1887

Abstract

Summary

Geophysical exploration holds paramount importance in the discovery of new mineral deposits at progressively greater depths. Rapid reconnaissance is most effectively achieved through airborne geophysical methods, whereas ground-based methods excel in delineating intricate targets.

Electromagnetic (EM) techniques, both airborne and ground-based, are particularly well-suited due to the pronounced conductivity contrast between host rocks and certain ore deposits or associated secondary alteration.

We compare the geophysical signatures of two theoretical airborne natural-source EM systems with those derived from ground-based magnetotellurics for a realistic resistivity model of an ore deposit. This comparative analysis underscores the advantages of integrating airborne and ground measurements.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520153
2025-09-07
2026-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ansari, S. M., Schetselaar, E., Craven, J. A., & Farquharson, C. (2020). Three-dimensional magnetotelluric numerical simulation of realistic geologic models. Geophysics, 85(5), E171–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailes, A. H., Galley, A. G., Paradis, S., & Taylor, B. E. (2016). Variations in Large Synvolcanic Alteration Zones at Snow Lake, Manitoba, Canada, with Proximity to Associated Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits. Economic Geology, 111(4), 933–962. https://doi.org/10.2113/econgeo.111.4.933
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Jones, A. G., Chave, A. D., Egbert, G., Auld, D., & Bahr, K. (1989). A comparison of techniques for magnetotelluric response function estimation. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth and Planets, 94(B10), 14201–14213. Article.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Jones, A. G., & McNeice, G. W. (2002). Audio-magnetotellurics (AMT) for steeply-dipping mineral targets: importance of multi-component measurements at each site. Paper presented at the 72nd SEG, Salt Lake City, Utah. https://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/1.1817293
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jorgensen, M., Zhdanov, M. S., Gribenko, A., Cox, L., Sabra, H. E., & Prikhodko, A. (2024). 3D Inversion and Interpretation of Airborne Multiphysics Data for Targeting Porphyry System, Flammefjeld, Greenland. Minerals, 14(11), 1130. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/14/11/1130
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Legault, J. M., Wilson, G. A., Gribenko, A. V., Zhao, S., & Fisk, K. (2012). An overview of the ZTEM and AirMt systems – A case study from the Nebo-Babel Ni-Cu-PGE deposit, West Musgrave, Western Australia. Paper presented at the ASEG Natural Fields EM Forum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Mackie, R. L., Meju, M. A., Miorelli, F., Miller, R. V., Scholl, C., & Shahir Saleh, A. (2020). Seismic image-guided 3D inversion of marine controlled-source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric data. Interpretation, 8(4), SS1–SS13. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2019-0266.1
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Soyer, W., Mackie, R., & Miorelli, F. (2018). Comparative Analysis and Joint Inversion of MT and ZTEM Data. Paper presented at the AEM2018 - 7th International Workshop on Airborne Electromagnetics, Kolding, Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Soyer, W., Mackie, R., Miorelli, F., Schifano, V., & Hallinan, S. (2020). 3D Inversion Modeling of Natural and Controlled Source EM in Complex Terrain. Paper presented at the NSG2020 3rd Conference on Geophysics for Mineral Exploration and Mining.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520153
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520153
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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