Geotech IMT ZTEM 3d ppp Nov.2018

Geotech Ltd.
245 Industrial Parkway North
Aurora, ON Canada L4G 4C4
Tel: +1 905 841 5004
Web: www.geotech.ca
Email: info@geotech.ca
ZTEM™
REPORT ON A HELICOPTER-BORNE
Z-AXIS TIPPER ELECTROMAGNETIC (ZTEM™)
AND AEROMAGNETIC GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
PROJECT: SERPENT RIVER - PECORS NI-CU PROJECT
LOCATION: ELLIOT LAKE, ONTARIO, CANADA
FOR: INTERNATIONAL MONTORO RESOURCES INC.
SURVEY FLOWN: MAY – JUNE, 2018
PROJECT: GL160353

Project GL160353
ZTEM ™ Report on Airborne Geophysical Survey
for International Montoro Resources Inc.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... III
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General Considerations ......................................................................................................1
1.2 Survey and System Specifications .......................................................................................2
1.3 Topographic Relief and Cultural Features.............................................................................3
2. DATA ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Survey Area......................................................................................................................4
2.2 Survey Operations.............................................................................................................4
2.3 Flight Specifications...........................................................................................................6
2.4 Aircraft and Equipment......................................................................................................6
2.4.1 Survey Aircraft ...........................................................................................................6
2.4.2 Airborne Receiver .......................................................................................................6
2.4.3 Base Station Receiver..................................................................................................7
2.4.4 Airborne Magnetometer...............................................................................................9
2.4.5 Radar Altimeter ..........................................................................................................9
2.4.6 GPS Navigation System ............................................................................................. 10
2.4.7 Digital Acquisition System.......................................................................................... 10
2.5 Mag Base Station ............................................................................................................10
3. PERSONNEL..................................................................................................................11
4. DATA PROCESSING AND PRESENTATION........................................................................12
4.1 Flight Path......................................................................................................................12
4.2 IN-FIELD PROCESSING AND QUALITY CONTROL................................................................ 12
4.3 GPS PROCESSING ........................................................................................................... 12
4.4 ZTEM ELECTROMAGNETIC DATA...................................................................................... 12
4.4.1 Preliminary Processing............................................................................................... 13
4.4.2 Geosoft Processing ................................................................................................... 13
4.4.3 Final Processing........................................................................................................ 13
4.4.4 ZTEM Profile Sign Convention..................................................................................... 14
4.4.5 ZTEM Quadrature Sign Dependence............................................................................ 14
4.4.6 Total DivergenceAnd Phase Rotation Processing........................................................... 15
4.4.7 2D EM Inversion....................................................................................................... 16
4.5 MAGNETIC DATA ............................................................................................................ 17
5. DELIVERABLES..............................................................................................................18
5.1 Survey Report................................................................................................................. 18
5.2 Maps .............................................................................................................................18
5.3 Digital Data....................................................................................................................18
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................23
7. REFERENCES AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................24

Project GL160353
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Survey location ................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: Survey area locations on Google Earth................................................................................2
Figure 3: Flight path over a Google Earth Image................................................................................3
Figure 4: ZTEM™ Configuration .......................................................................................................7
Figure 5: ZTEM base station receiver sensor. ....................................................................................8
Figure 6: ZTEM Crossover Polarity Convention for Tzx and Tzy for survey line (left) and tie-lines (right).14
Figure 7: Illustration of ZTEM In-Phase & Quadrature Tipper transfer function polarity convention (e-iωt)
relative to equivalent MT Tipper Quadrature polarity convention (e+iωt) for a graphitic conductor in
Athabasca Basin, SK. .............................................................................................................15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Survey Specifications .........................................................................................................4
Table 2: Survey schedule................................................................................................................4
Table 3: Acquisition and Processing Sampling Rates......................................................................... 10
Table 4: Geosoft GDB Data Format ................................................................................................ 19
Table 5: Geosoft 2D Resistivity Inversion GDB Data Format .............................................................. 20
Table 6: Geosoft Tipper GDB Data Format ......................................................................................20
APPENDICES
A. Survey Location Maps.........................................................................................................
B. Survey Survey Area Coordinates ..........................................................................................
C. Geophysical Maps ..............................................................................................................
D. ZTEM Theoretical Considerations .........................................................................................
E. ZTEM Natural Field Airborne EM System ...............................................................................
F. 2D Inversions ....................................................................................................................

Project GL160353
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SERPENT RIVER - PECORS NI-CU PROJECT
ELLIOT LAKE, ONTARIO, CANADA
During May 22nd to June 10th, 2018 Geotech Ltd. carried out a helicopter-borne geophysical survey
for International Montoro Resources Inc. over the Serpent River - Pecors Ni-Cu Project situated
near Elliot Lake, Ontario, Canada.
Principal geophysical sensors included a Z-Axis Tipper electromagnetic (ZTEM) system, and a
caesium magnetometer. Ancillary equipment included a GPS navigation system and a radar
altimeter. A total of 295 line-kilometres of geophysical data were acquired during the survey.
The survey operations were based out of Elliot Lake, Ontario. In-field data quality assurance and
preliminary processing were carried out on a daily basis during the acquisition phase. Preliminary
and final data processing, including generation of final digital data and map products were
undertaken from the office of Geotech Ltd. in Aurora, Ontario.
The processed survey results are presented as the following maps:
• Total Magnetic Intensity
• Digital Elevation Model
• 60Hz Power Line Monitor
• 3D View of In-Phase Total Divergence versus Skin Depth
• In-Phase Total Phase Rotated (30Hz, 90Hz and 360Hz)
• Tzx In-line In-Phase & Quadrature Profiles over 90Hz Phase Rotated Grid
• Tzy Cross-line In-Phase & Quadrature Profiles over 90Hz Phase Rotated Grid
The survey report describes the procedures for data acquisition, processing, final image
presentation and the specifications for the digital data set. 2D inversions over all lines were
performed in support of the ZTEM survey results.

Project GL160353
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
These services are the result of the Agreement made between Geotech Ltd. and International Montoro
Resources Inc. to perform a helicopter-borne geophysical survey over the Serpent River - Pecors Ni-Cu
Project situated near Elliot Lake, Ontario, Canada (Figure 1).
Kurt Allen represented International Montoro Resources Inc. during the data acquisition and data
processing phases of this project.
The geophysical surveys consisted of helicopter borne AFMAG Z-axis Tipper electromagnetic (ZTEM)
system and aero magnetics using a caesium magnetometer. A total of 289 line kilometres of
geophysical data were acquired during the survey. The survey area is shown in Figure 2.
In a ZTEM survey, a single vertical-dipole air-core receiver coil is flown over the survey area in a grid
pattern, similar to regional airborne EM surveys. Two orthogonal, ferrite-core horizontal sensors are
placed close to the survey site to measure the horizontal EM reference fields. Data from the three
sensors are used to obtain the Tzx and Tzy Tipper (Vozoff, 1972) components at six frequencies in the
30 to 720 Hz band. The ZTEM is useful in mapping geology using resistivity contrasts and
magnetometer data provides additional information on geology using magnetic susceptibility
contrasts.
Figure 1: Survey location

Project GL160353
2
The crew was based out Elliot Lake, Ontario for the acquisition phase of the survey. Survey flying was
started on May 22nd and finished on June 10th, 2018.
Data quality control and quality assurance, and preliminary data processing were carried out on a daily
basis during the acquisition phase of the project. Final reporting, data presentation and archiving were
completed from the Aurora office of Geotech Ltd. in August, 2018.
1.2 SURVEY AND SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
The survey area is located 15km east of Elliot Lake, Ontario (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Survey area locations on Google Earth.
The survey area was flown in an east to west (N 90° E azimuth) direction with traverse line spacing of
200 metres as depicted in Figure 3. Tie lines were flown perpendicular to the traverse lines. For more
detailed information on the flight spacing and direction see Table 1.

Project GL160353
3
1.3 TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF AND CULTURAL FEATURES
Topographically, the survey area exhibits a shallow relief with elevations ranging from 279 to 482
metres above mean sea level over an area of 42 square kilometres (Figure 3 & 4).
There are various rivers and streams running through the survey area which connect various lakes and
wetlands. There are visible signs of culture such as roads and buildings throughout the survey area as
well as power lines.
Figure 3: Flight path over a Google Earth Image.

Project GL160353
4
2. DATA ACQUISITION
2.1 SURVEY AREA
The survey area (see Figure 3 - 5 and Appendix A) and general flight specifications are as follows:
Table 1: Survey Specifications
Survey area boundaries co-ordinates are provided in Appendix B.
2.2 SURVEY OPERATIONS
Survey operations were based out of Elliot Lake, Ontario from May 22nd until June 10th, 2018. The
following table shows the timing of the flying.
Table 2: Survey schedule
Date Comments
10-Jun-18 Tech standby
9-Jun-18 Flights completed
8-Jun-18 Troubleshooting continued
7-Jun-18 Troubleshooting continued
6-Jun-18 Pilot replaced, system now in testing stage.
5-Jun-18 Troubleshooting continued. Pilot still ill.
4-Jun-18 Troubleshooting continued.
3-Jun-18 Pilot illness prevented continuation of troubleshooting. June 4th is scheduled for continued
repairs.
2-Jun-18 One short flight was carried out but data not accepted. Receiver troubleshooting.
1-Jun-18 Signal strength marginal/not consistently high enough. One flight was attempted but
aborted.
31-May-18 No flights possible due to low visibility weather. Survey site image is attached from crew.
30-May-18 Low ZTEM signal.
29-May-18 After further processing data QC has definitively decided that the data quality on the
southern part of the block is unacceptable due to large powerlines and will have to be
reflown when the ZTEM signal is higher.
28-May-18 Survey completed yesterday, May 28th. However, some data is not acceptable.
27-May-18 Troubleshooting
26-May-18 Troubleshooting
25-May-18 System calibration unpassable during flight.
24-May-18 Continue assembly and testing.
23-May-18 System Assembly 90% complete.
1
Note: Actual Line kilometres represent the total line kilometres in the final database. These line-km normally exceed the Planned Line-
km, as indicated in the survey NAV files.
Survey
block
Line spacing (m)
Area
(Km2
)
Planned1
Line-km
Actual
Line-
km
Flight direction Line numbers
Traverse: 200
42 280 295
N 90° E / N 270° E L1000 – L1200
Tie: 1000/2000 N 0° E / N 180° E T2000 – T2040
TOTAL 42 280 295

Project GL160353
5
Date Comments
22-May-18 Crew mobilized from Aurora and arrived in Elliot Lake.

