Natural Resources Research

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 571–584 | Cite as

Optimizing a Knowledge-driven Prospectivity Model for Gold Deposits Within Peräpohja Belt, Northern Finland

  • V. Nykänen
  • T. Niiranen
  • F. Molnár
  • I. Lahti
  • K. Korhonen
  • N. Cook
  • P. Skyttä
Original Paper


This paper combines knowledge- and data-driven prospectivity mapping approaches by using the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) spatial statistical technique to optimize the process of rescaling input datasets and the process of data integration when using a fuzzy logic prospectivity mapping method. The methodology is tested in an active mineral exploration terrain within the Paleoproterozoic Peräpohja Belt (PB) in the Northern Fennoscandian Shield, Finland. The PB comprises a greenschist to amphibolite facies, complexly deformed supracrustal sequence of variable quartzites, mafic volcanic rocks and volcaniclastic rocks, carbonate rocks, black shales, mica schists and graywackes. These formations were deposited on Archean basement and 2.44 Ga layered intrusions, during the multiple rifting of the Archean basement (2.44–1.92 Ga). Younger intrusive units in the PB comprise 2.20–2.13 Ga gabbroic sills or dikes and 1.98 Ga A-type granites. Metamorphism and complex deformation of the PB took place during the Svecofennian orogeny (1.9–1.8 Ga) and were followed by intrusions of post-orogenic granitoids (1.81–1.77 Ga). The recent mineral exploration activities have indicated several gold-bearing mineral occurrences within the PB. The Rompas Au-U mineralization is hosted within deformed and metamorphosed calc-silicate veins enclosed within mafic volcanic rocks and contains uranium-bearing zones without gold and very high-grade (>10,000 g/t Au) gold pockets with uraninite and uraninite-pyrobitumen nodules. In the vicinity of the Rompas, a magnesium skarn hosted disseminated-stockwork gold mineralization was also recognized at the Palokas-Rajapalot prospect. The exploration criteria translated into a fuzzy logic prospectivity model included data derived from regional till geochemistry (Fe, Cu, Co, Ni, Au, Te, K), high-resolution airborne geophysics (magnetic field total intensity, electromagnetic, gamma radiation), ground gravity and regional bedrock map (structures). The current exploration licenses and exploration drilling sites for gold were used to validate the knowledge-driven mineral prospectivity model.


Prospectivity Fuzzy logic Receiver operating characteristics Gold Uranium Paleoproterozoic Rompas Peräpohja Belt Finland 



Parts of this work were supported by the Academy of Finland project No. 281670, Mineral Systems and Mineral Prospectivity Mapping in Finnish Lapland and Tekes project No. 2631/31/2015. The constructive comments of Mark Gettings and an anonymous reviewer helped to improve the manuscript significantly.


