Self-potential (SP) method is one of the most non-expensive and unsophisticated geophysical methods. However, its application limits absence of reliable interpreting methodology, first for the complex geological-environmental conditions. The typical disturbances appearing in the SP method and ways for their removing (elimination) are discussed. Some brief review of the available interpretation methods indicates their insufficient effectivity, especially for complex environments. For the magnetic method of geophysical prospecting have been recently developed special quantitative procedures applicable under complicated environments (oblique polarization, rugged relief and unknown level of the normal field). Performed analysis allowed to revealing some essential common peculiarities of magnetic and SP fields. These common aspects make it possible to apply the procedures developed in magnetic prospecting to SP method. Besides the reliable determination of the depth of anomalous target, these methodologies enable to introduce cor-rections for the polarization effect and non-horizontal SP observations. For classification of SP-anomalies is supposed to employ a new parameter – ‘self-potential moment’. These procedures (improved modifications of characteristic point and tangent techniques) have been successfully tested both on SP models and in real situations in ore deposits in Turkey and Russia. Finally, inter-pretation procedures have been effectively applied at several ore deposits in the South Caucasus (Filizchai and Katsdag in Azerbaijan and Uchambo in Georgia). An effectiveness of multimodel approach with application of gravity, magnetic and SP methods is demonstrated on the generalized physico-geological model of ore body of Filizchai type. The obtained results indicate the high practical importance of the developed methodology.

Keywords: self-potential method, disturbances, quantitative analysis, complex physical-geological environments, self-potential moment, ore targets

 

Abdelrahman E.M., El-Araby T.M., Ammar A.A., Hassanein H.I. A least-squares approach to shape determination from selfpotential anomalies. Pure and Applied Geophysics, V. 150, 1997, pp. 121-128. DOI: 10.1007/s000240050067

Abdelrahman E.M., Sharafeldin S.M. A least squares approach to depth determination from residual self-potential anoma-lies caused by horizontal cylinders and spheres. Geophys-ics, V. 62, 1997, pp. 44-48.

Alizadeh A.M., Guliyev I.S., Kadirov F.A., Eppelbaum L.V. Geosciences in Azerbaijan. Volume II: Economic Minerals and Applied Geophysics. Springer. Heidelberg – N.Y., 2017, 340 p.

Babu R.H.V., Rao A.D. Inversion of self-potential anomalies in mineral exploration. Computers & Geosciences, V. 14, No. 3, 1988, pp. 377-387.

Birch F. Imaging the water table by filtering self-potential pro-files. Ground Water, V. 36, No. 5, 1998, pp. 779-782.

Bhattacharya B.B., Shalivakhan J.A., Bera A. Three-dimensional probability tomography of self-potential anomalies of graphite and sulphide mineralization in Orissa and Rajasthan, India. First Break, V. 5, 2007, pp. 223-230.

Bukhnikashvili A.V., Kebuladze V.V., Tabagua G.G., Dzhashi G.G., Gugunava G.E., Tatishvili O.V., Gogua R.A. Geophysical Exploration of Adjar Group of Cop-per-Polymetallic Deposits. Metsniereba. Tbilisi, 1974, 199 p. (in Russian).

Castermant J., Mendonca C., Revil A., Trolard F., Bourrie G., Linde N. Redox potential distribution inferred from self-potential measurements associated with the corrosion of a burden metallic body. Geophysical Prospecting, V. 56, No. 2, 2008, pp. 269-282.

Corry C.E. Spontaneous polarization associated with porphyry sulfide mineralization. Geophysics, V. 50, No. 6, 1985, pp. 1020-1034.

Cowan D.R., Allchurch P.D., Omnes G. An integrated geo-electrical survey on the Nangaroo copper-zinc prospect, near Leonora, Western Australia. Geoexploration, V. 13, 1975, pp. 77-98.

Dmitriev A.N. Direct and inverse SP modeling on the basis of exact model of self-potential field nature. Geology and Geophysics, V. 53, No. 6, 2012, pp. 797-812.

