Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Minerals & deposits

Find USGS publications on mineral resources and deposits. Search commodities and geographic names, then check source reports for geology and assessment methods.

Follow this topic with RSS
At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2026

Guide and data requirements for submission of mineral deposit mineral chemistry data in the Critical Minerals in Ores - Mineral Chemistry (CMiO-MIN) database

The Critical Minerals in Ores - Mineral Chemistry (CMiO-MIN) database (Hawkins et al., 2026) is designed to capture ore and ore-related mineral compositional data from critical mineral-bearing deposits across the globe. Samples included within this database must be well-characterised and come from localities that have been sufficiently studied to have a reasonable constraint on their deposit type and environment of formation. As such, only samples analysed by modern geochemical methods, and with certain minimum metadata attribution, can be accepted. Data that is submitted to the CMiO-MIN database will also be published via the Geoscience Australia Portal (portal.ga.gov.au) and Critical Minerals Mapping Initiative Portal (www.criticalminerals.org). The CMiO-MIN database is a companion database for the Critical Minerals in Ores (CMiO) database (Champion et al., 2021) that was first published in 2021. This guide draws heavily from the submission guide for CMiO (Case et al., 2024) to ensure similar processes for each database. For more information about the CMiO database please refer Champion et al. (2021) and Case et al. (2024; 2025).

Report↗
USGS1986

The Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment Program; background information to accompany folio of geologic, geophysical, geochemical, mineral-occurrence, mineral-resource potential, and mineral-production maps of the Charlotte 1 degree x 2 degrees Quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina

This Circular and the folio of separately published maps described herein are part of a series of reports compiled under the Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment Program ICUSMAP). The folio on the Charlotte 1 degree ? 2 degree quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina, includes (1) a geologic map; (2) four geophysical maps; (3) geochemical maps for metamorphic heavy minerals, copper, lead and artifacts, zinc, gold, tin, beryllium, niobium, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium, cobalt, lithium, barium, antimony-arsenic-bismuth-cadmium, thorium-cerium-monazite, and limonite; (4) mineral-occurrence maps for kyanite-sillimanite-lithium-mica-feldspar-copper-lead-zinc, gold-quartz-barite-fluorite, iron-thorium-tin-niobium, and construction materials-gemstones; (5) mineral-resource potential maps for copper-lead-zinc-combined base metals, gold, tin-tungsten, beryllium-molybdenum-niobium, lithium-kyanite- sillimanitebarite, thorium (monazite)-uranium, and construction materials; and (6) mineral-production maps. The Charlotte quadrangle is mainly within the Piedmont physiographic province and extends from near the Coastal Plain on the southeast into the Blue Ridge province on the northwest for a short distance. Parts of six lithotectonic belts are present--the Blue Ridge, the Inner Piedmont, the Kings Mountain belt, the Charlotte belt, the Carolina slate belt, and the Wadesboro basin. Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks are present and range in age from Proterozoic to Mesozoic; alluvial sediments of Quaternary age occur along rivers and larger streams. Rocks of the Blue Ridge include Middle Proterozoic granitoid gneiss intruded by Late Proterozoic granite; Late Proterozoic paragneiss, schist, and other metasedimentary and metavolcaniclastic rocks (Ashe and Grandfather Mountain Formations); Late Proterozoic and Early Cambrian metasedimentary rocks (Chilhowee Group); and Early Cambrian sedimentary rocks (Shady Dolomite). Paleozoic granites intrude the Proterozoic rocks. The Inner Piedmont contains noncarbonate metasedimentary rocks and amphibolite of medium to high metamorphic grades. These rocks are intruded by the Toluca Granite and Henderson Gneiss of Cambrian and Ordovician(?) age. The Charlotte belt consists largely of Late Proterozoic to Late Paleozoic granitic and gabbroic plutonic rocks and intervening enclaves of metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks. The narrow Kings Mountain belt is located between the Charlotte and the Inner Piedmont belts and contains mainly Late Proterozoic metasedimentary rocks and plutonic rocks similar to those of the Charlotte belt. The Carolina slate belt, flanking the Charlotte belt on the east, contains weakly metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. East of this belt, at the southeast corner of the quadrangle, is the Wadesboro basin, which has continental sedimentary rocks of Triassic age. Layered rocks westward from and in the Charlotte belt are complexly folded, are steeply dipping, and in the Blue Ridge and Inner Piedmont are contained within major thrust slices. Rocks of the Carolina slate belt are gently folded. Rocks of the Wadesboro basin occur in downfaulted blocks. The geophysical surveys of the Charlotte quadrangle consisted of Bouguer gravity, aeromagnetic, and aeroradioactivity surveys and used both newly obtained data and information from prior work. The gravity survey disclosed a distinct northeast-trending, northwest-decreasing gradient, which is part of the major gravity gradient that extends the length of the Appalachian Mountains. Granitic plutons of the Charlotte belt, in particular, are marked by gravity lows, and gabbro plutons, by highs. Several of the geologic belts display distinct magnetic character. The aeroradioactivity surveys showed a swath of consistently high gamma-ray intensities along the central part of the Inner Piedmont belt; these high intensities correspond to the so-called monazite belt. Oval patterns of high gamma-ray readi

