.
THE MAGNETIC TRAVERSE DEPTH SOLUTIONS

The depth estimates in this study were derived from inversion of selected TMI traverses using the
methodology described in Appendix 1. Traverses were selected through the TMI and elevation
grids for those anomalies interpreted to be most appropriate for source depth estimation. Each
anomaly profile was individually inverted to provide an independent estimate of depth to that
source. All sources were assumed to be truncated at the top of unweathered basement, and
therefore to provide samples of that surface. The sensor elevation channel was estimated by
adding the 60 m nominal terrain clearance of the survey to the ground elevation channel. This
approximation is reasonably justified for this study because the moderate to low terrain allowed
quite consistent terrain clearance as evidenced in the flight line radar altimeter and GPS elevation
statistics. With a cell size of 40 m for the TMI grid even the shallowest basement sources are
reasonably represented in the grid data. An example of a selected anomaly and associated model
section is shown in Figure 36. The models are supplied in a range of formats in the digital
appendix. These should be considered the primary output of the depth estimation study. The
subsequently derived depth surface is a synthesis of these results and hopefully a product which
will be continuously improved as new work is done in the area, new drillholes and additional
magnetic depth estimates become available, or new geological concepts are applied to derive
alternative surfaces.

Figure 36. Example model traverse. The estimated depth is the top of the magnetisation.
The range of apparent model susceptibilities is shown in Figure 37. The modelling does not directly
resolve magnetic susceptibility but rather magnetisation expressed as magnetic susceptibility on
the assumption that the magnetisation is due only to induction with no remanent magnetisation
contribution. Anomalies were selected only if they could be reasonably explained as due to
magnetisation in the local geomagnetic field direction, and for these anomalies the induced or
remanent nature of that magnetisation does not impact on the depth estimation value. The
magnetisation estimates are also dependent on the model volume, with little sensitivity to
independent values of magnetisation and volume provided their product (the magnetic moment) is
kept constant. Half of the apparent magnetic susceptibility values are <.05 SI, with very few values
ranging from .2 SI to 1 SI.
Figure 37. Apparent magnetic susceptibility values for the magnetic depth sources.

Figure 38 shows the distribution of apparent magnetic susceptibility values over an image of TMI.
As should be expected, the higher susceptibility values are derived from the higher amplitude
anomalies. Note that these values are unlikely to be representative of the rocks in any one area,
because they are contrast values against surrounding rocks, and because the higher amplitude
anomalies are generally most suitable for estimating magnetisation source depths and therefore
these anomalies are preferentially sampled.
Figure 38. Distribution of apparent magnetic susceptibilities over TMI image.
THE INTERPOLATED MAGNETIC DEPTH SURFACE

Figure 39 shows an unconstrained surface elevation derived by gridding of all the magnetic depth
source solutions. This grid is poorly justified as an interpolation of the basement surface, firstly
because it is uncertain that all the depth points are estimates of points on that geological surface,
and secondly because grid interpolation across large distances is a poor representation of the
complexity of a geological surface. Nevertheless, the restricted distribution of basement-
intersecting boreholes in area 1B (as plotted in Fig. 34) places greater importance on these
magnetic source depth estimates which provide a more complete mapping of the survey area. The
south-eastern half of the area is mostly an elevated surface at and above sea level. There is a
sharp transition to greater depths in the west and a second, lower elevated surface between
depths of 200 and 400 m below sea level in the north-west of the area.

Figure 39. Unconstrained top of magnetisation elevation.

MAGNETIC SOURCE DEPTH PRODUCTS
The objective of this magnetic source depth study was to generate a ‘live’ set of products that will
serve as the basis for future studies in the area. In the digital appendix, the various items described
in the report are made available for editing, adding to, and incorporation into further studies. The
individual grid traverse inversions are the primary magnetic depth products. These are supplied in
the digital appendix in the ModelVision session files from which they were generated. This allows a
user with access to the ModelVision software package to repeat the inversions with different
inversion settings, or to investigate the sensitivity of the solutions and the possibility of matching
the measured field with a solution at some different depth. The source solutions themselves are
provided in a range of formats so that they can be recombined in different permutations to
generate alternative depth surfaces, or so that new solutions can be added to improve resolution in
any particular area of interest. The depth surface is also provided in a range of formats for
visualisation or editing in GIS or geophysical data processing packages.
Figures 40–45 show images of the various depth solutions and surfaces, basement geology map
and drillholes provided in PA session files that can be opened in PA or PA viewer to better inspect
the data and depth products. A list of the outputs is provided in Appendix 4.

Figure 40. Magnetic traverses and depth solutions with annotated depth below surface, on TMI.

Figure 41. Magnetic depth solutions with depth to top of magnetisation over solid geology.

Figure 42. Depth to magnetisation contours over greyscale vertical derivative of TMI-RTP.

Figure 43. Contours of the top of magnetisation surface over solid geology image.

Figure 44. Contours of the depth below surface to magnetisation over solid geology image.

Figure 45. 3-D visualisation of geology drape on the top of magnetisation surface and
magnetisation models. V:H exaggeration 10:1.
REFERENCES
Archibald N, Gow P and Boschetti F 1999. Multiscale edge analysis of potential field data.
Exploration Geophysics 30:38–44.
Baranov V 1957. A new method for interpretation of aeromagnetic maps: pseudo-gravimetric
anomalies. Geophysics 22:359–383.
Baranov V and Naudy H 1964. Numerical calculation of the formula of reduction to the magnetic
pole. Geophysics 29:67–79.
Blakely RJ 1996. Potential theory in gravity and magnetic applications. Cambridge University
Press.
Blakely RJ and Simpson RW 1986. Approximating edges of source bodies from magnetic or
gravity anomalies. Geophysics 51:1494–1498. doi: 10.1190/1.1442197
Boschetti F, Hornby P and Horowitz FG 2001. Wavelet based inversion of gravity data. Exploration
Geophysics 32:48–55.
Bott MHP and Ingles A 1972. Matrix methods for joint interpretation of two-dimensional gravity and
magnetic anomalies with application to the Iceland-Faeroe Ridge. Geophysical Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society 30: 55–67.
Dentith M, Cowan DR and Tompkins LA 2000. Enhancement of subtle features in aeromagnetic
data. Exploration Geophysics 31:104–108.
Department of State Development 2016. Metadata: SA Gravity 2016, pp. 4.