  1. Agterberg, F. P., & Bonham-Carter, G. F. (2005). Measuring performance of mineral-potential maps. Natural Resources Research, 14, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Airo, M.-L. (Ed.) (2005). Aerogeophysics in Finland 1972–2004: Methods, system characteristics and applications. Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper, 39.Google Scholar
  3. Bedrock of Finland—DigiKP. (2016). Digital map database [Electronic resource]. Espoo: Geological Survey of Finland [referred 20.10.2016]. Version 1.0.Google Scholar
  4. Bonham-Carter, G. F. (1994). Geographic Information Systems for Geoscientists: Modelling with GIS (p. 398). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, W. M., Groves, D. I., Gedeon, T. D., & Tamas, D. (2003). An artificial neural network method for mineral prospectivity mapping; a comparison with fuzzy logic and Bayesian probability methods. Modern Approaches in Geophysics, 21, 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carranza, E. J. M. (2008). Geochemical anomaly and mineral prospectivity mapping in GIS. Handbook of exploration and environmental geochemistry (Vol. 11, p. 351). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Chung, C.-J., & Fabbri, A. G. (2008). Predicting landslides for risk analysis—Spatial models tested by a cross-validation technique. Geomorphology, 94, 438–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fabbri, A. G., & Chung, C. J. (2008). On blind tests and spatial prediction models. Natural Resources Research, 17, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27, 861–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldfarb, R. J., Groves, D. I., & Gardoll, S. (2001). Orogenic gold and geologic time: a global synthesis. Ore Geology Reviews, 18(1–2), 1–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Groves, D. I., Goldfarb, R. J., Gebre-Mariam, M., Hagemann, S., & Robert, F. (1998). Orogenic gold deposits: A proposed classification in the context of their crustal distribution and relationship to other gold deposit types. Ore Geology Reviews, 13(1–5), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hautaniemi, H., Kurimo, M., Multala, J., Leväniemi, H., & Vironmäki, J. (2005). The ‘three in one’ aerogeophysical concept of GTK in 2004. In: Airo, M.-L. (Ed.), Aerogeophysics in Finland 1972–2004: Methods, system characteristics and applications. Geological Survey of Finland, Special paper 39, 21–74.Google Scholar
  13. Hornby, P., Boschetti, F., & Horowitz, F. G. (1999). Analysis of potential field data in the wavelet domain. Geophysical Journal International, 137(1), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hronsky, J. M. A., & Groves, D. I. (2008). Science of targeting: definition, strategies, targeting and performance measurement. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 55(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kääriäinen, J., & Mäkinen, J. (1997). The 1979-1996 gravity survey and results of the gravity survey of Finland 1945–1996. Publications of the Finnish Geodetic Institute, 125.Google Scholar
  16. Kiviniemi, A. (1980). Gravity measurements in 1961-1978 and the results of the gravity survey of Finland in 1945-1978. Publications of the Finnish Geodetic Institute, 91, 22 p., and three maps.Google Scholar
  17. Knox-Robinson, C. M., & Wyborn, L. A. I. (1997). Towards a holistic exploration strategy: using geographic information systems as tool to enhance exploration. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 44, 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koistinen, T., Stephens, M.B., Bogatchev, V., Nordgulen, O., Wennerström, M., & Korhonen, J. (2001). Geological Map of the Fennoscandian Shield, scale 1:2 000 000. Espoo, Trondheim, Uppsala, Moscow. Geological Survey of Finland, Geological Survey of Norway, Geological Survey of Sweden, Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. Kontas, E. (1981). Rapid determination of gold by flameless atomic absorption spectrometry in the ppb and ppm ranges without organic solvent extraction. Atomic Spectroscopy, 2, 59–61.Google Scholar
  20. Kontas, E., Niskavaara, H., & Virtasalo, J. (1990). Gold, palladium and tellurium in South African, Chinese and Japanese geological reference samples. Geostandards Newsletter, 14, 477–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kreuzer, O. P., Miller, A. V. M., Peters, J., Payne, C., Wildman, C., Partington, G. A., et al. (2015). Comparing prospectivity modelling results and past exploration data: A case study of porphyry Cu–Au mineral systems in the Macquarie Arc, Lachlan Fold Belt, New South Wales. Ore Geology Reviews, 71, 516–544. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2014.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lahti, I., Nykänen, V., & Niiranen, T. (2014). Gravity worms in the exploration of epigenetic gold deposits: New insights into the prospectivity of the central Lapland Greenstone Belt, northern Finland. Geological Survey of Finland. Report of investigation, 209. Espoo. pp. 8–17.Google Scholar
  23. Lahtinen, R., Sayab, M., & Karell, F. (2015). Near-orthogonal deformation successions in the poly-deformed Paleoproterozoic Martimo belt: Implications for tectonic evolution of Northern Fennoscandia. Precambrian Research, 270, 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lisitsin, V. A., Gonzalez-Alvarez, I., & Porwal, A. (2013). Regional prospectivity analysis for hydrothermal-remobilised nickel mineral systems in Western Victoria, Australia. Ore Geology Reviews, 52, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCuaig, T. C., Beresford, S., & Hronsky, J. (2010). Translating the mineral systems approach into an effective exploration targeting system. Ore Geology Reviews, 38, 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCuaig, T. C., & Kerrich, R. (1998). P-T-t-deformation-fluid characteristics of lode gold deposits: evidence from alteration systematics. Ore Geology Reviews, 12(6), 381–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Molnár, F., Oduro, H., Cook, N. D. J., Pohjolainen, E., Takács, Á., O’Brien, H., et al. (2016a). Association of gold with uraninite and pyrobitumen in the metavolcanic rock hosted hydrothermal Au-U mineralisation at Rompas, Peräpohja Schist Belt, northern Finland. Mineralium Deposita, 51, 681–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molnár, F., Stein, H., O’Brien, H., Cook, N., Pohjolainen, E., Pakkanen, L., & Johanson, B. (2016b). Re-Os and U–Pb geochronology of the Au-U mineralization at Rompas, Peräpohja Schist Belt, northern Finland. In 32nd Nordic Geological Winter Meeting, 13–15 January. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Finland, Special Volume, Helsinki, pp. 125–126.Google Scholar
