Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Keith A. Labay

Publications and source records attributed to Keith A. Labay.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Synergy between geology and geophysics in graphite mineral resource assessment

Graphite is designated as a critical mineral by the U.S. Government due to its essential role in modern technology and its vulnerability to supply chain disruption. To evaluate domestic graphite resources, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted two airborne electromagnetic (AEM) surveys as part of the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) over prospective areas in the southern Appalachians of Alabama and the Seward Peninsula of Alaska. These surveys aimed to refine areas of interest by revealing subsurface electrical resistivity patterns indicative of graphite-bearing rocks. The results of the AEM surveys were integrated with existing geological knowledge and supplemented by field observations to assess the likelihood of undiscovered resources in these regions. This multidisciplinary approach combined geophysical techniques with traditional geological methods, enhancing the understanding of graphite potential in areas that may have been previously overlooked. The findings from this initiative are expected to contribute significantly to the ongoing efforts to secure a reliable domestic supply of graphite, thereby reducing import reliance and supporting national interests in mineral resource management.

Conference Paper↗

Geospatial analysis delineates lode gold prospectivity in Alaska

Comprehensive, data-driven geographic information system analyses utilize publicly available lithologic, geochemical, geophysical, and mineral occurrence datasets to delineate gold resource potential in Alaska. These prospectivity analyses successfully identify areas containing known lode gold occurrences, expand areas of high prospectivity around known occurrences, improve the precision of delineation of areas of high prospectivity for lode gold deposit types, and determine new areas that may have potential for gold deposits. These analyses indicate prospectivity in areas where exposure is good and in areas where exposure is poor, which provide useful guidance for land-use decisions and exploration strategies.

Alaska↗

Tungsten skarn potential of the Yukon-Tanana Upland, eastern Alaska, USA—A mineral resource assessment

Tungsten (W) is used in a variety of industrial and technological applications and has been identified as a critical mineral for the United States, India, the European Union, and other countries. These countries rely on W imports mostly from China, which leaves them vulnerable to supply disruption. Consequently, the U.S. government has a current initiative to understand domestic resource potential. The eastern Alaska portion of the Yukon-Tanana Upland (YTU), is prospective for W skarn deposits, the major source of global W supply. The regional geology consists of juxtaposed Paleozoic lithotectonic packages that were reaccreted to North America in the Mesozoic . Multiple subsequent episodes of arc-related magmatism intruded the lithotectonic packages, accompanied by W skarn formation mostly associated with 100–90 Ma intrusions; major W skarn deposits in Canada are part of the same metallogenic event (e.g., Mactung, Cantung). In this paper, we present an assessment for undiscovered W skarn resources for parts of the lesser-explored western (Alaskan) portion of the YTU. We used GIS proximity analysis to map the intersection of pluton and carbonate-bearing rocks to define three permissive tracts for W skarn deposits. The permissive tracts were qualitatively assessed by mineral potential mapping using region-wide sediment geochemistry and mineral concentrate datasets. This analysis showed that much of the western YTU has high potential for undiscovered W skarn deposits, whereas the eastern and southern YTU had only isolated areas of medium to high potential. Historical production and the quality of the geochemistry data of the western YTU tract (ca. 9200 km 2 ) permitted a quantitative assessment of undiscovered W resources. Probabilistic estimates by a panel of 20 experts predicted a 70% chance of one to three undiscovered W skarn deposits in the western YTU tract. The rationale for favorability employed by the expert panel included favorable lithology, previous production, clustering of previously mined deposits, W placers in the area, lack of recent exploration, pan concentrates containing W minerals, and W geochemical anomalies. Estimates were combined with a global grade and tonnage model for W skarns in a Monte Carlo simulation and provided a median estimate of undiscovered resources of 94 kt WO 3 . If the undiscovered W skarn deposits are located close to infrastructure (e.g., near Fairbanks, or close to roads and/or power grid), application of an economic filter indicates that the median total economically recoverable WO 3 is 63 kt with a net present value (NPV) of $330 million USD (2008 dollars). Whereas if deposits are far from infrastructure, median recoverable WO 3 is only 30 kt and the NPV is $44 million. Our models for contained WO 3 resources and NPV estimates for the western YTU tract are considerably lower than the known resources in skarns in adjacent areas in Canada. Estimates for the western YTU are also lower than preliminary estimates for undiscovered W skarn deposits in areas of the western conterminous United States. We speculate that lower permeability and continuity of favorable carbonate rock horizons in the relatively higher-grade metamorphic country rocks in the Alaska portion of the YTU may explain some of the differences in prospectivity. More detailed geologic mapping, modern geochemistry, and geophysical surveys are needed to refine the resource potential of the whole YTU. Regardless, quantitative mineral resource assessment provides a useful tool for making first-order regional estimates of undiscovered resources, identifying target areas for new data acquisition, and guiding research on the fundamental controls of district-scale metallogenic endowments.