Foss CA 2011. Magnetic data enhancements and depth estimation. In HK Gupta ed.,
Encyclopaedia of Solid Earth Geophysics, Springer.
Garland GD 1951. Combined analysis of gravity and magnetic anomalies. Geophysics 16:51–62.
Grauch VJS and Cordell L 1987. Limitations of determining density or magnetic boundaries from
the horizontal gradient of gravity or pseudogravity data. Geophysics 52:118–121.
Heath P, Dhu T, Reed G, Fairclough M 2009. Geophysical modelling of the Gawler Province, SA –
interpreting geophysics with geology. Exploration Geophysics 40:342–351.
Holden DJ, Archibald NJ, Boschetti F and Jessell MW 2000. Inferring geological structures using
wavelet-baed multiscale edge analysis and forward models. Exploration Geophysics 31:617–
621.
Hornsby P, Boschetti F and Horowitz FG 1999. Analysis of potential field data in the wavelet
domain. Geophysical Journal International 137:175–196.
Katona LF 2017. Gridding of South Australia ground gravity data, using the supervised variable
density method, Report Book 2016/00012. Department of the Premier and Cabinet, South
Australia, Adelaide.
Lourenco JS and Morrison HF 1973. Vector magnetic anomalies derived from measurements of a
single component of the field. Geophysics 38:359–368.
Miller HG and Singh VJ 1994. Potential field tilt – a new concept for location of potential field
sources. Applied Geophysics 32:213–217.
Milligan PR and Gunn PJ 1997. Enhancement and presentation of airborne geophysical data.
AGSO Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics 17:63–75.
Nabigian MN 1984. Towards a three-dimensional automatic interpretation of potential field data.
Phillips JD, Hansen RO and Blakely RJ 2007. The use curvature in potential-field interpretation.
Exploration Geophysics 38:111–119.
Robinson ES 1971. The use of Poisson’s relation for the extraction of pseudo total magnetic field
intensity from gravity observations. Geophysics 36:605–608.
Roest WR, Verhoef J and Pilkington M 1992. Magnetic interpretation using the 3-D analytic signal.
Salem A, Williams S, Fairhead D, Smith R and Ravat D 2008. Interpretation of magnetic data using
tilt-angle derivatives. Geophysics 73:L1–L10.
Thompson Aviation 2019. Tallaringa North, SA (GA#1297 – R1A) Geophysical Survey Operations
& Processing Report, p. 108 (unpublished).

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. THE ‘SWEET-SPOT’ TRAVERSE INVERSION DEPTH-
ESTIMATION TECHNIQUE USED IN THIS STUDY
A wide range of methods are used in magnetic source depth estimation, including various
graphical methods (such as straight line and critical point methods), the Naudy or ‘AutoMag’
method, Werner deconvolution, Euler and extended Euler, and inversion. Any method to estimate
depth to a magnetic source must include a source shape assumption or derivation. For many
methods this model shape factor appears as a ‘structural index’, which is a single value to classify
three dimensional shape. Also common to all methods is the challenge to assess reliability of
results, which cannot be specified as a true uncertainty because of the inherent non-uniqueness in
solving inverse potential field problems. In many depth estimation methods results are presented
without any reliability or quality factors. For Euler and extended Euler solutions, which can be
generated in large numbers, quality factors are generally derived from the consistency of values in
local clusters. While inconsistent results cannot be reliable, the converse is not true, that well
clustered results are necessarily clustered around the true depth value (for instance they may all
share a common error, such as an inappropriate structural index value).
The method which we have selected to use in this study is a semi-automated inversion process.
The key characteristics of this process are:
• Depths are only estimated at the location of appropriate magnetic field variations selected by
the interpreter.
• The interpreter selects a traverse which passes through suitable field variations, ideally through
magnetic field minima and maxima, roughly perpendicular to trend, and avoiding any evident
artefact in the grid.
• A smooth background field is interpolated across the traverse, representing the field interpreted
as that which would be observed if the anomalous magnetisation were not present.
• A model of appropriate geometry, and with a horizontal top, is created with strike azimuth and
strike length suitable to match the observed field variation in the TMI grid.
• The depth, thickness, magnetisation, depth extent and plunge is adjusted by the interpreter to
achieve an approximate match to the measured values on the grid traverse, before the cross-
section values (all parameters excluding strike extent and azimuth) are inverted to best-fit the
traverse data.
• If the model provides an acceptable fit to the data with geologically reasonable parameters it is
accepted as a provisional explanation of that anomaly. These models provide estimates of
depth to top, magnetisation intensity, thickness and dip of the causative magnetisation.
• Once an acceptable model is generated for a profile, it is stored and interpretation proceeds to
the next profile. Alternatively, the profile is rejected as inappropriate for generation of an
acceptable simple source model.
It is important to appreciate the sensitivity limits in estimating source depth from magnetic field
data. Figure 46 shows N-S TMI profiles for a body of width and strike length 200 m, large depth
extent, and with depths of the top below sensor of 50, 100 and 150 m. The variation between
profiles is due only to variation in depth to the top of the body. This image summarises sensitivity in
estimating depth to a known source. Unfortunately, geology is poorly predictable, and magnetised
bodies do not conform to a standard size or shape, so in estimating depth to the top of a source it
is also necessary to estimate the other source parameters. Figure 47 shows the TMI profiles of
identical tabular bodies with the same depth to top, strike and depth extents, but with their
thickness and intensity of magnetisation inverted to best-fit the profile for the body at the central
depth of 100 m. These inversions do not exactly match the curve for the body at 100 m depth, but
the variations in intensity of magnetisation and thickness substantially reduce difference between
the curves, and thereby ability to discriminate variation between those source depths. Figure 48
shows post-inversion misfits for sources with smaller depth displacements of +/- 20%. It is
questionable to ascribe interpretational significance to the reduced differences between these
curves, particularly in the practical interpretation case that one of the curves is measured data from
a geological survey, with geological imperfection of the sources and measurement and processing
errors.

Figure 46. TMI profiles over a source with vertical displacements of +/- 50%.
Figure 47. TMI profiles over a source with +/- 50% vertical offset, after inversion of
thickness and magnetisation to minimise TMI differences.