Drahor M.G. Application of the self-potential method to archae-ological prospection: some case histories. Archaeological Prospection, V. 11, 2004, pp. 77-105.

El-Araby H.M. A new method for complete quantitative interpretation of self-potential anomalies. Journal of Applied Geophysics, V. 55, 2004, pp. 211-224.

Eppelbaum L.V. Multimodel approach to the study of geophysi-cal targets. Deposited by VINITI, USSR Academy of Sciences, No. 7842-87, 1987, pp. 1-10 (in Russian)

Eppelbaum L.V. Revealing of subterranean karst using modern analysis of potential and quasi-potential fields. Proceedings of the 2007 SAGEEP Conference, V. 20, Denver, USA, 2007, pp. 797-810.

Eppelbaum L.V. Quantitative interpretation of magnetic anoma-lies from bodies approximated by thick bed models in complex environments. Environmental Earth Sciences, V. 74, 2015, pp. 5971-5988.

Eppelbaum L.V. Geophysical potential fields: geological and environmental applications. Elsevier. Amsterdam – N.Y., 2019, 465 p.

Eppelbaum L., Ben-Avraham Z., Itkis S. Ancient Roman remains in Israel provide a challenge for physical-archaeological modeling techniques. First Break, V. 21, No. 2, 2003, pp. 51-61.

Eppelbaum L., Ben-Avraham Z., Itkis S., Kouznetsov S. First results of self-potential method application at archaeo-logical sites in Israel. Transactions of the XI EUG Interna-tional Symposium. Strasbourg, France, 2001, pp. 657.

Eppelbaum L.V., Itkis S.E., Khesin B.E. Optimization of magnetic investigations in the archaeological sites in Israel. In: Special Issue of Prospezioni Archeologiche “Filtering, Modeling and Interpretation of Geophysical Fields at Ar-chaeological Objects”, 2000, pp. 65-92.

Eppelbaum L.V. and Khesin B.E. Some common aspects of mag-netic, induced polarization and self-potential anomalies inter-pretation: implication for ore target localization. Collection of Selected Papers of the IV Intern. Symp. on Problems of East-ern Mediterranean Geology, 2002, pp. 279-293.

Eppelbaum L.V., Khesin B.E. Advanced 3-D modelling of grav-ity field unmasks reserves of a pyrite-polymetallic deposit: A case study from the Greater Caucasus. First Break, V. 22, No. 11, 2004, pp. 53-56.

Eppelbaum L.V., Khesin B.E. Geophysical studies in the Cauca-sus. Springer. Heidelberg – N.Y., 2012, 411 p.

Eppelbaum L.V., Khesin B.E., Itkis S.E. Prompt magnetic investigations of archaeological remains in areas of infrastructure development: Israeli experience. Archaeological Prospection, V. 8, No. 3, 2001, pp. 163-185.

Eppelbaum L.V., Mishne A.R. Unmanned airborne magnetic and VLF investigations: effective geophysical methodology of the near future. Positioning, V. 2, No. 3, 2011, pp. 112-133.

Ernstson K., Scherer V. Self-potential variations with time and their relation to hydrogeologic and meteorological parameters. Geophysics, V. 51, No. 10, 1986, pp. 1967-1977.

Essa K., Mehanee S., Smith P.D. A new inversion algorithm for estimating the best fitting parameters of some geometrically simple body to measured self-potential anomalies. Exploration Geophysics, V. 39, No. 3, 2008, pp. 155-163.

Fitterman D.V. Calculation of self-potential anomalies near vertical contacts. Geophysics, V. 44, No. 2, 1979, pp. 195-205.

Fox R.W. On the electromagnetic properties of metalliferous veins in the mines of Cornwall. Royal Society, London, Philosophical Transactions, 1830, pp. 399-414.

Gobashy M., Abdelazeem M., Abdrabou M., Khalil M.H. Estimating model parameters from self-potential anomaly of 2D inclined sheet using whale optimization algorithm: Applications to mineral exploration and tracing shear zones. Natural Resources Research, https://DOI.org/10.1007/s11053-019-09526-0, 2019, pp.1-21.