Project GL160353
6
2.3 FLIGHT SPECIFICATIONS
During the survey the helicopter was maintained at a mean altitude of 155 metres above the ground
with an average survey speed of 80 km/hour. This allowed for an actual average Receiver loop terrain
clearance of 85 metres and a magnetic sensor clearance of 100 metres.
The on board operator was responsible for monitoring the system integrity. He also maintained a
detailed flight log during the survey, tracking the times of the flight as well as any unusual geophysical
or topographic features.
On return of the aircrew to the base camp the survey data was transferred from a compact flash card
(PCMCIA) to the data processing computer. The data were then uploaded via ftp to the Geotech office in
Aurora for daily quality assurance and quality control by qualified personnel.
2.4 AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT
2.4.1 SURVEY AIRCRAFT
The survey was flown using a Eurocopter Aerospatiale (A-star) 350 B3 helicopter, registration C-FVTM.
The helicopter is owned and operated by Geotech Aviation. Installation of the geophysical and ancillary
equipment was carried out by a Geotech Ltd crew.
2.4.2 AIRBORNE RECEIVER
The airborne ZTEM receiver coil measures the vertical component (Z) of the EM field. The receiver coil
is a Geotech Z-Axis Tipper (ZTEM) loop sensor which is isolated from most vibrations by a patented
suspension system and is encased in a fibreglass shell. It is towed from the helicopter using an 85 metre
long cable as shown in Figure 4. The cable is also used to transmit the measured EM signals back to the
data acquisition system.
The coil has a 7.4 metre diameter with an orientation to the Vertical Dipole. The digitizing rate of the
receiver is 2,000 Hz. Attitudinal positioning of the receiver coil is enabled using 3 GPS antennas
mounted on the coil. The output sampling rate is 0.4 seconds (see Section 2.4.7)

Project GL160353
7
Figure 4: ZTEM™ Configuration
2.4.3 BASE STATION RECEIVER
The two Geotech ZTEM base station sensors measure the orthogonal, horizontal X and Y components of
the EM reference field. They are set up perpendicular to each other and roughly oriented according to
the flight line direction. The orientation of both units is not critical as the horizontal field can be further
decomposed into the two orientations of the survey flight. The orientation of the base stations were
measured using a compass.
The compact base station sensors have a length of 2.31m and diameter of 0.27m with a suspended
ferrite core, as shown in Figure 5.
The base station receivers for the block were installed at 46°34'51" N, 82°21'53" W. The azimuth of the
reference sensor was N02°E and for the orthogonal component it was N272°E. Angles A and B are taken
into account together with the survey lines azimuth to calculate the in-line (Tzx) and cross-line (Tzy)
field utilizing a proprietary software.

Project GL160353
8
Figure 5: ZTEM base station receiver sensor.
GPS Antenna

Project GL160353
9
2.4.4 AIRBORNE MAGNETOMETER
The magnetic sensor utilized for the survey was a Geometrics split-beam optically pumped caesium
vapour magnetic field sensor, mounted in a separate bird, and towed on a cable at a mean distance of 55
metres below the helicopter (Figure 4). The sensitivity of the magnetic sensor is 0.02 nanoTesla (nT) at
a sampling interval of 0.1 seconds. The magnetometer will perform continuously in areas of high
magnetic gradient with the ambient range of the sensor approximately 20k-100k nT. The Aerodynamic
magnetometer noise is specified to be less than 0.5 nT. The magnetometer sends the measured
magnetic field strength as nanoTesla to the data acquisition system via the RS-232 port.
2.4.5 RADAR ALTIMETER
A Terra TRA 3000/TRI 40 radar altimeter was used to record terrain clearance. The antenna was
mounted beneath the bubble of the helicopter cockpit (Figure 4).

Project GL160353
10
2.4.6 GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEM
The navigation system used was a Geotech PC104 based navigation system utilizing a NovAtel’s
WAAS(Wide Area Augmentation System) enable OEM4-G2-3151W GPS receiver, Geotech navigate
software, a full screen display with controls in front of the pilot to direct the flight and an NovAtel GPS
antenna mounted on the helicopter tail (Figure 4). As many as 11 GPS and two WAAS satellites may be
monitored at any one time. The positional accuracy or circular error probability (CEP) is 1.8 m, with
WAAS active, it is 1.0 m. The co-ordinates of the block were set-up prior to the survey and the
information was fed into the airborne navigation system.
2.4.7 DIGITAL ACQUISITION SYSTEM
The power supply and the data acquisition system are mounted on an equipment rack which is installed
into the helicopter. Signal and power wires are run through the helicopter to connect on to the tow
cable outside. The tow cable supports the ZTEM and magnetometer birds during flight via a safety shear
pin connected to the helicopter hook. The major power and data cables have a quick disconnect safety
feature as well. The installation was undertaken by the Geotech Ltd. crew and was certified before
surveying.
A Geotech data acquisition system recorded the digital survey data on an internal compact flash card.
Data is displayed on an LCD screen as traces to allow the operator to monitor the integrity of the
system. The data type and sampling interval as provided in Table 3.
Table 3: Acquisition and Processing Sampling Rates
DATA TYPE ACQUISITION SAMPLING PROCESSING SAMPLING
ZTEM Receiver 0.0005 sec 0.4 sec
Magnetometer 0.1 sec 0.4 sec
GPS Position 0.2 sec 0.4 sec
Radar Altimeter 0.2 sec 0.4 sec
ZTEM Base station 0.0005 sec _ _
2.5 MAG BASE STATION
A combined magnetometer/GPS base station was utilized on this project. A Geometrics Caesium split-
beam vapour magnetometer was used as a magnetic sensor with a sensitivity of 0.001 nT. The base
station was recording the magnetic field together with the GPS time at 1 Hz on a base station computer.
The base station magnetometer sensors for the block were installed at 46° 21.0407' N, 82° 33.3539' W
away from electric transmission lines and moving ferrous objects such as motor vehicles. The base
station data were backed-up to the data processing computer at the end of each survey day.

Project GL160353
11
3. PERSONNEL
The following Geotech Ltd. personnel were involved in the project.
FIELD:
Project Manager: Werner Hilla (Office)
Data QC: Nick Venter (Office)
Crew Chief: Jose Bryson
Operator: Tristan Rice
The survey pilot and the mechanical engineer were employed directly by the helicopter
operator – Geotech Aviation.
Pilot: Tyson
Mechanical Engineer: Halil Buberoglu
OFFICE:
Preliminary Data Processing: Nick Venter
Final Data Processing: Keeme Mokubung
Data QA/QC: Kanita Khaled
Reporting/Mapping: Kyle Orlowski
Processing phases were carried out under the supervision of Alexander Prikhodko, P.Geo, PhD, and
Director of Geophysics. The customer relations were looked after by David Hitz.

Project GL160353
12
4. DATA PROCESSING AND PRESENTATION
Data compilation and processing were carried out by the application of Geosoft OASIS Montaj and
programs proprietary to Geotech Ltd.
4.1 FLIGHT PATH
The flight path, recorded by the acquisition program as WGS84 latitude/longitude, was converted into
the NAD83 Datum, UTM Zone 17 North coordinate system in Oasis Montaj.
The flight path was drawn using linear interpolation between x, y positions from the navigation system.
Positions are updated every second and expressed as UTM easting’s (x) and UTM northing’s (y).
4.2 IN-FIELD PROCESSING AND QUALITY CONTROL
In-Field data processing and quality control are done on a flight by flight basis by a qualified data
processor (see Section 3.0). Processing steps and check-up procedures are designed to assure the best
possible final quality of ZTEM survey data. A general overview of those steps is presented in the
following paragraphs.
The In-Field quality control can be separated into several phases:
a. GPS Processing Phase: GPS Data are first examined and evaluated during the GrafMov processing.
b. Raw data, ZTEM viewer phase:
Data can be viewed, examined for consistency, individual channel spectra examined and overall noise
estimated in the viewer provided by the ZTEM proprietary software, on the raw flight data and raw
base station data separately, on the merged data, and finally on the data that have undergone ZTEM
processing.
c. Field Geosoft phase:
Magnetic data, Radar altimeter data, GPS positioning data are re-examined and processed in this phase.
Prior to splitting the lines EM data are examined flight by flight and the effectiveness of applying the
attitude correction evaluated. After splitting the lines, a set of grids are generated for each parameter
and their consistency evaluated. Data profiles are also re-evaluated on a line to line basis. A power line
monitor channel is available in order to identify power line noise.
4.3 GPS PROCESSING
Three GPS sensor (mounted on the airborne receiving loop) measurements were differentially
corrected using the Waypoint GrafMovTM software in order to yield attitude corrections to recorded EM
data.
4.4 ZTEM ELECTROMAGNETIC DATA
The ZTEM data were processed using proprietary software. Processing steps consist of the following
preliminary and final processing steps:

Project GL160353
13
4.4.1 PRELIMINARY PROCESSING
a. Airborne EM, Mag, radar altimeter and GPS data are first merged with EM base station data into
one file.
b. Merged data are viewed and examined for consistency in an incorporated viewer
c. In the next, processing phase, the following entities are taken into account:
• the Base station sensor orientation with respect to the Magnetic North,
• the Local declination of the magnetic field,
• Suggested direction of the X coordinate (North or line direction),
• Sensitivity coefficient that compensates for the difference in geometry between the base
station and airborne coils.
• Rejection filters for the 60 Hz and helicopter generated frequencies.
d. Six frequencies (30, 45, 90, 180, 360 and 720 Hz) are extracted from the airborne EM time-
series sensor response using windows of 0.4 seconds and the base station coils using
windows of 1.0 seconds.
e. The real (In-Phase) and imaginary (Quadrature) parts of the tipper transfer functions are
derived from the In-line (X or Tzx) and Cross-line (Y or Tzy) components.
f. Such processed EM data are then merged with the GPS data, magnetic base station data and
exported into a Geosoft xyz file.
4.4.2 GEOSOFT PROCESSING
Next stage of the preliminary data processing is done in a Geosoft TM environment, using the following
steps:
a. Import the output xyz file from the AFMAG processing, as well as the base Mag data into one
database.
b. Split lines according to the recorded line channel,
c. GPS processing, flight path recovery (correcting, filtering, calculating Bird GPS coordinates, line
splitting)
d. Radar altimeter processing, yielding the altitude values in metres.
e. Magnetic spike removal, filtering (applied to both airborne and base station data). Calculation of
a base station corrected mag.
f. Apply preliminary attitude corrections to EM data (In phase and Quadrature), filter and make
preliminary grids and profiles of all channels.
4.4.3 FINAL PROCESSING
Final data processing and quality control were undertaken by Geotech Ltd headquarters in Aurora,
Ontario by qualified senior data processing personnel.
A quality control step consisted of re-examining all data in order to validate the preliminary data
processing and to allow for final adjustments to the data.

Project GL160353
14
Attitude corrections were re-evaluated, and re-applied, on component by component, flight by flight,
and frequency by frequency bases. Any remaining line to line system noise was removed by applying a
mild additional levelling correction.
4.4.4 ZTEM PROFILE SIGN CONVENTION
Tzx and Tzy tipper components do not exhibit maxima or minima above conductors, resistors or at
contacts; in fact they produce cross-over type anomalies (Ward, 1959; Vozoff, 1972; Labson, 1985). The
sign of the cross-over (positive-to-negative or neg-to-pos) or its polarity (normal or reversed) depends
on the line direction and follows a well-defined convention. The crossover polarity sign convention for
ZTEM is according to the right hand Cartesian rule (Z positive –up) that is commonly used for multi-
component transient electromagnetic methods.
For the west to east lines the sign convention for the In-phase Tzx in-line component crossover is
positive-negative pointing N-090° for tabular conductors’ perpendicular to the profile (Figure 6- left).
The corresponding Tzy component in-phase cross-over polarity is positive-negative pointing N-000° (90
degrees counter clockwise to Tzx) according to the right hand Cartesian rule.
For the north to south tie-lines the sign convention for the In-phase Tzx in-line component crossover is
positive-negative pointing N-000° for tabular conductors’ perpendicular to the profile (Figure 6 - right).
The corresponding Tzy component in-phase cross-over polarity is positive-negative pointing N-270° (90
degrees counter clockwise to Tzx) according to the right hand Cartesian rule.
Conversely, tabular resistive bodies produce In-Phase cross-overs for the In-line Tzx and Cross-line Tzy
components that are opposite in sign to conductors, i.e., negative to positive cross-overs.
On the other hand, the Quadrature part of the tipper transfer function can produce cross-overs in Tzx
and Tzy that are of either polarity over a conductor or resistor. For this reason, the ZTEM profile sign
convention only applies to the In-phase part of the tipper response. A brief discussion of ZTEM and
AFMAG, along with selected forward model responses is presented in Appendix D.
Figure 6: ZTEM Crossover Polarity Convention for Tzx and Tzy for survey line (left) and tie-lines (right).
4.4.5 ZTEM QUADRATURE SIGN DEPENDENCE
One important note regarding the sign of the ZTEM Quadrature, relative to the In-Phase component,
particularly with regards to computer modeling and inversion.

Project GL160353
15
The sign of the magnetotelluric Quadrature relative to the In-Phase tipper transfer function component
pertains to the Fourier transformation of the time series to give frequency domain spectra. There are two
widely used conventions for time dependence in the transformations, exp(+iωt) and exp(-iωt). That
which is implemented largely is a matter of personal preference and precedent. The importance of the In-
Phase and Quadrature sign convention is not critical, provided that it is known and documented.
In ZTEM, the data processing code used for the Fourier transformation the time-series data to frequency
domain spectra adopts a exp(-iωt) time dependence (J. Dodds, Geo Equipment Manufacturing, pers. comm.,
Nov-2009). Whereas in the forward modeling and inversion program Zvert2d, the sign of the Quadrature
relative to the In-Phase transfer function assumes an exp(+iωt) dependence2.
As a result, for users interested in computer modeling and inversion of ZTEM data, the sign of the
Quadrature will need to be reversed, relative to the In-Phase component, in order to provide a proper result
(Figure 7). Indeed this reverse Quadrature polarity convention is assumed in all forward modeling and
inversion of ZTEM data, as described in Figures 5-7 in Appendix D.
Figure 7: Illustration of ZTEM In-Phase & Quadrature Tipper transfer function polarity convention (e-iωt)
relative to equivalent MT Tipper Quadrature polarity convention (e+iωt) for a graphitic conductor in
Athabasca Basin, SK.
4.4.6 TOTAL DIVERGENCEAND PHASE ROTATION PROCESSING
In a final processing step DT (Total Divergence) and PR (Phase Rotation) processing are applied to the
multi-frequency In-phase and Quadrature ZTEM data. This is due to the crossover nature of the Tipper
Responses; these additional processing steps are applied to convert them into local maxima for easier
interpretation.
To present the data from both tipper components into one image, the Total Divergence parameter,
termed the DT is calculated from the horizontal derivatives of the Tzx and Tzy tippers (Lo and Zang,
2008). It is analogous to the “Peaker” parameter in VLF (Pedersen, 1998).
2
Phillip E. Wannamaker (2009): Two-dimensional Inversion of ZTEM data: Synthetic Model Study and Test Profile
Images, Internal Geotech technical report by Emblem Exploration Services Inc., January 22, 2009, 32 pp.

Project GL160353
16
Total Divergence DT: DT = DIV (Tzx, Tzy)
= d(Tzx )/dx+d(Tzy)/dy
This DT parameter was introduced by Petr Kuzmin (Milicevic, 2007, p. 13) and is derived for each of the
In Phase and Quadrature components at individual frequencies. These in turn allow for minima over
conductors and maxima over resistive zones. DT grids for each of the extracted frequencies were
generated accordingly, using a reverse colour scheme with warm colours over conductors and cool
colours over resistors.
The DT gives a clearer image of conductor’s location and shape but, as a derivative, it does not preserve
some of the long wavelength information and is also sensitive to noise.
As an alternative, a 90 degree Phase Rotation (PR) technique is also applied to the grids of each
individual component (Tzx and Tzy). It transforms bipolar (cross over) anomalies into single pole
anomalies with a maximum over conductors, while preserving long wavelength information (Lo et al.,
2009). The two orthogonal grids are then usually added to obtain a Total Phase Rotated (TPR) grid for
the In-Phase and Quadrature.
Total Phase-Rotation TPR: = PR (Tzx) + PR (Tzy)
A presentation of the ZTEM test survey results over unconformity uranium deposits that illustrates DT
and TPR examples, as documented by Lo et al. (2009) is provided in Appendix E.
4.4.7 2D EM INVERSION
2d inversions of the ZTEM results were performed over selected lines using the Geotech Av2dtopo
software developed by Phil Wannamaker, U. of Utah, for Geotech Ltd. The inversion algorithm is based
on the 2D inversion code with Jacobians of de Lugao and Wannamaker (1996), the 2D forward code of
Wannamaker et al (1987), and the Gauss-Newton parameter step equations of Tarantola (1987).
Av2dtopo has been developed /modified for use with our ZTEM platform by taking into account the
ground topography and the air-layer between the receiver bird and the ground surface. It also
implements a depth-of-investigation (DOI) index, using the 1.5x MT maximum skin depth and
integrated 1D conductance method of Spies (1989). This is shown using a dashed DOI line and opaque
coloring in the 2d inversion section of Appendix F.
The 2D code only considers the In-Line (Tzx) data and assumes that the strike lengths of bodies are
infinite and orthogonal to the profile. The code is designed to account for the ZTEM vertical coil receiver
and fixed base station reference measurements. The inversion uses a model-mesh consisting of 440
cells laterally and 112 cells vertically. Typically the ZTEM data are de-sampled to 192 pts, in order to
allow the inversion to run in 20 minutes or less. Typically, between 1-2% errors are added to the In-line
in-phase (XIP) and Quadrature (XQD) data obtained at 22,30,45,90,180 & 360Hz. Errors are adjusted
until numerical convergence (<1.0 rms) is attained in 5 iterations or less. All inversions are based on an
apriori homogeneous starting half-space model, usually between 100 – 1000ohm metres, as determined
by the interpreter, based on model testing, as described in Appendix F.

Project GL160353
17
4.5 MAGNETIC DATA
The processing of the total magnetic field intensity (TMI) data involved the correction for diurnal
variations by using the digitally recorded ground base station magnetic values. The base station
magnetometer data was edited and merged into the Geosoft GDB database on a daily basis. The
aeromagnetic data was corrected for diurnal variations by subtracting the observed magnetic base
station deviations.
Tie line levelling was carried out by adjusting intersection points along traverse lines. A micro-levelling
procedure was applied to remove persistent low-amplitude components of flight-line noise remaining
in the data.
The corrected magnetic data was interpolated between survey lines using a random point gridding
method to yield x-y grid values for a standard grid cell size of 50 metres. The Minimum Curvature
algorithm was used to interpolate values onto a rectangular regular spaced grid.

