Assessment of Different Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques in Delineating Radioactive Mineralized Target, Eastern Desert, Egypt.

1. Assessment of Different Remote Sensing
and GIS Techniques in Delineating
Radioactive Mineralized Target, Eastern
Desert, Egypt.
Mohamed El Zalaky

3. Atmospheric Window

4. Simplified model of hydrothermal alteration zones with porphyry
copper deposits (modified from Lowell and Guilbert, 1970)

6. Application of Remote Sensing and GIS
in
the World Ore Deposits

7. Dechang et al., 2014
mapping the alteration
(hematite and hydro-
mica) for Uranium
Exploration in Semistan,
West Junggar, NW China
using spectral similarity
measurement methods of
hyperspectral data. They
using as which led to
delineate three uranium
prospecting targets

8. Modabberi, et
al., (2017)
used ASTER
data for sub-
pixel mapping
alteration
including
alunite and
jarosite
associated
with Au, Ag,
and Cu using
the Mixtured
Tuned
Matched
Filtering
(MTMF)
north central
Iran

9. Application of Remote Sensing and GIS
in
the Egyptian Ore Deposits

10. Landsat ETM+ ratio image
(5/7, 4/5, 3/1 in RGB) for
the study area.
Supervised classification image for the
study area. Yellow color reveals the
enrichment zones with clay minerals.
Ramadan et al., (2013)

11. Assessment of Remote Sensing
in
Radioactive Mineral Exploration

12. Geologic map of El- Erediya pluton Central Eastern Desert, Egypt (Modified
after Omran et. al., 2014).

13. eU ppm
Filled color contour map of eU of El-Erediya pluton (Red Belt Projection).
(Aero-Service, (1984)

14. Target Detiction
The spectral signatures of the targets
(alunite, hematite, illite and kaolinite)

15. Hematitization
choloritization
Kaolinization
Illitization

16. the zones that
containing more than
one target (co-target)
and delineate the
promising areas for
uranium prospection
which marked by the
red circles

17. Field verification

18. Uranophane [Ca (UO3)2 (SiO3)2 (OH)2 .5H2O]

19. Geological map of G. El Missikat area and its main uranium prospect.
(after Abou Deif, 1985 and El Zalaky, 2007)

20. Uranium mineralization
(yellow) associated with the
siliceous materials
Brecciated granite and white
silica within the jasperoied silica
veins

21. Materials and Methods
Satellite Level Scene ID. Covered Area
Landsat-8 L1TP
LC08_L1TP_175041_20170
604_20170616_01_T1
Gattar area
Landsat-8 L1TP
LC08_L1TP_174042_20170
816_20170825_01_T1
El Missikat and El
Eradiya areas
ASTER AST_L1T
AST_L1T_00303102006083
519_20150513120945_261
96
El Missikat and El
Eradiya areas
ASTER AST_L1T
AST_L1T_00303102006083
510_20150513120937_117
085
Gattar area

22. Flowchart
ASTER
Landsat PPI
MNF
N-dimentional
visulaization
Endmembers
extraction
ElMissikat
area
Endmembers
Selection for
the Siliceous
Materials
Field Proved
SAM
MF
ASTER data of
Gattar
Landsat 8 data
of Gattar
ASTER data of
El Eradiya
Landsat 8 data
of El Eradiya
Recognition
and
Delineation of
Siliceous
Materials
Promising for U
Mineralization

23. Pixel purity index

24. N-Dimensional
visualization
and endmember
extraction

25. Endmember
extracted
from ASTER
Data of El
Missikat area

26. Endmember
extracted from
Landsat 8 Data
of El Missikat
area

27. Silicified zone
invaded El Missikat
mineralized shear
zone
Silicified zone
extended to upper
part of El Missikat
mineralized shear
zone

28. Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM)

