Natural potentials and currents

Electrical investigations of natural electrical properties arebased on the measurement of the

voltage between a pair of electrodes implanted in the ground. Natural differences in
potential occur in relation to subsurface bodies that create their own electric fields. The bodies
act like simple voltaic cells; their potential arises from electrochemical action.
Natural currents (called telluric currents) flow in the crust and mantle of the Earth. They are
induced electromagnetically by electric currents in the ionosphere .In studying natural
potentials and currents the scientist has no control over the source of the signal. This restricts
the interpretation, which is mostly only qualitative. The natural methods are not as useful as
controlled induction methods, such as resistivity and electromagnetic techniques, but they are
inexpensive and fast.
1 Self-potential (spontaneous potential)

A potential that originates spontaneously in the ground

is called a self-potential (or spontaneous potential).
Some self-potentials are due to man-made
disturbances of the environment, such as buried
electrical cables, drainage pipes or waste disposal
sites. They are important in the study of environmental
problems. Other self-potentials are natural effects due
to mechanical or electrochemical action. In every case
the groundwater plays a key role by acting as an electrolyte.
Some self-potentials have a mechanical origin. When an electrolyte is forced to flow through a
narrow pipe, a potential difference (voltage) may arise between the ends of the pipe. Its
amplitude depends on the electrical resistivity and viscosity of the electrolyte, and on the
pressure difference that causes the flow. The voltage is due to differences in the electrokinetic
or streaming potential, which in turn is influenced by the interaction between the
liquid and the surface of the solid (an effect called the zeta-potential). The voltage can be
positive or negative and may amount to some hundreds of millivolts. This
type of self-potential can be observed in conjunction with seepage of water from dams, or the
flow of groundwater through different lithological units.
Most self-potentials have an electrochemical origin. For example, if the ionic concentration in
an electrolyte varies with location, the ions tend to diffuse through the electrolyte so as to
equalize the concentration. The diffusion is driven by an electric diffusion potential, which
depends on the temperature as well as the difference in ionic concentration.When a metallic
electrode is inserted in the ground, the metal reacts electrochemically with the electrolyte (i.e.,
groundwater), causing a contact potential.
If two identical electrodes are inserted in the ground, variations in concentration of the
electrolyte cause different electrochemical reactions at each electrode. A potential difference
arises, called the Nernst potential. The combined diffusion and Nernst potentials are called the
electrochemical self-potential. It is temperature sensitive and may be either positive or
negative, amounting to at most a few tens of millivolts.
The self-potentials that originate by the above mechanisms are attracting increased attention in
environmental and engineering situations. However, in the exploration for
subsurface regions of mineralization they are often smaller than the potentials associated with
orebodies and are classified accordingly as “background potentials.”The self-potential
associated with an orebody is called its “mineralization potential.” Self-potential (SP)
anomalies across orebodies are invariably negative, amounting usually to a few hundred
millivolts. They are most commonly associated with sulfide ores, such as pyrite, pyrrhotite, and
chalcopyrite, but also with graphite and some metallic oxides.
The origin of the mineralization type of self-potential is still obscure, despite decades of
applied investigations.
At one time it was thought that the effect arose from galvanic action. This occurs when
dissimilar metal electrodes are placed in an electrolyte. Unequal contact potentials
are formed between the metals and the electrolyte, giving rise to a potential difference between
the electrodes.
According to this model an orebody behaves like a simple voltaic cell, with groundwater acting
as the electrolyte. It was believed that oxidation of the part of the orebody above the water
table produced a potential difference between the upper and lower parts, causing a spontaneous
electric polarization of the body. Oxidation involves the addition of electrons, so the top of the
orebody becomes negatively charged, explaining the observed negative anomalies.
Unfortunately, this simple model does not explain many of the observed features of self-
potential anomalies and has proved to be untenable.
Another mechanism for self-potential depends on variations in oxidation (redox) potential with
depth (Fig. 4.42).
The ground above the water table is more accessible to oxygen than the submersed part, so
moisture above the water table contains more oxidized ions than that below it.
An electrochemical reaction takes place at the surface between the orebody and the host rock
above the water table. It results in reduction of the oxidized ions in theadjacent solution. An
excess of negative ions appears above the water table. A simultaneous reaction between the
submersed part of the orebody and the groundwater causes oxidation of the reduced ions
present in the groundwater.
This produces excess positive ions in the solution and liberates electrons at the surface of the
orebody, which acts as a conductor connecting the two half-cells. Electrons
flow from the deep part to the shallow part of the orebody.
Outside the orebody, positive ions move from bottom to top along the electric field lines. The
equipotential surfaces are normal to the field lines. The self-potential is measured
where they intersect the ground surface .
The redox model is inadequate for the same reason as the galvanic model; it fails to account for
many of the observed features of self-potential anomalies. In particular, the association of self-
potential models with the water table has been cast in doubt. Moreover, sulfide orebodies
appear to persist for geological lengths of time, so that a mechanism involving permanent flow
of charge appears unlikely. Self-potential is a feature of a stable system that
is perturbed by making an electrical connection between the host rock and the sulfide
conductor through the inserted electrodes and their connecting wire. The observed potential
difference appears to be due to the difference in oxidation potential between the locations of
the measurement electrodes, one inside and the other outside the zone of mineralization.

