Passive and active helicopter EM survey comparisons over 501 Project Cu- Zn volcanogenic massive sulphide at McFauld’s Lake, northern Ontario

Orta, Marta María González; Legault, Jean M.; Приходько, А. П.; Plastow, Geoffrey; Zhao, Shuangyi; Ulansky, Chad

doi:10.1071/aseg2013ab183

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the ZTEM and MT techniques share similarities in processing and inversion, there have been several previous studies of simultaneously inverting these data to obtain an improved resistivity model (Holtham 2012;Sasaki, Yi and Choi 2014;Wannamaker and Legault 2014;Sattel and Witherly 2015). ZTEM case studies have been published for several types of mineral deposits including porphyry Cu, massive sulphide, and unconformity uranium, and there is interest in incorporating additional geophysical information to further improve the ZTEM results (Kaminski et al 2010;Paré et al 2012;Orta et al 2013, Hübert et al 2016Legault et al 2016). This paper focuses on porphyry deposits because their geophysical signatures can vary greatly depending on the local geology and erosion history.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D joint inversion of magnetotelluric and airborne tipper data: a case study from the Morrison porphyry Cu–Au–Mo deposit, British Columbia, Canada

Lee

Unsworth

Hübert

et al. 2017

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic and broadband magnetotelluric data were used to determine three‐dimensional electrical resistivity models of the Morrison porphyry Cu–Au–Mo deposit in British Columbia. Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic data are collected with a helicopter, thus allowing rapid surveys with uniform spatial sampling. Ground‐based magnetotelluric surveys can achieve a greater exploration depth than Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic surveys, but data collection is slower and can be limited by difficult terrain. The airborne Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic tipper data and the ground magnetotelluric tipper data show good agreement at the Morrison deposit despite differences in the data collection method, spatial sampling, and collection date. Resistivity models derived from individual inversions of the Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic tipper data and magnetotelluric impedance data contain some similar features, but the Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic model appears to lack resolution below a depth of 1 km, and the magnetotelluric model suffers from non‐uniform and relatively sparse spatial sampling. The joint Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic inversion solves these issues by combining the dense spatial sampling of the airborne Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic technique and the deeper penetration of the lower frequency magnetotelluric data. The resulting joint resistivity model correlates well with the known geology and distribution of alteration at the Morrison deposit. Higher resistivity is associated with the potassic alteration zone and volcanic country rocks, whereas areas of lower resistivity agree with known faults and sedimentary units. The pyrite halo and ≥0.3% Cu zone have the moderate resistivity that is expected of disseminated sulphides. The joint Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic inversion provides an improved resistivity model by enhancing the lateral and depth resolution of resistivity features compared with the individual Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic and magnetotelluric inversions. This case study shows that a joint Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic–magnetotelluric approach effectively images the interpreted mineralised zone at the Morrison deposit and could be beneficial in exploration for disseminated sulphides at other porphyry deposits.

show abstract