29. Results of Applying
(SAM) Technique on
Gattar ASTER Data

30. Results of Applying
(SAM) Technique on
Gattar Landsat 8 Data

31. Results of
Applying (SAM)
Technique on
El Eradiya ASTER
Data

32. Results of
Applying (SAM)
Technique on
El Eradiya
Landsat 8 Data

33. Matched Filtering (MF)

34. Results of Applying
(MF) Technique on
Gattar ASTER Data

35. Results of Applying
(MF) Technique on
Gattar Landsat 8 Data

36. Results of
Applying (MF)
Technique on
El Eradiya ASTER
Data

37. Results of
Applying (SAM)
Technique on
El Eradiya
Landsat 8 Data

38. eU of Airborn data

39. Field Validation

40. Siliceous materials intruded to the Granite

41. Kaolinitized alteration affecting the granite

42. Partially episyanitized granite, Southern
part of Gattar pluton

43. (B)(A)
Fig. 15: EDX and BSE image showing uranium mineralization (bright tone)
associated with siliceous materials (A) and kaolinite alteration (B), Southern part
of Gattar pluton

44. Assessment of GIS
in
Radioactive Mineral Exploration

45. Satellite image
showing the
locations of
uranium
occurrences in
G. Gattar area

46. Geological map of G-V area, North Eastern Desert, Egypt
(Modified after Abdel Hamid, 2006).

47. Fig. 4: (a) Uranium mineralizations of yellow color and hematitization stained the rock surface of HSR, (b)
Two separated photographs illustrating the differences between the fresh Hammamat Sedimentary
Rocks and the same rocks after bleaching, (c) Purple fluorite filling the fracture of the rock, (d) Two
separated photographs illustrating the fresh granite and the same rock after episyenitization.
Salman et al. 1990, Shalaby, 1990, Roz, 1994 and Mahdy 1999

48. Alteration
Features
Derived Maps
GIS Processing (Digitized and Building Database)
GIS Processing (Spatial
Analysis)
Hematitization
Uranium
Potentiality Map
Factors
Controlling
Uranium
Mineralization
Lithology
(Contact zone)
Spectrometry
Uranium
Mineralization
Bleached
HSR
Kaolinitization
Episyenitization
Granite
eU Contents
Visible
Uranium
Mineralization

49. Thematic layer
Map
rank
Map weight
(Wi)
Class ranges Degree Rank
Capability
Value (CVi)
Distance from
Contact zone
2 2/16 = 0.125
0-10 m
10-20 m
20-30 m
> 30 m
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
4
3
2
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Distance from
Visible U
Zones
3 3/16 = 0.1875
0-10 m
10-20 m
20-30 m
> 30 m
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
4
3
2
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
eU content
3 3/16 =0.1875
916-3000 eU
404-916 eU
154-404 eU
35-154 eU
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
4
3
2
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Distance from
Hematitization
zones
2 2/16 = 0.125
0-10 m
10-20 m
20-30 m
> 30 m
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
4
3
2
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Distance from
Kaolinitization
zones
2 2/16 = 0.125
0-10 m
10-20 m
20-30 m
> 30 m
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
4
3
2
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Distance from
Episyenitization
zones
2 2/16 = 0.125
0-10 m
10-20 m
20-30 m
> 30 m
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
4
3
2
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Distance from
Bleaching
zones
2 2/16 = 0.125
0-10 m
10-20 m
20-30 m
> 30 m
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
4
3
2
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

58. Wi = Czw + Uw + Raw + Hew + Kaw + Blw + Epw
Where; Wi is map weight,
Cz is the lithology represented by contact zone,
U is the visible Uranium (chemically proved),
Ra is the spectromertic measurement of eU,
He is the hematitized zones,
Ka is kaolinitized zones,
Bl is the bleached Hammamate SR,
Ep is the Episyenitization granitic bodies.
w indicates the weight of the individual features of each
thematic layer after normalization
 = CViWiUP

60. Uranium Potentiality Area (m2) Percent
(%)
Very High 15825.4 2.5
High 21334.1 3.5
Moderate 36373.6 5.9
Low 540447.2 88
Total 613980.1 100

61. Conclusion
and
Recommendation

62. 1. Hyperspectral analysis of these data covering the study
areas has resulted in significant improvement of the
hydrothermal alteration (siliceous materials) mapping of
these areas.
4. For future work, this study suggests that collecting field
reflectance spectra of the siliceous materials and alteration
zones and laboratory spectral measurements of field
samples. The collected spectra can be used for ASTER and
Landsat-8 image classification.

63. THANK YOU
FOR
YOUR ATTENTION