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 613 records · Page 34Linked to original sources

USGS2000

Assessment of mineral resource tracts in the Chugach National Forest, Alaska

Locatable minerals have been produced from the Chugach National Forest (CNF) for nearly 100 years. Past gold production has come from the Kenai Peninsula and the Girdwood, Port Wells, and Valdez areas. Copper and by-product gold and silver have been produced from mines at Ellamar, on Latouche Island, and near Valdez. Many of the past-producing properties were not mined out and contain significant inferred reserves of gold, copper, lead, zinc, and silver. This report outlines mineral resource areas (tracts) that contain both identified and undiscovered mineral resources. These tracts were drawn on the basis of one or more of the following criteria: (1) geochemical anomalies, (2) favorable geologic units, (3) presence of mines, prospects or mineral occurrences, and (4) geophysical anomalies. Bliss (1989) used six mineral deposit models to describe the types of deposits known from the CNF. Of these deposit types, only four are sufficiently known and defined in the CNF to be suitable for consideration in outlining and ranking of mineral resource tracts; these deposit types are: (1) Cyprus-type massive sulfide, (2) Chugach-type low-sulfide goldquartz veins, (3) placer gold, and (4) polymetallic vein. The U.S. Bureau of Mines indicated that most of the inferred mineral reserves in the CNF would not be economic to produce under current prices. Small-scale placer gold operations are a possible exception. Other known resources that have recorded past production (oil, coal, rock, sand, and gravel) are not addressed in this report.

Alaska↗

USGS2006

Mineral facilities of Africa and the Middle East

This map displays over 1,500 mineral facilities in Africa and the Middle East. The mineral facilities include mines, plants, mills, or refineries of aluminum, cement, coal, copper, diamond, gold, iron and steel, nickel, platinum-group metals, salt, and silver, among others. The data used in this poster were compiled from multiple sources, including the 2004 USGS Minerals Yearbook (Africa and Middle East volume), Minerals Statistics and Information from the USGS Web site (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/), and data collected by USGS minerals information country specialists. Data reflect the most recent published table of industry structure for each country. Other sources include statistical publications of individual countries, annual reports and press releases of operating companies, and trade journals. Due to the sensitivity of some energy commodity data, the quality of these data should be evaluated on a country-by-country basis. Additional information and explanation is available from the country specialists. See Table 1 for general information about each mineral facility site including country, location and facility name, facility type, latitude, longitude, mineral commodity, mining method, main operating company, status, capacity, and units.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2006

Mineral Facilities of Latin America and Canada

This data set consists of records for over 900 mineral facilities in Latin America and Canada. The mineral facilities include mines, plants, smelters, or refineries of aluminum, cement, coal, copper, diamond, gold, iron and steel, nickel, platinum-group metals, salt, and silver, among others. Records include attributes such as commodity, country, location, company name, facility type and capacity if applicable, and generalized coordinates. The data were compiled from multiple sources, including the 2003 and 2004 USGS Minerals Yearbooks (Latin America and Candada volume), data to be published in the 2005 Minerals Yearbook Latin America and Canada Volume, minerals statistics and information from the USGS minerals information Web site (minerals.usgs.gov/minerals), and data collected by USGS minerals information country specialists. Data reflect the most recent published table of industry structure for each country. Other sources include statistical publications of individual countries, annual reports and press releases of operating companies,and trade journals. Due to the sensitivity of some energy commodity data, the quality of these data should be evaluated on a country-by-country basis. Additional information and explanation is available from the country specialists.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Short Course Introduction to Quantitative Mineral Resource Assessments

This is an abbreviated text supplementing the content of three sets of slides used in a short course that has been presented by the author at several workshops. The slides should be viewed in the order of (1) Introduction and models, (2) Delineation and estimation, and (3) Combining estimates and summary. References cited in the slides are listed at the end of this text. The purpose of the three-part form of mineral resource assessments discussed in the accompanying slides is to make unbiased quantitative assessments in a format needed in decision-support systems so that consequences of alternative courses of action can be examined. The three-part form of mineral resource assessments was developed to assist policy makers evaluate the consequences of alternative courses of action with respect to land use and mineral-resource development. The audience for three-part assessments is a governmental or industrial policy maker, a manager of exploration, a planner of regional development, or similar decision-maker. Some of the tools and models presented here will be useful for selection of exploration sites, but that is a side benefit, not the goal. To provide unbiased information, we recommend the three-part form of mineral resource assessments where general locations of undiscovered deposits are delineated from a deposit type's geologic setting, frequency distributions of tonnages and grades of well-explored deposits serve as models of grades and tonnages of undiscovered deposits, and number of undiscovered deposits are estimated probabilistically by type. The internally consistent descriptive, grade and tonnage, deposit density, and economic models used in the design of the three-part form of assessments reduce the chances of biased estimates of the undiscovered resources. What and why quantitative resource assessments: The kind of assessment recommended here is founded in decision analysis in order to provide a framework for making decisions concerning mineral resources under conditions of uncertainty. What this means is that we start with the question of what kinds of questions is the decision maker trying to resolve and what forms of information would aid in resolving these questions. Some applications of mineral resource assessments: To plan and guide exploration programs, to assist in land use planning, to plan the location of infrastructure, to estimate mineral endowment, and to identify deposits that present special environmental challenges. Why not just rank prospects / areas? Need for financial analysis, need for comparison with other land uses, need for comparison with distant tracts of land, need to know how uncertain the estimates are, need for consideration of economic and environmental consequences of possible development. Our goal is to provide unbiased information useful to decision-makers.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

