Pros and cons of 2D vs 3D seismic mineral exploration surveys
Alireza Malehmir, Gilles Bellefleur, Emilia Koivista and Christopher Juhlin
Journal name: First Break
Issue: Vol 35, No 8, August 2017 pp. 49 - 55
Info: Article, PDF ( 1006.56Kb )
Price: € 30
While the economic downturn in the mineral industry is improving, exploring for economically feasible deposits to sustain our economy and the global growth in the long term remains a great challenge. Exploring giant deposits (> 30-50 Mt) at depth is believed to be a solution. However, the answers are only likely to be found using a multi-disciplinary approach involving improved field geological mapping, improved conceptual models (e.g., mineral system approach) for deep targeting, and a combination of physical property measurements together with 2D and 3D geophysical surveys. Most metallic deposits have favourable physical properties to be targeted using various geophysical methods (Figure 1), but many of these methods do not have sufficient sensitivity and resolution at great depth (> 500 m). Encouraging examples of the use of surface seismic methods for deep mineral exploration and mine planning are available (e.g., Eaton et al., 2003 and references therein; Malehmir et al., 2012 and references therein; Buske et al., 2015 and references therein).