Method for determining a favorable area for uranium mineralization in a region to be explored

Abstract

The embodiments of this application relate to the field of geophysical exploration, and particularly to a method for determining favorable uranium mineralization areas in an exploration area. This method, by identifying fault structures within uranium anomaly regions, can initially screen for structural locations that combine shallow geochemical anomalies with deep fault connectivity, thereby identifying key mineralization areas and initially narrowing down the subsequent exploration scope. By determining the favorable deep mineralization information of key mineralization areas, the limitations of relying solely on shallow anomaly information in predicting deep concealed ore bodies can be avoided. Furthermore, by combining fault structures, favorable deep mineralization information, and key mineralization areas to assess mineralization favorability, multiple geological elements can be transformed into comparable mineralization probability indicators, strengthening the intrinsic genetic connections between various ore-controlling elements. Compared to traditional single geological analogy methods, the comprehensive assessment of mineralization favorability using multiple ore-controlling elements helps to accurately locate favorable uranium mineralization areas, improving exploration efficiency and reducing exploration costs.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The embodiments of this application relate to the field of geophysical exploration, and in particular to a method for determining favorable uranium mineralization areas in an area to be explored. Background Technology

[0002] The statements herein are provided merely as background information in connection with this application and do not necessarily constitute prior art.

[0003] In existing uranium mining, shallow and intermediate-shallow sandstone uranium resources have gradually entered the stage of large-scale development. However, due to insufficient exploration investment, inconvenient transportation, and complex geological conditions, a large amount of undeveloped sandstone-type uranium resources still exist in some areas, but geological work is only at the preliminary survey stage, and these areas are referred to as low-exploration areas. These low-exploration areas lack systematic drilling projects, have small-scale geophysical and geochemical surveys, and sparse borehole data. This lack of exploration data hinders the search for favorable uranium mineralization areas. Summary of the Invention

[0004] A brief overview of this application is provided below to offer a basic understanding of certain aspects thereof. It should be understood that this overview is not an exhaustive summary of the application. It is not intended to identify key or essential parts of the application, nor is it intended to limit its scope. Its purpose is merely to present certain concepts in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description that follows.

[0005] An embodiment of this application provides a method for determining favorable uranium mineralization areas in an area to be explored, comprising the following steps: S10: determining uranium anomaly regions in the area to be explored; S20: determining fault structures in the uranium anomaly regions; S30: determining key mineralization areas based on the uranium anomaly regions and fault structures; S40: determining favorable deep mineralization information within the key mineralization areas; S50: determining the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization areas based on the fault structures, favorable deep mineralization information, and key mineralization areas; S60: determining favorable uranium mineralization areas in the area to be explored based on the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization areas.

[0006] The method for determining favorable uranium mineralization areas in an exploration area provided in this application, by identifying fault structures within uranium anomaly regions, can initially screen for structural locations that combine shallow geochemical anomalies with deep fault connectivity, thereby identifying key mineralization areas and initially narrowing down the subsequent exploration scope. By determining the favorable deep mineralization information of key mineralization areas, the limitations of relying solely on shallow anomaly information in predicting deep concealed ore bodies can be avoided. Furthermore, by combining fault structures, favorable deep mineralization information, and key mineralization areas to assess mineralization favorability, multiple geological elements can be transformed into comparable mineralization probability indicators, strengthening the intrinsic genetic connections between various ore-controlling elements. Compared to traditional single geological analogy methods, the comprehensive assessment of mineralization favorability using multiple ore-controlling elements helps to accurately locate favorable uranium mineralization areas, improves exploration efficiency, and reduces exploration costs. Attached Figure Description

[0007] To further illustrate the above and other advantages and features of this application, the specific embodiments of this application will be described in more detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. The drawings, together with the following detailed description, are included in and form a part of this specification. Elements having the same function and structure are indicated by the same reference numerals. It should be understood that these drawings only depict typical examples of this application and should not be considered as limiting the scope of this application.

[0008] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of drilling verification in the area to be explored using the method provided in the embodiments of this application; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the determination of favorable deep mineralization information within a key mineralization area using the method provided in the embodiments of this application; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram showing the distribution of key mineralized areas determined using the method provided in the embodiments of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0009] Exemplary embodiments of this application will be described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. For clarity and brevity, not all features of actual implementations are described in the specification. However, it should be understood that many implementation-specific decisions must be made in the development of any such actual embodiment to achieve the developer's specific goals, such as complying with constraints related to the system and business, and these constraints may vary depending on the implementation. Furthermore, it should be understood that while development work can be very complex and time-consuming, such development work is merely a routine task for those skilled in the art who benefit from the content of this application.

[0010] It should also be noted that, in order to avoid obscuring this application with unnecessary details, only the equipment structure and / or processing steps closely related to the solution according to this application are shown in the accompanying drawings, while other details that are not closely related to this application are omitted.

[0011] The following disclosure provides several different implementations or examples for carrying out this application. To simplify the disclosure of this application, specific examples of components and methods are described below. Of course, these are merely examples and are not intended to limit this application. In the description of the embodiments of this application, "multiple" means at least two, such as two, three, etc., unless otherwise explicitly specified.

[0012] The lack of precise basic geological data, such as stratigraphy, structure, and lithology, in low-exploration areas makes it difficult to identify mineralization conditions. Existing methods for predicting favorable uranium mineralization areas rely heavily on high-density geophysical and geochemical data and extensive borehole data. Under conditions of data scarcity, these methods are prone to large deviations, omissions, and misjudgments, failing to effectively obtain favorable uranium mineralization information for concealed ore-controlling zones. Furthermore, traditional methods often employ single geological analogies, resulting in a highly subjective prediction process, leading to significant blind spots and high exploration costs in subsequent exploration work.

[0013] To address the aforementioned problems, embodiments of this application provide a method for determining favorable uranium mineralization areas in an area to be explored, comprising the following steps: S10: determining uranium anomaly regions in the area to be explored; S20: determining fault structures in the uranium anomaly regions; S30: determining key mineralization areas based on the uranium anomaly regions and fault structures; S40: determining favorable deep mineralization information within the key mineralization areas; S50: determining the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization areas based on the fault structures, favorable deep mineralization information, and key mineralization areas; S60: determining favorable uranium mineralization areas in the area to be explored based on the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization areas.

[0014] The method for determining favorable uranium mineralization areas in an exploration area provided in this application, by identifying fault structures within uranium anomaly regions, can initially screen for structural locations that combine shallow geochemical anomalies with deep fault connectivity, thereby identifying key mineralization areas and initially narrowing down the subsequent exploration scope. By determining the favorable deep mineralization information of key mineralization areas, the limitations of relying solely on shallow anomaly information in predicting deep concealed ore bodies can be avoided. Furthermore, by combining fault structures, favorable deep mineralization information, and key mineralization areas to assess mineralization favorability, multiple geological elements can be transformed into comparable mineralization probability indicators, strengthening the intrinsic genetic connections between various ore-controlling elements. Compared to traditional single geological analogy methods, the comprehensive assessment of mineralization favorability using multiple ore-controlling elements helps to accurately locate favorable uranium mineralization areas, improves exploration efficiency, and reduces exploration costs.

[0015] Figure 1This is a schematic diagram of drilling verification in the area to be explored using the method provided in the embodiments of this application, as shown below. Figure 1 As shown, the orange and bright yellow areas represent alluvial fans and braided river delta plains, respectively. The red boxes extending from these two types of areas represent uranium mineralization favorable areas determined by the method provided in the embodiments of this application. Drilling verification is carried out in these exploration areas. Blue dots represent mineralized holes, yellow dots represent anomalous holes, red dots represent industrial holes, and black dots represent non-mineralized holes. The main bodies of the mineralized and anomalous drill holes are located within or adjacent to the uranium mineralization favorable area, indicating that the uranium mineralization favorable area successfully frames the main mineralization information while excluding non-mineralized areas, thereby verifying that the method provided in the embodiments of this application helps to accurately locate uranium mineralization favorable areas.

[0016] In some embodiments, step S40 further includes the following steps: S41: determining the stratigraphic interface of the key mineralization area; S42: determining the sand body distribution and lithology of the key mineralization area; S43: determining favorable information for deep mineralization based on the stratigraphic interface, sand body distribution and lithology.

[0017] By sequentially determining stratigraphic interfaces, sand body distribution, and lithology, and then comprehensively assessing favorable information for deep mineralization, we can identify stratigraphic positions and lithological combinations conducive to uranium enrichment. This allows us to further screen deep locations with complete ore reserves and mineralization geological combinations within key mineralization areas, thereby improving the accuracy of identifying favorable mineralization areas.