Project GL160353
18
5. DELIVERABLES
5.1 SURVEY REPORT
The survey report describes the data acquisition, processing, and final presentation of the survey
results. The survey report is provided in two paper copies and digitally in PDF format.
5.2 MAPS
Final maps were produced at scale of 1:20,000 for best representation of the survey size and line
spacing. The coordinate/projection system used was NAD83 Datum, UTM Zone 17 North. All maps show
the flight path trace and topographic data; latitude and longitude are also noted on maps.
The preliminary and final results of the survey are presented as profile plans for the EM data that were
generated for individual real (In-Phase) and imaginary parts (Quadrature) of the Tzx and Tzy
components. Colour contour maps of the corresponding DT (Total Divergence) or TPR (Total Phase
Rotated) grids for three of the six frequencies, (30, 45, 90, 180, 360 and 720 Hz), as well as for
corresponding Phase Rotated Grids for individual components.
3D views have been constructed by plotting the either DT or TPR grids at their respective penetration
depths using a 5000 ohm-m half space, using the Bostick skin depth rule (Bostick, 1977) see Appendix
D.
Sample maps of the related 3D view, Magnetic and Total Divergence are included in this report and
presented in Appendix C.
5.3 DIGITAL DATA
Two copies of the data and maps on DVD were prepared to accompany the report. Each DVD contains a
digital file of the line data in GDB Geosoft Montaj format as well as the maps in Geosoft Montaj Map and
PDF format.
• DVD structure.
Data contains databases, grids and maps, as described below.
Report contains a copy of the report and appendices in PDF format.
Databases in Geosoft GDB format, containing the channels listed in Table 4.

Project GL160353
19
Table 4: Geosoft GDB Data Format
Column Description
X UTM Easting NAD83 Zone 17N, (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (meters)
Y UTM Northing NAD83 Zone 17N, (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (meters)
Longitude Longitude – WGS84 (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (Decimal degree)
Latitude Latitude – WGS84 (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (Decimal degree)
Z Elevation (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (metres)
Radar Helicopter terrain clearance from radar altimeter (metres - AGL)
Alt_B: Calculated ZTEM Bird terrain clearance (metres)
DEM_Srtm Digital Elevation Model calculated from SRTM (above mean sea level, meters)
Altb_SRTM Calculated ZTEM Bird terrain clearance from SRTM (metres)
DEM Digital Elevation Model (above mean sea level, metres)
Gtime: UTC Time (seconds of the day)
basemag Magnetic base station data, nT
Mag1 Measured total magnetic field, nT
Mag2 Diurnally-corrected total magnetic field, nT
Mag3 Levelled total magnetic field, nT
TMI_IGRF IGRF corrected TMI, nT
IGRF International Geomagnetic Reference Field, nT
Decl Magnetic Declination
Incl Magnetic Inclination
xIp_030Hz Tzx In-Phase 30 Hz final corrected
xQd_030Hz Tzx Quadrature 30 Hz final corrected
yIp_030Hz Tzy In-Phase 30 Hz final corrected
yQd_030Hz Tzy Quadrature 30 Hz final corrected
PLM Power Line Monitor (60Hz)

Project GL160353
20
• Database of the ZTEM 2D Resistivity Inversions in Geosoft GDB format, containing the
following channels, listed in Table 5
Table 5: Geosoft 2D Resistivity Inversion GDB Data Format
Channel name Description
X UTM Easting NAD83 Zone 17N, (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (metres)
Y UTM Northing NAD83 Zone 17N, (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (metres)
dist Profile distance (from beginning of flight line) (metres)
doi depth-of-investigation
noise Flagged Power line monitor noise
Elevation Elevation above mean sea level (metres)
res Resistivity from 2D inversion (ohm-metres)
• Database of the Tipper in Geosoft GDB format, containing the following channels,
listed in Table 6
Table 6: Geosoft Tipper GDB Data Format
X UTM Easting NAD83 Zone 17N, (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (metres)
Y UTM Northing NAD83 Zone 17N, (Centre of the ZTEM loop) (metres)
dist Profile distance (from beginning of flight line) (metres)
Alt_b Calculated ZTEM Bird terrain clearance (metres)
RTP Reduced to Pole Total Magnetic Intensity
PLM Power line monitor
Ipm_030Hz In-phase model 30 Hz
Qdm_030Hz Quadrature model 30 Hz
Ipf_030Hz In-phase field observed data 30 Hz
Qdf_030Hz Quadrature field observed data 30 Hz

Project GL160353
21
noise Flagged Power line monitor noise
rms Root mean squared
• Grids in Geosoft GRD format, as follows:
**_TMI: Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI)
**_1VD_TMI: First Vertical Derivative of Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI)
**_ASIG_TMI: First Vertical Derivative of Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI)
**_ DEM: Digital Elevation Model
**_PLM: 60Hz Power Line Monitor
**_XIP_xxxHz: Tzx (in-line) In-Phase Component Phase Rotated Tipper grid at xxx
hertz (ratio)
**_XQd_xxxHz: Tzx (in-line) Quadrature Component Phase Rotated Tipper grid at xx
hertz (ratio)
**_YIP_xxxHz: Tzy (cross-line) In-Phase Component Phase Rotated Tipper grid at
xxx hertz (ratio)
**_YQd_xxxHz: Tzy (cross-line) Quadrature Component Phase Rotated Tipper grid at
xxx hertz (ratio)
**_IP_xxxHz_TPR: Total Phase Rotated (TPR) Tzx + Tzy grid from In-phase components
at xxx Hz (ratio)
**_QD_xxxHz_TPR: Total Phase Rotated (TPR) Tzx + Tzy grid from Quadrature
components at xxx Hz (ratio)
**_IP_xxxHz_DT: Total Divergence (DT) of Tzx + Tzy Tipper grid from In-phase
components at xxx Hz (1000*ratio/m)
**_QD_xxxHz_DT: Total Divergence (DT) of Tzx + Tzy Tipper grid from Quadrature
components at xxx Hz (1000*ratio/m)
(Where xxx = 30, 45, 90, 180, 360 and 720 Hz, ** = job #)
A Geosoft .GRD file has a .GI metadata file associated with it, containing grid projection
information. A grid cell size of 50 metres was used.
• Maps at 1:20,000 scale in Geosoft MAP format, as follows:
GL160353_20K_3D_IP_TPR: 3D view of In-Phase Total Phase Rotated versus Skin
Depth (30-720Hz)
GL160353_20K_TMI: Reduced to Pole Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI)
GL160353_20K_30Hz_IP_TPR: 30Hz In-Phase Total Phase Rotated Grid
GL160353_20K_XIP_Profiles_PR: Tzx (In-line) In-Phase Profiles over 90Hz Phase
Rotated In-Phase Grid
GL160353_20K_XQD_Profiles_PR: Tzx (In-line) Quadrature Profiles over 90Hz Phase
Rotated Quadrature Grid.
GL160353_20K_YIP_Profiles_PR: Tzy(Cross-line) In-Phase Profiles over 90Hz Phase
Rotated In-Phase Grid
GL160353_20K_YQD_Profiles _PR: Tzy (Cross-line) Quadrature Profiles over 90Hz Phase
Rotated Quadrature Grid.

Project GL160353
22
• 2D Resistivity Inversion maps: 2D Inversion Resistivity cross-section maps in PDF letter
size format, as follows:
Lxxxx_res2d.pdf 2D Resistivity vs. Elevation section according to survey line;
includes inversion parameters, Profiles of Tzx IP & QD multi-
frequency profiles for Field and Modeled data, TMI, PLM and RMS
error.
• Maps are also presented in PDF format.
• 1:50,000 topographic vectors were taken from CANVEC data (http://maps.canada.ca).
• Background shading is derived from NASA/USGS ASTER DEM data
(https://gdex.cr.usgs.gov/gdex/)
• A Google Earth file “GL160353_IntMontoro.kmz” is included, showing the flight path. Free
versions of Google Earth software from: http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html

Project GL160353
23
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A helicopter-borne ZTEM and aeromagnetic geophysical survey has been completed over the Serpent
River - Pecors Ni-Cu Project situated near Elliot Lake, Ontario, Canada.
The total area coverage is 42 km2. Total survey line coverage is 295 line kilometres. The principal
sensors included a Z-Axis Tipper electromagnetic (ZTEM) system and a caesium magnetometer. Results
have been presented as stacked profiles and contour colour images at a scale of 1:20,000.
There is no summary interpretation included in this report; however 2D inversions were performed in
support of the ZTEM survey results.
Respectfully submitted3,
___________________________ ___________________________
Kanita Khaled Keeme Mokubung
Geotech Ltd. Geotech Ltd.
_________________________ ___________________________________________
Alexander Prikhodko, P. Geo. Kyle Orlowski
Geotech Ltd. Geotech Ltd.
August, 2018
3 Final data processing of the EM and magnetic data were carried out by Keeme Mokubung. 2D Inversions by Keeme Mokubung
from the office of Geotech Ltd. in Aurora, Ontario, under the supervision of Alexander Prikhodko, P. Geo.