2 SP surveying

The equipment needed for an SP survey is very

simple. It consists of a sensitive high-impedance
digital voltmeter to measure the natural potential
difference between two electrodes implanted in the
ground. Simple metal stakes are inadequate as
electrodes. Electrochemical reactions take place
between the metal and moisture in the ground,
causing the build-up of spurious charges on the
electrodes, which can falsify or obscure the small
natural self-potentials. To avoid or minimize this
effect non-polarizable electrodes are used. Each
electrode consists of a metal rod submersed in a
saturated solution of its own msalt; a common
arrangement is a copper rod in copper msulfate
solution. The combination is contained in a
mceramic pot which allows the electrolyte to leak slowly
through its porous walls, thereby making electrical mcontact with the ground.
Two field methods are in common use .The gradient method employs a fixed separation
between the electrodes, of the order of 10 m. The potential difference is measured between the
electrodes, then the pair is moved forward along the survey line until the trailing electrode
occupies the location previously occupied by the leading electrode. The total potential at a
measurement station relative to a starting point outside the study area is found by summing the
incremental potential differences. Some electrode polarization is unavoidable, even with
nonpolarizable electrodes. This gives rise to a small error ineach measurement; these add up to
a cumulative error in the total potential. The polarization effects can sometimes
be reduced by interchanging the leading and trailing electrodes.
In this “leapfrog” technique the leading electrode for one measurement is kept in place and
becomes the trailing electrode for the next measurement; meanwhile the previous
trailing electrode is moved ahead to become the leading electrode. Cumulative error is the most
serious disadvantage of the fixed electrode configuration. A practical advantage of the
technique is that only a short length of nconnecting wire must be moved along with the
electrodes.
The total field method utilizes a fixed electrode at a base station outside the area of exploration
and a mobile measuring electrode. With this method the total potential is measured directly at
each station. The wire connecting the electrodes has to be long enough to allow good coverage
of the area of interest. This necessitates a long wire that must be wound or unwound on a reel
for each measurement station. However, the total field method results in smaller cumulative
error than the gradient method. It allows more flexibility in placing the mobile electrode and
usually gives data of better quality. Hence, the total field method is usually preferred except in
difficult terrain.
The surveying procedure with each technique consists of measuring potential at discrete
stations along a profile.
As in gravity and magnetic surveys, the data are mapped and interpretations of anomalies are
based on their geometry. Methods used to interpret self-potential anomalies are often
qualitative or are based on simple geometric models. Visual inspection of mapped anomalies
may reveal trends related to elongation of the orebody; crowding of contour lines can indicate
its orientation.
Profiles plotted in known directions across the anomaly can be compared with curves
generated from simple models of the source. For example, a polarized sphere may
be used to model the source of approximately circular anomalies, while a horizontal line source
(or polarized cylinder) may be used to model an elongate anomaly. A common and effective
method is to model SP anomalies with point sources; complex anomalies are modelled with
combinations of sources and sinks.