[0018] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the method used in the embodiments of this application to determine favorable deep mineralization information within key mineralization areas, as shown below. Figure 2 As shown, magnetotelluric surveys can be conducted in the area to be explored. Resistivity survey lines are laid out along a direction of 26° north of east in the area to be explored, and resistivity inversion results shown in the colored contour sections and stratigraphic profiles obtained based on the resistivity data are obtained. In the resistivity section, the range from dark blue to black indicates that the resistivity increases from low to high. Large blue areas on the left and in the middle of the profile represent low resistivity anomalies. On the right side of the profile, about 7500 meters east of the offset, the resistivity suddenly increases, and a large area of ​​red to dark red high resistivity appears. Near the transition zone between high and low resistivity, the contour lines are dense and steeply dipped, indicating the presence of a clear electrical boundary. In the stratigraphic profile, a fault exists at an offset of about 7500 meters. The location of the stratigraphic fault perfectly matches the abrupt change zone between high and low resistivity in the upper resistivity section, thus accurately revealing the deep structural information of the area to be explored.

[0019] In some embodiments, step S50 further includes the following steps: S51: determining the distribution of oxidation alteration in the key mineralization area; S52: determining the distribution of sedimentary sand bodies in the key mineralization area based on sand body distribution and lithology; S53: determining the distribution of tectonic fluids in the key mineralization area based on fault structures, stratigraphic interfaces, sand body distribution, and lithology; S54: determining the distribution of mineralization anomalies based on the intensity of uranium anomalies in the key mineralization area; S55: determining the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization area based on the distribution of oxidation alteration, sedimentary sand body distribution, tectonic fluid distribution, and mineralization anomaly distribution.

[0020] The distribution of oxidation alteration can indicate the redox field of ore-forming fluids, the distribution of sedimentary sand bodies can define the effective ore-bearing space, the distribution of tectonic fluids reflects the channel network of ore fluid migration, and the distribution of mineralization anomalies directly reflects the uranium enrichment intensity information. By reflecting the ore-controlling conditions from different perspectives, multiple ore-controlling conditions can form spatial mutual verification and constraints, reducing misjudgments caused by fluctuations of a single factor, and making the final determined ore-forming favorable value more comprehensively reflect the spatial superposition and synergistic relationship of various ore-controlling factors.

[0021] In some embodiments, step S55 further includes the following steps: S551: determining the contribution of oxidation alteration distribution to uranium mineralization control; S552: determining the contribution of sedimentary sand body distribution to uranium mineralization control; S553: ​​determining the contribution of tectonic fluid distribution to uranium mineralization control; S554: determining the contribution of mineralization anomaly distribution to uranium mineralization control; S555: determining the mineralization favorability of key mineralization areas based on the respective contributions of oxidation alteration distribution, sedimentary sand body distribution, and tectonic fluid distribution.

[0022] The distribution of oxidation alteration, sedimentary sand bodies, tectonic fluids, and mineralization anomalies each contribute to the control of uranium mineralization, reflecting their respective dominant or auxiliary roles in the mineralization process. By assigning a corresponding contribution value to each factor, the influence ratio of each factor in the final favorable calculation can be adjusted according to the differences in basic geological conditions such as strata, lithology, and faults. Compared with a simple addition that achieves uniformity, this method can objectively quantify the actual role of each mineralization-controlling factor in different regions and geological backgrounds, thereby improving the pertinence and accuracy of the mineralization favorable judgment results and providing a reliable threshold for the subsequent delineation of favorable uranium mineralization areas.

[0023] In some embodiments, in step S555, the mineralization advantage is determined as follows: Where D represents the mineralization favorability; This indicates the contribution of oxidation alteration distribution to the control of uranium mineralization; This indicates the contribution of sedimentary sand body distribution to uranium mineralization control; This indicates the contribution of tectonic fluid distribution to the control of uranium mineralization; This represents the contribution of mineralization anomaly distribution to uranium mineralization control; α, β, γ, and λ represent weighting coefficients, and α+β+γ+λ=1.

[0024] By normalizing the weight coefficients of each element represented by α, β, γ, and λ, the final mineralization favorability value can always be within a comparable quantitative range, while improving the adaptability of mineralization favorability to different geological conditions.

[0025] Preferably, α, β, γ, and λ can be set to 0.2, 0.35, 0.25, and 0.2, respectively. By assigning the highest contribution weight to the distribution of sedimentary sand bodies, the mineralization favorability results are made more focused on reservoir conditions. The relatively low weight of oxidation and alteration can reduce non-mineralization interference caused by surface weathering or local oxidation. The low weight of mineralization anomalies can avoid over-amplifying local information due to anomalies at individual high-value points. The moderate weight of tectonic fluids can reflect the ore-guiding effect of faults without making them dominate the assessment results. Ultimately, the mineralization favorability value more realistically reflects the ore-controlling factor of the deep sand body's ore-reservoir capacity, thus improving the reliability and geological rationality of the prediction results.