Göktürkler G., Balkaya Ç. Inversion of self-potential anomalies caused by simple-geometry bodies using global optimization algorithms. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, V. 10, No. 5, 2012, pp. 498-507.

Jardani A., Revil A., Santos F., Fauchard C., Dupont J. Detection of preferential infiltration pathways in sinkholes using joint inversion of self-potential and EM-34 conductivity data. Geophysical Prospecting, V. 55, No. 5, 2007, pp. 749-760.

Khesin B.E., Alexeyev V.V., Eppelbaum L.V. Interpretation of Geophysical Fields in Complicated Environments. Kluwer Academic Publishers (Springer). Ser.: Modern Approaches in Geophysics, Boston – Dordrecht – London, 1996, 368 p.

Kilty K.T. On the origin and interpretation of self-potential anomalies. Geophysical Prospecting, V. 32, No.1, 1984, pp. 51-62.

Lile O.B. Self potential anomaly over a sulphide conductor tested for use as a current source. Journal of Applied Geophysics, V. 36, No. 2-3, 1996, pp. 97-104.

Logn O., Bolviken B. Self potentials at the Joma pyrite deposit, Norway. Geoexploration, V. 12, 1974, pp. 11-28.

Mendonca C.A. Forward and inverse self-potential modeling in mineral exploration. Geophysics, V. 73, No. 1, 2008, pp. F33-F43.

Murty B.V., Haricharan P. A simple approach toward interpretation SP anomaly due to 2-D sheet model of short dipole length. Geophysical Research Bulletin, V. 22, No. 4, 1984, pp. 213-218.

Nayak P.N. Electromechanical potential in surveys for sulphide. Geoexploration, V. 18, 1981, pp. 311-320.

Oliveti I., Cardarelli E. Self-Potential Data inversion for environmental and hydrogeological investigations. Pure and Applied Geophysics, V. 176, No. 8, 2019, pp. 3607-3628.

Parasnis D.S. Principles of Applied Geophysics. 4th ed., revised and supplemented. Chapman & Hall. London, 1986, 402 p.

Petrovsky A. The problem of a hidden polarized sphere. Philosophi-cal Magazine, Ser. 7, V. 5, 1928, pp. 334-353, 914-933.

Rittgers J.B., Revil A., Karaoulis M., Mooney M.A., Slater L.D., Atekwana E.A. Self-potential signals generated by the corrosion of buried metallic objects with application to contaminant plumes. Geophysics, V. 78, No. 5, 2013, pp. EN65-EN82.

Quarto R., Schiavone D. Detection of cavities by the self-potential method. First Break, V. 14, No. 11, 1996, pp. 419-430.

Semenov A.S. Electric Prospecting by Self-Potential Method, 4st ed., revised and supplemented. Nedra. Leningrad, 1980, 446 p. (in Russian).

Shevnin V.A. Identification of self-potential anomalies of a diffusion-absorption origin. Moscow University Geology Bulletin, V. 73, No. 3, 2018, pp. 306-311 (in Russian).

Shevnin V.A., Bobachev A.A., Ivanova S.V., Baranchuk K.I. Joint analysis of self potential and electrical resistivity tomography data for studying Alexandrovsky settlement. Transactions of the 20th Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics. Athens, Greece, Mo PA2 04, 2014, pp. 1-5.

Tarkhov A.G. (Ed.). Electrical Prospecting. Geophysicist’s Manual. Nedra. Moscow, 1980, 520 p. (in Russian).

Telford W.M., Geldart L.P., Sheriff R.E. Applied Geophysics, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1990, 770 p.

Yüngül S. Spontaneous-potential survey of a copper deposit at Sariyer, Turkey. Geophysics, V. 19, No. 3, 1954, pp. 455-458.

Zaborovsky A.I. Electric Prospecting. Gostoptekhizdat. Moscow, 1963, 432 p. (in Russian).

Zhdanov M.S., Keller G.V. The Geoelectrical Methods in Geo-physical Exploration. Elsevier. Amsterdam, 1994, 873 p.