Advertisement

Comparison between VES and 2D imaging techniques for delineating subsurface plume of hydrocarbon contaminated water southeast of Karbala City, Iraq

  • Firas Hamed AL-Menshed
  • Jassim Mohammed Thabit
Original Paper
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

Shallow vertical electrical sounding (VES) technique with Schlumberger electrode array (maximum distance between current electrodes was 50 m) through 25 VES points distributed on five traverses. Two 2D imaging lines with Wenner electrode array 30 m each corresponding to two VES traverses were conducted near well water contaminated with hydrocarbon materials at Karbala Governorate, Iraq. It is found that these techniques can give good results in delineating contaminated and clear zones but the 2D imaging technique was better in delineating the boundaries of the contaminated water plume and gave clear image of the subsurface distribution of the contaminated water vertically and horizontally.

Keywords

VES 2D imaging Water contamination Hydrocarbons 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the general director (Mr. Dhafir Abdullah) of General Commission for Groundwater and Investigations Department staff for providing requirements for achieving the fieldwork and helping me with necessary information about the studied area and the contaminated well.

References

  1. Al-Ani JM (1998) Theoretical and application considering the effect of the geometry on Schlumberger and dipole configurations, PhD thesis (in Arabic), University of Baghdad, College of Science, 144PGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen JP, Atekwana EA, Atekwana EA, Duris JW, Werkema DD, Rossbach S (2007) The microbial community structure in petroleum-contaminated sediments corresponds to geophysical signatures. Appl Environ Microbiol 73(9):2860–2870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AL-Menshed FH, Thabit JM (2016) The use of an azimuthal resistivity survey to detect the flow direction of hydrocarbons in the unsaturated zone at Karbala Governorate, Iraq. Environ Earth Sci 75:1328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6120-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AL-Menshed FH, Thabit JM (2017) Evaluation of 2D resistivity imaging technique for delineating subsurface seepage of hydrocarbon-contaminated water southeast of Karbala City, Iraq. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:6523–6531.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8310-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andres KG, Canace R (1984) Use of the electrical resistivity technique to delineate a hydrocarbon spill in the coastal plain deposits of New Jersey. Proc. of the NWWA/API Conf. on petroleum hydrocarbons and organic chemicals in ground water—prevention, detection and restoration, Houston: 188–197Google Scholar
  6. Atekwana EA, Atekwana EA, Rowe RS, Werkema DD, Legall FD (2004) The relationship of total dissolved solids measurements to bulk electrical conductivity in an aquifer contaminated with hydrocarbon. J Appl Geophys 56:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayolabi EA, Folorunso AF, Eleyinmi AF, Anuyah EO (2009) Applications of 1D and 2D electrical resistivity methods to map aquifers in a complex geologic terrain of Foursquare Camp, Ajebo, Southwestern Nigeria. Pac J Sci Technol 10(2):657–666Google Scholar
  8. Barwary AM, Slewa NA (1995) Series of geological maps of Iraq scale 1:250000 Karbala quadrangle NI – 38 – 14. GEOSURV Library Baghdad, Iraq, Rep. No. 2318: 25 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Bobachev AA, Modin IN, Shevnin VA (2002) IPI2Win: a Windows software for an automatic interpretation of resistivity sounding data. Moscow State University, 320 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlin T, Loke MH (1998) Resolution of 2D Wenner resistivity imaging as assessed by numerical modeling. J Appl Geophys 38:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahlin T, Zhou B (2001) A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with eight electrode arrays, Procs. 7th Meeting Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Birmingham, England, 2–3 September 2001, ELEMO1, 2pGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahlin T, Zhou B (2004) A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 electrode arrays. Geophys Prospect 52:379–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. deGroot-Hedlin C, Constable S (1990) Occam’s inversion to generate smooth two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics 55:1613–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delgado-Rodríguez O, Shevnin V, Ochoa-Valdés J, Ryjov A (2006) Geoelectrical characterization of a site with hydrocarbon contamination caused by pipeline leakage. Geofis Int 45(1):63–72Google Scholar
  15. Dey A, Morrison HF (1979) Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three-dimensional shaped structures. Geophysics 44:753–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geotomo software (2006) RES3DINV ver. 2.15. 2D resistivity and IP inversion program. www.geoelectrical.com
  17. Griffiths DH, Barker RD (1993) Two-dimensional resistivity imaging and modeling in areas of complex geology. J Appl Geophys 29:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassan K.M., Al-Khateeb A.A.G., Khlaif H.O., Kadhum, M.A. and Saeed F.S. (2002) Detailed geological survey for mineral exploration in Karbala–Najaf area. Part 1, geology. GEOSURV, Int rep No. 2874Google Scholar
  19. Mazáč O, Benes L, Landa I, Maskova A (1990) Determination of the extent of oil contamination in groundwater by geoelectrical methods. In: Geotechnical and environmental geophysics, vol 2. Society of Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa, pp 107–112Google Scholar
  20. Okpoli CC (2013) Sensitivity and resolution capacity of electrode configurations. Int J Geophys 2013:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rein A, Hoffmann R, Dietrich P (2003) Influence of natural time-dependent variations of electrical conductivity on DC resistivity measurement. J Hydrol 285:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sadowski RM (1988) Clay-organic interactions. MSc. Thesis, Dept. of Geochemistry, Colo. School of Mines, Golden, CO, 209 pGoogle Scholar
  23. Sasaki Y (1992) Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophys Prospect 40:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauck WA (1988) A conceptual model for the geoelectrical response of LNAPL plumes in granular sediments. Proceeding of the symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems 11:805–817Google Scholar
  25. Sauck WA (2000) A model for the resistivity structure of LNAPL plumes and their environs in sandy sediments. J Appl Geophys 44:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shevnin V, Delgado-Rodríguez O, Mousatov A, Nakamura-Labastida E, Mejia-Aguilar (2003) Oil pollution detection using resistivity sounding. Geofis Int 42(4):613–622Google Scholar
  27. Shevnin V, Delgado-Rodríguez O, Fernández-Linares L, Martínez HZ, Mousatov A, Ryjov A (2005) Geoelectrical characterization of an oil-contaminated site in Tabasco, Mexico. Geofis Int 44(3):251–263Google Scholar
  28. Thabit JM, AL-Hameedawie MM (2014) Delineation of groundwater aquifers using VES and 2D imaging techniques in north Badra area, eastern Iraq. Iraqi J Sci 55(1):174–183Google Scholar
  29. Thabit JM, Khalid FH (2016) Resistivity imaging survey to delineate subsurface seepage of hydrocarbon contaminated water at Karbala Governorate, Iraq. Environ Earth Sci 75(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ward SH (1990) Resistivity and induced polarization methods. In: Geotechnical and environmental geophysics, vol 1. Society of Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa, pp 147–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waxman MH, Thomas EC (1974) Electrical conductivities in shaly sands. I. The relation between hydrocarbon saturation and resistivity index. II. The temperature coefficient of electrical conductivity. J Petrol Tech Trans AIME 257:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Firas Hamed AL-Menshed
    • 1
  • Jassim Mohammed Thabit
    • 2
  1. 1.General Commission for GroundwaterBaghdadIraq
  2. 2.College of Science, Department of GeologyUniversity of BaghdadBaghdadIraq

Personalised recommendations