[0026] In some embodiments, step S552 further includes the following steps: S5521: determining the thickness of the sedimentary sand body in the key mineralization area, the porosity of the sedimentary sand body, and the thickness of the mudstone caprock surrounding the sedimentary sand body based on the sand body distribution and lithology; S5522: determining the thickness grade of the sedimentary sand body; S5523: determining the porosity grade of the sedimentary sand body; S5524: determining the thickness grade of the mudstone caprock; S5525: determining the contribution of the sedimentary sand body distribution to uranium mineralization control based on the thickness grade of the sedimentary sand body, the porosity grade of the sedimentary sand body, and the thickness grade of the mudstone caprock.

[0027] The thickness of sedimentary sand bodies can reflect the effective scale of the reservoir space, porosity can reflect the efficiency of fluid infiltration and uranium ion migration and exchange, and the thickness of mudstone caprock can characterize the sealing capacity of ore-forming fluids and the effectiveness of the reduction barrier. By classifying the above three elements into levels, the dimensional differences between different parameters can be eliminated, and the differences in ore-storing performance between different sedimentary sand bodies can be distinguished in detail, so that the contribution of the final sedimentary sand body distribution is more in line with the real geological conditions.

[0028] In some embodiments, in step S5522, the thickness levels of sedimentary sand bodies can be classified as follows: for sedimentary sand bodies in key mineralization areas with a thickness ≥ 50 m, the score for this level is determined to be 25-35 points; for sedimentary sand bodies in key mineralization areas with a thickness of 30 m-50 m, the score for this level is determined to be 15-24 points; for sedimentary sand bodies in key mineralization areas with a thickness < 30 m, the score for this level is determined to be 0-14 points. The specific values ​​for each level can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. By setting two thickness thresholds of 50 m and 30 m, the thickness of sedimentary sand bodies is divided into three level intervals, and a corresponding score is assigned to each level. This converts continuous thickness values ​​into discrete level scores, allowing thickness information to participate in the subsequent calculation of the contribution of sedimentary sand body distribution in the form of a score. This ensures that the scores directly correspond to the actual thickness intervals, facilitating repeated operation and verification in actual exploration data.

[0029] In some embodiments, in step S5523, the porosity levels of sedimentary sand bodies can be classified as follows: For sedimentary sand bodies in key mineralization areas with porosity ≥15%, the score for this level is determined to be 25-35 points; for sedimentary sand bodies in key mineralization areas with porosity between 10% and 15%, the score for this level is determined to be 15-24 points; for sedimentary sand bodies in key mineralization areas with porosity <10%, the score for this level is determined to be 0-14 points. The specific values ​​for each level can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. By setting two porosity thresholds of 15% and 10%, the porosity of sedimentary sand bodies is divided into three level ranges, and a corresponding score is assigned to each level. This converts continuously measured porosity values ​​into discrete level scores, allowing porosity information to participate in the subsequent calculation of the contribution of sedimentary sand bodies in the form of a score. This ensures that the score directly corresponds to the porosity range, facilitating repeated operation and verification in actual exploration data.

[0030] In some embodiments, in step S5524, the thickness of the mudstone cap layer can be classified into three levels as follows: For mudstone cap layers in key mineralization areas with a thickness ≥20m, the score for this level is determined to be 25-35 points; for mudstone cap layers in key mineralization areas with a thickness between 10m and 20m, the score for this level is determined to be 15-24 points; and for mudstone cap layers in key mineralization areas with a thickness <10m, the score for this level is determined to be 0-14 points. The specific values ​​for each level can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. By setting two thickness thresholds of 20m and 10m, the thickness of the mudstone cap layer is divided into three level intervals, and a corresponding score is assigned to each level. This converts continuously measured thickness values ​​into discrete level scores, allowing thickness information to participate in the subsequent calculation of the contribution of sedimentary sand bodies in the form of a score. This ensures that the score directly corresponds to the thickness interval, facilitating repeated operation and verification in actual exploration data.

[0031] In some embodiments, in step S5525, the average of the grade scores corresponding to the thickness of the sedimentary sand body in the mineralization key area, the porosity of the sedimentary sand body, and the thickness of the mudstone cap layer surrounding the sedimentary sand body can be taken as the contribution of the sedimentary sand body distribution to the control of uranium mineralization, so that the contribution can simultaneously reflect the comprehensive influence of the reservoir space scale, fluid permeability efficiency, and preservation conditions.

[0032] In some embodiments, step S553 further includes the following steps: S5531: determining the fault density, fold intensity, and compatibility between the structure and fluids in the key mineralization area based on the fault structure, stratigraphic interface, sand body distribution, and lithology; S5532: determining the fault density level; S5533: determining the fold intensity level; S5534: determining the compatibility level between the structure and fluids; S5535: determining the contribution of the tectonic fluid distribution to the control of uranium mineralization based on the fault density level, fold intensity level, and compatibility level between the structure and fluids.

[0033] Fault density reflects the degree of fault development and fracture connectivity, fold intensity reflects the control effect of stratum deformation on fluid convergence, and the degree of adaptation between structure and fluid can indicate whether the spatial matching relationship between faults and reservoirs / caprocks is conducive to the migration and enrichment of ore-bearing fluids. By classifying the above three elements into levels, the dimensional differences between different parameters can be eliminated, covering the development scale of structures, deformation characteristics, and the effectiveness of fluid activity, thus improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of judging the contribution of tectonic fluid distribution to mineralization control.

[0034] In some embodiments, in step S5532, fault density levels can be classified as follows: For key mineralized areas, fault density ≥ 0.5 faults / km², the level score is determined to be 20-25 points; for key mineralized areas, fault density is between 0.2 faults / km² and 0.5 faults / km², the level score is determined to be 10-19 points; for key mineralized areas, fault density < 0.2 faults / km², the level score is determined to be 0-9 points. The specific values ​​for each level can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. By setting two fault density thresholds of 0.5 faults / km² and 0.2 faults / km², the fault density is divided into three level intervals, and a corresponding score is assigned to each level. This converts continuous density values ​​into discrete level scores, allowing density information to participate in the subsequent calculation of the contribution of tectonic fluid distribution in the form of a score. This enables the grading standard to adapt to the fault development characteristics of different exploration areas.

[0035] In some embodiments, in step S5533, the fold intensity levels can be classified as follows: strong folds score 20-25 points, medium folds score 10-19 points, and weak or no folds score 0-9 points. The specific values ​​for each level can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. This method can convert the differences in fold deformation across different exploration areas into comparable scores, facilitating flexible adjustments in practical applications.

[0036] In some embodiments, in step S5534, the degree of compatibility between the structure and the fluid can be graded as follows: 20-25 points for good compatibility, 10-19 points for moderate compatibility, and 0-9 points for poor compatibility. The specific values ​​for each grade can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. This method can convert the differences in the control effect of structures on fluid activity in different exploration areas into comparable scores, facilitating flexible adjustments in practical applications.

[0037] In some embodiments, in step S5535, the average of the grade scores corresponding to the fault density, fold intensity, and the degree of adaptation between the structure and fluid in the key mineralization area can be taken as the contribution of the tectonic fluid distribution to the control of uranium mineralization, so that the contribution can simultaneously reflect the comprehensive influence of the fault scale, fold deformation, and actual fluid activity.

[0038] In some embodiments, step S551 further includes the following steps: S5511: determining the surface alteration intensity, shallow oxidation zone development level, and the degree of compatibility between structural linear distribution and mineralization in the key mineralization area; S5512: determining the surface alteration intensity level; S5513: determining the shallow oxidation zone development level; S5514: determining the degree of compatibility between structural linear distribution and mineralization; S5515: determining the contribution of oxidation alteration distribution to uranium mineralization control based on the surface alteration intensity level, shallow oxidation zone development level, and structural linear distribution and mineralization compatibility level.

[0039] The intensity of surface alteration reflects the actual strength of near-surface oxidation, the degree of development of shallow oxidation zones characterizes the vertical extension of oxidation, and the degree of adaptation between tectonic linear distribution and mineralization can reflect the guiding role of fault linear structures on the migration of oxidizing fluids. By classifying the above three elements into levels, the dimensional differences between different parameters can be eliminated, so that the contribution of oxidation alteration to mineralization control can reflect the comprehensive effect of the intensity, scale and tectonic guiding conditions of oxidation.

[0040] In some embodiments, in step S5512, the surface alteration intensity can be classified into levels as follows: strong alteration 20-25 points, moderate alteration 10-19 points, and no alteration 0-9 points. The specific values ​​for each level can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. This method can convert the differences in surface alteration levels across different exploration areas into comparable scores, facilitating flexible adjustments in practical applications.

[0041] In some embodiments, in step S5513, the development level of the shallow oxide zone can be graded as follows: well-developed (20-25 points), moderately developed (10-19 points), and undeveloped (0-9 points). The specific values ​​for each grade can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. This method can convert the differences in the vertical extension and development scale of oxide zones in different exploration areas into comparable scores, facilitating flexible adjustments in practical applications.

[0042] In some embodiments, in step S5514, the degree of compatibility between the linear distribution of structures and mineralization can be classified as follows: high compatibility is 20-25 points, medium compatibility is 10-19 points, and no compatibility is 0-9 points. The specific values ​​for each grade can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. This method can convert the differences in the control effect of linear structures on oxidation fluids in different exploration areas into comparable scores, facilitating flexible adjustments in practical applications.

[0043] In some embodiments, in step S5515, the average of the grade scores corresponding to the surface alteration intensity, shallow oxidation zone development, and tectonic linear distribution and mineralization adaptation of the key mineralization area can be used as the contribution of the oxidation alteration distribution to the control of uranium mineralization, so that the contribution can simultaneously reflect the comprehensive influence of surface oxidation characteristics, deep oxidation zone development, and tectonic control conditions.

[0044] In some embodiments, step S554 further includes the following steps: S5541: determining the intensity of uranium anomalies, the degree of matching between gravity, magnetic and electrical anomalies and structures and sand bodies, and the intensity of radon anomalies in key mineralization areas; S5542: determining the intensity level of uranium anomalies; S5543: determining the degree of matching between gravity, magnetic and electrical anomalies and structures and sand bodies; S5544: determining the intensity level of radon anomalies; S5545: determining the contribution of mineralization anomaly distribution to uranium mineralization control based on the intensity level of uranium anomalies, the degree of matching between gravity, magnetic and electrical anomalies and structures and sand bodies, and the intensity level of radon anomalies.

[0045] The intensity of uranium anomalies directly reflects the enrichment degree of uranium elements in the shallow surface. The matching degree between gravity, magnetic, and electrical anomalies and structures and sand bodies characterizes the spatial correspondence between deep geophysical anomalies and known ore-controlling elements. The intensity of radon anomalies indicates the accumulation level of uranium decay products near the surface. By classifying the above three elements into levels, different types of geophysical and geochemical raw data can be converted into a unified scale of graded scores, eliminating the dimensional differences between different parameters. This allows the contribution of mineralization anomaly distribution to uranium mineralization control to reflect information from three aspects: shallow uranium enrichment, deep geophysical response, and radioactive gas anomalies. This makes the assessment of the contribution of mineralization anomalies to mineralization control more comprehensive and reliable.

[0046] In some embodiments, in step S5542, the uranium anomaly intensity levels can be classified as follows: strong anomalies score 15-20 points, moderate anomalies score 5-14 points, and no anomalies score 0-4 points. The specific values ​​for each level can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. This method converts differences in anomaly intensity of different magnitudes into comparable scores, facilitating flexible adjustments in practical applications.

[0047] In some embodiments, in step S5543, the matching degree between gravity, magnetic, and electrical anomalies (anomalies in gravity, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields) and structures and sand bodies can be classified as follows: high matching score of 15-20 points, medium matching score of 5-14 points, and no matching score of 0-4 points. The specific values ​​for each grade can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. The matching degree between gravity, magnetic, and electrical anomalies and structures and sand bodies requires spatial overlay analysis combining information from gravity, magnetic, and electrical exploration data, fault structure distribution, and sedimentary sand body distribution. Its determination involves data fusion and geological interpretation of different geophysical methods. Using a graded system with corresponding score ranges can transform the differences in matching effects across different exploration areas into comparable scores, facilitating flexible adjustments in practical applications.

[0048] In some embodiments, in step S5544, the radon anomaly intensity levels can be classified as follows: strong anomaly 15-20 points, moderate anomaly 5-14 points, and no anomaly 0-4 points. The specific values ​​for each level can be determined based on the experience of those skilled in the art. The measured radon anomaly intensity is significantly affected by factors such as surface cover thickness, soil moisture, and meteorological conditions. Background values ​​vary significantly between different investigation areas. Using a classification system with corresponding score ranges can convert differences in radon anomaly intensity at different levels into comparable scores, facilitating flexible adjustments in practical applications.

[0049] In some embodiments, in step S5545, the average of the grade scores corresponding to the uranium anomaly intensity, gravity, magnetic and electric anomalies and their matching degree with structures and sand bodies, and the radon anomaly intensity in the mineralization key area can be taken as the contribution of the mineralization anomaly distribution to the control of uranium mineralization, so that the contribution can simultaneously reflect the comprehensive influence of three different dimensions: direct mineralization information, deep geophysical response, and surface gas anomaly.