Figure 48. TMI profiles over sources with +/- 20% vertical offset, after inversion of thickness
and magnetisation intensity to minimise resulting TMI misfit.
The limited sensitivity to depth to the top of a source as shown in Figure 48 emphasises the
importance of closely matching the input field to reduce the risk of any unnecessary misfit
introducing the opportunity for even greater undetected errors in depth estimation. The
methodology we have applied in this study attempts to minimise discrepancies in matching the field
through 1) selecting optimum data sets focussed on only the most appropriate samples of the field,
and 2) use of intensive, iterative computations to ensure that the best data-fit is achieved.
Automated depth estimation methods are far less selective in the data used, and generally fit data
within a standard window size or sizes using a single pass sparse-computation analysis. No
method can avoid the inherent uncertainty that arises from fundamental non-uniqueness of the
inverse problem, but the method we have applied attempts to constrain that non-uniqueness in an
optimum fashion.
The distribution of suitable anomalies from which to estimate source depths is controlled
completely by the local geology. In areas where fewer ideal anomalies are available, the interpreter
must compromise on quality in order to provide at least some constraint on source depth. In
general, where basement depths increase there are fewer suitable anomalies, because identical
magnetisations at greater depth generate weaker field variations which may be either undetectable
or closer to the noise level from any shallower distributed magnetisations. In the case of
magnetisations at multiple depths, the more compact, sharper field variations from the shallower
sources are more easily separated and resolved than broader anomalies from the deeper sources.
The method we have used can also be applied to the directly measured profile data. As a general
rule, sources at depths below sensor greater than 50% of the line spacing are unaffected by the
influence of gridding the data (for commonly applied tight minimum-curvature algorithms). However
loose-fit gridding algorithms, or dependence on excessive micro-levelling to reduce tie-line levelling
problems can result in substantial over-estimation of source depth. For shallow sources the same
process we apply to grid-traverse data can be applied to flight-line data.
Figure 49 shows an example grid-traverse depth-estimation solution made using ModelVision Pro
software. The grid traverse is located to pass through the anomaly maximum and minimum roughly
perpendicular to the local trend of the field as shown in the map view. The profile is extended

sufficiently to estimate the background field values and trends beyond the ends of the anomaly. A
smooth regional curve is interpreted through the data. A simple tabular horizontal-topped
magnetisation model is generated. This is manually adjusted for strike extent and azimuth
(parameters which cannot be reliably determined from the traverse data alone). Then the depth,
depth extent, thickness, dip and magnetic susceptibility are adjusted by inversion to best-fit the
residual anomaly defined as the difference between the traverse data and the interpreted regional
field along the traverse. Optionally the base level and first order slope of the regional field can also
be included as parameters in the inversion. In many studies the depth of the top surface of the
model is interpreted as providing a local sample of the top of basement surface (which is
unconstrained by the magnetic method away from the location of suitable magnetisation contrasts).
The ancillary parameters of thickness, depth extent, magnetic susceptibility and dip also provide
estimates of the distribution of magnetisation, and in favourable circumstances can be used to help
discriminate between magnetisations from different geological units (for instance between
basement sources and volcanics in the overlying sediments).
Inversion using magnetic susceptibility should only be applied to magnetic anomalies which have
characteristic shapes that can be ascribed to induced magnetisations. For anomalies that do not
conform to the shape expected for an induced magnetisation source, the resultant magnetisation
direction should be estimated from 3D full-anomaly analysis or inversion, and subsequent traverse
inversions should use that fixed resultant magnetisation direction with intensity of magnetisation as
the free magnetisation parameter.
Figure 49. Example magnetic source depth estimate.

APPENDIX 2. MAGNETISATION SOLUTIONS
point east north depth (m BSL) Suscept geology
1B_001 127091.2 6712534.7 831.6 0.044537 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_002 145460.7 6712087.1 803.5 0.031362 Archaean-Mesoproterozoic
1B_004 163402.8 6721342.8 1020 0.070462 Archaean-Mesoproterozoic
1B_014 176173 6696888.9 251.5 0.013514 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_015 158384.6 6712939.7 339 0.089811 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_020 188252.2 6728685.6 689 0.046615 Archaean-Mesoproterozoic
1B_026 202153.1 6699375 437.7 0.035293 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_041 231733 6731925.3 -54.7 0.023276 Palaeoproterozoic
Resources and Energy Group 52 Report Book 2020/00011

1B_0522 240072.6 6725616 326 0.118057 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_054 253349.2 6732213.9 140.9 0.069336 Mesoproterozoic
1B_056 265329.1 6733006 462 0.028649 Mesoproterozoic
1B_061 281792 6723888.5 1677 0.026465 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_071 280909.7 6704495.1 1050 0.30792 Mesoproterozoic
1B_073 282841.6 6702819.1 -93.8 0.046701 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_078 292573.7 6704404.4 -5 0.026672 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_079 300073.2 6702312.3 15.1 0.023382 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_082 313344.7 6729084 761.8 0.292801 Mesoproterozoic
1B_086 313859 6725792.6 140.9 0.103879 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_0901 351799.7 6696629.5 -34.6 0.037529 Mesoproterozoic
1B_096 306315 6705206.3 -58.5 0.02798 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic

1B_101 353969.6 6722020 -79.9 0.036971 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_106 353668.9 6700441.9 -69 0.028931 Mesoproterozoic
1B_1B_1 198540.4 6690593.4 571.8 0.062459 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_1B_2 200822.8 6690228.2 428.7 0.104098 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_128 116771.7 6660865.9 592.5 0.023704 Palaeozoic-Mesoproterozoic

1B_151 269429 6691376.8 -130 0.192104 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_154 299426.7 6695939 -52 0.083132 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_173 343438.9 6688354.1 35 0.016564 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_179 306090.8 6665980 -35.6 0.872385 Mesoproterozoic
1B_1881 353514.7 6647076 -107 0.134662 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic

1B_193 325937 6636617.5 29.3 0.43673 Mesoproterozoic
1B_204 315417.6 6628157 -67.7 0.018847 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_208 351317 6626497.3 -29 0.031808 Mesoproterozoic
1B_219 246938.9 6652990.1 107.1 0.131208 Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic
1B_220 244828.4 6643605.1 -84.3 0.038902 Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic
1B_2232 257389 6633578.1 -148.8 0.038142 Mesoproterozoic
1B_226 280368 6638261.5 -88.6 0.344386 Palaeoproterozoic
1B_235 243126.5 6627006 189 0.027037 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_236 264376.2 6630644 -42.1 0.174337 Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic

1B_266 219537 6632817.5 139.3 0.026015 Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic
1B_270 235658 6638113.7 48 0.020127 Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic
1B_271 235928.7 6631634.9 -100 0.142436 Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic
1B_2722 239495.2 6639233 -97.6 0.063197 Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic
1B_2792 207705.9 6622886.8 318 0.081191 Mesoproterozoic