Circular↗
USGS2023

Stream sediment geochemistry in mineral exploration: A review of fine-fraction, clay-fraction, bulk leach gold, heavy mineral concentrate and indicator mineral chemistry

Stream sediment surveys support early-stage reconnaissance mineral exploration and regional assessment programmes, enhanced by recent improvements in analytical method detection limits, continuously improving mineral chemistry, and new approaches to the interpretation of geochemical data. Sediment surveys may be used to predict catchment basin lithology, mineralization type based on pathfinder geochemistry, and geological features based on indicator mineral chemistry. Sediment surveys that target a finer-fraction sediment sample led to the discovery of the La Colosa gold deposit, Colombia. The Batu Hijau porphyry Cu–Au deposit in Indonesia was discovered based on an anomalous clay-sized fraction sample 12 km downstream. In an arid region with poorly developed drainages and minor topographic relief, the Ag-base-metal Navidad District in Argentina was discovered with clay-fraction sediment geochemistry. Heavy mineral concentrate (HMC) sediment surveys that include mineral chemistry determinations have led to global diamond discoveries. HMC surveys contributed to discovery of the Ring of Fire Ni–Cu–PGE and chromite district, Ontario, Canada. Discoveries and geochemical mapping can assist advancement of the application of stream sediment geochemistry in those global areas for which lithologies and deposits are exposed. Stream sediment surveys continue to be one of the most cost-effective geochemical methods for covering large areas for mineral exploration.

Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis↗
USGS1980

Geology and mineral resources of the North Absaroka Wilderness and vicinity, Park County, Wyoming, with sections on mineralization of the Sunlight mining region and geology and mineralization of the Cooke City mining district, and a section on aeromagnetic interpretation

SUMMARY The North Absaroka Wilderness is approximately 560 square miles (1,450 km 2 ) of rugged scenic mountainous terrain that adjoins the eastern boundary of Yellowstone National Park in northwestern Wyoming. The area was studied during 1970, 1971, and 1972 by personnel of the U. S. Geological Survey and the U. S. Bureau of Mines to evaluate its mineral-resource potential as required by the Wilderness Act of 1964. This evaluation is based on a search of the literature courthouse and production records, geologic field mapping, field inspection of claims and prospects, analyses of bedrock and stream-sediment samples, and an aeromagnetic survey. The North Absaroka Wilderness is underlain almost entirely by andesitic and basaltic volcanic rocks of Eocene age. These volcanics rest on deformed sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic and, locally, of Mesozoic age that are exposed at places along the northern and eastern edges of the wilderness. Dikes and other igneous intrusive bodies cut both the volcanic and sedimentary rocks. A nearly flat detachment fault, the Heart Mountain fault, and a related steep break-away fault have displaced middle and upper Paleozoic rocks and some of the older part of the volcanic sequence to the southeast. A much greater thickness of volcanic rocks was found to be involved in Heart Mountain faulting than had previously been recognized; however, most of the volcanic rocks and many of the intrusives were emplaced after Heart Mountain faulting. Local folding and high-angle faulting in mid-Eocene time have deformed all but the youngest part of the volcanic sequence in the southeastern part of the wilderness. This deformation is interpreted as the last pulse of Laramide orogeny. The results of this study indicate that the mineral-resource potential of the wilderness is minimal. Bentonite, petroleum, low-quality coal, and localized deposits of uranium and chromite have been produced in the surrounding region from rocks that underlie the volcanic rocks; but such deposits, if present in the wilderness, would be too deeply buried, too small, or too sporadically distributed to be profitably located and exploited. Copper and gold mines and prospects are present on the fringes of the wilderness, but otherwise the area seems to be devoid of economically valuable concentrations of metallic minerals. No surface evidence of geothermal-energy potential was found. Known mineral deposits in the vicinity of the North Absaroka Wilderness are associated with intrusive rocks. From the Cooke City mining district, just north of the wilderness, replacement deposits in Upper Cambrian carbonate rocks may extend a short distance into the north edge of the wilderness, In the Sunlight mining region, an enclave nearly surrounded by the wilderness, mineralization occurs in veins and is disseminated in volcanic and plutonic rocks. Richer concentrations of metallic minerals may occur in carbonate rocks adjacent to intrusive bodies at depth beneath the volcanic rocks in the Sunlight region. A few small intrusive bodies occur in the wilderness, but no significant associated mineralization was detected. Aeromagnetic data indicate that other intrusives not exposed by erosion may occur in the wilderness; however, no significant metamorphism or alteration is evident at the surface to indicate their presence. Although most of the rocks of the wilderness are of igneous origin, they are all so old (Eocene) that it is unlikely that they retain any original heat. The Pleistocene rhyolitic ash-flow tuffs in the southwestern part of the wilderness were erupted from sources in Yellowstone National Park just to the west; however, in the wilderness these tuffs are too thin to contain any residual heat.