[0050] In some embodiments, in step S70, a mineralization favorability level is determined, and a uranium mineralization favorable area in the area to be explored is determined based on the mineralization favorability level, so as to distinguish between priority mineralization favorable areas and general mineralization favorable areas according to the level in actual exploration.

[0051] In some embodiments, the mineralization favorability level is determined as follows: A D ≥ 80 indicates a favorable area for high-quality uranium ore formation; 60 ≤ D ≤ 79 indicates a favorable area for good uranium ore formation; 40 ≤ D ≤ 59 indicates a favorable area for general uranium ore formation; and D < 40 indicates a poor favorable area for uranium ore formation. Here, D represents the mineralization favorability. The score intervals are evenly spaced, and the boundaries of each level are clear and distinct. This facilitates direct determination of the mineralization favorability level based on the mineralization favorability value in practical work, allowing the evaluation results to directly correspond to exploration decisions of different priorities.

[0052] In some embodiments, step S30 further includes the following steps: S31: determining the distribution of gamma-ray spectral uranium anomalies, gamma-ray spectral uranium-thorium ratio anomalies, and gamma-ray spectral uranium-potassium ratio anomalies within the uranium anomaly region; S32: determining the key mineralization areas based on the distributions determined in step S31 and the fault structures. Uranium anomalies indicate shallow mineralization, the anomalous distribution of uranium-thorium ratio and uranium-potassium ratio can reflect elemental migration and differentiation characteristics, and fault structures represent potential ore-fluid transport channels. By combining these factors, the final delineated key mineralization areas can simultaneously possess geochemical anomaly indications, elemental differentiation characteristics, and tectonic channel conditions, improving the accuracy and reliability of key mineralization area screening.

[0053] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram showing the distribution of key mineralized areas determined using the method provided in the embodiments of this application, such as... Figure 3 As shown, red blocks represent uranium anomaly areas, red lines represent fault structures, blue lines represent folds, and green lines represent the delineated areas of key mineralization zones. The distribution intensity of uranium anomalies varies among the key mineralization zones in the figure, and the topography of their locations is also different, indicating that the favorable mineralization areas determined by the above method are more comprehensive.

[0054] In some embodiments, in step S10, airborne gamma spectroscopy measurements can be performed on the area to be explored to determine uranium anomaly regions in the area to be explored.

[0055] Regarding the embodiments of this application, it should also be noted that, without conflict, the embodiments of this application and the features in the embodiments can be combined with each other to obtain new embodiments.

[0056] The above are merely specific embodiments of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. The scope of protection of this application shall be determined by the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method of determining a uranium ore-forming favourable zone in a region to be explored, characterised in that, It includes the following steps: S10: Determine the uranium anomaly region in the area to be explored; S20: Determine the fracture structure of the uranium anomaly region; S30: Based on the uranium anomaly region and the fracture structure, determine the key mineralization area; S40: Determine favorable information on deep mineralization within the key mineralization area; S50: Determine the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization area based on the fracture structure, the favorable information on deep mineralization, and the key mineralization area; S60: Determine the favorable uranium mineralization area in the area to be explored based on the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization area.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein, Step S40 also includes the following steps: S41: Determine the stratigraphic boundaries of the key metallogenic area; S42: Determine the sand body distribution and lithology of the key mineralization area; S43: Determine the favorable information for deep mineralization based on the stratigraphic interface, the distribution of the sand body, and the lithology.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein, Step S50 also includes the following steps: S51: Determine the distribution of oxidation alteration in the key mineralization area; S52: Determine the distribution of sedimentary sand bodies in the key mineralization area based on the sand body distribution and the lithology; S53: Determine the tectonic fluid distribution in the key metallogenic area based on the fracture structure, the stratigraphic interface, the sand body distribution, and the lithology; S54: Determine the distribution of mineralization anomalies based on the intensity of uranium anomalies in the key mineralization areas; S55: Determine the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization area based on the distribution of oxidation alteration, the distribution of sedimentary sand bodies, the distribution of tectonic fluids, and the distribution of mineralization anomalies.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein, Step S55 also includes the following steps: S551: Determine the contribution of the oxidation alteration distribution to uranium mineralization control; S552: Determine the contribution of the sedimentary sand body distribution to uranium mineralization control; S553: ​​Determine the contribution of the tectonic fluid distribution to uranium mineralization control; S554: Determine the contribution of the aforementioned mineralization anomaly distribution to uranium mineralization control; S555: Determine the mineralization favorability of the key mineralization area based on the respective contribution of the oxidation alteration distribution, the sedimentary sand body distribution, and the tectonic fluid distribution.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein, In step S555, the mineralization advantage is determined as follows: ； Wherein, D represents the mineralization favorability; This indicates the contribution of the oxidation alteration distribution to uranium mineralization control; This indicates the contribution of the sedimentary sand body distribution to uranium mineralization control; This indicates the contribution of the tectonic fluid distribution to uranium mineralization control; The value represents the contribution of the mineralization anomaly distribution to the control of uranium mineralization; α, β, γ, and λ represent weighting coefficients, and α+β+γ+λ=1.