1B_286 124903.8 6642443.5 569 0.140838 Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic

APPENDIX 3. BOREHOLES
HOLEID east north EOH_DEPTH collar BASEMNT_RL COVR_THICK
621 170597.6 6658654.2 542.2 302.5 -217.2 519.7
645 176400.3 6625398.9 295.35 109.8 -177.2 287
1037 217140.5 6723202.3 232.7 218 -5.7 223.7
1040 234189.6 6722300.9 474.4 207.1 -256.3 463.4
2449 355703.6 6644669.7 38 198.8 176.8 22
2450 354938.5 6644609.7 40 195.9 189.9 6
2451 353940.4 6644694 8 187.8 185.8 2
2452 352979.4 6644639.8 22 180 174 6
2453 352186.7 6644660.9 74 179.5 127.5 52
2454 350989.6 6644619.9 34 171.9 147.9 24
2455 319860.5 6675171.9 52 177.3 127.3 50
2456 320257.5 6675475.8 44 177.2 141.2 36
2457 321087.6 6675906.1 13 178.6 176.6 2
2458 322509.5 6676055.9 57 167.5 123.5 44
2459 323386.5 6675973.9 66 160.6 102.6 58
2461 327116.6 6676065 62 163.4 105.4 58
2462 343916.6 6676321 28 164.4 144.4 20
2463 345103.4 6676267.8 26 160.7 146.7 14
2464 350248.5 6676520.8 38 152.8 132.8 20
2465 351735.6 6676380.7 59 159.7 115.7 44
2466 354564.6 6658541.9 53 172.5 162.5 10
2467 352620.6 6658464.9 30 178.5 176.5 2
2468 350642.4 6658495 36 178.4 170.4 8
2469 348405.4 6658499.1 49 194.2 190.2 4
2470 346370.5 6658508 61 200 188 12
2471 344393.5 6658506.8 40 181.8 173.8 8
2472 342458.5 6658544.8 36 179.4 171.4 8
2473 341046.5 6658521.9 33 179.6 175.6 4
2474 338738.5 6658561.8 58 186 184 2
2476 332600.4 6644708.9 52 200.1 152.1 48
2477 334687.4 6644670 32 198.1 180.1 18
2478 336301.5 6644716.8 34 198.6 180.6 18
2479 337753.6 6644709.8 38 191.9 169.9 22
2480 338761.7 6644688.8 34 186 158 28
2481 339827.5 6644656.8 29 180.5 178.5 2
2482 340797.5 6644647.9 29 176.8 174.8 2
2483 342377.4 6644592.9 44 167.8 157.8 10
2484 344440.5 6644697.7 30 157.9 145.9 12
2485 345971.5 6644565.8 17 159.9 156.9 3
2486 346965.4 6644614.9 16 160.4 158.4 2
2488 350184.4 6644640 71 168.9 136.9 32
2503 328852.6 6721519.1 17.9 160.1 146.6 13.5
2504 324048.6 6719675.9 29.8 158.5 134.8 23.7
2505 323246.6 6726276.9 40 193.7 173.7 20
2593 324368.5 6725344.9 12 187.3 183.3 4
2594 326123.6 6723985.8 3 175.4 174.4 1
2595 327547.6 6722643 11 162.3 160.3 2
2596 328436.6 6721901 7 160.1 154.1 6
2598 331621.6 6718756.1 47 166.1 124.1 42
2600 333249.5 6717171.8 26 175 167 8
2601 333715.5 6716113 11 179.3 175.3 4
2602 333815.6 6715260.1 29 180.4 176.4 4
2604 335835.7 6712312 37 183.3 157.3 26
2606 337535.5 6710393.9 17 189.1 185.1 4
2607 339084.5 6708934 30 185.7 179.7 6
2608 331973.5 6701051.9 44 221.4 209.4 12

2609 333216.5 6699647.1 50 224 216 8
2611 336708.5 6696167.9 47 183 159 24
2612 337457.5 6695447 34 179.2 153.2 26
2613 339143.7 6694030.1 34 180 162 18
2614 340650.5 6692461.1 49 179.5 171.5 8
2615 342122.6 6691247 50 179.1 145.1 34
2616 343625.7 6689810.9 49 171.4 125.4 46
2617 345024.6 6688486.8 44 173.9 165.9 8
2618 346430.6 6687136.7 35 169.2 161.2 8
2619 348013.5 6685792.8 30 170.2 150.2 20
2620 349623.6 6684424 44 161.1 139.1 22
2621 350932.6 6683121.9 34 167.3 158.3 9
2622 352401.6 6681781 56 172.6 168.6 4
2623 353762.7 6680448.9 35 171.1 169.1 2
131144 252526.5 6635888.1 54 175.3 155.3 20
131146 231341.5 6630105.9 60 176.7 124.7 52
131147 231336.3 6630206 40 175.8 143.8 32
131173 301207.5 6654484.8 74 178.7 146.7 32
131174 286397.5 6658708.1 70 179.6 165.6 14
131175 287103.4 6655902 24 178.3 169.3 9
131177 262997.4 6641687.9 86 207.4 129.4 78
131178 260956.6 6638977.9 62 193.7 175.7 18
131183 344449.5 6627150.9 30 159.5 150.5 9
131184 344474.5 6627151 37 159.5 146.5 13
131185 349596.5 6625911.8 70.5 161.4 129.4 32
131186 336576.4 6625101.8 46 161.1 159.1 2
131201 169350.6 6626104.2 496 115.7 -324.3 440
131343 238928.3 6659171.9 96 177 84.8 92.2
131654 277528.6 6652071.8 68 211.9 162.9 49
131655 267428.3 6629671.8 150 181.2 105.2 76
131656 266428.3 6629571.8 120 179.4 81.4 98
131657 265328.5 6629671.9 150 176.6 110.6 66
131659 266428.4 6630372 150 180.1 144.1 36
131660 263528.5 6630672.1 120 177.4 140.4 37
131668 306128.5 6653472 1.8 145.1 144.5 0.6
131674 314728.5 6666772 2.29 149.9 148.4 1.5
131675 315728.5 6666071.8 0.2 149.7 149.7 0
131676 315628.3 6666472.1 0.2 149 149 0
131684 343128.5 6718171.8 10.5 150.8 149.8 1
131685 343928.6 6719172.1 36.25 159.6 127.6 32
131686 344428.7 6720271.9 44.25 151.9 113.9 38
131687 345128.5 6720571.9 44 149.8 134.8 15
131688 346128.4 6720872 45.25 152.3 114.3 38
131689 347428.6 6721671.8 35 151.8 127.8 24
131690 348228.6 6722372 30 153.1 125.1 28
131693 329028.5 6721571.9 47.5 160.2 114.2 46
131694 328528.6 6722171.9 69 159.8 119.8 40
131695 324128.6 6720972.1 46 161.5 116.5 45
131696 324128.7 6719772.1 31.5 158.5 127.5 31
131697 324128.5 6718871.9 26 159.6 143.6 16
131698 324128.7 6717872 9.5 160.3 152.3 8
131699 327728.5 6705071.8 38 209.2 182.2 27
131700 355328.5 6678272 39 163 131 32
131701 355328.4 6677071.8 38 161.6 129.6 32
131702 350728.5 6676471.9 41.5 156.3 126.3 30
131703 349528.5 6676572 49 151.2 103.2 48
131704 348028.4 6676371.9 48 157.2 125.2 32
131705 347128.5 6676371.7 44 149.8 115.8 34