Alaska↗

GIS-based identification of areas that have resource potential for lode gold in Alaska

Several comprehensive, data-driven geographic information system (GIS) analyses were conducted to assess prospectivity for lode gold in Alaska. These analyses use available geospatial datasets of lithologic, geochemical, mineral occurrence, and geophysical data to build models for recognizing different types of gold deposits within physiographic units defined by stream drainage basins that are approximately 100 square kilometers in area. The analytical methods successfully delineated areas in the State that contain known lode gold deposits and occurrences, providing some measure of confidence in their ability to predict gold prospectivity in areas of unknown lode gold potential. The results of our analyses indicate high prospectivity in a few areas scattered around the State that are not known to contain lode gold deposits. In addition to assessing the potential for lode gold deposits in Alaska, we designed analyses to distinguish different lode gold deposit types, including orogenic, reduced-intrusion-related, epithermal, and gold-bearing porphyry. These can primarily be differentiated using their unique trace element geochemical fingerprints and elemental enrichments, which reflect the characteristics of the geologic environment and chemistry of the ore-forming fluids. We identified multiple parameters that would discriminate the different types of gold deposits, but owing to the limits of available data, the compositional similarity of ore-forming fluids among some types of lode gold deposits, and overlapping geologic environments, distinguishing deposit types at the state scale in Alaska remains problematic. These limitations resulted in overlapping areas of prospectivity for different deposit types, highlighting the challenges for targeted gold exploration in Alaska. Adjustment of some scoring parameters and recharacterization at smaller scales to highlight individual mineral systems for application of prospectivity analyses may be helpful at a district scale. At a regional scale, the aerial overlap of individual deposit type analyses reinforces confidence in prospectivity for a lode gold resource in a drainage basin. Our analysis for undivided lode gold deposits will be the most practical analysis for landuse decisions in which delineation of areas that have confident potential for gold deposits in general is the primary goal. Data-driven GIS analysis for lode gold potential in Alaska, although limited by the size and uneven coverage of available datasets, objectively indicates prospectivity in areas where exposure is good as well as in areas under cover. The results of our analyses show medium to high prospectivity in areas that surround known deposits, indicating an overall expansion of areas that have the potential to contain gold deposits. Exploration in these areas may help improve the balance between the volume of gold produced in placer districts statewide and the relatively low volume of identified lode resources that contribute to these placer deposits. The results of our analyses can help focus future investigations in areas that show prospectivity but are not known to contain gold deposits, as well as in areas where data are lacking and the geology is poorly understood, and acquisition of additional data may help better define and constrain gold prospectivity.

Alaska↗

Chemical analysis of archived stream-sediment samples, Alaska

Geochemical data are presented for more than 1,500 archived stream-sediment samples and accompanying quality control samples. The archived sediments were reanalyzed to improve the stream geochemical dataset for Alaska and to support ongoing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies. Sediment samples were primarily from the USGS Mineral Resources Program’s sample archive in Denver, Colorado, but a few were from the Alaska Geological & Geophysical Surveys’ Geologic Materials Center in Anchorage, Alaska. All samples were submitted to the USGS contract laboratory, AGAT Laboratories, for analysis. All samples were analyzed using a 60-element analytical method involving fusion of the sample by sodium peroxide, dissolution of the fusion cake by nitric acid, and elemental analysis by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy. Additionally, 106 samples from the Nixon Fork area were analyzed by a second multi-element method involving decomposition by a mixture of hydrochloric, nitric, perchloric, and hydrofluoric acids and the elemental analysis of the resulting solution by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy. The latter method was used because the detection limit is lower for several elements including As, Cd, Pb, and Sb. Mercury concentrations in 296 samples from southeast Alaska were determined using a cold-vapor atomic absorption spectrometry method. The concentration data from the archived samples are presented along with concentration data from the standard reference material that was submitted with the samples.