Project GL160353
24
7. REFERENCES AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anav, A., Cantarano, S., Cerruli-Irelli, P., and Pallotino, G.V.(1976). A correlation method for
measurement of variable magnetic fields: Inst. Elect. and Electron. Eng. Trans., Geosc. Elect. GE14,
106-114.
Bostick, F.X. (1977). A Simple almost exact method of MT analysis, Proceedings of the University of Utah
Workshop on Electrical Methods in Geothermal Exploration, 175-188.
De Lugao, P.P., and Wannamaker, P.E.(1996). Calculating the two-dimensional magnetotelluric Jacodian
in finite elements using reciprocity: Geophys. J. Int., 127, 806-810
Karous, M.R., and S. E. Hjelt (1983). Linear filtering of VLF dip-angle measurements: Geophysical
Prospecting, 31, 782-794.
Kuzmin, P., Lo, B. and Morrison, E. (2005). Final Report on Modeling, interpretation methods and field
trials of an existing prototype AFMAG system, Miscellaneous Data Release 167, Ontario
Geological Survey, 2005.
Labson, V. F., Becker A., Morrison, H. F., and Conti, U. (1985). Geophysical exploration with audio
frequency natural magnetic fields. Geophysics, 50, 656-664.
Legault, J.M., Kumar, H., Milicevic, B., and Hulbert, L. (2009), ZTEM airborne tipper AFMAG test survey
over a magmatic copper-nickel target at Axis Lake in northern Saskatchewan, SEG Expanded
Abstracts, 28, 1272-1276
Legault, J.M., Kumar, H., Milicevic, B., and Wannamaker, P.,(2009), ZTEM tipper AFMAG and 2D
inversion results over an unconformity uranium target in northern Saskatchewan, SEG
Expanded Abstracts, 28, 1277-1281.
Lo, B., Legault, J.M., Kuzmin, P. and Combrick, M. (2009). ZTEM (Airborne AFMAG) tests over
unconformity uranium deposits, Extended abstract submitted to 20th ASEG International
Conference and Exhibition, Adelaide, AU, 4pp.
Lo, B., and Zang, M., (2008), Numerical modeling of Z-TEM (airborne AFMAG) responses to guide
exploration strategies, SEG Expanded Abstracts, 27, 1098-1101.
Milicevic, B. (2007). Report on a helicopter borne Z-axis, Tipper electromagnetic (ZTEM) and magnetic
survey at Safford, Giant Hills, Baldy Mountains and Sierrita South Areas, Arizona, USA., Geotech
internal survey report (job A226), 33pp.
Pedersen, L.B., Qian, W., Dynesius, L. and Zhang, P. (1994). An airborne sensor VLF system. From
concept to realization. Geophysical Prospecting, 42, i.8, 863-883
Pederson, L.B. (1998). Tensor VLF measurements: first experiences, Exploration Geophysics, 29, 52-57.
Spies, B.,1989, Depth of investigation in electromagnetic sounding methods, Geophysics, 54, 872-888.
Strangway, D. W., Swift Jr., C. M., and Holmer, R. C. (1973). The Application of Audio-Frequency
Magnetotellurics (AMT) to Mineral Exploration. Geophysics, 38, 1159-1175.
Tarantola, A.,(1987) Inverse problem theory: Elsevier, New York, 613 pp.
Vozoff, K.(1972). The magnetotelluric method in the exploration of sedimentary basins. Geophysics, 37,
98-141.
Vozoff, K. (1991). The magnetotelluric method. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics -
Volume 2 Applications, edited by Nabighian, M.N., Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.,
641-711.
Ward, S. H. (1959). AFMAG - Airborne and Ground. Geophysics, 24, 761-787.
Ward, S. H, O’Brien, D.P., Parry, J.R. and McKnight, B.K. (1968). AFMAG Interpretation. Geophysics, 33,
621-644.
Wannamaker, P.E., Stodt, J.A., and Rijo, L., (1987). A stable finite element solution for two-
dimentional magnetotelluric modeling: Geophy. J. Roy. Astr. Soc.,88, 277-296.
Zhang, P. and King, A. (1998). Using magnetotellurics for mineral exploration, Extended Abstracts from
1998 Meeting of Society of Exploration Geophysics

Project GL160353
1
APPENDIX A
SURVEY AREA LOCATION MAP
Overview of the Survey Area

Project GL160353
1
APPENDIX B
SURVEY AREA COORDINATES
(WGS 84, UTM Zone 9 North)
X Y
383880 5141964
383880 5137964
393880 5137964
393880 5141964

Project GL160353
1
APPENDIX C
GEOPHYSICAL MAPS1
3D View of In-Phase, Total Phase Rotated (TPR) grids versus Skin Depth (30 Hz - 720 Hz)
1
Complete Full size geophysical maps are also available in PDF format in the Maps folder of the Final Data

Project GL160353
2
Tzx (In-line) In-Phase Profiles over 90Hz Rotated Tzx In-Phase Grid

Project GL160353
3
Tzy (Cross-line) In-Phase Profiles over 90Hz Rotated Tzy In-Phase Grid

Project GL160353
4
Tzx (In-line) Quadrature Profiles over 90Hz Rotated Tzx Quadrature Grid

Project GL160353
5
Tzy (Cross-line) Quadrature Profiles over 90Hz Rotated Tzy Quadrature Grid

Project GL160353
6
30Hz In-Phase Total Phase Rotated (TPR) Grid

Project GL160353
7

Project GL160353
8

Project GL160353
9
Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI)

Project GL160353
10
Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

Project GL160353
11
60Hz Power Line Monitor (PLM)

Project GL160353
1
APPENDIX D
ZTEM THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
A brief section on the theory behind the AFMAG technique is provided for completeness and a more
comprehensive development of the theory can be found in standard texts. The natural EM field is
normally horizontally polarized. Subsurface lateral variations of conductivity generate a vertical
component, which is linearly related to the horizontal field. Although the fields look like random
signals, they may be treated as the sum of sinusoids. At each frequency the field can be expressed as
a complex number with magnitude and argument equal to the amplitude and phase of the sinusoid.
The relation between the field components can then be expressed by a linear complex equation
with two complex coefficients at any one frequency. These coefficients are dependent upon the
subsurface and not upon the horizontal field present at any particular time and are appropriate
parameters to measure (Vozoff, 1972).
Hz(f) = Tx(f) Hx(f) + Ty(f) Hy(f), (1)
Where
Hx(f), Hy(f) and Hz(f) are x, y and z components of the field,
Tx(f) and Ty(f) are the “tipper” coefficients.
In the case of a horizontally homogeneous environment, Tx and Ty are equal to zero because Hz =0.
They show certain anomalies only by the presence of changes in subsurface conductivity in the
horizontal direction. The real parts of the coefficients correspond to tangents of tilt angles
measured with a controlled source. The complex tensor [Tx, Ty] known as the “tipper” defines the
vertical response to horizontal fields in the x and y directions respectively.
Tx and Ty are two unknown coefficients in one equation, and we therefore must combine two or
more sets of measurements to solve them. To reduce effects of noise, multiple sets of
measurements can be made, and the coefficients, which minimize the squared error in predicting
the measured Z from X and Y, can be found. This leads to next formulas for estimating the
coefficients.
Tx = ([HzHx*] [HyHy*] – [HzHy*] [HyHx*]) / ([HxHx*] [HyHy*] – [HxHy*] [HyHx*]), (2)
and
Ty = ([HzHy*] [HxHx*] – [HzHx*] [HxHy*]) / ([HxHx*] [HyHy*] – [HxHy*] [HyHx*]. (3)
Where
[HxHy*] (For example) denotes a sum of the product of Hx with the complex conjugate of Hy.
In practical processing algorithms, all numbers Hx, Hy and Hz can be obtained by applying the same
digital band-pass filters to three incoming parallel data signals. FFT algorithms are also applicable.
All sums like [HxHy*] can be calculated on the basis of a discrete time interval in the range from 0.1
to 1 sec or on a sliding time base.

Project GL160353
2
Using platform attitude data in the EM data processing can be done at different stages of the signal
processing. The most obvious idea is to transform parallel data from local coordinates of the
platform into absolute geographical coordinates before the main signal processing procedure.
Unfortunately, the proper algorithms of attitude data obtained, often require some post-processing
algorithms such as using post-calculated accelerations based on GPS data etc. That is why it is
preferable to treat x-y-z coordinates in formulas above in the local coordinate system of the
platform and to recalculate resulting local tilt angles into a geographical or global coordinate
system later, during the data post processing.
In weak field conditions where the level of the signal is comparable with input noise levels in
preamplifiers, the bias in the estimated values of Tx and Ty caused by noise in the horizontal signals
become substantial and cannot be reduced by any averaging. This bias can be removed by the use of
separate reference signals containing noise uncorrelated with noise in signals Hx and Hy. (Anav et
al., 1976).
Tx = ([HzRx*] [HyRy*] – [HzRy*] [HyRx*]) / ([HxRx*] [HyRy*] – [HxRy*] [HyRx*]), (4)
and
Ty = ([HzRy*] [HxRx*] – [HzRx*] [HxRy*]) / ([HxRx*] [HyRy*] – [HxRy*] [HyRx*]). (5)
Where:
Rx is the reference field x component,
Ry is the reference field y component.
An additional two electromagnetic sensors, providing these reference signals can be placed at some
distance away from the main x, y and z sensors. Currently, though, no additional remote-reference
processing are applied to ZTEM data.
NUMERICAL MODELLING
In order to understand the airborne AFMAG responses to conductors for a variety of geological
environments, EMIGMATM modelling code from PetRos EiKon (Toronto, ON) was obtained to
conduct the formulated model studies.
Below are some of the modelling results from their study.
Modelling assumption:
The assumptions for the modelling are that:
3 components of the magnetic field are measured and they are processed according to:
Hz(f) = Tx (f) Hx (f) + Ty (f) Hy (f)
The vector (Tx,Ty) is usually referred to as the ‘tipper’ vector and is determined in the frequency
domain through processing. This is normally done by determining transfer functions from an
extended time series.

Project GL160353
3
For the modelling exercise, the 3 components of the magnetic vector (Hx,Hy,Hz) are modelled twice
for 2 orthogonal polarizations of a plane wave source field and then the tipper is calculated from a
matrix calculation using the results of the 2 source polarizations’ models. For the 2D forward
modelling results, the tipper vectors are shown as a function of frequency
BASIC MODEL RESPONSE
For the initial models, we assume a thin plate-like model. The model is perpendicular to the flight
direction. Initially, we will assume very long strike directions. From this quasi-2D model, there are
2 basic responses. The so-called TE response and the so-called TM response.
For the initial models, we will assume the strike is in the y (North) directions and the flight is in the
x (East) direction Sensor heights are 30m above ground.
TE Mode: For the TE response, the electric field excitation flows along strike (current channelling)
and the horizontal H field (Hx) flows perpendicular to strike thus causing induction through
Faraday’s law. The Hz response is generated both from channelling and induction.
TM Mode: For this response, the electric field excitation flows perpendicular to strike generating
quasi-static charges on faces and the horizontal H field (Hx) flows parallel to strike. Since, the XZ
face is very small for this model, little current is induced. The charges on the faces have a small
dipole moment due to the thinness of the model.
For the rest of the models unless otherwise noted, the parameters used are:
Strike Length: 1km
Depth Extent: 1km
Conductance: 100S
Depth to Top: 10m
Background: Thin-overburden (10m), Resistive Basement (1000 Ohm-m)

Project GL160353
4
Figure D1: Calculated Tipper components at 10 Hz for above model parameters.
Figure D1 shows the Tipper (Tx,Ty) Amplitudes at 10Hz using a10Ωm overburden. Note small Ty
(ie quasi-TM response)
AMPLITUDE RESPONSE
Figure D2: Calculated Tx component of the Tipper at various frequencies
The (Tx) response amplitude at 1,10,100,1000,10000 Hx. Peak amplitude at 100Hz