  29. Nykänen, V., Groves, D. I., Ojala, V. J., & Gardoll, S. J. (2008). Combined conceptual/empirical prospectivity mapping for orogenic gold in the northern Fennoscandian Shield, Finland. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 55(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nykänen, V., Lahti, I., Niiranen, T., & Korhonen, K. (2015). Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) as validation tool for prospectivity models – a magmatic Ni-Cu case study from the Central Lapland greenstone belt, Northern Finland. Ore Geology Reviews, 71, 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nykänen, V., & Salmirinne, H. (2007). Prospectivity analysis of gold using regional geophysical and geochemical data from the Central Lapland greenstone belt, Finland. Geological Survey of Finland Special Paper, 44, 251–269.Google Scholar
  32. Obuchowski, N. A. (2003). Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology, 229, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perttunen, V., & Vaasjoki, M. (2001). U-Pb geochronology of the Peräpohja Schist Belt, northwestern Finland. Geological Survey of Finland Special Paper, 33, 45–84.Google Scholar
  34. Piippo, S., Skyttä, P., & Holma, M. (2015). Recognizing the Structural Control of Mineral Deposits in Complexly Deformed Precambrian Terranes. Mineral Resources in a sustainable world. In Proceedings of the 13th biennial SGA meeting, Nancy, France. 5, 1747–1750.Google Scholar
  35. Pirttijärvi, M. (1995). TRANSAEM, Fortran-77 ohjelma GTK:n sähkömagneettisen lentomittausaineiston muuntamiseksi näennäiseksi johtavuudeksi ja syvyydeksi. Geological Survey of Finland, internal report Q17.9/95/1 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  36. Porwal, A., Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2003). Knowledge-driven and data-driven fuzzy models for predictive mineral potential mapping. Natural Resources Research, 12(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Porwal, A., Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2004). A hybrid neurofuzzy model for mineral potential mapping. Mathematical Geology, 36(7), 803–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porwal, A., Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2006). A hybrid fuzzy weights-of-evidence model for mineral potential mapping. Natural Resources Research, 15(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ranta, J. P., Hanski, E., Cook, N., & Lahaye, Y. (2016). Source of boron in the Palokas gold deposit, northern Finland: evidence from boron isotopes and major element composition of tourmaline. Mineralium Deposita. doi: 10.1007/s00126-016-0700-x.Google Scholar
  40. Ranta, J. P., Lauri, L. S., Hanski, E., Huhma, H., Lahaye, Y., & Vanhanen, E. (2015). U-Pb and Sm-Nd isotopic constraints on the evolution of the Paleoproterozoic Peräpohja Belt, northern Finland. Precambrian Research, 266, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson, G. R., Jr., & Larkins, P. M. (2007). Probabilistic prediction models for aggregate quarry siting. Natural Resources Research, 16, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salminen, R. (Ed.) (1995). Geochemical mapping in Finland in 1982-1994. In Finnish with summary in English. Geological Survey of Finland, Report of Investigation. 130, p. 47.Google Scholar
  43. Sarala, P. (2015). Surficial geochemical exploration methods (Chap. 10.1). In W. D. Mayer, R. Lahtinen, & H. O’Brien (Eds.), Mineral deposits of Finland (pp. 711–731). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-410438-9.00027-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsoukalas, L. H., & Uhrig, R. E. (1997). Fuzzy and neural approaches in engineering (p. 606). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  45. Vanhanen, E., Cook, N. D. J., Hudson, M. T., Dahlenborg, L., Ranta, J. P., Havela, T., et al. (2015). Rompas prospect, Peräpohja Schist Belt, Northern Finland. In W. Maier, R. Lahtinen, & H. O’Brien (Eds.), Ore deposits of Finland (pp. 467–484). Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wyborn, L. A. I., Heinrich, C. A., & Jaques, A. L. (1994). Australian Proterozoic mineral systems: essential ingredients and mappable criteria. In Proceedings Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Annual Conference, Melbourne. pp. 109–115.Google Scholar
  47. Yousefi, M., Kamkar-Rouhani, A., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2012). Geochemical mineralization probability index (GMPI): a new approach to generate enhanced stream sediment geochemical evidential map for increasing probability of success in mineral potential mapping. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 115, 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yousefi, M., Kamkar-Rouhani, A., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2014). Application of staged factor analysis and logistic function to create a fuzzy stream sediment geochemical evidence layer for mineral prospectivity mapping. Geochemistry: Exploration. Environmental, Analysis, 14, 45–58.Google Scholar
  49. Yousefi, M., & Nykänen, V. (2016). Data-driven logistic-based weighting of geochemical and geological evidence layers in mineral prospectivity mapping. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 164, 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineering, Information and Control, 8, 338–353.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Survey of FinlandRovaniemiFinland
  2. 2.Geological Survey of FinlandEspooFinland
  3. 3.Mawson Resources LtdVancouverCanada
  4. 4.Department of Geography and GeologyUniverstiy of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations