1887
Volume 73, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The Athabasca Basin (Saskatchewan, Canada) is a world‐class uranium mining province hosting high‐grade high‐tonnage deposits. Electromagnetic data and direct current resistivity data are essential tools to detect deep geoelectric structures associated with mineralization. Both methods are sensitive to electrical resistivity but highlight different structures. On the one side, electromagnetic methods reveal deeply buried, highly conductive graphitic structures. On the other side, direct current resistivity methods reveal milder contrasts of resistivity at shallower depths. We are here exploring the benefits that can be expected from two‐dimensional joint inversion of electromagnetic and direct current resistivity data for the exploration of unconformity‐related uranium deposits of the Athabasca Basin. Our methodology is recovering a single resistivity model to fit both datasets. We used a trust‐region globalization approach to regularize the local minimization sub‐problems, thus avoiding the task of regularization parameter tuning. Several tests are first conducted on synthetic models. These tests show that stand‐alone electromagnetic inversions are able to recover the position of conductive plates, but their geometry remains uncertain. On stand‐alone direct current resistivity inversions, the layered background is recovered, as well as smeared anomalies of resistivity associated with graphitic conductors. Whenever a conductive halo overlies a conductive plate, the wide anomaly associated with the plate appears more conductive and slightly shallower but the conductive plate and the halo cannot be distinguished. In the presence of two closely spaced conductors, the conductive anomaly appears more conductive and wider, so that they cannot be distinguished. On stand‐alone electromagnetic inversions, however, their separation is clear, but electromagnetic measurements are blind to alteration halos. Joint inversions give the most reliable models. Both the resistive background and the conductive plates are recovered. A better constrained background allows to recover more contrasted plates. Synthetic tests allowed us to confirm the potential to recover the footprint of a hectometric‐scale conductor overlying a plate using joint inversion, where both stand‐alone inversions failed. Following these synthetic tests, we present an application of our methodology to a dataset from the Waterbury–Cigar Lake area. Joint inversion allows to recover a geoelectric model reconciling both datasets. The model shows conductors better constrained below the depth of unconformity, allowing for interpretations of resistivity variations above them.

© 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2025 The Author(s). Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70079
2025-10-07
2026-01-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70079
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/73/8/gpr70079.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70079&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adriaens, X., L.Métivier, and C.Geuzaine. 2023. “Inner Product Preconditioned Trust‐Region Methods for Frequency‐Domain Full Waveform Inversion.” Journal of Computational Physics493: 112469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112469.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Amatyakul, P., C.Vachiratienchai, and W.Siripunvaraporn. 2017. “WSJointInv2D‐MT‐DCR: An Efficient Joint Two‐Dimensional Magnetotelluric and Direct Current Resistivity Inversion.” Computers and Geosciences102: 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2017.02.010.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aquino, M., G.Marquis, and J.Vergne. 2022. “Joint One‐Dimensional Inversion of Magnetotelluric Data and Surface‐Wave Dispersion Curves Using Correspondence Maps.” Geophysical Prospecting70: 1455–1470. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13239.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Binley, A., and A.Kemna. 2005. DC Resistivity and Induced Polarization Methods. In Hydrogeophysics, edited by Y.Rubin and S.S.Hubbard, 129–156. Water Science and Technology Library, vol. 50. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1‐4020‐3102‐5_5.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruneton, P.1993. “Geological Environment of the Cigar Lake Uranium Deposit.” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences30: 653–673. https://doi.org/10.1139/e93‐054.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Christensen, N.2022. “Joint Inversion of Airborne TEM Data and Surface Geoelectrical Data. The Egebjerg Case.” Journal of Applied Geophysics196: 104511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104511.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Christiansen, A., and E.Auken. 2012. “A Global Measure for Depth of Investigation.” Geophysics77: WB171–WB177. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011‐0393.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cockett, R., S.Kang, L.Heagy, A.Pidlisecky, and D.Oldenburg. 2015. “SimPEG: An Open Source Framework for Simulation and Gradient Based Parameter Estimation in Geophysical Applications.” Computers and Geosciences85: 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.09.015.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Conn, A., N.Gould, and P.Toint. 2000. Trust Region Methods. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719857.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. He, Q., and Y.Wang. 2022. “Trust‐Region Versus Line Search Globalization Strategies for Inexact Newton Method and Application in Full Waveform Inversion.” Journal of Applied Geophysics201: 104639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104639.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Heagy, L., R.Cockett, S.Kang, G.Rosenkjaer, and D.Oldenburg. 2017. “A Framework for Simulation and Inversion in Electromagnetics.” Computers and Geosciences107: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2017.06.018.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. IAEA . 2018. “Unconformity‐Related Uranium Deposits.” TECDOC Series, IAEA‐TECDOC‐1857. International Atomic Energy Agency.
  13. Jefferson, C., D.Thomas, S.Gandhi, et al. 2007. “Unconformity‐Associated Uranium Deposits of the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta.” In Mineral Deposits of Canada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit‐Types, District Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological Provinces, and Exploration Methods, 273–305. Mineral Deposits Division, Special Publication No. 5. Geological Association of Canada. https://doi.org/10.4095/223744.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Keller, C.2019. “Advancements in 3D Time‐Domain Electromagnetic Inversion in the Athabasca Basin, Canada: A Unique Case Study From the West McArthur Project.” In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2019, 2133–2137. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2019‐3215196.1.
  15. Key, K.2016. “MARE2DEM: A 2‐D Inversion Code for Controlled‐Source Electromagnetic and Magnetotelluric Data.” Geophysical Journal International207: 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw290.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Legault, J., D.Carriere, and L.Petrie. 2008. “Synthetic Model Testing and Distributed Acquisition DC Resistivity Results Over an Unconformity Uranium Target From the Athabasca Basin, Northern Saskatchewan.” The Leading Edge27: 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2831679.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, D., and J.Nocedal. 1989. “On the Limited Memory BFGS Method for Large Scale Optimization.” Mathematical Programming45: 503–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01589116.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Long, S., R.Smith, and R.Hearst. 2017. “Ground Resistivity Method and DCIP2D Forward and Inversion Modelling to Identify Alteration at the Midwest Uranium Deposit, Northern Saskatchewan, Canada.” Exploration Geophysics48: 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG15059.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Malecki, S., R.‐U.Börner, and K.Spitzer. 2020. “A New Method for Absolute Underground Positioning Based on Transient Electromagnetics.” Geophysical Journal International221: 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz540.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Martz, P., J.Mercadier, M.Cathelineau, et al. 2019. “Formation of U‐Rich Mineralizing Fluids Through Basinal Brine Migration Within Basement‐Hosted Shear Zones: A Large‐Scale Study of the Fluid Chemistry Around the Unconformity‐Related Cigar Lake U Deposit (Saskatchewan, Canada).” Chemical Geology508: 116–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2018.05.042.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Mir, R., P.Fullagar, M.Darijani, et al. 2022. “Forward Modeling and 3D Inversion of Electromagnetic Data Collected Over the McArthur River Uranium Deposit in the Athabasca Basin, Canada.” Geophysics87: B129–B143. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2021‐0199.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Moorkamp, M.2017. “Integrating Electromagnetic Data With Other Geophysical Observations for Enhanced Imaging of the Earth: A Tutorial and Review.” Surveys in Geophysics38: 935–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712‐017‐9413‐7.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Nabighian, M. N., and J. C.Macnae. 1991. “Time‐Domain Electromagnetic Prospecting Methods.” In Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics: Volume 2, Application, Parts A and B, 427–520. Investigations in Geophysics, vol. 3. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560802686.ch6.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Nimeck, G., and R.Koch. 2008. “A Progressive Geophysical Exploration Strategy at the Shea Creek Uranium Deposit.” The Leading Edge27: 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2831680.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Nocedal, J., and S.Wright. 2006. Numerical Optimization. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐0‐387‐40065‐5.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ozyildırım, O., I.Demircil, N.Gündoǧdu, and M.Candansayar. 2020. “Two Dimensional Joint Inversion of Direct Current Resistivity and Radiomagnetotelluric Data Based on Unstructured Mesh.” Journal of Applied Geophysics172: 103885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2019.103885.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Powell, B., G.Wood, and L.Bzdel. 2007. “Advances in Geophysical Exploration for Uranium Deposits in the Athabasca Basin.” In Proceedings of Exploration 07: Fifth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration, edited by B.Milkereit, 771–790.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Smith, R., R.Koch, G.Hodges, and J.Lemieux. 2011. “A Comparison of Airborne Electromagnetic Data with Ground Resistivity Data Over the Midwest Deposit in the Athabasca Basin.” Near Surface Geophysics9: 319–330.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Tikhonov, A., and V. Arsenin. 1977. Solutions of Ill‐posed Problems. Winston.
  30. Tschirhart, V., E.Potter, J.Powell, E.Roots, and J.Craven. 2022. “Deep Geological Controls on Formation of the Highest‐Grade Uranium Deposits in the World: Magnetotelluric Imaging of Unconformity‐Related Systems From the Athabasca Basin, Canada.” Geophysical Research Letters49: e2022GL098208. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098208.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Vozoff, K., and D.Jupp. 1975. “Joint Inversion of Geophysical Data.” Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society42: 977–991. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.1975.tb06462.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Yi, M.‐J., and Y.Sasaki. 2015. “2‐D and 3‐D joint inversion of loop‐loop electromagnetic and electrical data for resistivity and magnetic susceptibility.” Geophysical Journal International203, no. 2: 1085–1095. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv354.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Zuberi, M., and R.Pratt. 2018. “Mitigating Nonlinearity in Full Waveform Inversion Using Scaled‐Sobolev Pre‐Conditioning.” Geophysical Journal International213: 706–725. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx549.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70079
Loading
Joint Inversion of Electromagnetic and Direct Current Resistivity Data Using Trust Regions. Application to Uranium Exploration in the Athabasca Basin
Geophysical Prospecting 73, e70079 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.70079
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70079
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70079
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error