131706 345528.5 6684071.8 54 176.9 128.9 48
131707 345528.6 6682871.9 41 158.6 124.6 34
131708 344728.7 6680971.8 12 156.3 145.3 11
131709 342228.7 6673271.8 104 190.1 166.1 24
131711 325528.5 6675672.1 104 158.9 60.9 98
131713 323928.7 6680172.1 68 182.2 118.2 64
131714 323928.5 6684372 84 195.6 115.6 80
131715 323928.6 6686272.1 43 189.6 151.6 38
131716 323928.6 6688171.9 67.5 191.4 137.4 54
131717 308028.4 6690171.9 66 174.8 124.8 50
131718 307928.5 6688972 32 175.4 154.4 21
131721 289128.5 6692771.9 46 161.9 153.9 8
131722 288828.5 6693172 23.4 163.4 154.4 9
131723 289128.5 6693571.9 57 166.4 128.4 38
131724 289428.4 6693072.2 62 163.1 125.1 38
131725 287028.5 6701971.9 50.5 189.3 163.3 26
131726 286728.7 6702371.9 26.5 192.1 188.1 4
131727 286328.3 6702772 36 194.9 186.9 8
131730 307728.4 6705771.8 74 179.3 113.3 66
131732 282528.4 6706172.1 84 173 99 74
131733 283228.5 6705472 106 175.8 71.8 104
131737 281128.6 6707572.2 187 179.8 -2.2 182
131742 287128.6 6708472.1 124 176.7 80.7 96
131743 288528.5 6706971.9 50 192.5 144.5 48
131744 289828.6 6705571.8 50 195.6 179.6 16
131749 307928.6 6683372 5 179.3 177.3 2
131751 307928.5 6686371.9 14 180.2 168.2 12
131752 307928.4 6688371.9 30 176.8 148.8 28
131753 308028.7 6689771.9 50 174 129 45
131755 307928.6 6691972 44 180.7 142.7 38
131756 299928.6 6688571.9 13 160.3 148.3 12
131757 300728.5 6688972 23 157.7 135.7 22
131761 288228.6 6701372.1 20 183.5 167.5 16
131762 284428.7 6711572 92 187.2 107.2 80
131765 269728.4 6694072 36 200.4 184.4 16
131766 268628.5 6693971.9 51 200.2 174.2 26
131767 271628.5 6694472 25 199.5 191.5 8
131768 274428.7 6694572 32 200 190 10
131769 289128.5 6693172.1 51 163.7 119.7 44
131770 288128.6 6694272.1 53 169.4 143.4 26
131771 287328.5 6695072.1 44 178.7 136.7 42
131774 316528.5 6693872.1 27 199.6 183.6 16
131775 320228.5 6693672 20 184.7 176.7 8
131776 325728.6 6693071.8 23 200.4 190.4 10
131777 312028.5 6694372 62 180.4 120.4 60
131956 304628.7 6655571.8 18.5 146.2 129 17.3
131994 312928.5 6719971.9 211.4 158.8 128.8 30.1
131995 314128.5 6719872.1 191.79 159.4 143.9 15.5
132054 260035.4 6685236.9 171 221.9 51.4 170.5
137922 258866.4 6634909.1 27.5 182.6 174.6 8
137924 255199.4 6635739 54 180.2 152.2 28
137925 268834.3 6628658.1 96.7 180.6 116.6 64
137931 262196.5 6633911.1 72.5 183.4 135.4 48
137932 260418.5 6634414.9 29 183.4 165.4 18
137934 266503.4 6636873 57.5 193.5 153.5 40
137935 264964.3 6637296.1 59 193.2 149.2 44
137936 263635.5 6638178 87 197.1 157.1 40
137937 262140.5 6638725 68 196.7 148.7 48