Project GL160353
5
INPHASE AND QUADRATURE RESPONSE
Figure D3: Calculated In-phase and Quadrature of the Tx component at various frequencies
Figure D3 shows the In-phase and Quadrature response at 10 and 100Hz. Note the crossovers in the
In-phase and Quadrature, and the phase reversal in the Quadrature responses from low to high
frequencies.
Bo Lo, P.Eng, B.Sc. (Geophysics), Consultant
Geotech Ltd.
September, 2007

Project GL160353
6
AFMAG SOURCE FIELDS AND ZTEM METHOD
1
AFMAG uses naturally occurring audio frequency magnetic fields as the source of the primary field
signal, and therefore requires no transmitter (Ward, 1959). The primary fields resemble those from
VLF except that they are lower frequency (tens & hundreds of Hz versus tens of kHz) and are
usually not as strongly directionally polarized (Labson et al., 1985). These EM fields used in AFMAG
are derived from worldwide atmospheric thunderstorm activity, have the unique characteristic of
being uniform, planar and horizontal, and also propagate vertically into the earth – to great depth,
up to several km, as determined by the magnetotelluric (MT) skin depth (Vozoff, 1972), which is
directly proportional to the ratio of the bedrock resistivity to the frequency (Figure D4).
Figure D4: MT Skin Depth Penetrations for ZTEM in 30-360Hz and 10-1000 ohm resistivity
At the frequencies used for ZTEM, the penetration depths likely range between approx. 600m to
2km in this region (approx. 1k ohm-m avg. resistivity assumed), according to the following equation
for the Bostick skin depth δB = 356 * √(ρ / ƒ) metres (Bostick, 1977), which is considered
appropriate as a rule of thumb equivalent depth estimate.
The other unique aspect of AFMAG fields is that they react to relative contrasts in the resistivity,
and therefore do not depend on the absolute conductance, as measured using inductive EM
systems, such as VTEM. Hence poorly, conductive targets, such as alteration zones and fault zones
can be mapped, as well as higher conductance features, like graphitic units. Conversely, resistive
targets can also be detected using AFMAG– provided they are of a sufficient size and contrast to
produce a vertical field anomaly. Indeed resistors produce reversed anomalies relative to
conductive features. Hence AFMAG can be effective as an all-round resistivity mapping tool, making
it unique among airborne EM methods. A series of 2D synthetic models that illustrate these aspects
have been created using the 2D forward MT modelling code of Wannamaker et al. (1987) and are
presented in figures D5-D7.
1
From: Legault, J.M., Kumar, H., and Milicevic, B. (2009): ZTEM tipper AFMAG and 2D inversion results over an unconformity
uranium target in northern Saskatchewan, Expanded Abstract submitted to Society of Exploration Geophysics SEG conference,
Houston, Tx, Nov-2009, 5 pp.
AFMAG Depth Penetration
Simplest Case: 1D Skin Depth Rule
MT PLANE WAVE SKIN DEPTHS in 1D HALF-SPACE
10 Ohm*m 100 Ohm*m 1000 Ohm*m
360 Hz
30 Hz
2700 m
920m
1000 m
10,000 Ohm*m
2000 m
3000 m
4000 m
840 m
270 m290m
80m
2900 m
9200 m
360 Hz
30 Hz
Earth Surface
DEPTH(METRES)
EARTH RESISTIVITY (OHM-METRES)
δs ~ 503√(ρ/f) [metres]*
ZTEM AFMAG
Maximum Penetration
Depth
ZTEM AFMAG
Maximum Penetration
Depth
ZTEM AFMAG Minimum
Penetration Depth
ZTEM AFMAG Minimum
Penetration Depth
*Vozoff (1972)

Project GL160353
7
The tipper from a single site contains information on the dimensionality of the subsurface
(Pedersen, 1998), for example, in a horizontally stratified or 1D earth, T=0 and as such HZ is absent.
For a 2D earth with the y-axis along strike, TY=0 and HZ = TX*HX. In 3D earths, both TX and TY will be
non-zero. HZ is therefore only present, as a secondary field, due to a lateral resistivity contrast,
whereas the horizontal HX and HY fields are a mixture of secondary and primary fields (Stodt et al.,
1981). But, as an approximation, as in the telluric-magnetotelluric method (T-MT; Hermance and
Thayer, 1975) used by distributed MT acquisition systems, the horizontal fields are assumed to be
practically uniform, which is particularly useful for rapid reconnaissance mapping purposes. By
measuring the vertical magnetic field HX, using a mobile receiver and the orthogonal horizontal HX
and HY fields at a fixed base station reference site, ZTEM is a direct adaptation of this technique for
airborne AFMAG surveying.
_________________
Jean M. Legault, M.Sc.A., P.Eng., P.Geo.
Geotech Ltd.
REFERENCES
Bostickm, F.X., 1977, A simple almost exact method of MT analysis. Proceedings of the University of
Utah Workshop on Electrical methods in Geothermal Exploration, 175-188.
Hermance, J.F., and Thayer, R.E., 1975, The telluric-magnetotelluric method, Geophysics, 37, 349-
364.
Labson, V. F., A. Becker, H. F. Morrison, and U. Conti, 1985, Geophysical exploration with audio-
frequency natural magnetic fields: Geophysics, 50, 656–664.
Murakami, Y., 1985, Short Note: Two representations of the magnetotelluric sounding survey,
Geophysics, 50, 161-164.
Pedersen, L.B., 1998, Tensor VLF measurements: Our first experiences, Exploration Geophysics, 29,
52-57.
Stodt. J.A., Hohmann, G.W., and Ting, S.C., 1981, The telluric-magnetotelluric method in two- and
three-dimensional environments, Geophysics, 46, 1137-1147.
Vozoff, K., 1972, The magnetotelluric method in the exploration of sedimentary basins, Geophysics,
37, 98–141.
Ward, S. H., 1959, AFMAG—Airborne and ground: Geophysics, 24, 761–787.
Wannamaker, P.E., Stodt, J.A., and Rijo, L., 1987, A stable finite element solution for two-
dimensional magnetotelluric modelling, Geophy. J. Roy. Astr. Soc., 88, 227-296.

Project GL160353
8
Figure D5: 2D synthetic forward model Tipper responses (Tzy) for conductive brick model.
Figure D6: 2D synthetic forward model Tipper response (Tzx) for poorly conductive brick model.
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
Transfer Function Profile conductor_ew - 32, 48, 100, 180, 380 Hz
TZY
W E
1
Tyr
|
001|
002
|
003|
004
|
005 |
006
|
007|
008
|
009|
010
|
011 |
012
|
013|
014
|
015|
016
|
017|
018
|
019|
020
|
021|
022
|
023|
024
|
025|
026
|
027 |
028
|
029|
030
|
031|
032
|
033 |
034
|
035|
036
|
037|
038
|
039|
040
|
041|
042
|
043|
044
|
045|
046
|
047|
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
1
2
3
45
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
12
3
4
5
12
3
4
5
12
3
4
5
123
4
5
1234
5 12345 12345
12345
12345
1234
5
12
34
5
12
3
4
5
12
3
4
5
12
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
45
1
2
3
45
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
TZY
W E
1
Tyi
|
001|
002
|
003|
004
|
005 |
006
|
007|
008
|
009|
010
|
011 |
012
|
013|
014
|
015|
016
|
017|
018
|
019|
020
|
021|
022
|
023|
024
|
025|
026
|
027 |
028
|
029|
030
|
031|
032
|
033 |
034
|
035|
036
|
037|
038
|
039|
040
|
041|
042
|
043|
044
|
045|
046
|
047|
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
1234
5
1234
5
123
4
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
12345
12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345
1234
5
12345
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
123
4
5
1234
5
12
34
5
123
4
5
12
34
5
123
4
5
3000
2000
1000
0
2-D Model conductor_ew
Depth(METERS)
W E
E-W
|
001 |
002
|
003 |
004
|
005 |
006
|
007 |
008
|
009 |
010
|
011 |
012
|
013 |
014
|
015 |
016
|
017 |
018
|
019 |
020
|
021 |
022
|
023 |
024
|
025 |
026
|
027 |
028
|
029 |
030
|
031 |
032
|
033 |
034
|
035 |
036
|
037 |
038
|
039 |
040
|
041 |
042
|
043 |
044
|
045 |
046
|
047 |
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Ohm-M
1
1.8
3.2
5.6
10
18
32
50
100
180
320
560
1000
1800
3200
5600
200m
400m
500m
3200 ohm-m
1 ohm-m
2D Resistivity Model – Conductive Buried Prism
Hz/HxIn-Phase(%)Hz/HxQuadrature(%)
1=32Hz
2=48Hz
3=100Hz
4=180Hz
5=380Hz
1=32Hz
2=48Hz
3=100Hz
4=180Hz
5=380Hz
2D Forward Model of ZTEM Tippers
Z
X
(Note: Quadrature Polarity Reversed Relative to ZTEM due to
Difference in Sign Conventions with 2D Forward Modeling Code)
Note: Positive to Negative
In-Phase Cross-Overs
Note: Negative to Positive
Quadrature Cross-Overs
+100%
0%
-100%
+100%
0%
-100%
50m Air Layer
3000
2000
1000
0
Depth(METERS)
W E
E-W
|
001 |
002
|
003 |
004
|
005 |
006
|
007 |
008
|
009 |
010
|
011 |
012
|
013 |
014
|
015 |
016
|
017 |
018
|
019 |
020
|
021 |
022
|
023 |
024
|
025 |
026
|
027 |
028
|
029 |
030
|
031 |
032
|
033 |
034
|
035 |
036
|
037 |
038
|
039 |
040
|
041 |
042
|
043 |
044
|
045 |
046
|
047 |
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Ohm-M
1
1.8
3.2
5.6
10
18
32
50
100
180
320
560
1000
1800
3200
5600
-0.25
0
0.25
TZY
W E
1
Tyr
|
001|
002
|
003|
004
|
005 |
006
|
007|
008
|
009|
010
|
011 |
012
|
013|
014
|
015|
016
|
017|
018
|
019|
020
|
021|
022
|
023|
024
|
025|
026
|
027 |
028
|
029|
030
|
031|
032
|
033 |
034
|
035|
036
|
037|
038
|
039|
040
|
041|
042
|
043|
044
|
045|
046
|
047|
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
12
34
5
12
34
5
12
34
5
12
34
5
12
34
5
12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5
12
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
12
345
12
345
12
345
12345
12345
12345
12345 12
345
12
345
12
345
12
3
4
5
12
3
4
5
12
3
4
5
1
2
34
5
1
2
34
5
12
34
5
12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5 12
34
5
12
34
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
1234
5
-0.25
0
0.25
Transfer Function Profile conductor_ew - 32, 48, 100, 180 Hz
TZY
W E
1
Tyi
|
001|
002
|
003|
004
|
005 |
006
|
007|
008
|
009|
010
|
011 |
012
|
013|
014
|
015|
016
|
017|
018
|
019|
020
|
021|
022
|
023|
024
|
025|
026
|
027 |
028
|
029|
030
|
031|
032
|
033 |
034
|
035|
036
|
037|
038
|
039|
040
|
041|
042
|
043|
044
|
045|
046
|
047|
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
123
4
123
4
1234 1234 1234
1234
123
4
123
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
12
3
4
200m
400m
500m
3200 ohm-m
100 ohm-m
2D Resistivity Model – Poorly Conductive Buried Prism
1=32Hz
2=48Hz
3=100Hz
4=180Hz
5=380Hz
1=32Hz
2=48Hz
3=100Hz
4=180Hz
5=380Hz
Z
X
+25%
0%
-25%
+25%
0%
-25%
50m Air Layer

