Search

Abstract: In stream sediment geochemical exploration, anomalies can be recognized by ‘undiluting’ concentrations of indicator elements in every stream sediment sample catchment basin (SCB) as a function of topographic, geomorphologic, and geologic factors. However, this SCB modeling, like contour mapping, of stream sediment geochemical anomalies depends on sampling locations and sampling density. These arbitrary aspects of stream sediment sampling can render SCB or contour mapping of stream sediment anomalies inefficient. In this paper, instead of evaluating the relative exploration importance of each sample per SCB, we evaluated the relative exploration importance of samples per natural drainage catchment basin (DCB). Accordingly, we developed a new fuzzy weighting scheme for each DCB based on the distribution of anomalous and background samples in each DCB. In this new approach of weighted drainage catchment basin (WDCB) mapping of stream sediment geochemical anomalies, individual DCBs are given fuzzy weights representing their relative importance for prospecting the deposit-type sought. Hence, a map of WDCB can be used directly as a geochemical evidence layer in fuzzy-based mineral prospectivity mapping. In this regard, we demonstrated that the prediction rate of prospectivity map obtained by using WDCB approach with respect to known mineral deposit occurrences is higher than that of prospectivity map obtained by using a SCB or contour map. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Mineral exploration targeting is a highly complex decision-making task. Two key risk factors, the quality of exploration data and robustness of the underlying conceptual targeting model, have a strong impact on the effectiveness of this decision-making. Geographic information systems (GIS) can be used not only for compiling, integrating, interrogating and interpreting diverse exploration data, but also for targeting by employing powerful mathematical algorithms, an approach that is commonly referred to as mineral potential modelling or mineral prospectivity mapping (MPM). Here, we pose and examine key aspects around the question of " how can we get better at mineral exploration targeting using GIS? " We do this by (1) reviewing the fundamental aspects of MPM, (2) identifying significant deficiencies of MPM, and (3) discussing possible solutions to alleviating or eliminating these deficiencies. In particular, we discuss how these deficiencies can be overcome by adopting an intelligence amplification system , such as the recently proposed exploration information system (EIS) for translating critical ore-forming processes into spatially predictive criteria (i.e., predictor maps and spatial proxies) and improving decision-making in mineral exploration targeting. [Display omitted] • Geographic information systems (GIS) are related to exploration information system (EIS). • The current status of study in GIS-based mineral exploration targeting is reviewed. • Use and abuse of mineral deposit models in mineral exploration targeting are discussed. • Mineral system-based exploration targeting using EIS is discussed. • Future research directions are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]