Wyoming↗
USGS2018

Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: Report of the subcommittee on zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission of New Minerals and Mineral Names

This report embodies recommendations on zeolite nomenclature approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission of New Minerals and Mineral Names. In a working definition of a zeolite mineral used for review, interrupted tetrahedral framework structures are accepted where other zeolitic properties prevail, and complete substitution by elements other than Si and Al is allowed. Separate species are recognized in topologically distinctive compositional series in which different extra-framework cations are the most abundance in atomic proportions. To name these, the appropriate chemical symbol is attached by a hyphen to the series name as a suffix except for the names harmotome, pollucite and wairakite in the phillipsite and analcime series. Differences in space-group symmetry and in order-disorder relationships in zeolites having the same topologically distinctive framework do not in general provide adequate grounds for recognition of separate species. Zeolite species are not to be distinguished solely on Si:Al ratio except for heulandite (Si:Al < 4.0) and clinoptilolite ( Si : Al ⩾ 4.0 ). Dehydration, partial hydration, and over-hydration are not sufficient grounds for the recognition of separate species of zeolites. Use of the term 'ideal formula' should be avoided in referring to a simplified or averaged formula of a zeolite. Newly recognized species in compositional series are as follows: brewsterite-Sr.-Ba: chabazite-Ca.-Na.-K; clinoptilolite-K, -Na, -Ca: dachiardite-Ca, -Na; erionite-K, -Ca: faujasite-Na, -Ca, -Na: paulingite-K. -Ca; phillipsite-Na, -Ca, -Ka; stilbite-Ca, -Na. Key references, type locality, origin of name, chemical data. IZA structure-type symbols, space-group symmetry; unit-cell dimensions, and comments on structure are listed for 13 compositional series, 82 accepted zeolite mineral species, and three of doubtful status. Herschelite, leonhardite, svetlozarite, and wellsite are discredited as mineral species names. Obsolete and discredited names are listed.

Mineralogical Magazine↗
USGS1997

Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: report of the subcommittee on zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on new Minerals and Mineral names

This report embodies recommendations on zeolite nomenclature approved by the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. In a working definition of a zeolite mineral used for this review, structures containing an interrupted framework of tetrahedra are accepted where other zeolitic properties prevail, and complete substitution by elements other than Si and Al is allowed. Separate species are recognized in topologically distinctive compositional series in which different extra-framework cations are the most abundant in atomic proportions. To name these, the appropriate chemicalsymbol is attached by a hyphen to the series name as a suffix, except for the names harmotome, pollucite and wairakite in the phillipsite and analcime series. Differences in space-group symmetry and in order-disorder relationships in zeolites having the same topologically distinctive framework do not in general provide adequate grounds for recognition of separate species. Zeolite species are not to be distinguished solely on the ratio Si:Al except for heulandite (Si:Al < 4.0) and clinoptilolite (Si:Al ??? 4.0). Dehydration, partial hydration, and overhydration are not sufficient grounds for the recognition of separate species of zeolites. Use of the term 'ideal formula' should be avoided in referring to a simplified or averaged formula of a zeolite. newly recognized species in compositional series are as follows: brewsterite-Sr, -Ba, chabazite-Ca, -Na, -K, clinoptilolite-K, -Na, -Ca, dachiardite-Ca, -Na, erionite-Na, erionite-Na, -K, -Ca, faujasite-Na, -Ca, -Mg, ferrierite-Mg, -K, -Na, gmelinite-Na, -Ca, -K, heulandite-Ca, -Na, -K, -Sr, levyne-Ca, -Na, paulingite-K, -Ca, phillipsite-Na, -Ca, -K, and stilbite-Ca, -Na. Key references, type locality, origin of name, chemical data, IZA structure-type symbols, space-group symmetry, unit-cell dimensions, and comments on structure are listed for 13 compositional series, 82 accepted zeolite mineral species, and three of doubtful status. Herschelite, leonhardite, dvetlozarite, and wellsite are discredited as mineral species names. Obsolete and discredited names are listed.

Canadian Mineralogist↗
USGS1998

Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: Report of the Subcommittee on Zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names

This report embodies recommendations on zeolite nomenclature approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. In a working definition of a zeolite mineral used for this review, structures containing an interrupted containing an interrupted framework of tetrahedra are accepted where other zeolitic properties prevail, and complete substitution by elements other than Si and Al is alloowed. Separate species are recognized in topologically distinctive compositional series in which different extra-framework cations are the most abundant in atomic proportions. To name these, the appropriate chemical symbol is attached by a hyphen to the series name as a suffix, except for the names harmotome, pollucite and wairakite in the phillipsite and analcime series. Differences in space-group symmetry and in order-disorder relationships in zeolites having the same topologically distinctive framework do not in general provide adequate grounds for recognition of separate species. Zeolite species are not to be distinguished solely in Si:Al ratio except for heulandite (Si:Al < 4.0) and clinoptilolite (Si:Al ??? 4.0). Dehydration, partial hydration and over-hydration are not sufficient grounds for the recognition of separate species of zeolites. Use of the term 'ideal formula' should be avoided in referring to a simplified or averaged formula of zeolite. Newly recognized species in compositional series are as follows: brewsterite-Sr, -Ba; chabazite-Ca, -Na, -K; clinoptilolite-K, -Na, -Ca; dechiardite-Ca, -Na; erionite-Na, -K, -Ca,; faujasite-Na, -Ca, -Mg; ferrierite-Mg, -K, -Na; gmelinite-Na, -Ca, -K; heulandite-Ca, -Na, -K, -Sr; levyne-Ca, -Na; paulingite-K, -Ca; phillipsite-Na, -Ca, -K stilbite-Ca, -Na. Key references, type locality, origin of name, chemical data, IZA structure-type symbols, space-group symmetry, unit-cell dimensions, and comments on structure are listed for 13 compositional series, 82 accepted zeolite mineral species, and three of doubtful status. Herschelite, leonhardite, svetlozarite and wellsite are discredited as mineral species names. Obsolete and discredited names are listed.

European Journal of Mineralogy↗
USGS2017

Assessment of critical minerals: Updated application of an early-warning screening methodology

Increasing reliance on non-renewable mineral resources reinforces the need for identifying potential supply constraints before they occur. The US National Science and Technology Council recently released a report that outlines a methodology for screening potentially critical minerals based on three indicators: supply risk ( R ), production growth ( G ), and market dynamics ( M ). This early-warning screening was initially applied to 78 minerals across the years 1996 to 2013 and identified a subset of minerals as “potentially critical” based on the geometric average of these indicators—designated as criticality potential ( C ). In this study, the screening methodology has been updated to include data for 2014, as well as to incorporate revisions and modifications to the data, where applicable. Overall, C declined in 2014 for the majority of minerals examined largely due to decreases in production concentration and price volatility. However, the results vary considerably across minerals, with some minerals, such as gallium, recording increases for all three indicators. In addition to assessing magnitudinal changes, this analysis also examines the significance of the change relative to historical variation for each mineral. For example, although mined nickel’s R declined modestly in 2014 in comparison to that of other minerals, it was by far the largest annual change recorded for mined nickel across all years examined and is attributable to Indonesia’s ban on the export of unprocessed minerals. Based on the 2014 results, 20 minerals with the highest C values have been identified for further study including the rare earths, gallium, germanium, rhodium, tantalum, and tungsten.

Mineral Economics↗
USGS2024

Minerals Yearbook, volume I, Metals and Minerals

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook discusses the performance of the worldwide minerals and materials industries and provides background information to assist in interpreting that performance. Content of the individual Minerals Yearbook volumes follows: Volume I, Metals and Minerals , contains chapters about virtually all metallic and industrial mineral commodities important to the U.S. economy. Chapters on survey methods, summary statistics for domestic nonfuel minerals, and trends in mining and quarrying in the metals and industrial mineral industries in the United States are also included. Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic , contains a chapter on the mineral industry of each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and the Administered Islands. This volume also has chapters on survey methods and summary statistics of domestic nonfuel minerals. Volume III, Area Reports: International , is published as four separate reports. These regional reports contain the latest available minerals data on more than 180 foreign countries and discuss the importance of minerals to the economies of these nations and the United States. Each report begins with an overview of the region’s mineral industries during the year. It continues with individual country chapters that examine the mining, refining, processing, and use of minerals in each country of the region and how each country’s mineral industry relates to U.S. industry. Most chapters include production tables and industry structure tables, information about Government policies and programs that affect the country’s mineral industry, and an outlook section. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the Minerals Yearbook are welcome.

Minerals Yearbook↗
USGS2005

The life cycle of a mineral deposit: a teacher's guide for hands-on mineral education activities

This teacher's guide defines what a mineral deposit is and how a mineral deposit is identified and measured, how the mineral resources are extracted, and how the mining site is reclaimed; how minerals and mineral resources are processed; and how we use mineral resources in our every day lives. Included are 10 activitybased learning exercises that educate students on basic geologic concepts; the processes of finding, identifying, and extracting the resources from a mineral deposit; and the uses of minerals. The guide is intended for K through 12 Earth science teachers and students and is designed to meet the National Science Content Standards as defined by the National Research Council (1996). To assist in the understanding of some of the geology and mineral terms, see the Glossary (appendix 1) and Minerals and Their Uses (appendix 2). The process of finding or exploring for a mineral deposit, extracting or mining the resource, recovering the resource, also known as beneficiation, and reclaiming the land mined can be described as the “life cycle” of a mineral deposit. The complete process is time consuming and expensive, requiring the use of modern technology and equipment, and may take many years to complete. Sometimes one entity or company completes the entire process from discovery to reclamation, but often it requires multiple groups with specialized experience working together. Mineral deposits are the source of many important commodities, such as copper and gold, used by our society, but it is important to realize that mineral deposits are a nonrenewable resource. Once mined, they are exhausted, and another source must be found. New mineral deposits are being continuously created by the Earth but may take millions of years to form. Mineral deposits differ from renewable resources, such as agricultural and timber products, which may be replenished within a few months to several years.

General Information Product↗
USGS1984

Wilderness mineral potential: Assessment of mineral-resource potential in U.S. Forest Service lands studied in 1964-1984: Volume 1

Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and subsequent related legislation, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas, and of other national forest lands being considered for wilderness designation. The Wilderness Act directs that the results of these surveys are to be made available to the public and are to be submitted to the President and the Congress. This professional paper is a synopsis of the mineral surveys made from 1965 to 1983. It summarizes our current knowledge of mineral and energy resources and of the potential for the occurrence of undiscovered mineral and energy resources in 45 million acres of Federal lands, chiefly in national forests. This book, in two volumes, consists of 332 summary articles, arranged alphabetically by State, in which the mineral-resource potential of about 800 individual areas is discussed. The summaries of the mineral surveys were written during 1982-83, generally by those who made the surveys. Index maps of each state show the location of the areas studied, numerically keyed to an alphabetic list. The national distribution of the wilderness lands studied is shown on the frontispiece. Where lands were in proximity or were added to expand previously designated areas, they often are described in a single article. Each article begins with a short summary of the results of the mineral survey followed by a discussion of the character and geologic setting of the area. Mineral resources (if any) are discussed, and the potential for undiscovered mineral resources is assessed; these are keyed to the generalized geographic and geologic map of each area Areas that have geologic characteristics indicative of different degrees of potential for the occurrence of mineral resources are shown in shades of red on each map. Some articles have a section on suggestions for further study to better define the mineral-resource potential of the area A list of pertinent references (including many of the maps and reports prepared during the mineral survey) is provided at the end of each article. This introduction contains some basic concepts about mineral resources and mineral-resource potential to try to make the book more useful to those who are not familiar with the fields of earth science and mineral-resource assessments. The legislation dealing with the wilderness program is reviewed briefly, because this evolving legislation has imparted a continuing and changing influence on the mineral-resource surveys. The introduction concludes with a description of the publications of the Geological Survey that report in greater detail the results of the joint wilderness studies by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Co↗
USGS2021

Correspondence analysis for mineral commodity research: An example workflow for mineralized calderas, southwest United States

Historical mine and mineral deposit datasets are routinely used to inform quantitative mineral assessment models, but they also can contain a wealth of supplementary qualitative information that is generally underutilized. We present a workflow that uses correspondence analysis, an exploratory tool commonly applied to multivariate abundance data, to better utilize qualitative data in these historical datasets. The workflow involves extraction of qualitative information on ore mineralogy from a mineral deposit database, attaches those data to a target geological feature, and analyzes the underlying data structure with correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering. The output of correspondence analysis is inversely weighted to the relative frequency of ore minerals, and therefore rare mineral species (i.e., those with unusually low frequencies) can disproportionately contribute to the total variance of the dataset. We present a novel technique for aggregating frequencies of rare mineral species that minimizes this effect. We apply this workflow to evaluate how ore mineral assemblages in former and active mines vary in spatial relation to silicic calderas in the southwestern United States. The most common ore mineral associations observed spatially and genetically associated to calderas include those related to polymetallic, base metal-rich systems and epithermal Au–Ag systems. Three other groups of mineralized calderas were identified, including: (1) Hg–Sb mineralized calderas in the northern Great Basin and western Nevada volcanic field; (2) calderas associated with elevated abundances of Mn oxides/hydroxides, fluorite, and Be-minerals, mostly in eastern Utah and New Mexico; and (3) calderas with numerous U ± F deposits, which are located in central Colorado, the eastern Great Basin and in northern Nevada. The latter three groups are associated with economically significant critical mineral resources, including the Li resources of the McDermitt complex and Be associated with the Spor Mountain on the margin of the Thomas caldera complex. We conclude that correspondence analysis is a promising technique that can enhance data exploration of the qualitative information held within mineral deposit datasets. Consequently, it could have numerous applications for mineral potential mapping, resource assessment projects, and characterization of mineral systems.

Natural Resources Research↗
USGS2025

Methodology and technical input for the 2025 U.S. List of Critical Minerals—Assessing the potential effects of mineral commodity supply chain disruptions on the U.S. economy

The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, is tasked by section 7002 (“Mineral Security”) of title VII (“Critical Minerals”) of the Energy Act of 2020 (Public Law 116–260, December 27, 2020, 116th Congress) with reviewing and revising the methodology used to evaluate mineral commodity supply risk and the U.S. List of Critical Minerals (LCM) no less than every 3 years. Following two previous LCM assessments, this analysis represents the latest technical input for evaluating each mineral commodity’s supply risk and determining their recommended status on the LCM. We evaluated mineral commodity supply risk using two criteria: (1) an economic effects assessment that quantified the potential effects of various trade disruption scenarios on the U.S. economy, and (2) an examination of whether the mineral commodity’s U.S. supply chain relied on a sole domestic producer that represented a single point of failure. For the first criterion, postdisruption equilibrium quantities and prices for each mineral commodity were calculated based on their price elasticities of supply and demand and the availability of excess production capacity for each yearlong foreign trade disruption scenario. Subsequently, a nonlinear optimization routine was used with detailed economic input-output tables to estimate the potential economic effects on the U.S. economy of over 1,200 scenarios for 84 mineral commodities. After accounting for the probability of each scenario’s occurrence, the overall results are presented in terms of changes in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by individual industry and the economy overall. The results, which ranged from a net decrease in U.S. GDP of nearly $4.5 billion to a net increase of $33 million, largely reflect U.S. import dependency and world production concentration. Using the Jenks natural breaks optimization method, a statistical classification technique, we categorized the mineral commodities into several classes based on this overall risk quantification. Mineral commodities with annualized probability-weighted net decreases in U.S. GDP greater than $2 million were recommended for inclusion on the LCM. If a mineral commodity did not meet the threshold for inclusion on the LCM under the first criterion, its domestic supply chain was examined under the second criterion, which recommended a mineral commodity for inclusion on the LCM if there was only a single domestic producer. Ultimately, the two criteria resulted in the recommendation of the addition of six mineral commodities (in descending risk order, potash, silicon, copper, silver, rhenium, and lead) to and the removal of two mineral commodities (arsenic and tellurium) from the LCM. By using an economic effects assessment, the results of this analysis provide a prioritization that can also be compared directly against other risk analyses and the cost of various risk mitigation strategies.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Indicator mineral analyses of stream-sediment samples using automated mineralogy and mineral chemistry: Applicability to exploration in covered terranes in eastern Alaska, USA

In the past two decades, significant research efforts have been devoted to porphyry copper indicator mineral (PCIM) identification and mineral chemistry to assist exploration. Such studies are important in the Yukon-Tanana upland region of eastern Alaska because well-established geochemical exploration techniques, such as the geochemistry of stream-sediment samples, are less effective in the search for mineral resources owing to cover materials that subdue geochemical signatures. The unglaciated Yukon-Tanana upland region is well-endowed with mineral resources, including porphyry Cu-Mo-Au deposits at Taurus, Bluff, Dennison, and Oreo. Using automated scanning electron microscope (SEM) techniques, numerous PCIMs have been identified in rocks and stream-sediment samples that would likely not have been observed using visual binocular microscope methods. Sulfide minerals such as chalcopyrite, chalcocite, covellite, bornite, molybdenite, and pyrrhotite were identified in rock samples, and more than half of the stream-sediment samples from drainages containing known porphyry mineral occurrences contain chalcopyrite with or without bornite. Many drainages without known occurrences also contain these minerals, which suggests potential for additional occurrences. Svanbergite, an aluminum phosphate sulfate (APS) mineral [SrAl 3 (PO 4 )(SO 4 )(OH) 6 ], was identified in some of the altered or mineralized rock samples from Taurus, and in stream drainages containing porphyry occurrences and may represent the best indicator mineral for Taurus-like porphyry deposits. Apatite chemistry has great potential as a tool for assessing the presence of porphyry mineralization. Grains from rock and stream-sediment samples that contain high Cl (>∼0.4 wt%), Fe (>0.4 wt%), and Mn (>2000 ppm) clearly distinguish apatite from other sources (metamorphic, unmineralized igneous rocks). This study is one of the first to document new streamlined indicator mineral sample collection and processing methods and to combine automated SEM techniques and chemistry of minerals derived from both bedrock and surficial (stream) sediments as they apply to porphyry exploration.

Alaska↗
USGS2002

Sociocultural and institutional drivers and constraints to mineral supply; the meaning of scarcity in the 21st century: drivers and constraints to the supply of minerals using regional, national and global perspectives

The sociocultural dimensions of mineral supply at the outset of the 21st century are making the supply process increasingly complex. The dimensions encompass legal, financial, environmental, cultural, and global implications of mining, and are driving unprecedented change in the way minerals supply will be accomplished in the future. Minerals scarcity on a global scale is subordinate to other societal issues about mineral resources and reserves estimated to meet society's demands for decades to centuries in the future. This report reviews historical and present-day sociocultural drivers of change, and reactions of the minerals industry to these drivers. It is reflective primarily of conditions in the United States, but also uses examples from other countries. It expresses viewpoints on sociocultural drivers as seen by constituents of the minerals industry and several other communities of interest including Aboriginal peoples, non-government organizations; labor; mining-dependent communities; mining-affected communities; researchers; and government (federal, state/provincial, and local). It provides overviews of the demand for minerals in the United States, and the status of land available for mining. The report uses a case study of a metals mining project in Wisconsin to illustrate specific sociocultural drivers and constraints to minerals supply, and how these influence the minerals industry. Over the past 150 years, a progression of sociocultural movements under the headings of conservationism, environmentalism, and sustainable development have nurtured societal values that have come to influence the mineral supply process in important ways. These movements reflect a continuing tension between the demand for minerals and other resources, and the simultaneous demand for aesthetic, spiritual, ecological, cultural, and other attributes of the land. The tension is an important element in current international debates about the meaning and future of sustainable development. This report focuses on some of the social challenges to the minerals industry to supply minerals, while at the same time providing environmental protection, economic growth, and sociocultural acceptance. All these issues fall under the rubric of sustainable development. It also describes current industry responses to sustainability, including the Global Mining Initiative (2001a), an attempt to introduce major changes in global industry practices to begin the 21st century. This report complements other documents in the series on physical supply, technological advancement, and economic and policy drivers (Wilburn and others, 2001).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2026