137938 267157.4 6640930.1 80 201.2 149.2 52
137939 267850.4 6638718 94.5 197.1 121.1 76
137940 267954.4 6639927 109.5 199.6 119.6 80
137941 264980.4 6641445 84 203 125 78
137942 268970.6 6641506 47.5 199.1 165.1 34
137943 270929.5 6642426 92.5 191.4 135.4 56
137944 271733.3 6643169 55 199 161 38
137945 271860.4 6643468.1 75 199 147 52
137948 284228.6 6652651.8 74.5 176.9 112.9 64
137949 284637.6 6654376 52 177.1 167.1 10
137950 284809.4 6655684 11 178.3 170.3 8
137951 285390.4 6656651 27 179.7 165.7 14
137952 286828.4 6657785 23.5 180.2 170.2 10
137956 292564.6 6654057.9 50.5 175.4 135.4 40
137957 291380.3 6653850.9 47 175.2 135.2 40
137958 288345.3 6653123.9 89.5 177.6 141.6 36
137959 286656.4 6653031.9 18 180.7 166.7 14
137960 285969.5 6652914.9 37 180.2 158.2 22
137961 283664.4 6651696 64 182.4 128.4 54
137963 277968.4 6652011.8 79.5 208.2 152.2 56
137964 279729.5 6651261.9 81 198.8 144.8 54
137993 265334.4 6623285.9 68 180.2 124.2 56
137994 263475.3 6623504.8 56 186.7 132.7 54
137995 261605.3 6623527.9 23.5 185.8 169.8 16
137996 260599.5 6623612 25 180.1 166.1 14
137997 259587.3 6623686.1 19 174.9 160.9 14
137998 257804.3 6624298 68 168.6 148.6 20
137999 255736.3 6624365.9 53 162.8 132.8 30
138000 253634.3 6624503.9 46 159.5 131.5 28
138001 252143.5 6624418.8 35 156.5 136.5 20
138002 250202.6 6624096.9 59 150.4 130.4 20
138003 248242.3 6624043.9 60 158.5 126.5 32
138004 245741.3 6623983.9 25 158.7 138.7 20
138005 243744.3 6623653.8 61 156.3 110.3 46
138006 241832.3 6623181.8 69 148.9 110.9 38
182394 315334 6724284.1 42 171.1 139.1 32
182395 315023 6724537 67 171.7 105.7 66
182396 315217 6724379 33.5 171.2 141.2 30
182399 314253.1 6723864 35 167.9 133.9 34
182400 314591.1 6723574 35 167.5 135.5 32
182401 324529 6722972.1 12 173.5 163.5 10
182402 351029 6727572 40 174.2 142.2 32
182403 351029 6727972 31 171.2 143.2 28
182404 351029.1 6728372 43 167.9 137.9 30
182405 351029 6728602 26 166 150 16
182406 351029 6728722 28 165.2 155.2 10
182407 351029.1 6728972 32 164 150 14
182408 351029 6729172 51 163.6 115.6 48
182409 351029 6729432 26 163.6 145.6 18
182410 351029 6729772 26 163.2 145.2 18
182411 351029 6729972 31 162.9 134.9 28
182412 352529 6730972 35 173.6 141.6 32
182414 352529 6730172 14.5 175.5 165.5 10
182415 352529 6729971.9 34 175.6 167.6 8
182416 352529 6729772 32 175.6 167.6 8
182417 352529 6729622 54 175.6 165.6 10
182418 352529 6729372 34 175.2 149.2 26
182419 352529 6729172 44 174.5 136.5 38

182420 352529 6728772 55 173.4 129.4 44
182421 352529 6728372 41 174.6 136.6 38
182422 352529 6727872 6 176.5 174.5 2
182423 352529 6727572 6 177.5 174.5 3
182424 352594.1 6727310 18 178.4 172.4 6
182425 352745.1 6727166 19 178.9 172.9 6
182426 352962 6726960 35 179.5 155.5 24
182427 353250 6726685 42 179.9 145.9 34
182500 354404 6725587 24 179.5 161.5 18
182501 354116 6725862 34 179.9 167.9 12
182502 353827 6726136 20 180 162 18
182503 353539 6726411 30 180 172 8
182517 354429 6712147 10.5 162.3 158.3 4
182518 354329 6712322 4 161.8 160.8 1
182519 354229 6712496.9 4 161.3 160.3 1
182520 354179 6712585 6 161.1 160.1 1
182521 354167 6712606 4 161.1 161.1 0
182522 354154 6712628 3 161 161 0
182523 354129 6712672 4 160.9 160.9 0
182524 354104 6712716 4 160.8 159.8 1
182525 354079.1 6712760 4 160.7 159.7 1
182526 354029.1 6712847 4 160.4 159.4 1
182527 353929 6713022 7 160 156 4
182528 353829 6713197 15 159.6 147.6 12
182529 353729 6713372.1 31 159.2 149.2 10
182530 353629 6713547 8 159 157 2
182531 353599 6713600 10 159 157 2
182532 353471 6713832 10 159 155 4
182533 353359 6714020 12 158.4 152.4 6
182587 352129 6709972 38 177.1 166.1 11
182588 352229 6709972 43 177.6 166.6 11
182589 352279 6709972 46 177.9 166.9 11
182590 352329.1 6709972 53 178.2 166.2 12
182591 352379 6709972.1 55 178.5 167.5 11
182592 352429 6709972.1 52 178.7 165.7 13
182593 352479 6709972.1 42 179 171 8
182594 352529 6709972 43 179.3 172.3 7
182595 352579 6709972 37 179.5 171.5 8
182596 352629 6709972 46 179.8 174.8 5
182597 352679.1 6709972 47 179.6 174.6 5
182598 352729 6709972 39 179.2 171.2 8
182599 352779 6709972 43 178.9 170.9 8
182600 352829 6709972 40 178.6 169.6 9
182601 352929 6709972 40 177.9 170.9 7
182602 353029 6709972 55 177.3 172.3 5
182603 353079 6709972 43 177 170 7
182604 353129 6709972 40 176.6 171.6 5
182605 351929 6710172.1 25 174.6 159.6 15
182606 352129.1 6710172 25 175.4 167.4 8
182612 352129.1 6710172 43 175.4 170.4 5
182613 352179 6710172 36.5 175.7 171.7 4
182614 352229 6710172 40 176 167 9
182615 352279 6710172 44 176.3 168.3 8
182616 352329 6710172 47 176.5 167.5 9
182617 352379 6710172 45 176.8 167.8 9
182618 352429.1 6710172 44 177.1 168.1 9
182619 352479 6710172 40 177.3 172.3 5
182620 352529 6710172 42 177.6 171.6 6