Hypothetical contour lines of a negative self-

potentialanomaly over an orebody; the
asymmetry of the anomaly along the profile AB
suggests that the orebody dips toward A.

4.3.4.3 Telluric currents

Ultraviolet radiation from the Sun ionizes molecules of air in the thin upper atmosphere of the
Earth. The ions accumulate in several layers, forming the ionosphere at altitudes between about
80 km and 1500 km above the Earth’s surface. Electric currents in the ionosphere arise from
systematic motions of the ions, which are affected by various factors such as the daily and
monthly tides, seasonal variations in insolation and the periodic fluctuation in ionization
related to the 11-yr sunspot cycle. The currents produce varying magnetic fields with the same
frequencies, which are observed at the surface of the Earth and can be analyzed from long-term
continuous records of the geomagnetic field. The ionospheric effects show up in the energy
spectrum of the geomagnetic field as distinct peaks representing periods that
range from fractions of a second (geomagnetic
pulsations) to several years .The magnetic
fields inducefluctuating electric currents,
called telluric currents, that flow in horizontal
layers in the crust and mantle. The current
pattern consists of several huge whorls,
thousands of kilometers across, which remain
fixed with respect to the Sun and thus move
around the Earth as it rotates.
The distribution of telluric current density
depends on the variation of resistivity in the
horizontal conducting layers. At shallow
crustal depths the lines of current flow
are disturbed by subsurface structures which
cause contrasts in resistivity. These could arise
from geological structures or the presence of
mineralized zones. Consider, for example, a
buried anticline which has a highly resistive
rock (such as granite) as its core and is
overlain by a conducting layer of porous
sedimentary rocks saturated with groundwater. The horizontal flow of telluric current across
the anticline chooses the less-resistive path through the conducting sediments. The current lines
bunch together over the axis of the anticline, increasing the horizontal
current density. The equipotential surfaces mnormal to the current lines intersect the ground
surface, where potential differences can be measured with a high-impedance voltmeter.
The field equipment for measuring telluric current density is simple. The sensors are a pair of
non-polarizable electrodes with a fixed separation L of the order of 10–100 m. The potential
difference V between the electrodes is measured with a high-impedance voltmeter. The
electric field E at a point mid-way between the electrodes mcan be assumed to be V/L. Using
Ohm’s law, and assuming that the telluric current flows in conducting rock layer with
resistivity r1, the telluric current density J at each measurement station along a profile .
The direction of the telluric current is not known, so two pairs of electrodes oriented
perpendicular to each other are used. One pair is aligned north–south, the other east–west.
Telluric currents vary unpredictably with time, but they change only slowly within a
homogeneous region. To keep track of the temporal changes an orthogonal pair of electrodes is
set up at a fixed base station outside the area to be explored. Another orthogonal pair is moved
across the survey area. The potential differences across each electrode pair in the mobile and
base arrays are recorded simultaneously for several minutes at each measurement station.
Correlation of the records allows removal of the temporal changes in direction and intensity
of the telluric currents.
The deflection of telluric current by a resistive subsurface structure is greatly idealized.
It assumes an infinite resistivity r2 in the core of the anticline. In practice, the current is not
completely diverted through the better-conducting layer; part flows through
the more resistive layer as well. Thus we cannot assume that the resistivity r1 corresponds to
the good conductor. Rather, it represents some undefined mixture of the values r1 and r2. It is
not the true resistivity of either layer, but the apparent resistivity of the measurement.

Telluric current lines are deflected by changes in

thickness ofa conducting layer over a more
resistive structure (bottom). The telluriccurrent
density (top) is obtained from the
voltagemeasured between apair of fixed-
separation electrodes at the surface
(afterRobinson andÇoruh, 1988).

5 Resistivity surveying
The large contrast in resistivity between orebodies and their host rocks is exploited in electrical
resistivity prospecting, especially for minerals that occur as good conductors. Representative
examples are the sulfide ores of iron, copper and nickel. Electrical resistivity surveying is also
an important geophysical technique in environmental applications. For example, due to the
good electrical conductivity of groundwater the resistivity of a sedimentary rock is much lower
when it is waterlogged than in the dry state.
Instead of relying on natural currents, two electrodes are used to supply a controlled electrical
current to the ground. As in the telluric method, the lines of current flow adapt to the
subsurface resistivity pattern so that the potential difference between equipotential surfaces can
be measured where they intersect the ground surface, using a second pair of electrodes. A
simple direct current can cause charges to accumulate on the potential electrodes, which
results in spurious signals. A common practice is to commutate the direct current so that its
direction is reversed every few seconds; alternatively a low-frequency alternating current may
be used. In multi-electrode investigations the current electrode-pair and potential electrode-pair
are usually interchangeable

1 Potential of a single electrode

Consider the flow of current around an electrode that introduces a current I at the surface of a
uniform halfspace . The point of contact acts as a current source, from which the current
disperses outward. The electric field lines are parallel to the current flow and normal to the
equipotential surfaces, which are hemispherical in shape. The current density J is equal to I
divided by the surface area, which is 2_r2 for a hemisphere of radius r. The electric field E at
distance r from the input electrode is obtained from Ohm’s law.
Putting this expression in Eq. (4.74) yields the electric
potential U at distance r from the input electrode:
If the ground is a uniform half-space, the electric field lines around a source electrode, which
supplies current to the ground, are directed radially outward (Fig. 4.47b).
Around a sink electrode, where current flows out of the ground, the field lines are directed
radially inward .The equipotential surfaces around a source or sink electrode are hemispheres,
if we regard the electrodein isolation. The potential around a source is positive and
diminishes as 1/r with increasing distance. The sign of I is negative at a sink, where the current
flows out of the ground. Thus, around a sink the potential is negative and
increases (becomes less negative) as 1/r with increasing distance from the sink. We can use
these observations to calculate the potential difference between a second pair
of electrodes at known distances from the source and sink.
Electric field lines and
equipotential surfaces around a
single electrode at the surface of a
uniform half-space: (a)
hemispherical equipotential
surfaces, (b) radially outward field
lines around a source, and (c)
radially inward field lines around a
sink.

2 The general four-electrode method

Consider an arrangement consisting of a pair of current electrodes and a pair of potential

electrodes (Fig. 4.48). The current electrodes A and B act as source and sink, respectively. At
the detection electrode C the potential due to the source A is _rI/(2_rAC), while the potential
due to the sink .The combined potential at C is
Similarly, the resultant potential at D is
The potential difference measured by a voltmeter connected between C and D is
All quantities in this equation can be measured at theground surface except the resistivity

General four-electrode
configuration for resistivity
measurement, consisting of a pair
of current electrodes (A, B) and a
pair of potential electrodes (C, D).
3 Special electrode configurations
The general formula for the resistivity measured by a four electrode method is simpler for
some special geometries of the current and potential electrodes. The most commonly used
configurations are the Wenner, Schlumberger and double-dipole arrangements. In each
configuration the four electrodes are collinear but their geometries and spacings
are different.
In the Wenner configuration the current and potential electrode pairs have a common mid-
point and the distances between adjacent electrodes are equal, so that rAC_rDB_a,
andInserting these
values in gives
In the Schlumberger configuration the current and potential pairs of electrodes often also have
a common mid-point, but the distances between adjacent electrodes differ. Let the separations
of the current and potential electrodes be L and a, respectively. Then rAC_ rDB_(L – a)/2 and
rAD_rCB_(L_a)/2. Substituting in the general formula, we get
In this configuration the separation of the current electrodes is kept much larger than that of the
potential electrodes (L_a). Under these conditions, Eq. (4.92) simplifies to

In the double-dipole configuration (Fig. 4.49c)

the spacing of the electrodes in each pair is a,
while the distance between their mid-points is L,
which is generally much larger than a. Note that
detection electrode D is defined as the potential
electrode closer to current sink B.
In this case rAD_rBC_L, rAC_L_a, and rBD_L
– a.
The measured resistivity

Two modes of investigation can be used with each electrode configuration. The Wenner
configuration is best adapted to lateral profiling. The assemblage of four electrodes
is displaced stepwise along a profile while maintaining constant values of the inter-electrode
distances corresponding to the configuration employed. The separation of the current
electrodes is chosen so that the current flow is maximized in depths where lateral resistivity
contrasts are expected. Results from a number of profiles may be compiled in a resistivity map
of the region of interest.
The regional survey reveals the horizontal variations in resistivity within an area at a particular
depth. It is best suited to locating steeply dipping contacts between rocks with a strong
resistivity contrast and good conducr tors such as mineralized dikes, which may be potential
orebodies.
In vertical electrical sounding (VES) the goal is to observe the variation of resistivity with
depth. The technique is best adapted to determining depth and resistivity for flat-lying layered
rock structures, such as sedimentary beds, or the depth to the water table. The Schlumberger
configuration is most commonly used for VES investigations.
The mid-point of the array is kept fixed while the distance between the current electrodes is
progressively increased. This causes the current lines to penetrate to
ever greater depths, depending on the vertical distribution of conductivity.

4 Current distribution

The current pattern in a uniform half-space extends laterally on either side of the profile line.
Viewed from above, the current lines bulge outward between source and sink
with a geometry similar to that shown in Fig. In a vertical section the current lines resemble
half of a dipole geometry. In three dimensions the current can be visualized as flowing through
tubes that fatten as they leave the source and narrow as they converge towards the sink.
Figure 4.50 shows the flow pattern of the current in a verticalsection through the “tubes” in a
uniform half-space.
In order to evaluate the depth penetration of current in a uniform half-space we define
orthogonal Cartesian coordinates with the x-axis parallel to the profile and the z-axis vertical
(Fig. 4.51a). Let the spacing of the current electrodes be L and the resistivity of the half-space
be r.
The horizontal electric field Ex at (x, y, z) is
(4.96)
where r1_(x2_y2_z2)1/2 and r2_((L – x)2_y2_z2)1/2.
Differentiating and using Ohm’s law (Eq. (4.80)) gives the
horizontal current density Jx at (x, y, z):
 (a) Parameters of the four-electrode
arrangement, (b)
distribution of current lines in a two-layer ground with resistivities r1
and r2 (r1_r2) and (c) the variation of apparent resistivity as the current
electrode spacing is varied for the two cases of r1_r2 and r1_r2.

5 Apparent resistivity
In the idealized case of a perfectly uniform conducting
half-space the current flow lines resemble a dipole pattern
(Fig. 4.50), and the resistivity determined with a four-electrode
configuration is the true resistivity of the half-space.
But in real situations the resistivity is determined by
different lithologies and geological structures and so may
be very inhomogeneous. This complexity is not taken into
account when measuring resistivity with a four-electrode
method, which assumes that the ground is uniform. The
result of such a measurement is the apparent resistivity of
an equivalent uniform half-space and generally does not
represent the true resistivity of any part of the ground.
Consider a horizontally layered structure in which a
layer of thickness d and resistivity r1 overlies a conducting
half-space with a lower resistivity r2 (Fig. 4.52). If the
current electrodes are close together, so that L_d, all or
most of the current flows in the more resistive upper layer,
so that the measured resistivity is close to the true value of
the upper layer, r1. With increasing separation of the
current electrodes the depth reached by the current lines
increases. Proportionally more current flows in the less
resistive layer, so the measured resistivity decreases.
Conversely, if the upper layer is a better conductor
than the lower layer, the apparent resistivity increases with
increasing electrode spacing. When the electrode separation
is much larger than the thickness of the upper layer
(L _d) the measured resistivity is close to the value r2 of
the bottom layer. Between the extreme situations the
apparent resistivity determined from the measured current
and voltage is not related simply to the true resistivity of
either layer.

4.3.5.6 Vertical electrical sounding

A two-layer situation is encountered often in electrical
prospecting, for example when a conducting overburden
overlies a resistive basement. It is also common in environmental
applications, when the conducting water table lies
under drier, more resistive soil or rocks. Before the advent
of portable computers, two-layer cases were interpreted
with the aid of characteristic curves. These theoretical
curves, calculated for a particular four-electrode array,
take into account the change in depth penetration when
current lines cross the boundary to a layer with different
resistivity. The electrical boundary conditions require continuity
of the component of current density J normal to
the interface and of the component of electric field E tangential
to the interface. At a boundary the current lines
behave like optical or seismic rays, and are guided by
similar laws of reflection and refraction. For example, if u
is the angle between a current line and the normal to the
interface, the electrical “law of refraction” is
(4.102)
In a set of characteristic curves the apparent resistivity
ra is normalized by the resistivity r1 of the upper layer and
the electrode spacing is expressed as a multiple of the layer
thickness. The shape of the curve of apparent resistivity
versus electrode spacing depends on the resistivity contrast
between the two layers, and a family of characteristic
curves is calculated for different ratios of r2/r1 (Fig. 4.53).
The resistivity contrast is conveniently expressed by a kfactor
defined as
(4.103)
The k-factor ranges between _1 and _1 as the resistivity
ratio r2/r1 varies between 0 and #. The characteristic
curves, drawn as full logarithmic plots on a transparent
overlay, are compared graphically with the field data to
find the best-fitting characteristic curve. The comparison
yields the resistivities r1 and r2 of the upper and lower
layers, respectively, and the layer thickness, d.
Although characteristic curves can also be computed
for the interpretation of structures with multiple horizontal
layers, modern VES analyses take advantage of the
flexibility offered by small computers with graphic
outputs on which the apparent resistivity curves can be
assessed visually. The first step in the analysis consists of
classifying the shape of the vertical sounding profile.
The apparent resistivity curve for a three-layer structure
generally has one of four typical shapes, determined by the
vertical sequence of resistivities in the layers (Fig. 4.54).
The type K curve rises to a maximum then decreases, indicating
that the intermediate layer has higher resistivity
than the top and bottom layers. The type H curve shows
the opposite effect; it falls to a minimum then increases
again due to an intermediate layer that is a better conductor
than the top and bottom layers. The type A curve may
show some changes in gradient but the apparent resistivity
generally increases continuously with increasing electrode
separation, indicating that the true resistivities increase
with depth from layer to layer. The type Q curve exhibits
the opposite effect; it decreases continuously along with a
progressive decrease of resistivity with depth.
Once the observed resistivity profile has been identified
as of K, H, A or Q type, the next step is equivalent to
one-dimensional inversion of the field data. The technique
involves iterative procedures that would be very time-consuming
without a fast computer. The method assumes the
equations for the theoretical response of a multi-layered
ground. Each layer is characterized by its thickness and
resistivity, each of which must be determined. A first estimate
of these parameters is made for each layer and the
predicted curve of apparent resistivity versus electrode
spacing is computed. The discrepancies between the
observed and theoretical curves are then determined
point by point. The layer parameters used in the governing
equations are next adjusted, and the calculation is
repeated with the corrected values, giving a new predicted
curve to compare with the field data. Using modern computers
the procedure can be reiterated rapidly until the
discrepancies are smaller than a pre-determined value.
The inversion method is equivalent to matching automatically
the observed and theoretical curves. A onedimensional
analysis accommodates only the variations
of resistivity and layer thickness with depth. The response
of a vertically layered structure has an analytical solution,
so efficient inversion algorithms can be established.
In recent years, procedures have been proposed that also
take into account lateral heterogeneities. The response of
two- or three-dimensional structures must be approximated
by a numerical solution, based on the finitedifference
or finite-element techniques. The number of
unknown quantities increases, as do the computational
difficulties of the inversion.

4.3.5.7 Induced polarization

If commutated direct current is used in a four-electrode
resistivity survey, the sequence of positive and negative flow
may be interspersed with periods when the current is off.
The inducing current then has a box-like appearance (Fig.
4.55a). When the current is interrupted, the voltage across
the potential electrodes does not drop immediately to zero.
After an initial abrupt drop to a fraction of its steady-state
value it decays slowly for several seconds (Fig. 4.55b).
Conversely, when the current is switched on, the potential
rises suddenly at first and then gradually approaches the
steady-state value. The slow decay and growth of part
ofthe signal are due to induced polarization, which results
from two similar effects related to the rock structure: membrane
polarization and electrode polarization.