Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Economic Geology”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources

Economic geology of the Central City district, Gilpin County, Colorado

The Central City district, in Gilpin County, Colo., is on the east flank of the Front Range, about 30 miles west of Denver. The district is the most important mining camp in the Front Range mineral belt, and has yielded more than $100 million worth of gold, silver, uranium, and base-metal ores since 1859. Gold accounts for about 85 percent of the dollar value of the ore. In recent years mining activity has been slack but from 1950 to 1955 the search for uranium ores stimulated prospecting and development.

Colorado↗

Is there a metric for mineral deposit occurrence probabilities?

Traditionally, mineral resource assessments have been used to estimate the physical inventory of critical and strategic mineral commodities that occur in pieces of land and to assess the consequences of supply disruptions of these commodities. More recently, these assessments have been used to estimate the undiscovered mineral wealth in such pieces of land to assess the opportunity cost of using the land for purposes other than mineral production. The field of mineral resource assessment is an interdisciplinary field that draws elements from the disciplines of geology, economic geology (descriptive models), statistics and management science (grade and tonnage models), mineral economics, and operations research (computer simulation models). The purpose of this study is to assert that an occurrenceprobability metric exists that is useful in "filling out" an assessment both for areas in which only a trivial probability exists that a new mining district could be present and for areas where nontrivial probabilities exist for such districts. ?? 1993 Oxford University Press.

Nonrenewable Resources↗

The study of the undiscovered mineral resources of the Tongass National Forest and adjacent lands, Southeastern Alaska

The quantitative probabilistic assessment of the undiscovered mineral resources of the 17.1-million-acre Tongass National Forest (the largest in the United States) and its adjacent lands is a nonaggregated, mineral-resource-tract-oriented assessment designed for land-planning purposes. As such, it includes the renewed use of gross-in-place values (GIPV's) in dollars of the estimated amounts of metal contained in the undiscovered resources as a measure for land-use planning. Southeastern Alaska is geologically complex and contains a wide variety of known mineral deposits, some of which have produced important amounts of metals during the past 100 years. Regional geological, economic geological, geochemical, geophysical, and mineral exploration history information for the region was integrated to define 124 tracts likely to contain undiscovered mineral resources. Some tracts were judged to contain more than one type of mineral deposit. Each type of deposit may contain one or more metallic elements of economic interest. For tracts where information was sufficient, the minimum number of as-yet-undiscovered deposits of each type was estimated at probability levels of 0.95, 0.90, 0.50, 0.10, and 0.05. The undiscovered mineral resources of the individual tracts were estimated using the U.S. Geological Survey's MARK3 mineral-resource endowment simulator; those estimates were used to calculate GIPV's for the individual tracts. Those GIPV's were aggregated to estimate the value of the undiscovered mineral resources of southeastern Alaska. The aggregated GIPV of the estimates is $40.9 billion. Analysis of this study indicates that (1) there is only a crude positive correlation between the size of individual tracts and their mean GIPV's: and (2) the number of mineral-deposit types in a tract does not dominate the GIPV's of the tracts, but the inferred presence of synorogenic-synvolcanic nickel-copper, porphyry copper skarn-related, iron skarn, and porphyry copper-molybdenum deposits does. The influence of this study on the U.S. Forest Service planning process is yet to be determined. ?? 1992 Oxford University Press.

Nonrenewable Resources↗

Geologic coal assessment: The interface with economics

Geologic resource assessments describe the location, general characteristics, and estimated volumes of resources, whether in situ or technically recoverable. Such compilations are only an initial step in economic resource evaluation. This paper identifies, by examples from the Illinois and Appalachian basins, the salient features of a geologic assessment that assure its usefulness to downstream economic analysis. Assessments should be in sufficient detail to allocate resources to production units (mines or wells). Coal assessments should include the spatial distribution of coal bed characteristics and the ability to allocate parts of the resource to specific mining technologies. For coal bed gas assessment, the production well recoveries and well deliverability characteristics must be preserved and the risk structure should be specified so dryholes and noncommercial well costs are recovered by commercially successful wells.

Natural Resources Research↗

Progress on geoenvironmental models for selected mineral deposit types

Since the beginning of economic geology as a subdiscipline of the geological sciences, economic geologists have tended to classify mineral deposits on the basis of geological, mineralogical, and geochemical criteria, in efforts to systematize our understanding of mineral deposits as an aid to exploration. These efforts have led to classifications based on commodity, geologic setting (Cox and Singer, 1986), inferred temperatures and pressures of ore formation (Lindgren, 1933), and genetic setting (Park and MacDiarmid, 1975; Jensen and Bateman, 1979). None of these classification schemes is mutually exclusive; instead, there is considerable overlap among all of these classifications. A natural outcome of efforts to classify mineral deposits is the development of “mineral deposit models.” A mineral deposit model is a systematically arranged body of information that describes some or all of the essential characteristics of a selected group of mineral deposits; it presents a concept within which essential attributes may be distinguished and from which extraneous, coincidental features may be recognized and excluded (Barton, 1993). Barton (1993) noted that the grouping of deposits on the basis of common characteristics forms the basis for a classification, but the specification of the characteristics required for belonging to the group is the basis for a model. Models range from purely descriptive to genetic. A genetic model is superior to a descriptive model because it provides a basis to distinguish essential from extraneous attributes, and it has flexibility to accommodate variability in sources, processes, and local controls. In general, a descriptive model is a necessary prerequisite to a genetic model.

Open-File Report↗

Stitching the western Piedmont of Virginia: Early Paleozoic tectonic history of the Ellisville Pluton and the Potomac and Chopawamsic Terranes

The theme of the 2014 Virginia Geological Field Conference is the tectonic development, economic geology, and seismicity of the western Piedmont of Louisa County, Virginia. It is timely for the conference to turn its attention here, for during the past decade these aspects of western Piedmont geology have garnered the renewed attention of researchers. In terms of regional tectonics, it has been hypothesized that the major structure in the region, the Chopawamsic fault system, represents the most significant boundary in the Appalachian orogen, the main Iapetan suture (Hibbard et al., 2014). Economically, recent elevated market values of metals— particularly that of gold—has spurred reconsideration of the economic geology of the western Piedmont. Finally, the August 23, 2011, M5.8 earthquake, with its epicenter in our field area, startled the North American east coast and has revived awareness of the seismic potential of the region. This renewed interest in the geology of the western Piedmont of north-central Virginia has led to new detailed bedrock mapping, detailed surficial mapping, high-resolution UPb TIMS zircon geochronology, U-Pb LA-ICPMS detrital zircon geochronology, radiogenic isotope geochemistry, major/minor/REE geochemistry, and geophysical studies (e.g. Bailey et al., 2005, 2008; Bailey and Owens, 2012: Berti et al., 2012; Burton et al., 2014; Burton, in progress; Harrison, 2012; Horton et al., 2010, in press; Hughes, 2010, 2014; Hughes et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2014, in press a, in press b; Malenda, in progress; Owens et al., 2013; Spears and Gilmer 2012; Spears et al. 2013, Terblanche, 2013; Terblanche and Nance, 2012). A host of institutions have taken part in the research, including North Carolina State University, the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Tech, Lehigh University, and the College of William and Mary. Many of these investigations remain active. The majority of the data presented herein is the product of research conducted from 2010 to 2014 by geologists at North Carolina State University. This field trip guide is intended to complement a Geological Society of America field guide (Hughes et al., 2014) that covers the western Piedmont geology along strike to the northeast in the vicinity of Fredericksburg. Geologic mapping and geochronologic and geochemical sampling were coordinated between these two areas as part of a study funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the USGS EDMAP program. Some of the stops in this guide have previously been written up in past field guides (Hughes, 2010; Burton et al., 2014) and are reused here because of their ease of access for large groups and because of new data that update the context and our understanding of the outcrops.

Virginia↗