182621 352579 6710172 43 177.9 171.9 6
182622 352629 6710172 55 178.1 170.1 8
182623 352679 6710172 41 178.1 172.1 6
182624 352729 6710172 40 178 168 10
182625 352829 6710172 38 177.9 150.9 27
182626 352929 6710172 31 177.8 168.8 9
182627 353029 6710171.9 41 177.5 170.5 7
182628 353129 6710172 49 177.3 167.3 10
182629 352229.1 6710372 34 173.9 166.9 7
182630 352329 6710372 31 174.5 167.5 7
182631 352429 6710372 44 174.9 169.9 5
207038 247225.5 6636430 34 164.4 143.9 20.5
207039 247129.6 6636414.9 33 164.2 142.7 21.5
207040 247032.6 6636424 40 164.1 143.1 21
207043 246134.6 6635178.9 28 159.3 134.3 25
209932 246828.6 6636422 67 163.7 103.7 60
209935 244878.6 6636372 27 168 145 23
209937 246628.6 6636422 49 163.4 117.4 46
209945 254628.6 6635871.9 25 180.1 161.1 19
209946 255628.5 6635731.9 44 180.3 138.3 42
209947 256628.5 6635502 11 180.8 170.8 10
209948 257628.5 6635121.9 6 181.5 181 0.5
209949 258628.6 6634971.9 14 182.5 169.5 13
209950 259628.6 6634642 6 183.1 179.1 4
209951 246018.6 6635172 44 159.8 122.8 37
209952 245928.6 6635172 52 160.1 116.1 44
209953 245828.6 6635172 42 160.2 127.2 33
209954 245728.6 6635172 45 160.3 118.3 42
209955 245628.6 6635172 48 160.2 115.2 45
209956 245428.6 6635172 54 160.1 113.1 47
209957 245228.6 6634971.9 42 159.8 118.8 41
209958 245328.6 6634971.9 34 160 128 32
209959 245428.5 6634971.9 46 160 117 43
209960 245528.6 6634971.9 53 160.1 110.1 50
209961 245628.6 6634972 45 160.1 117.1 43
209962 245728.6 6634972 52 160.2 110.2 50
209963 245828.6 6634972 56 160.1 106.1 54
209980 246128.6 6635771.9 73 160.3 92.3 68
209981 246378.6 6636171.9 66 161.9 96.9 65
209982 246628.6 6636172 70 162.1 98.1 64
209985 245128.6 6635021.9 50 159.4 111.4 48
209986 245328.6 6634672 58 159.2 102.2 57
209987 245428.6 6634672 73 159.3 87.3 72
209988 245528.6 6634672 48 159.3 113.3 46
209989 245628.6 6634672 32 159.2 128.2 31
209990 245728.6 6634672 34 159.2 126.2 33
209998 245578.6 6634972 47 160.1 116.1 44
209999 245618.6 6634981.9 48 160.1 115.1 45
210000 245678.6 6634997 54 160.2 108.2 52
210001 245718.6 6634991.9 50 160.2 111.2 49
210002 245778.6 6634992 55 160.1 106.1 54

APPENDIX 4. AREA 1B TALLARINGA SOUTH DIGITAL APPENDIX
This folder contains enhancements of airborne magnetic and ground gravity data as described in
the report Gawler Craton Airborne Geophysical Survey Area 1B, Tallaringa South – Enhanced
geophysical imagery and magnetic source depths.
All files are in the projection GDA94, MGA zone 53.
File types
Extension Data type Description
.ers ASCII Header file for an ESRI ER Mapper grid
none Binary Primary data as specified in the associated .ers header file
.png Binary Images of data grids and model cross-sections
.tif Binary Geo-located images of the grid data
.egs proprietary Session file which controls the prepared grid display in the PA software package
.kmz proprietary Google Earth display file (supported by drag_and_drop)
.DAT, .ID, .MAP, .TAB proprietary MAPINFO vector files
Folder: Area1B_TMI
Area1B_Tallaringa_SouthTMI, .ers ER Mapper grid of TMI (cell size 40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_SouthTMI.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_RTP
Area1B_Tallaringa_South TMI-RTP, .ers ER Mapper grid of Reduced to pole TMI (cell size
40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South TMI-RTP.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_RTP_FVD
Area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_1VD, .ers ER Mapper grid of the vertical derivative of
Reduced to pole TMI (cell size 40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_1VD.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_RTP_SVD
area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_2VD, .ers ER Mapper grid of the vertical derivative of
Reduced to pole TMI (cell size 40 m)
area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_2VD.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_TMI_totalgradient
Area1B_Tallaringa_South tmi_TotalGradient, .ers ER Mapper grid of the total gradient of TMI (cell
size 40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South tmi_TotalGradient.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png,
.tif
Folder: Area1B_RTP_Tilt
Area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_Tilt, .ers ER Mapper grid of the tilt angle of Reduced to pole
TMI (cell size 40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_Tilt.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: area1B_Bzz
Area1B_Tallaringa_South Bzz, .ers ER Mapper grid of the vertical gradient of the
vertical component of the magnetic field(cell size
40 m)
area1B_Tallaringa_South Bzz.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_Bouguer Gravity
Area1B_Tallaringa_South Bouguer_Gravity, .ers ER Mapper grid of Bouguer Gravity (cell size
104 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South gravitystations.gdb Geosoft Database of gravity stations
Area1B_Tallaringa_South Bouguer_Gravity.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif

Folder: Area1B_Bouguer Gravity FVD
Area1B_Tallaringa_South BouguerGravity_fvd, .ers ER Mapper grid of the vertical gradient of Bouguer
Gravity (cell size 104 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South TMI-RTP, .ers ER Mapper grid of Reduced to pole TMI (cell size
40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South Bouguer_Gravity_fvd.egs, .kmz, .pdf,
.png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_TMI_Trend
Area1B_Tallaringa_SouthTMI_trend, .ers ER Mapper grid of the trend of tmi (angle in
degrees clockwise from North, cell size 40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_SouthTMI_trend.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_TMI_trendconsistency
Area1B_Tallaringa_South TMI_trendconsistency, .ers ER Mapper grid of the trend of tmi (angle in
degrees clockwise from North, cell size 40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South TMI_trendconsistency.egs, .kmz, .pdf,
.png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_pseudogravity
Area1B_Tallaringa_South pseudogravity, .ers ER Mapper grid of Pseudogravity (cell size 40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South pseudogravity.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_pseudomagnetic
Area1B_Tallaringa_South pseudomagnetic, .ers ER Mapper grid of Pseudogravity (cell size 104 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South pseudomagnetic.egs, .kmz, .pdf, .png, .tif
Folder: Area1B_worms
Area1B_Tallaringa_South Gravity_UC425_THG, .ers, .dat, .tab, ER Mapper grids and MapInfo Discver vectors of
.map, .ID, .egb the total horizontal gradient of upward continued
[also 627, 931, 1386, 2070, 3095, 4633] Bouguer gravity (variable cell size)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_UC40_THG, .ers, .dat, .tab, .map, ER Mapper grids and MapInfo Discover vectors of
.ID, .egb the total horizontal gradient of upward continued
[also 100, 200, 290, 425, 627, 931, 1386, 2070, 2995, 4633] RTP (variable cell size) following pre-conditioning
200m upward continuation
Area1B_Tallaringa_South gravity and magnetic worms.egs, .pdf,
.png, .tif
Area1B_Tallaringa_South Gravity_UC425_THG.kmz,
Area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_UC1386_THG.kmz
Folder: Area1B_source solutions on TMI
Area1B_Tallaringa_South TMI, .ers ER Mapper grid of TMI (cell size 40 m)
Area1B_magneticdepth_GTs.gdb Geosoft database of traverses interpolated
through the TMI and dem grids for depth
estimations
Area1B_magneticdepthpoints.gdb Geosoft database of the magnetic inversion
solution points
Block1B_boreholes.gdb Geosoft database of drillholes
Area1B_Tallaringa_South magnetic depths on TMI.egs, .pdf, .png,
.tif, .kmz
Folder: Area1B_source solutions on topmagnetization
Area1B_Tallaringa_South magelev, .ers ER Mapper grid of TMI (cell size 40 m)
Area1B_Tallaringa_South GTdepthpoints.gdb Geosoft database of the magnetic inversion
solution points
Area1B_boreholes.gdb Geosoft database of drillholes used to constrain
the depth surface
Area1B_Tallaringa_Southsource solutions on
top_of_magnetization.egs, .pdf, .png, .tif, .kmz

