Various spontaneous ground potentials were discussed in section 5.2.1.

Only two of these have been considered seriously in surface exploration, although the self-potential method is used in a variety of ways in well logging. Mineralization potentials produced mainly by sulfides have long been the main target of interest, although recently exploration for geothermal sources has included self-potential surveys as well. The remainder of these spontaneous potentials may be classified as background or noise. This also means that geothermal anomalies become noise if they occur in the vicinity of a sulfide survey and vice versa. A more detailed description of these sources follows. Background potentials are created by fluid streaming, bioelectric activity in vegetation, varyng electrolytic concentrations in ground water, and other geochemical action. Their amplitudes vary greatly but generally are less than 100 mV. On the average, over intervals of several thousand feet, the potentials usually add up to zero, because they are as likely to be positive as negative. In addition there are several characteristic regional background potentials. One is a gradient of the order of 30 mV/km, which sometimes extends over several kilometers and may be either positive or negative. It is probably due to gradual changes in diffusion and electrolytic potentials in ground water. Sometimes a more abrupt change will result in a baseline shift of background potential. Another regional gradient of similar magnitude seems to be associated with topography. It is usually negative going uphill and is probably caused by streaming potential. These background effects are not difficult to recognize. Potentials arising from bioelectric activity of plants, trees, and so forth, sometimes are as large as several hundred milivolts. They have been observed as sharp negative anomalies when passing from open ground into bush that are quite similar to those appearing over sulfide zones. Long period telluric currents (>1 min) may also produce background potentials, as large as several hundred milivolts per kilometer over resistive ground, which are more difficult to detect, because the self-potential reading are made at a much faster rate. Self-potential (SP) anomalies apparently generated by thermoelectric and or electrokinetic coupling processes have been reported in the course of surveys for geothermal sources, an application of the method which has become attractive since the late 1970s (Corwin and Hover, 1979). The thermal mechanism is not well understood, but may result from differential thermal diffusion of ions in pore fluids and electrons with donor ions in the rock matrix: The ratio of voltage to temperature difference V/T is known as the thermoelectric coupling coefficient. The electrokinetic coupling coefficient, Ek/P in Equation, depends on fluid flow, which may be due to the thermal as well as the pressure gradient. Analysis of the coupling processes is presently not developed sufficiently to provide quantitative comparison of the two effects. Corwin and Hoover (1979) describe two SP surveys over geothermal sources produced by shallow coal fires. At Marshall, Colorado, a well-defined negative anomaly of 140 mV peak was centered over the burn area, which was overlain by 10 m of sandstone. At the second site, Acme, Wyoming, a 30 mV positive anomaly was recorded where the burn

was about 3 m below surface. Larger potentials were measured over thicker overburden nearby; they suggest that electrokinetic effects were increasing the response. Mineralization potentials have usually been the main interest when prospecting with the self-potential method. They are associated with the sulfides or metals, with graphite, and sometimes with the metal oxides as magnetite. The most common mineralization potential anomalies occur over pyrite, chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite, sphalerite, galena, and graphite. Amplitudes range from a few milivolts to 1 V; 200 mV would be considered a good SP anomaly. The potentials are almost always negative near the upper end of the body and are quite stable in time. The mechanism of spontaneous polarization in mineral zones, like the geothermal effect, is not completely understood, although several hypotheses have been developed to explain it. Field measurements indicate that some part of the mineral must be in a zone of oxidation in order that SP anomalies may appear at the surface. The original explanation, based on this evidence, was that the body behaved like a galvanic cell with a potential difference being created between the oxidizing zone (generally the upper surface) and the remainder. The action of this cell is illustrated in Figure 6.1. There are several weaknesses in this explanation Graphite frequently is the source of large SP anomalies, although it does not oxidize appreciably. On the other hand, extensive oxidation, such as could occur in most metal sulfides, would leave the upper surface of the body with a net positive charge due to the loss of electrons. In fact the charge is negative. Another hypothesis suggest that pH variations above and below the water table could provide the current flowing around the surface. There is considerable evidence that solutions above sulfide bodies, and within the water table, are highly acidic (pH= 2-4), whereas those below the table are slightly basic (pH = 7-9). There is probably a close relation between pH and mineralization potentials, but a difference in pH alone is not sufficient to move electrons in and out of the mineral zone and maintain the flow of current. A reasonably complete explanation of mineralization potentials is that proposed by Sato and Mooney (1960). They postulate two electrochemical half-cell reactions of opposite sign, one cathodic above the water table, the other anodic at depth. In the cathode half-cell there is chemical reduction of the substance in solution that is, they gain electrons while in the anode cell an oxidation reaction takes place and electrons are lost. The mineral zone itself functions only to transport electrons from anode to cathode. The magnetitude of the overall SP effect is determined by the difference in oxidation potential (Eh) between the solutions at the two half-cells. This mechanism is illustrated in figured 6.2, showing the flow of electrons and ions that leave the upper surface negatively charged, the lower positively. This hypothesis, although a considerable improvement on previous explanations, still fails to account for some observed anomalies. For instance, Sato and Mooney give maximum possible potentials for various sources, such as graphite (0.78 V), phyrite (0.73 V), and galena (0.33 V). For surface measurements this would imply a maximum no greater than these values, even when the body outcrops. Potentials as large as 1.5 V, however, have been reported over graphite. A field study in which potentials were measured in drill holes penetrating a sulfide zone, gave surface anomalies of approximately the same size as those

encountered in the sulfide itself, even though the latter was well below the surface. These abnormally large SP results may be due to combinations of anomalies from adjacent mineralized zones, or enhancement by coincident background potentials. Other unusual field results are discussed in Section 6.1.4. Most of the sulfides are good conductors, with the exception of sphalerite, cinnabar and stibnite. Self potential anomalies have, however, been observed over sphalerite and in drill holes that that passed through sphalerite bodies. The Sato-Mooney theory assumes that the sulfide zone must be a good to the oxidizing zone near surface. Thus the case of sphalerite is puzzling, although it may behave as a semiconductor and in many occurrences it is closely associated with other conductive sulfides. Recent reports by Roy (1984) and Corry (1985) disagree with the Sato and Mooney hypothesis of mineralization potentials. Both authors show field results that indicate the measured potential is simply E, the oxidation potential difference between the electronic conductor (sulfides) and either the borehole fluid or a surface electrode outside the mineral zone. That is, without the borehole or a wire connecting the surface electrodes, no current will flow. There are additional arguments for this mechanism and against the Sato Mooney version; these include the obvious long time stability of sulfide deposits in various climates, the lack of evidence for a positive pole in their vicinity, the absence of surface SP anomalies over highly oxidixed mineralization, the presence of unusually large surface SP (in excess of 1 V negative), and large depth of penetration ( 1 km)