<p>We know that geochemical dispersion in stream sediment is much widespread, facilitating discovering mineral targets in a regional scale. However, we also know that there should be discrepancy in space between the geochemical anomalies in stream sediement and buried mineralization.</p>
<p>I found there are a lot of published studies that used identified geochemical anomalies in stream sediment for mapping unknown mineralization directly, or as an evidence for mapping mineral prospectivity together with other geologic feature layers. They usually interpolated first the mineralization-related element concentrations with support of GIS, and used some algorithms for extract geochemical anomalies from the background. See, for example, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375674215300261." rel="nofollow noreferrer">this paper</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/jpsU3.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/jpsU3.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>The authors delineate the mineral targets based on the anomaly map (figure b).</p>
<p>I am confused about why the geochemical anomalies in stream sediment can be used directly without considering the spatial discrepancy.</p>
<hr />
<p>The figures are from this paper:
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.06.018" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.06.018</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-14T07:58:01.183Z
Can you clarify which spatial discrepancy is it that you're talking about?
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-15T13:06:54.080Z
Thank you. It refers to the deviation in horizontal direction between the geochemical anomalies in stream sediment and the buried ore deposit.
tunar
<geology><geochemistry><mineralogy><minerals><geospatial>
Can geochemical anomalies of stream sediment samples be used directly for mapping targets?
tunar
# Can geochemical anomalies of stream sediment samples be used directly for mapping targets?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-09-23)

We know that geochemical dispersion in stream sediment is much widespread, facilitating discovering mineral targets in a regional scale. However, we also know that there should be discrepancy in space between the geochemical anomalies in stream sediement and buried mineralization.

I found there are a lot of published studies that used identified geochemical anomalies in stream sediment for mapping unknown mineralization directly, or as an evidence for mapping mineral prospectivity together with other geologic feature layers. They usually interpolated first the mineralization-related element concentrations with support of GIS, and used some algorithms for extract geochemical anomalies from the background. See, for example, [this paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375674215300261.).

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/jpsU3.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/jpsU3.png)

The authors delineate the mineral targets based on the anomaly map (figure b).

I am confused about why the geochemical anomalies in stream sediment can be used directly without considering the spatial discrepancy.

---

The figures are from this paper:
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.06.018>.

**Tags:** geology, geochemistry, mineralogy, minerals, geospatial

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you clarify which spatial discrepancy is it that you're talking about?  
> **username_0**: Thank you. It refers to the deviation in horizontal direction between the geochemical anomalies in stream sediment and the buried ore deposit.  

---

## 0 answers