Folder: Area1B_source solutions on geology
Area1B_magneticdepthpoints.gdb Geosoft database of the magnetic inversion
solution points
Block1B_ boreholes.gdb Geosoft database of drillholes used to constrain
the depth surface
Area8B Billa Kilina solidgeology.ecw Geo-located image of solid geology
Area1B_Tallaringa_South magnetic source solutions on
geology.egs, .tif, .pdf, .png, .kmz
Folder: Area1B_depth to magnetization on geology
Area1B_Tallaringa_South magsubsurface, .ers Grid of depth from surface to magnetisation
derived by subtraction of top of magnetisation
elevation from ground surface elevation
solution points
Block1B_ boreholes.gdb Geosoft database of drillholes
Area1B Tallaringa_South solidgeology.ecw Geo-located image of solid geology
Area1B_Tallaringa_South depth_to_magnetization on geology.egs,
.tif, .png, .pdf, .kmz
Folder: Area1B_depth_to_magnetization on RTP-fvd
Area1B_Tallaringa_South magsubsurface, .ers Grid of depth from surface to magnetisation
derived by subtraction of top of magnetisation
elevation from ground surface elevation
solution points
Block1B_ boreholes.gdb Geosoft database of drillholes
Area1B_Tallaringa_South RTP_1VD, .ers Grid of the first vertical derivative of TMI-RTP
Area1B_Tallaringa_South depth_to_magnetization over RTP-
FVD.egs, .tif, .png, .pdf, .kmz
Folder: Area1B_elevation of top of magnetization
Area1B_boreholes.gdb Geosoft database of drillholes to basement
solution points
Area1B_Tallaringa_South magelev, .ers Grid of top of magnetisation elevation from
gridding magnetic source depths
Area1B_Tallaringa_South elevation of the top of magnetization,
.egs, .png, .pdf, .tif, .kmz
Folder: Area1B_top of magnetization on geology
Area1B_Tallaringa_South magelev, .ers Top of magnetisation elevation surface from
gridding depth solutions
Area_1B Tallaringa_South solidgeology.ecw Solid geology map image
solution points
Block1B_ boreholes.gdb Geosoft database of drillholes used to constrain
the depth surface
Area1B_Tallaringa_South top_of_magnetization on geology.egs,
.png, .pdf, .tif, .kmz
Folder: Area1B_magnetic depth studies 3D
Area1B_Tallaringa_South GTdepthmodels.tkm Model bodies used to generate the
top_of_magnetization surface
Area1B_Tallaringa_South solidgeology.ecw Solid geology map geotiff
Area1B_Tallaringa_Southmagelev, .ers Gridded top of magnetisation surface
Area1B_Tallaringa_South Demrad_1k, .ers Digital elevation grid derived from radar altimeter
and gps altimeter data, subsampled to 1 km.
Area1B_Tallaringa_South magnetic depthsurface and models 3D,
.egs, .png, .pdf

Area1B_Tallaringa_SouthDemrad_500m, .ers 500 m sub-sampled digital elevation grid
Area1B magdepth_subsurface, .ers Grid of depth subsurface to top of magnetisation
Folder: Area1B_digital data model-section images Model section and plan images for each modelled
grid traverse
Folder: Area1B_digital data magnetization models Magnetisation source models in ModelVision tkm,
3D dxf and GOCAD Tsurf formats
Folder: Area1B_digital data Modelvision session files Session files for each individual traverse inversion
Folder: Area1B_digital data kmzs Kmzs of enhancement images and depth products
for display in Google EarthTM

RB 202000011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RB 202000011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gawler Craton Airborne Geophysical

Survey Region 1B, Tallaringa South –

C Foss, G Gouthas, L Katona,

M Hutchens and G Reed

Clive Foss1, George Gouthas2, Laszlo Katona2,

1 CSIRO Mineral Resources

Report Book 2020/00011

South Australian Resources Information Gateway (SARIG)

© Government of South Australia 2020

Preferred way to cite this publication

Department for Energy and Mining iii Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining iv Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 1 Report Book 2020/00011

THE REGION 1B TALLARINGA SOUTH

Department for Energy and Mining 2 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 3 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 4 Report Book 2020/00011

REDUCTION TO POLE (RTP)

Department for Energy and Mining 5 Report Book 2020/00011

THE SECOND VERTICAL DERIVATIVE OF REDUCED TO POLE TMI

THE TOTAL GRADIENT OF TMI

THE TILT OF TMI

Department for Energy and Mining 6 Report Book 2020/00011

TREND CONSISTENCY OF TMI

Department for Energy and Mining 7 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 8 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 9 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 10 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 11 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 12 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 13 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 14 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 15 Report Book 2020/00011

Figure 12. The distribution of ground gravity stations.

Department for Energy and Mining 16 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 17 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 18 Report Book 2020/00011

THE FIRST VERTICAL DERIVATIVE OF BOUGUER GRAVITY

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE GRAVITY AND

Department for Energy and Mining 19 Report Book 2020/00011

GRAVITY AND MAGNETIC EDGE LINEAMENTS (‘WORMS’)

Department for Energy and Mining 20 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 21 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 22 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 23 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 24 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 25 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 26 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 27 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 28 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 29 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 30 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 31 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 32 Report Book 2020/00011

Figure 33. Gairdner Dolerite model, three sections combined.

Department for Energy and Mining 33 Report Book 2020/00011

ESTIMATION OF THE MAGNETIC SOURCE DEPTHS

Department for Energy and Mining 34 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 35 Report Book 2020/00011

THE MAGNETIC TRAVERSE DEPTH SOLUTIONS

Department for Energy and Mining 36 Report Book 2020/00011

Department for Energy and Mining 37 Report Book 2020/00011