Project GL160353
9
Figure D7: 2D synthetic forward model Tipper response (Tzx) for resistive brick model.
3000
2000
1000
0
Depth(METERS)
W E
E-W
|
001 |
002
|
003 |
004
|
005 |
006
|
007 |
008
|
009 |
010
|
011 |
012
|
013 |
014
|
015 |
016
|
017 |
018
|
019 |
020
|
021 |
022
|
023 |
024
|
025 |
026
|
027 |
028
|
029 |
030
|
031 |
032
|
033 |
034
|
035 |
036
|
037 |
038
|
039 |
040
|
041 |
042
|
043 |
044
|
045 |
046
|
047 |
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Ohm-M
1
1.8
3.2
5.6
10
18
32
50
100
180
320
560
1000
1800
3200
5600
-0.05
-0.025
0
0.025
0.05
TZY
W E
1
Tyr
|
001|
002
|
003|
004
|
005 |
006
|
007|
008
|
009|
010
|
011 |
012
|
013|
014
|
015|
016
|
017|
018
|
019|
020
|
021|
022
|
023|
024
|
025|
026
|
027 |
028
|
029|
030
|
031|
032
|
033 |
034
|
035|
036
|
037|
038
|
039|
040
|
041|
042
|
043|
044
|
045|
046
|
047|
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12345
12345 12345 12345
12345
12345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12
345
12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
-0.05
-0.025
0
0.025
0.05
TZY
W E
1
Tyi
|
001|
002
|
003|
004
|
005 |
006
|
007|
008
|
009|
010
|
011 |
012
|
013|
014
|
015|
016
|
017|
018
|
019|
020
|
021|
022
|
023|
024
|
025|
026
|
027 |
028
|
029|
030
|
031|
032
|
033 |
034
|
035|
036
|
037|
038
|
039|
040
|
041|
042
|
043|
044
|
045|
046
|
047|
048
|
049 |
050
METERS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
2D Resistivity Model – Resistive Buried Prism
1=32Hz
2=48Hz
3=100Hz
4=180Hz
5=380Hz
1=32Hz
2=48Hz
3=100Hz
4=180Hz
5=380Hz
Z
X
200m
400m
500m
100 ohm-m
3200 ohm-m
Note: Negative to Positive
+5%
0%
-5%
+5%
0%
-5%
50m Air Layer

Project GL160353
1
APPENDIX E
ZTEM NATURAL FIELD AIRBORNE EM SYSTEM
The ZTEM™ system uses worldwide sferic thunderstorm activity as its primary EM source field and,
like other ground natural source EM methods, such as AMT, is capable of depths of investigation
ranging from tens to thousands of meters. Coupling this with its sensitivity to weak lateral
resistivity contrasts and the benefits of rapid 2D-3D inversion make it a powerful subsurface rapid
reconnaissance geologic mapping tool. ZTEM™ (z-axis tipper electromagnetic) natural field
airborne EM system (Fig. 1), the only commercially available airborne AFMAG (audio frequency
magneto-variational) system of its kind worldwide and features a unique resistivity mapping
capability that rivals ground electrical surveys.
Figure E1: The ZTEM natural field AFMAG EM system: a) Showing ZTEM helicopter system in flight, b)
ZTEM airborne receiver (HZ), and b) New compact ZTEM base-station sensors (HX & HY).
ZTEMTM was specifically designed to map large base metals deposits, such as porphyry copper and
sedimentary exhalative (SEDEX) massive sulphide orebodies, and unconformity uranium which
are often deeply buried and, except for their alteration zones, are poorly contrasted, geophysically,
with the surrounding geology and has historically made them difficult to detect with airborne EM
methods. But ZTEMTM has also been successfully used over for larger VMS deposits and large
magmatic nickel deposits, and, more recently, high, low or intermediate epithermal gold
deposits. ZTEMTM has been used in geothermal exploration and combined with magnetics and
gravity in regional mapping studies.
Porphyry Copper: Zang and Lo (2008) were the first to demonstrate the ZTEMTM ability to map
the alteration halos surrounding the Freeport McMoran Dos Pobres, San Juan and Lone Star
porphyry copper orebodies in the Safford mining district of Arizona (Fig. 2). ZTEMTM was the first
airborne EM method to define the conductive phyllic alteration halo surrounding the resistive,
mineralized potassic-altered core of the blind Lone Star (966 Mt @ 0.25% Cu) porphyry copper
deposit (Fig. 2bc) that is entirely covered by Tertiary volcanics (Fig. 2a).

Project GL160353
2
Figure E2: First published exploration success of ZTEM at Dos Pobres-San Juan-Lone Star porphyries, in
Safford porphyry copper district of Arizona: a) Simplified geology, showing location of major porphyry
copper deposits and ZTEM survey lines, b) 3D view of ZTEM Karous-Hjelt (KH) conductivity shells and
porphyry copper deposit outlines; and c) 3D view of ZTEM KH conductivity shells that surround drill holes
into the Lone Star deposit (all images from Zang and Lo, 2008).
ZTEMTM was next successfully applied over the Thompson Creek Metals Mt Milligan Cu-Mo
porphyry deposit (Fig. 3), where Holtham and Oldenburg (2009) showed that 3D ZTEMTM
inversion could be used to accurately image the potassic and phyllic alteration at depth (Fig. 3b).
ZTEMTM define both the Northern Dynasty Pebble West and Pebble East porphyry Cu-Au
deposits (Fig. 4) to below 1.5km based on favourable resistivity contrasts with the surrounding
country rocks (Paré et al., 2012).
Figure E3: ZTEM results over Mt Milligan Cu-Mo porphyry, British Columbia: a) Vertical geologic cross-
section over MBX stock, b) ZTEM section over MBX from 3D ZTEM inversion by Holtham and Oldenburg
(2009), and c) 3D voxel view from ZTEM 3D inversion by Holtham and Oldenburg (2009).
Figure E4: ZTEM results over Pebble Cu-Au porphyry, Alaska: a) Ore grade cross-section over Pebble
deposit (after Rebagliati et al., 2009) b) ZTEM resistivity section from 3D ZTEM inversion by Paré et al.
(2012), and c) Resistivity depth-slice from ZTEM 3D inversion by Holtham and Oldenburg (2012).

Project GL160353
3
In 2012 ZTEM was successfully used to target drilling into the Maoba zone (Fig. 5) in the Liamu
porphyry project in Papua New Guinea for Goldminex Resources-Vale JV
(www.goldminex.com.au). ZTEMTM has been credited for the blind Balboa porphyry copper
discovery at First Quantum Cobre Panama mine (Fig. 6ab) by Burge (2014). Most recently
Kazgeology JSC have discovered a Cu-porphyry style zone at 240-800m depth at Altynshoki, in the
Karaganda region of central Kazakhstan with ZTEM (Fig. 7). These examples illustrate applications
of ZTEM that have led to successful discovery of porphyry copper deposits using the Z-axis tipper
electromagnetic (ZTEM™) system.
Figure E5: Goldminex-Vale JV press release (2012) showing: a) Soil geochemistry over Liamu project,
PNG, b) ZTEM 3D conductivity model and MABDH002 discovery hole, and c) Drilling of Maoba prospect.
Figure E6: ZTEM results over Balboa Cu-Au porphyry at Cobre Panama: a) Deposit outlines in mine plan
at Cobre Panama (Fiscor, 2014), b) ZTEM 360Hz In-phase TPR anomalies, showing deposit outlines and
drill holes (Burge, 2014), and c) ZTEM 2D resistivity section over Balboa deposit, showing orebody outline
(Legault and Wijns, 2016).

