“…Although several geophysical methods exist, in this study, the sensitivity of the method (for the detection and location of horizontal and vertical structures or bodies), the type of mineralization sought (metallic sulphides), the depth of the targets (near surface), the geological environment (site constituted by ancient sedimentary deposits) and geomorphological environment (topographic variation), the deposit mode (diffuse or disseminated) and the area of investigation are a set of factors that justify, as in most studies (Gouet et al., 2013; Gündoğdu et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2021; Sağır et al., 2020), the choice of the electrical method as the ideal approach for this study. The choice of using the direct current (DC) and induced polarization (IP) electrical methods over the self‐potential method is not only due to their good accuracy and depth of investigation but also to their affinity in the detection of a particular type of mineralization (clays, metal sulphides, graphite and certain metal oxides such as magnetite) (Chouteau, 2006; Claude et al., 2014; Gouet et al., 2013; Kayode et al., 2022; Lenhare & Moreira, 2020; Martin et al., 2020; Shirazi et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Moreover, with these two methods, the electrical tomography technique (acquisition in vertical sections of electrical data) can be easily used, and the different tomographic sections obtained after data processing can be used in 3D modelling and preliminary estimation of the volume of anomalies (Embeng et al., 2022; Martin et al., 2020; Moreira et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2018; Ya‐wei et al., 2015).…”