Alaska↗

GIS-based identification of areas that have resource potential for sediment-hosted Pb-Zn deposits in Alaska

A state-wide Geographic Information System analysis was conducted to assess prospectivity for lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) in sediment-hosted deposits in Alaska. The datasets that were utilized include publicly available geospatial datasets of lithologic, geochemical, and mineral occurrence data. Key characteristics of Pb-Zn deposits were identified in available datasets and scored with respect to relative importance. To evaluate resource potential, drainage basins of the smallest size were chosen, each of which covers approximately 100 square kilometers (km 2 ). Drainage basins are the most logical and efficient unit for evaluation because the most regionally robust dataset comes from stream sediment geochemistry. Sediment-hosted Pb-Zn deposits in Alaska include those contained in carbonate rocks (similar to Mississippi Valley Type or MVT deposits) and those contained in clastic-dominated (CD) sequences (CD Pb-Zn), historically referred to as SEDEX (sedimentary exhalative). The latter include the deposits currently being mined in the Red Dog district in the western Brooks Range. Host rocks for the two subtypes are distinct: carbonate versus fine-grained clastic rocks for CD Pb-Zn deposits. However, there are exceptions: some CD Pb-Zn deposits are hosted in carbonate layers within a thick clastic-dominated rock sequence. The statewide geologic map database contains units that commonly include mixed carbonate-clastic sequences that cannot be subdivided. The most significant difference between the two deposit types is their respective depositional environments and tectonic settings, but at the reconnaissance level of mapping in most areas of the state, these distinctions are not possible. Furthermore, nearly all critical geochemical parameters (silver [Ag], barium [Ba], Pb, Zn) are common to both types, and therefore it was not possible to do separate assessments for carbonate-hosted and CD Pb-Zn deposits. Areas identified that have moderate to high potential for sediment-hosted Pb-Zn deposits include the (1) western and central Brooks Range, referred to in this report as the Brooks Range zinc belt; (2) Seward Peninsula (and adjacent St. Lawrence Island); (3) Farewell terrane in Interior Alaska; (4) two spatially distinct belts in east-central Alaska; and (5) the central Alaska Range. All areas contain some known deposits, and that provides credibility to the scoring process. Some hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) that have high potential for sediment-hosted Pb-Zn deposits are located adjacent to areas of known deposits and indicate the potential for expansion of known Pb-Zn districts. There are a few areas that have high potential but contain no known sediment hosted Pb-Zn occurrences, prospects, or deposits. In such areas, future investigations could be focused on better defining and constraining prospectivity with additional data.

Alaska↗

Alaska Geochemical Database Version 3.0 (AGDB3)—Including “Best Value” Data Compilations for Rock, Sediment, Soil, Mineral, and Concentrate Sample Media

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 3.0 (AGDB3) contains new geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one “best value” determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving speed and efficiency of use. Like the Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 before it, the AGDB3 was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, element concentrations and associations, environmental impact assessments, and studies in public health associated with geology. This relational database, created from data-bases and published datasets of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Atomic Energy Commission National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE), Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), U.S. Bureau of Mines, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management serves as a data archive in support of Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects and contains data tables in several different formats describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 112 laboratory and field analytical methods on 396,343 rock, sediment, soil, mineral, heavy-mineral concentrate, and oxalic acid leachate samples. Most samples were collected by personnel of these agencies and analyzed in agency laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various agency programs and projects from 1938 through 2017. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy-mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB3 includes historical geochemical data archived in the USGS National Geochemical Database (NGDB) and NURE National Uranium Resource Evaluation-Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance databases, and in the DGGS Geochemistry database. Retrievals from these data-bases were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. In other words, the data of AGDB3 supersedes data in the AGDB and the AGDB2, but the background about the data in these two earlier versions are needed by users of the current AGDB3 to understand what has been done to amend, clean up, correct and format this data. Corrections were entered, resulting in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset, the AGDB3. Data that were not previously in these databases because the data predate the earliest agency geochemical data-bases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB3 and will be added to the NGDB and Alaska Geochemistry. The AGDB3 data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB3 data provided in the online version of the database may be updated or changed periodically.