Project GL160353
4
Figure E7: Altynshoki Cu-porphyry discovery by Kazgeology, Karaganda, Kazakhstan: a) Altynshoki
property location, b) ZTEM 2D resistivity sections over, buried conductivity high, showing 800m deep
discovery drill hole, and c) ZTEM 3D resistivity voxel, showing Altynshoki location (courtesy Kazgeology,
2016).
Sedimentary Exhalative: The first major regional survey using ZTEMTM was in 2008 over the
Selwyn Basin, in Yukon Territory, Canada, where a 25,000 km2 region was systematically surveyed
for SEDEX Pb-Zn, including the world-class, 250 Mt Selwyn Chihong Mining Howard’s Pass Pb-Zn
SEDEX deposits (Fig. 8), where ZTEMTM defined the >70km long “zinc corridor” that hosts the
known mineralization (Legault et al., 2016). In 2012, as part of a larger regional airborne
geophysical mapping program, the historic Ma’aden Mining Nuqrah Cu-Pb-Zn-Ag SEDEX deposits
in west-central Saudi-Arabia were successfully mapped (Fig. 8b), and a potential possible deep
(>1km) downdip extension (Fig. 8c) was identified (Legault et al, 2015).
Figure E8: ZTEM surveys applied to SEDEX exploration: a) ZTEM total divergence image over world class
SEDEX deposits (20Mt) at Howard’s Pass, Yukon (Legault et al., 2016), b) ZTEM 2D resistivity depth-slice
and c) 3D resistivity voxel for 2D inversions over Nuqrah SEDEX deposits, Saudi-Arabia (Legault et al.,
2014).
Unconformity Uranium: Following the successful initial trials of ZTEMTM for porphyry copper
exploration in Arizona, the first surveys in Canada were over the deeply buried unconformity
uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. At Riou Lake, along the northern edge of
Athabasca Basin, complexly folded, deeply buried graphitic argillites were mapped along the Black
Lake Shear Zone below >500m-700m thick sandstones (Fig. 9a) at UEX Resources Riou Lake
deposit (Legault et al., 2009). ZTEMTM successfully mapped the Saskatoon Lake Graphite that hosts

Project GL160353
5
the 2.1Mt (1.5% U3O8) Colette, Kianna and Anne zone unconformity uranium deposits, belonging
to AREVA-UEX JV at >700m depth at Shea Creek (Fig. 9bc), near Cluff Lake, Saskatchewan
(http://www.uex-corporation.com).
Figure E9: ZTEM surveys applied to unconformity uranium exploration: a) ZTEM total divergence image
along graphitic Black Lake Shear Zone, at Riou Lake, Saskatchewan (Legault et al., 2009), b) ZTEM total
phase rotated tipper and c) 2D resistivity section from 2D inversions over Kianna Zone at Shea Creek,
Saskatchewan (courtesy Areva Resources CAN and UEX Corp, 2009).
VMS deposits: Due to ZTEM’s large EM footprint, it’s sensitivity to smaller (<1 Mt), ore deposits is
superseded by VTEMTM, which is the preferred EM survey platform for volcanogenic massive
sulphide (VMS) exploration. However, ZTEMTM was nevertheless successfully applied over the
Metalex Ventures 501 Zone VMS (Fig. 10a) in the Ring of Fire District on Ontario to determine its
potential extension to depth (Orta et al., 2013). In 2009, ZTEMTM was famously the first airborne EM
system to successfully resolve the 14.4 Mt Hudbay Lalor Lake Cu-Zn-Au VMS deposit near Snow
Lake, Manitoba (Fig. 10bc) to 1200m depths, below 550m of volcanic cover (Legault et al, 2015).
Figure E10: ZTEM surveys applied to VMS exploration: a) ZTEM 2D resistivity-depth sections over 501
Zone VMS deposit, Ontario (Orta et al., 2013); b) ZTEM 2D resistivity depth-slice and c) ZTEM 3D
resistivity and Magnetic 3D inversion cross-sections over Lalor VMS deposit, near Snow Lake, Manitoba
(Legault et al., 2015).
Magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE: ZTEMTM has been successfully applied as follow-up to VTEMTM over
Magmatic Ni-Cu MS (massive sulphide) deposits to determine their potential extensions to depth.
These include the 3.6 Mt (0.66% Ni, 0.6% Cu) Purepoint Nickel Axis Lake MMS deposit (Fig. 11a) in
northern Saskatchewan (Legault et al., 2009), the Ni-Cu-PGE prospect at Western Area-Mustang

Project GL160353
6
Minerals JV East Bull Lake Anorthosite (Orta et al., 2011) and the 9.2 Mt (0.61% Cu, 0.23% Ni)
Mustang Minerals Mayville MMS deposit (Orta et al., 2012). In fact, a ZTEMTM survey predicted the
>1km extension at depth (Fig. 11bc) of the 3.6 Mt (3.6% Ni0.95% Cu, 1.3g/t PT) of Noront
Resources Eagle’s Nest MMS deposit in Ring of Fire district, northern Ontario (Legault et al. 2010).
Figure E11: ZTEM surveys applied to MMS exploration: a) ZTEM 360Hz In-phase DT, VTEM dBz/dt time-
constant (Tau), and aeromagnetic TMI images over Axis Lake and Rae Lake Ni-Cu-PGE deposits, northern
Saskatchewan (Legault et al., 2009); b) ZTEM 360Hz In-phase DT image and c) ZTEM 2D resistivity
inversion cross-section over Eagle’s Nest Ni-Cu-PGE MMS deposit, in Ring of Fire, northern Ontario
Epithermal Gold: In addition to mapping alteration associated with porphyry copper, ZTEMTM has
also been successfully used for mapping structural controls and alteration in Epithermal gold
systems including low sulphidation (LS), intermediate (IS) and high sulphidation (HS) systems.
Over the Tri Metals Mining Gold Springs LS gold-silver deposit (22.2 Mt at 0.5 g/t Au, 9.8 g/t Ag)
in Nevada, ZTEMTM showed that the known gold occurrences were all associated with larger silica
alteration features and structures (Fig. 12a), buried below ground cover, and later helped better
direct the resource definition drilling (Legault et al., 2012). Over the Timmins Gold Aurea Norte
old-silver project in Guerrero, Mexico, ZTEMTM established the strike extent of the known ore
trends (Fig. 12b) related to the Ana Paula HS gold-silver deposit (44.8 Mt resources at 2.2M oz.
Au, 11M oz. Ag) and the nearby San Luis gold skarn deposit (Legault et al., 2015). Over the
GoldQuest Corp. Romero IS polymetallic gold-copper-zinc-silver project (19.4 Mt at 2.63 g/t Au,
0.63% Cu, 0.9% Zn, 3.7 g/t Ag) in Dominican Republic, ZTEMTM helped map the map the main
structural control and clay-silica alteration of the main ore trend (Fig. 12c), as well as establishing
the previously unknown deep (>500m) continuity between the Romero North and Romero South
deposits (Legault et al., 2016).

Project GL160353
7
Figure E12: ZTEM surveys applied to Epithermal gold exploration: a) ZTEM 90Hz In-phase over Gold
Springs Au-Ag deposit, Nevada (Legault et al., 2012); b) ZTEM 2D resistivity inversion depth-slice (300m)
image over Aurea Norte Au-Ag project, Guerrero, Mexico (Legault et al., 2015); and c) ZTEM 3D
resistivity depth-slice (500m) over Romero Au-Cu-Zn-Ag project, Dominican Republic (Legault et al.,
2016).
Geothermal: Since it is commonly recognised that epithermal gold systems are the shallow
portion of fossil geothermal systems (Williams, 1997), ZTEM can similarly easily applied to
mapping alteration, lithology and structure for geothermal exploration. Figure 13a presents a 3D
resistivity model from 2D ZTEM inversion results at the US Navy Eleven Mile Canyon geothermal
range in central Nevada, highlighting the presence of clay-alteration at depth (after Legault et al.,
2012). Figure 13b presents 2D cross-sections through a joint 3D MT-ZTEM inversion model over
the Ram Power Reese River geothermal range in north-eastern Nevada that identify conductive
clay-cap alteration over a potentially deeply buried resistive geothermal heat source (after Witter
(2010) and Legault et al., 2011). Finally, Figure 13c shows a comparison between a 3D MT
resistivity cross-section across the Energia Andina Pampa Lirima geothermal field and the
corresponding 3D ZTEM resistivity model highlighting similarities in the upper 2km depths but also
differences in lateral resolution (after Legault et al., 2013).
Figure E13: ZTEM surveys applied to geothermal exploration: A) 3D View of ZTEM 2D resistivity inversion
results at Eleven Mile Canyon geothermal resource (Legault et al., 2012); B) 2D Cross-sections through
3D Geologic-Geophysical model at Reese River geothermal resource (Legault et al., 2011); C) 2D cross-
sections of 3D MT inversion and 3D ZTEM inversion models across Pampa Lirima geothermal resource

Project GL160353
8
Regional Mapping: By virtue of its deep penetration and large EM footprint, ZTEMTM is
particularly well suited to large regional geophysical survey mapping applications, particularly
in cases where low magnetic susceptibilities and extensive ground cover do not favour
conventional aeromagnetic-spectrometric methods. One such example was the major regional
survey using ZTEMTM from 2008 that covered 25,000 km2 region of the Selwyn Basin, in Yukon
Territory, Canada. As shown in Figure 14a, the structural information obtained from the ZTEM is
highlighted compared to the relatively limited information obtained in the aeromagnetics (Fig. 14b)
in this unusually low-magnetic susceptibility sedimentary basin (after Carne et al., 2015). Fig. 14c
presents results of a recent integrated helicopter ZTEM-Gravity-Magnetic system test over the
Vredefort Dome Complex, in South Africa, that highlights the high resolution and deep
penetration(>1.5km) mapping capability using this multi-parameter system (after Legault et al.,
2016).
Figure E14: Regional ZTEM survey applications: A) ZTEM 90Hz In-phase Total Divergence and; b)
Magnetic TMI over Selwyn Basin (after Carne et al., 2015); and C) Integrated helicopter ZTEM-Gravity-
Magnetic system results over Vredefort Dome Complex, South Africa: a) 3D Density at 500m elevation, b)
3D Magnetic-Susceptibility at 500m, c) 2D ZTEM Resistivity at 1km elevation, and d) ZTEM 2D resistivity-
depth cross-sections across Vredefort Dome Complex (after Legault et al., 2016).

Project GL160353
1
APPENDIX F
2D INVERSIONS
Please see Inversion Folder in the Final Data for the PDFs

Geotech IMT ZTEM 3d ppp Nov.2018

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to Geotech IMT ZTEM 3d ppp Nov.2018

Similar to Geotech IMT ZTEM 3d ppp Nov.2018 (20)

More from Follow me on Twitter @Stockshaman

More from Follow me on Twitter @Stockshaman (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (19)

Geotech IMT ZTEM 3d ppp Nov.2018