6. The method according to claim 5, characterized in that, α, β, γ, and λ are set to 0.2, 0.35, 0.25, and 0.2, respectively.

7. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Step S552 also includes the following steps: S5521: Based on the distribution of the sand body and the lithology, determine the thickness of the sedimentary sand body in the key mineralization area, the porosity of the sedimentary sand body, and the thickness of the mudstone cap layer surrounding the sedimentary sand body; S5522: Determine the thickness grade of the sedimentary sand body; S5523: Determine the porosity level of the sedimentary sand body; S5524: Determine the thickness grade of the mudstone cap layer; S5525: Determine the contribution of the sedimentary sand body distribution to uranium mineralization control based on the thickness grade of the sedimentary sand body, the porosity grade of the sedimentary sand body, and the thickness grade of the mudstone caprock.

8. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Step S553 also includes the following steps: S5531: Based on the fracture structure, the stratigraphic interface, the sand body distribution, and the lithology, determine the fault density, fold intensity, and the compatibility between the structure and fluid in the key mineralization area; S5532: Determine the fault density level; S5533: Determine the wrinkle strength level; S5534: Determine the degree of compatibility between the structure and the fluid; S5535: Determine the contribution of the tectonic fluid distribution to uranium mineralization control based on the fault density level, the fold intensity level, and the degree of compatibility between the structure and the fluid.

9. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Step S551 also includes the following steps: S5511: Determine the surface alteration intensity, shallow oxidation zone development degree, and the degree of compatibility between the structural linear distribution and mineralization in the key metallogenic area; S5512: Determine the intensity level of the surface alteration; S5513: Determine the development level of the shallow oxide zone; S5514: Determine the degree of compatibility between the structural linear distribution and mineralization; S5515: Determine the contribution of the oxidation alteration distribution to uranium mineralization control based on the surface alteration intensity level, the shallow oxidation zone development level, and the degree of compatibility between the tectonic linear distribution and mineralization.

10. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Step S554 also includes the following steps: S5541: Determine the intensity of uranium anomalies, the degree of matching between gravity, magnetic and electrical anomalies and tectonic structures and sand bodies, and the intensity of radon anomalies in the key mineralization areas; S5542: Determine the intensity level of the uranium anomaly; S5543: Determine the degree of matching between the gravity, magnetoelectric, and electrical anomalies and the structure and sand body; S5544: Determine the intensity level of the radon gas anomaly; S5545: Determine the contribution of the mineralization anomaly distribution to uranium mineralization control based on the uranium anomaly intensity level, the matching degree level between the gravity, magnetic and electrical anomalies and the structures and sand bodies, and the radon anomaly intensity level.

11. The method according to any one of claims 1-10, characterized in that, In step S70, the mineralization favorability level is determined, and the uranium mineralization favorable area of ​​the area to be explored is determined based on the mineralization favorability level.

12. The method according to claim 11, characterized in that, The mineralization favorability level is determined in the following manner: Determining that D≥80, the aforementioned key mineralization area is identified as a favorable area for high-quality uranium ore formation. Based on the determination that 60≤D≤79, the key mineralization area is identified as a favorable area for uranium mineralization. Based on the determination that 40≤D≤59, the key mineralization area is identified as a favorable area for general uranium mineralization. Since D < 40, the key mineralization area is determined to be a favorable area for poor uranium ore formation. Wherein, D represents the mineralization favorability.

13. The method according to any one of claims 1-10, characterized in that, Step S30 also includes the following steps: S31: Determine the distribution of gamma-ray spectrum uranium anomaly, gamma-ray spectrum uranium-thorium ratio anomaly, and gamma-ray spectrum uranium-potassium ratio anomaly within the uranium anomaly region; S32: Based on the distribution and fracture structure determined in step S31, determine the key mineralization area.

Images