Alaska↗

Submarine deposition of a subaerial landslide in Taan Fiord, Alaska

A large subaerial landslide entered Taan Fiord, Alaska, on 17 October 2015 producing a tsunami with runup to 193 m. We use LiDAR data to show the slide volume to be 76 + 3/−4 million cubic meters and that 51,000,000 m 3 entered Taan Fiord. In 2016, we mapped the fjord with multibeam bathymetry and high‐resolution seismic data. Landslide and postlandslide deposits extend 6 km downfjord, are up to 70 ± 11 m thick, and have a total volume of ~147,000,000 m 3 . Seismic data image a blocky landslide unit and two units deposited immediately after the landslide. The blocky landslide unit is ~65,000,000 m 3 . We infer it consists dominantly of subaerially derived material and secondarily of fjord floor sediment. The overlying units are likely megaturbidites presumably deposited within minutes to days after the landslide. We infer that these deposits dominantly consist of fjord floor material mobilized and suspended as the slide entered and traveled downfjord. The lower postlandslide unit is up to 35 ± 6 m thick, and the upper unit is up to 12 ± 3 m thick. These deposits are distinctive and will leave a lasting record of the event. This subaerial‐to‐submarine landslide deposit is distinct from other submarine landslide deposits studied in Alaskan fjords because it has a much greater thickness, larger and more angular blocks, distinctive postlandslide megaturbidites, and a higher‐amplitude acoustic signature of the blocky deposit. The tight constraints on the landslide source and deposit volumes, topography, bathymetry, and tsunami runup heights and flow directions should make this a benchmark site for landslide‐tsunami models.

Alaska↗

Geospatial analysis identifies critical mineral-resource potential in Alaska

Alaska consists of more than 663,000 square miles (1,717,000 square kilometers) of land—more than a sixth of the total area of the United States—and large tracts of it have not been system atically studied or sampled for mineral- resource potential. Many regions of the State are known to have significant mineral-resource potential, and there are currently six operating mines in the State along with numerous active mineral exploration projects. The U.S. Geologi cal Survey and the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys have developed a new geospatial tool that integrates and analyzes publicly available databases of geologic information and estimates the mineral-resource potential for criti cal minerals, which was recently used to evaluate Alaska. The results of the analyses highlight areas that have known mineral deposits and also reveal areas that were not previously considered to be prospective for these deposit types. These results will inform land manage ment decisions by Federal, State, and private landholders, and will also help guide future exploration activities and scientific investigations in Alaska.

Alaska↗

Alaska geology revealed

This map shows the generalized geology of Alaska, which helps us to understand where potential mineral deposits and energy resources might be found, define ecosystems, and ultimately, teach us about the earth history of the State. Rock units are grouped in very broad categories on the basis of age and general rock type. A much more detailed and fully referenced presentation of the geology of Alaska is available in the Geologic Map of Alaska ( http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sim3340 ). This product represents the simplification of thousands of individual rock units into just 39 broad groups. Even with this generalization, the sheer complexity of Alaskan geology remains evident.

Alaska↗

Geologic map of the Valdez D-1 and D-2 quadrangles (Mount Wrangell Volcano), Alaska