Effect of mineral deposit data on predictions from the three-part approach to quantitative mineral resource assessment—A study of 16 previous U.S. Geological Survey assessments

The three-part approach to quantitative mineral resource assessment requires information about the properties of undiscovered mineral deposits in an assessment area. These properties are unknown, so the properties of discovered mineral deposits of the same mineral deposit type are used instead. In the three-part approach, these discovered mineral deposits come from around the world, and their properties constitute the pooled data for that mineral deposit type. Alternatively, these discovered mineral deposits could come from the assessment area, and their properties constitute the tract data for that mineral deposit type. Tract data may be more representative of the undiscovered mineral deposits in the assessment area than the pooled data. The goal of this study was to determine whether resource predictions using pooled data are equivalent to resource predictions using tract data. To this end, 16 previous U.S Geological Survey assessments were studied. For each assessment, resources were predicted for one undiscovered mineral deposit in the assessment area. One set of predictions used pooled data, and another used tract data. The two sets of predictions were compared with an equivalence test, using the six assessment statistics that are commonly reported for mineral resource assessments. Practical equivalence is the condition that two corresponding assessment statistics are within a factor of 1.5 of one another. For each of 2 assessments, all 6 assessment statistics were practically equivalent. For both assessments, the assessment statistics from the pooled data, relative to the corresponding assessment statistics from the tract data, ranged from 1.30 times smaller to 1.03 times larger. For each of 14 assessments, 1 or more of the 6 assessment statistics were not practically equivalent. The assessment statistics from the pooled data, relative to the corresponding assessment statistics from the tract data, ranged from 26.6 times smaller to 5.53 times larger. The use of pooled data has been a standard procedure in the three-part approach since at least 1986. The 16 assessments in this study are not a representative sample of those prior assessments that used pooled data. So, it is inappropriate to use the study results to infer whether pooled data affected the resource predictions for those prior assessments.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2007

Mineral deposit densities for estimating mineral resources

Estimates of numbers of mineral deposits are fundamental to assessing undiscovered mineral resources. Just as frequencies of grades and tonnages of well-explored deposits can be used to represent the grades and tonnages of undiscovered deposits, the density of deposits (deposits/area) in well-explored control areas can serve to represent the number of deposits. Empirical evidence presented here indicates that the processes affecting the number and quantity of resources in geological settings are very general across many types of mineral deposits. For podiform chromite, porphyry copper, and volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit types, the size of tract that geologically could contain the deposits is an excellent predictor of the total number of deposits. The number of mineral deposits is also proportional to the type’s size. The total amount of mineralized rock is also proportional to size of the permissive area and the median deposit type’s size. Regressions using these variables provide a means to estimate the density of deposits and the total amount of mineralization. These powerful estimators are based on analysis of ten different types of mineral deposits (Climax Mo, Cuban Mn, Cyprus massive sulfide, Franciscan Mn, kuroko massive sulfide, low-sulfide quartz-Au vein, placer Au, podiform Cr, porphyry Cu, and W vein) from 108 permissive control tracts around the world therefore generalizing across deposit types. Despite the diverse and complex geological settings of deposit types studied here, the relationships observed indicate universal controls on the accumulation and preservation of mineral resources that operate across all scales. The strength of the relationships ( R 2 =0.91 for density and 0.95 for mineralized rock) argues for their broad use. Deposit densities can now be used to provide a guideline for expert judgment or used directly for estimating the number of most kinds of mineral deposits.

Mathematical Geosciences↗