This research demonstrates a novel approach to mining prediction using structural-alteration anomalies, indicating favorable mineral exploration prospects.
Against the backdrop of the continuous growth in global demand for mineral resources, efficient and accurate mineral exploration technologies are of paramount importance. Therefore, utilizing remote sensing technology, which features wide coverage, a non-contact nature, and multi-source data acquisition, is of great significance for conducting mineral resource exploration and prospecting research. This study focuses on the Tsagaankhairkhan copper–gold mining area in Mongolia and proposes a structural-alteration anomalies coupling mining prediction method based on the collaboration of multi-source remote sensing data. By comprehensively utilizing multi-source image data from Landsat-8, GF-2, and Sentinel-2, and employing methods such as principal component analysis (PCA), band ratio, and texture analysis, we effectively extracted structural information closely related to mineralization, as well as alteration anomaly information, including hydroxyl alteration anomalies and iron-staining alteration anomalies. Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 data were employed to extract and mutually validate hydroxyl and iron-staining alteration anomaly information in the study area, thereby delineating alteration anomaly zones. By integrating the results of structural interpretation, the distribution of alteration anomaly information, and their spatial coupling characteristics, we explored the spatial coupling relationship between structural and alteration anomalies, analyzed their mineral control patterns, and identified 7 prospecting target areas. These target areas exhibit abundant mineral anomalies and favorable structural settings, indicating high metallogenic potential. The research findings provide crucial clues for the exploration of the Tsagaankhairkhan copper–gold mine in Mongolia and can guide future mineral exploration and development efforts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lv et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: