Pros and Cons (Lithosphere)

PROS - Fast - Non-destructive CONS - Limited - cannot provide full structural info - Water skews it

PROS - Allows specific identification of geological features - Determines purity CONS - Time consuming/difficult to master - Expensive

PROS - Equipment easy to use/transport - Not impacted by interference that other geophysical methods are CONS - Difficult to estimate depth - Skilled people are needed to use the data and configure results etc

PROS - Gives much useful data in just one survey - gives superior results where large velocity contrasts exist CONS - cannot image a low-velocity layer e.g. sand below clay - cannot image thin, high-velocity layers

PROS - only way to confirm exactly how big and rich a deposit is - work can be carried out relatively quickly CONS - high level of surface disturbance and potential for wall collapse - most expensive form of mineral deposit detection

PROS - high resolution means it can analyse complex samples - fast and non destructive CONS - limitations on measuring lighter elements - high accuracy requires a similar and suitable reference standard to be compared to

PROS - low cost due to speed and efficiency - minimal ground disturbance/non invasive CONS - condition dependent: space, cables etc - can be easily complicated by external factors e.g. noise

PROS - ID of minerals - quite accurate CONS - cost - need for specific expertise and a lab, so time consuming in that way`

PROS - convenient - saves time (results are available immediately and do not have to wait for lab results to be received) - relatively cheap - don’t destroy land - test solid, liquid and gas samples CONS - lower sensitivity than lab results - strongly influence by env conditions - chances of sample contamination from other elements (not completely accurate)

PROS - large area - high res - low cost compared to ground based - can be used anywhere, especially useful in thick veg cover locations CONS - depth limitations - still very expensive