1. Resistivity of the California Wash and Astor Pass

2. Objectives The California Wash Astor Pass North-South
Astor Pass East-West
Astor Pass AP 1, 2
Conclusions

3. The California Wash

4. N

5. Layer 1 Thickness(m)
Layer 2 Thick
Layer 3 Thick
Layer 4 Thick
Resis1 (Ωm)
Resis 2
Resis 3
Resis 4
RMS
line 1 2 1 14
inf
600
270
150
700
14.69
invert
2.14
0.001
18.38
612.47
269.98
166.12
701.29
14.41
Line 2 5 -
338
9.22
1.91
0.002
494.28
0.321
330.17
7.05
Line 3
3.3 10 6
850
200
250
300
29.02
3.75
0.99
737.71
36.98
260.25
285.38
21.84
Line 4 3 7
350
170
520
7.13
3.77
2.98
340.72
199.67
81.25
451.96
5.53
Line 5
1.5 4
650
620
15.07
0.831
3.96
321.13
712.64
620.63
294.12
12.79

6. Results and Interpretations
Lines 1-4 show a decreasing resistivity both with depth and initial resistivity of soil
Line 5 lies higher than 1-4 and shows a higher resistivity
Depth profiles of lines 3 and 5 show inversions from layers 1, 2 and 4
Lines 1-4 are on a downward slope of a graben which ultimately ended in a wash. Line 5 lies on top of a horst to the west of the graben. This is expected as the graben would probably collect more moisture and have a lower resistivity than the higher lying horst.

7. Astor Pass

9. East-West

11. Resistivity of the California Wash and Astor Pass
Layer1 Thickness(m)
Layer 2 Thic
Layer 3Thick
Resis1 (Ωm)
Resis 2
Resis 3
RMS
101 (E-W) 2 18
inf 44 10 3 14
invert
1.77
25.55
42.93
10.05
0.001
10.5
101 (N-S)
7.5 38 5
5.99
1.46
6.14
41.95
13.12
5.1
3.55
101-A
2.7 - 11
9.57
2.77
42.15
10.73
9.45
101-C
2.2 78
4.2
12.49
2.06
79.19
4.3
9.77
148 (E-W) 60 15
2.6
15.61
1.69
6.98
59.15
28.83
3.33
11.07
148 (N-S)
1.7
7.2 45 29
6.86
1.34
7.41
46.35
30.79
2.78
6.46
148-A
2.5
5.5 34 32
14.31
7.14
0.036
35.02
5.05
8.84
148-C
2.4 7 55
9.5
10.56
3.11
0.97
14.86
356.04
9.93
8.92
196 (E-W)
1.2
65.4
9.75
0.83
3.66
84.1
20.58
7.69
7.93
196 (N-S)
1.6 4 57 12
7.7
9.51
1.98
47.15
53.22
8.71
8.2
196-A
2.9 24
9.2
4.26
2.24
2.85
24.53
14.24
3.89
196-C 85 16
12.4
1.3
6.63
85.95
13.06
5.42
11.8
160 (N-S)
0.5
4.5
4.9
7.24
1.09
2.57
9.19
90.56
4.67
6.42
Resistivity of the California Wash and Astor Pass

12. Results and Interpretations
As we go across the fault E-W the resistivity goes up Considerable across the 148/160m section, interpreted To be the fault.
101 and 196 m lines show general Q type and have a lower resistivity than the 148/160m lines indicating a build up along the fault of resistive mineralization
The 148/160m lines are interacting with the tufa, the calcification of the tufa has resulted in a decrease in resistivity in the subsurface below this line

13. North-South

15. Layer1 Thickness(m)
Layer 2 Thic
Layer 3Thick
Resis1 (Ωm)
Resis 2
Resis 3
RMS
101 (E-W) 2 18
inf 44 10 3 14
invert
1.77
25.55
42.93
10.05
0.001
10.5
101 (N-S)
7.5 38 5
5.99
1.46
6.14
41.95
13.12
5.1
3.55
101-A
2.7 - 11
9.57
2.77
42.15
10.73
9.45
101-C
2.2 78
4.2
12.49
2.06
79.19
4.3
9.77
148 (E-W) 60 15
2.6
15.61
1.69
6.98
59.15
28.83
3.33
11.07
148 (N-S)
1.7
7.2 45 29
6.86
1.34
7.41
46.35
30.79
2.78
6.46
148-A
2.5
5.5 34 32
14.31
7.14
0.036
35.02
5.05
8.84
148-C
2.4 7 55
9.5
10.56
3.11
0.97
14.86
356.04
9.93
8.92
196 (E-W)
1.2
65.4
9.75
0.83
3.66
84.1
20.58
7.69
7.93
196 (N-S)
1.6 4 57 12
7.7
9.51
1.98
47.15
53.22
8.71
8.2
196-A
2.9 24
9.2
4.26
2.24
2.85
24.53
14.24
3.89
196-C 85 16
12.4
1.3
6.63
85.95
13.06
5.42
11.8
160 (N-S)
0.5
4.5
4.9
7.24
1.09
2.57
9.19
90.56
4.67
6.42

16. Results and Interpretations
Along the E-W sections from North-South the same results are shown as in the East-West sections the 148/160m lines show increased resistivity
Comparing in this direction it is clear the difference between the 148/160m lines and the 101m and 196m lines
Interpreting in a different direction again shows the center 148/160m lines have increased resistivity indicating the presence of the tufa build up in the subsurface

17. Wells AP 1 & 2

19. Layer1 Thickness(m)
Layer 2 Thic
Layer 3Thick
Resis1 (Ωm)
Resis 2
Resis 3
RMS
AP 1,2
0.001
4.5
inf 5 7
7.86
1.67
0.004
10.98
4.66
2.86
AP3
0.5 2 9 27 8 22
3.76
layer 4
3.7
1.12
0.026
4.62
17.06
0.104
37.72
2.1
4.79

20. Results and Interpretations
The position is located on top of packed, non-local sediments as well as having drill wells might have interfered with readings
Results show a relatively constant resistivity down past the 10m A spacing
Resistivities higher than near the tufa at the 101m and 196m
The data shows little change in in the shallower a spacing depths, this could be artificial due to the location and manipulation due to previous drilling of the immediate area, lower Resistivities at depth but didn’t seem out of place with the 101m and 196m lines

21. Conclusions
California Wash Shows there is a decrease in resistivity on lines 1-4 then a sudden change and increase at line 5 which would be expected as line 5 runs along a horst above the graben which would hold more moisture making the resistivity lower. The Remi data shows also that the velocity models would indicate the graben has lower subsurface layers which could act as a channel keeping in moisture which would increase the conductivity in this area.
Astor Pass shows that there is an anomaly that runs along the 148/160m lines. The data shows an increase in resistivity along this section of Astor Pass, which we interpret as being the carbonate build up of the tufa towers in the subsurface. The Remi data also shows the Vs30 velocities decrease along the same lines this indicates the same anomaly along the subsurface roughly along the same 148/160m lines. Leading us to believe that the tufa is acting as the resistor.

22. Questions, Preguntas, Fragen, вопро́с, Spørsmål, 主要翻译