## 5 Discussion
Nevertheless, the Seulimeum Fault Segment can be confirmed by gravity anomaly, indicating a difference in rock densities [25], and the geological map in Figure 1. The northeastern of P1 is identified as an unknown fault from the MT cross-section of P1 in Figure 16, which confirms the minor fault in the geological map in Figure 1, where the low-resistivity zone is quaternary volcanic rocks with a resistivity of 1-15 \(\Omega\)m (C3) and the high-resistivity zone (R3) comprises andesite rocks (4.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\)-1.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\)\(\Omega\)m) that do not continue downwards, as depicted by Figure 16.  
Based on the MT cross-section of P2 in Figure 17, the Aceh Segment Fault is still visible at a distance of 40-50 km, marked by a resistivity contrast similar to the P1 cross-section. Meanwhile, based on the MT cross-section of P2, the Seulimeum Segment Fault is visible between a distance of 55-60 km compared to P1, which is invisible. It is found in the MT cross-section of P2 that beneath station D2 in the southwest (SW), there is an alluvium rock formation indicated by a low-resistivity zone (C4) in the range of 1-20 \(\Omega\)m, which corresponds with the geological map in Figure 1. Furthermore, at distances between 10-20 km and 80-90 km, there is a known resistivity contrast indicated as small faults, which confirms the minor unknown fault in the geological map. Meanwhile, beneath station D7, there is a low-resistivity zone (C5) interpreted to be sandstone from the Peutu Formation, and the resistivity matches the MT cross-section. The high-resistivity zone (R4) is interpreted as basement igneous rock consisting of limestone, with resistivity matching the MT cross-section of P2 in Figure 17.  
Based on the MT cross-section of P3 shown in Figure 18, it is found that the Aceh Segment Fault distance of 40-50 km does not show a resistivity contrast in the MT cross-section as is seen in P1 and P2. The Seulimeum Segment Fault is also not detected as having resistivity contrast in this MT cross-section of P3. However, further information can be interpreted from the MT cross-section of P3. This information indicates that beneath the ACH11 station, andesite rock (4.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\)-1.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\)\(\Omega\)m) is visible in the high-resistivity zone (R3), while the low-resistivity zone (C3) is characterized as quaternary volcanic rock with a resistivity of 1-15 \(\Omega\)m, which is the same as that shown in the MT cross-section of P1. Then, beneath the SARP station, a high-resistivity zone (R5) is interpreted as basement rock in metamorphic rock, corresponding with the geological map in Figure 1, as its depth reaches 10 km, as shown in Figure 18. Meanwhile, the low-resistivity zone (C7) beneath KAWA station is interpreted as an alluvial sediment layer with a resistivity of 5-10 \(\Omega\)m, matching the MT cross-section of P3 in Figure 18, where the conductive layer does not continue downward. Next, the high-resistivity zone (R6) is the Tutut Formation, which is resistive with a resistivity range of 100-500 \(\Omega\)m [64]. The low-resistivity zone (C6) is the Meulaboh Formation, consisting of semi-consolidated sands and gravels with a resistivity range of 30-225 \(\Omega\)m [65]. Finally, at the southwestern-most end (SW) of P3 shown in Figure 18 is station MBMG, which indicates the presence of conductive material interpreted as alluvial sediment rock with a resistivity range of 5-10 \(\Omega\)m. It can be concluded that these interpretations of the MT cross-section of P3 are aligned with the geological map in Figure 1.