Geologic Note Mount Wrangell (elev. 4,317 m) is the youngest and only active volcano in the Oligocene to Holocene-aged Wrangell volcanic field that extends from beyond the Alaska-Yukon border northwest through the Wrangell Mountains to the Copper River Basin. The volcano is a very large (900 km 3 ) broad shield containing an ice-filled, nonexplosive, collapse caldera measuring 3.2 by 5.6 kilometers. Three known craters, the West, North, and East occur along the north and west margins of the caldera; the caldera is open to the southeast. The volcano is best exposed on its southwest flank (this map area) where a number of deep glaciated canyons cut through hundreds of meters of shield lava flows creating routes for younger, valley-filling lava flows. The shield extends north into the Gulkana A-1 quadrangle, northeast into the Nabesna A-6 quadrangle, and east into the McCarthy quadrangle where it is almost entirely covered by ice. The present extent of the Mount Wrangell shield showing the entire caldera and locations of the three summit craters is depicted in figure 1. Mount Wrangell was built rapidly beginning about 650 ka by the outpourings of hundreds of voluminous lava flows from a vent, or vents, apparently in the present summit area. By 200 ka to 300 ka, activity waned and only an occasional lava flow coursed down the glacially carved valleys radiating from the summit or flowed over the upper summit area above the heads of the glacial valleys. The youngest dated valley-fill lava flow is approximately 25,000 years old; one or two undated flows may be younger. In historical times there have been several reports of lava flows issuing from the summit area. The most reliable and convincing of these were two independent observations from Copper Center, Alaska on September 3, 1899 that described great earth movements (the 1899 Yakutat Bay earthquake) followed by an eruption at Mount Wrangell’s summit, consisting of vigorous ash emission and flowing lava on the volcano’s northwest flank. This eruptive activity apparently continued for several years after the earthquake, as a photo taken around 1901–02 shows a large part of Mount Wrangell’s summit blanketed by ash. During this study, no evidence of young lava flows in the region were found, although it is very possible that a small-volume flow could be entirely hidden by snow and ice in the 100 years since the event. However, abundant juvenile andesitic pumice was found on the upper Chetaslina Glacier, strongly supporting a very young pyroclastic eruption. In addition to the 1899–1902 eruptions there have been accounts of strong ash-producing activity on at least four different occasions: 1912, July 3, 1921, April 6, 1930, and February 20, 1982. Of these, the 1921 activity was the most spectacular, and possibly erupted from the northeast side of the summit caldera. Present activity is limited to fumaroles in North and West Crater at the summit, at the summit ridge near East Crater, and at two localities at an elevation of 3,657 m on the southwest flank. The summit fumaroles frequently give rise to visible steam plumes, and occasionally sporadic explosive phreatic activity in North and West Crater will put a thin dusting of ash on the summit ice. This study was directed toward Mount Wrangell volcano and the older Wrangell volcanic field rocks that underlie the volcano. These older lavas include the Chetaslina lavas (867 ka–1,650 ka) and a basaltic andesite–dacite center (1,590 ka–1,640 ka) whose source areas are not well defined. Older Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks of the Wrangellia terrane underlie the entire Wrangell volcanic field.

Alaska↗

A submarine landslide source for the devastating 1964 Chenega tsunami, southern Alaska

During the 1964 Great Alaska earthquake (M w 9.2), several fjords, straits, and bays throughout southern Alaska experienced significant tsunami runup of localized, but unexplained origin. Dangerous Passage is a glacimarine fjord in western Prince William Sound, which experienced a tsunami that devastated the village of Chenega where 23 of 75 inhabitants were lost – the highest relative loss of any community during the earthquake. Previous studies suggested the source of the devastating tsunami was either from a local submarine landslide of unknown origin or from coseismic tectonic displacement. Here we present new observations from high-resolution multibeam bathymetry and seismic reflection surveys conducted in the waters adjacent to the village of Chenega. The seabed morphology and substrate architecture reveal a large submarine landslide complex in water depths of 120–360 m. Analysis of bathymetric change between 1957 and 2014 indicates the upper 20–50 m ( ∼ 0.7 km 3 ) of glacimarine sediment was destabilized and evacuated from the steep face of a submerged moraine and an adjacent ∼ 21 km 2 perched sedimentary basin. Once mobilized, landslide debris poured over the steep, 130 m-high face of a deeper moraine and then blanketed the terminal basin ( ∼ 465 m water depth) in 11 ± 5 m of sediment. These results, combined with inverse tsunami travel-time modeling, suggest that earthquake- triggered submarine landslides generated the tsunami that struck the village of Chenega roughly 4 min after shaking began. Unlike other tsunamigenic landslides observed in and around Prince William Sound in 1964, the failures in Dangerous Passage are not linked to an active submarine delta. The requisite environmental conditions needed to generate large submarine landslides in glacimarine fjords around the world may be more common than previously thought.

Alaska↗

Lithium brines: A global perspective

Lithium is a critical and technologically important element that has widespread use, particularly in batteries for hybrid cars and portable electronic devices. Global demand for lithium has been on the rise since the mid-1900s and is projected to continue to increase. Lithium is found in three main deposit types: (1) pegmatites, (2) continental brines, and (3) hydrothermally altered clays. Continental brines provide approximately three-fourths of the world’s Li production due to their relatively low production cost. The Li-rich brine systems addressed here share six common characteristics that provide clues to deposit genesis while also serving as exploration guidelines. These are as follows: (1) arid climate; (2) closed basin containing a salar (salt crust), a salt lake, or both; (3) associated igneous and/or geothermal activity; (4) tectonically driven subsidence; (5) suitable lithium sources; and (6) sufficient time to concentrate brine. Two detailed case studies of Li-rich brines are presented; one on the longest produced lithium brine at Clayton Valley, Nevada, and the other on the world’s largest producing lithium brine at the Salar de Atacama, Chile.

Book chapter↗

GIS-Based Identification of Areas with Mineral Resource Potential for Six Selected Deposit Groups, Bureau of Land Management Central Yukon Planning Area, Alaska

This study, covering the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Yukon Planning Area (CYPA), Alaska, was prepared to aid BLM mineral resource management planning. Estimated mineral resource potential and certainty are mapped for six selected mineral deposit groups: (1) rare earth element (REE) deposits associated with peralkaline to carbonatitic intrusive igneous rocks, (2) placer and paleoplacer gold, (3) platinum group element (PGE) deposits associated with mafic and ultramafic intrusive igneous rocks, (4) carbonate-hosted copper deposits, (5) sandstone uranium deposits, and (6) tin-tungsten-molybdenum-fluorspar deposits associated with specialized granites. These six deposit groups include most of the strategic and critical elements of greatest interest in current exploration. This study has used a data-driven, geographic information system (GIS)-based method for evaluating the mineral resource potential across the large region of the CYPA. This method systematically and simultaneously analyzes geoscience data from multiple geospatially referenced datasets and uses individual subwatersheds (12-digit hydrologic unit codes or HUCs) as the spatial unit of classification. The final map output indicates an estimated potential (high, medium, low) for a given mineral deposit group and indicates the certainty (high, medium, low) of that estimate for any given subwatershed (HUC). Accompanying tables describe the data layers used in each analysis, the values assigned for specific analysis parameters, and the relative weighting of each data layer that contributes to the estimated potential and certainty determinations. Core datasets used include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB2), the Alaska Division of Geologic and Geophysical Surveys Web-based geochemical database, data from an anticipated USGS geologic map of Alaska, and the USGS Alaska Resource Data File. Map plates accompanying this report illustrate the mineral prospectivity for the six deposit groups across the CYPA and estimates of mineral resource potential. There are numerous areas, some of them large, rated with high potential for one or more of the selected deposit groups within the CYPA.

Alaska↗

New imaging of submarine landslides from the 1964 earthquake near Whittier, Alaska, and a comparison to failures in other Alaskan fjords

The 1964 Alaska M w 9.2 earthquake triggered numerous submarine slope failures in fjords of southern Alaska. These failures generated local tsunamis, such as at Whittier, where they inundated the town within 4 min of the beginning of shaking. Run-up was up to 32 m, with 13 casualties. We collected new multibeam bathymetry and high-resolution sparker seismic data in Passage Canal, and we examined bathymetry changes before and after the earthquake. The data reveal the debris flow deposit from the 1964 landslides, which covers the western 5 km of the fjord bottom. Individual blocks in the flow are up to 145-m wide and 25-m tall. Bathymetry changes show the mass transfer deposits originated from the fjord head and Whittier Creek deltas and had a volume of about 42 million m 3 . The 1964 deposit has an average thickness of ∼5.4 m. Beyond the debris flow, the failures likely deposited a ∼4.6-m thick megaturbidite in a distal basin. We have studied the 1964 submarine landslides in three fjords. All involved failure of the fjord-head delta. All failures eroded basin-floor sediments and incorporated them as they travelled. All the failures deposited blocks, but their size and travel distances varied greatly. We find a correlation between maximum block size and maximum tsunami run-up regardless of the volume of the slides. Lastly, the fjord’s margins were influenced by increased supply of glacial sediments during the little ice age, which along with a long interseismic interval (∼900 years) may have caused the 1964 earthquake to produce particularly numerous and large submarine landslides.

Alaska↗

Alaska Geochemical Database, Version 2.0 (AGDB2)–Including “best value” data compilations for rock, sediment, soil, mineral, and concentrate sample mediaI

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2) contains new geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one “best value” determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving speed and efficiency of use. Like the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB, http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/637/) before it, the AGDB2 was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska in order to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, environmental impact assessments, and studies in medical geology. This relational database, created from the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB) that was released in 2011, serves as a data archive in support of present and future Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects, and contains data tables in several different formats describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 85 laboratory and field analytical methods on 264,095 rock, sediment, soil, mineral and heavy-mineral concentrate samples. Most samples were collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel and analyzed in U.S. Geological Survey laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various U.S. Geological Survey programs and projects from 1962 through 2009. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy-mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB2 includes historical geochemical data originally archived in the U.S. Geological Survey Rock Analysis Storage System (RASS) database, used from the mid-1960s through the late 1980s and the U.S. Geological Survey PLUTO database used from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. All of these data are currently maintained in the National Geochemical Database (NGDB). Retrievals from the NGDB were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. This arduous process of reviewing, verifying and, where necessary, editing all U.S. Geological Survey geochemical data resulted in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset. USGS data that were not previously in the NGDB because the data predate the earliest U.S. Geological Survey geochemical databases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB2 and will be added to the NGDB. The AGDB2 data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date, and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB2 data provided in the linked database may be updated or changed periodically.

Alaska↗

A preliminary deposit model for lithium brines

This report is part of an effort by the U.S. Geological Survey to update existing mineral deposit models and to develop new ones. The global transition away from hydrocarbons toward energy alternatives increases demand for many scarce metals. Among these is lithium, a key component of lithium-ion batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles. Lithium brine deposits account for about three-fourths of the world’s lithium production. Updating an earlier deposit model, we emphasize geologic information that might directly or indirectly help in exploration for lithium brine deposits, or for assessing regions for mineral resource potential. Special attention is given to the best-known deposit in the world—Clayton Valley, Nevada, and to the giant Salar de Atacama, Chile.

California, Nevada↗

Alaska Geochemical Database - Mineral Exploration Tool for the 21st Century - PDF of presentation

The U.S. Geological Survey has created a geochemical database of geologic material samples collected in Alaska. This database is readily accessible to anyone with access to the Internet. Designed as a tool for mineral or environmental assessment, land management, or mineral exploration, the initial version of the Alaska Geochemical Database - U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 637 - contains geochemical, geologic, and geospatial data for 264,158 samples collected from 1962-2009: 108,909 rock samples; 92,701 sediment samples; 48,209 heavy-mineral-concentrate samples; 6,869 soil samples; and 7,470 mineral samples. In addition, the Alaska Geochemical Database contains mineralogic data for 18,138 nonmagnetic-fraction heavy mineral concentrates, making it the first U.S. Geological Survey database of this scope that contains both geochemical and mineralogic data. Examples from the Alaska Range will illustrate potential uses of the Alaska Geochemical Database in mineral exploration. Data from the Alaska Geochemical Database have been extensively checked for accuracy of sample media description, sample site location, and analytical method using U.S. Geological Survey sample-submittal archives and U.S. Geological Survey publications (plus field notebooks and sample site compilation base maps from the Alaska Technical Data Unit in Anchorage, Alaska). The database is also the repository for nearly all previously released U.S. Geological Survey Alaska geochemical datasets. Although the Alaska Geochemical Database is a fully relational database in Microsoft® Access 2003 and 2010 formats, these same data are also provided as a series of spreadsheet files in Microsoft® Excel 2003 and 2010 formats, and as ASCII text files. A DVD version of the Alaska Geochemical Database was released in October 2011, as U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 637, and data downloads are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/637/ . Also, all Alaska Geochemical Database data have been incorporated into the interactive U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resource Data web portal, available at http://mrdata.usgs.gov/ .

Alaska↗