Synthesis completed. Ready to start review

content/case_histories/do27do18tkc/interpretation.rst

@@ -129,3 +129,14 @@ The table summarizes our interpretation about the petrophysical model.
 +----------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+-------------+----------------+
 | R5       | Low         | Mod.          | Mod.          | Low             | High            | Large       |  PK            |
 +----------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+-------------+----------------+
+
+Geological validation
+---------------------
+
+
+:numref:`Interpretation_RockGeology` compares our rock model to the geological model build from drilling.
+
+.. figure:: images/Interpretation_RockGeology.png
+    :align: center
+    :figwidth: 100%
+    :name: Interpretation_RockGeology

content/case_histories/do27do18tkc/processing.rst

@@ -172,8 +172,8 @@ We note the following:
 - Moderate to low susceptibilities are recovered exactly at the center of
   DO-18 and at depth.
 
-Remanent magnetization
-""""""""""""""""""""""
+.. Remanent magnetization
+.. """"""""""""""""""""""
 
 
 
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ the DO-27 kimberlite pipe are consistent. The pipe appears to extend to depths
 $>$ 200 m below the surface. The two EM systems disagree however on the upper
 limit of the pipe.
 
-.. figure:: images/Processing_CoopAlgo.png
+.. figure:: images/Processing_CoopAlgorithm.png
     :align: right
     :figwidth: 50%
     :name: fig_Processing_CoopAlgo

content/case_histories/do27do18tkc/properties.rst

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ exploration model.
 Density
 -------
 
-.. figure:: images/Core_PK_Density.jpg
+.. figure:: images/Core_PK_Density.png
     :align: right
     :figwidth: 20%
     :name: core_pk_den
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ rock.
 Susceptibility
 --------------
 
-.. figure:: images/Core_HK_Susc.jpg
+.. figure:: images/Core_HK_Susc.png
     :align: right
     :figwidth: 20%
     :name: core_hk_susc
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ response may not by purely induced.
 Conductivity
 ------------
 
-.. figure:: images/Core_PK_Cond.jpg
+.. figure:: images/Core_PK_Cond.png
     :align: right
     :figwidth: 20%
     :name: core_pk_cond
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ EM response.
 Chargeability
 -------------
 
-.. figure:: images/Core_HK_Charg.jpg
+.. figure:: images/Core_HK_Charg.png
     :align: right
     :figwidth: 20%
     :name: core_hk_charg
@@ -131,6 +131,6 @@ Overall we expect:
 +---------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+---------------------+-------------------+
 | PK                        |  Low              | Low-moderate       |   Moderate-high     |  Moderate-high    |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+---------------------+-------------------+
-| Table of the physical properties for the geologic units in the Cluny survey area.                            |
+| Table of physical properties for typical kimberlitic rocks found in the Lac de Gras region.                  |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+---------------------+-------------------+
 

content/case_histories/do27do18tkc/setup.rst

@@ -71,10 +71,12 @@ owned by `Peregrine Diamonds Ltd`_
 
 
 The goal of our work is to determine how well our modern-day inversions of
-geophysical data compare with the latest geologic model. Although geologic and
-drilling information can be used to constrain the inversion, we specifically
-omit such a priori information from our inversions. Our goal is to investigate
-what geologic information can be provided by the geophysical data alone.
+geophysical data could have helped the exploration program at the time of discovery.
+We will attempt to answer the following questions:
+
+- How much information could have been extracted form the airborne geophysical data?
+
+- Can we differentiate between kimberlite units based on multiple physical properties?
 
 
 

content/case_histories/do27do18tkc/survey.rst

@@ -19,31 +19,31 @@ to the NAD27-UTM 12N (`EPSG 26712`_) projection prior to processing.
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
 |       **Survey**          | **Data Type**     | **Year** |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
-| DIGHEM*                   |  FEM, magnetics   | 1992     |
+| **DIGHEM**                |  FEM, magnetics   | 1992     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
 | Aerodat                   |  FEM,magnetics    | 1993     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
 |        NanoTEM            |  TEM              | 1993     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
 | Ground magnetics          |  Magnetics        | 1993     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
-| Ground gravity*           |  Gravity          | 1994     |
+|**Ground gravity**         |  Gravity          | 1994     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
-| Falcon*                   |Gravity gradiometry| 2001     |
+|**Falcon**                 |Gravity gradiometry| 2001     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
 | AeroTEM I                 |  TEM, magnetics   |2001      |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
-| AeroTEM II*               |  TEM, magnetics   |2003      |
+|**AeroTEM II**             |  TEM, magnetics   |2003      |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
-| VTEM*                     |  TEM, magnetics   |2004      |
+|**VTEM**                   |  TEM, magnetics   |2004      |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
 | Resolve                   |FEM, magnetics     | 2006     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
 | Falcon                    |Gravity gradiometry| 2006     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
 | HeliSAM                   | TEM (total field) | 2014     |
 +---------------------------+-------------------+----------+
-| * Used in this study                                     |
+|  **Used in this study**                                  |
 +----------------------------------------------------------+
 
 .. _survey_DIGHEM:

content/case_histories/do27do18tkc/synthesis.rst

@@ -10,13 +10,39 @@ Synthesis
 
 Two primary questions that motivated the initial study were:
 
-- Can
+- How much information could have been extracted form the airborne geophysical data at the time of discovery?
 
-- Can conductive and chargeable units,
+  Geophysical inversion would have easily determined that DO-27 and DO-18 were
+  seperate bodies. The geometry of both pipes could have estimated prior to drilling for a more optimal exploration program.
+
+
+- Can we differentiate between the kimberlite units based on multiple physical properties?
+
+  From a geophysical perspective, the kimberlites differs mainly in their
+  chargeability parameters and by the presence of a strongly magnetic HK unit
+  (only present at DO-27).
+
+.. figure:: images/Synthesis_RockUnits_3D.png
+    :align: right
+    :figwidth: 50%
+    :name: Synthesis_RockUnits_3D
+
+
+In this study, no explicit information regarding the known geology has
+been used to constrain the inversion. Only the general kimberlite model, the
+component rock types and the expected physical property contrasts were
+incorporated. Despite that, we obtained a rock model whose major features were
+representative of the geologic model obtained from drilling.
+
+.. figure:: images/Synthesis_TKCUnits_3D.png
+    :align: right
+    :figwidth: 50%
+    :name: Synthesis_TKCUnits_3D
+
+All of the data used in the analysis were obtained from airborne surveys which
+are far easier, and less costly, to collect than ground data. We note that if
+a single borehole had been drilled in the heart of the DO-27 pipe, then the
+geologic intepretation of the geophysical data would have greatly benefitted;
+this could have had a major impact upon the exploration program
 
-:numref:`Interpretation_RockGeology` compares our rock model to the geological model build from drilling.
 
-.. figure:: images/Interpretation_RockGeology.png
-    :align: center
-    :figwidth: 100%
-    :name: Interpretation_RockGeology