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↗

USGS2015

Topographic and Hydrographic GIS Datasets for the Afghanistan Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey 2014 Mineral Areas of Interest

Mineral extraction and associated industries play an important role in the Afghan economy, particularly in the “transitional era” of declining foreign aid and withdrawal of foreign troops post 2014. In addition to providing a substantial source of government revenue, other potential benefits of natural resource development include boosted exports, employment opportunities, and strengthened industrialization (Joya, 2012). Continued exploration and investment in these industries has resulted in large economic improvements since 2007, when this series of studies was initiated. At that time, the “Preliminary Non-Fuel Mineral Resource Assessment of Afghanistan” was completed by members of the U.S. Geological Survey and Afghanistan Geological Survey (Peters and others, 2007). The assessment published a series of country-wide datasets, including a digital elevation model (DEM), elevation contours, hydrography, transportation routes, geophysics, and cultural datasets (Peters and others, 2007). It also delineated 20 mineralized areas for further study using a geologic-based methodology. A second data product, “Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan,” was released by Peters and others in 2011. This work highlighted geologic, geohydrologic, and hyperspectral studies that were carried out in specific Areas of Interest (AOIs) to assess the location and characteristics of mineral resources. Also included in the 2011 publication is a collection of appendixes and inventories of Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets for each of the 24 identified AOIs. A third data product was released in 2013 (Casey and Chirico, 2013), publishing datasets for five different AOIs, two subareas, and one AOI extension. Each dataset contains vector shapefiles of the AOI boundary, streams, roads, and contours at 25-, 50-, and 100-meter (m) intervals, as well as raster files of the AOI’s DEM and hillshade. This work represents the fourth installment of the series, and publishes a dataset of eight new AOIs and one subarea within Afghanistan. These areas include Dasht-e-Nawar, Farah, North Ghazni, South Ghazni, Chakhansur, Godzareh East, Godzareh West, and Namaksar-e-Herat AOIs and the Central Bamyan subarea of the South Bamyan AOI (datasets for South Bamyan were published previously in Casey and Chirico, 2013). For each AOI and subarea, this dataset collection consists of the areal extent boundaries, elevation contours at 25-, 50-, and 100-m intervals, and an enhanced DEM. Hydrographic datasets covering the extent of four AOIs and one subarea are also included in the collection. The resulting raster and vector layers are intended for use by government agencies, developmental organizations, and private companies in Afghanistan to support mineral assessments, monitoring, management, and investment.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1975

Heavy mineral prospecting in Pakistan

Heavy-mineral prospecting is a method of tracing potential ore minerals to their source by systematically examining the heavy minerals of stream sands. The heavy minerals are partially concentrated in the field by panning. In the laboratory the heavy minerals are further concentrated by floating off the quartz and feldspar in a heavy liquid, such as bromoform, having a specific gravity of 2.89. Magnetite is separated magnetically and scheelite is identified under short-wave ultraviolet light. To obtain quantitative results on the minerals present, the sample is reduced by coning and quartering, mounted on a slide in oil, and a count of a minimum of 250 grains made. The chi square test applied to the splitting and counting techniques shows them to be statistically valid. The properties of some heavy minerals most useful for their rapid identification are listed. Methods here described are those utilizing a minimum of field and laboratory equipment and may be appropriate for application in many areas of the world.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1975

Heavy-mineral trends in the Beaufort Sea

Sediments of the Beaufort Sea, off the North Slope of Alaska contain a great variety of heavy minerals. These include garnet, chrome spinel, augite, pigeonite, diopside, hornblende, enstatite, hypersthene, epidote, clinozoisite, zoisite, apatite, tourmaline, chloritoid, sphene, zircon, and opaque minerals. Much rarer constituents are glaucophane, lamprobolite, rutile, kyanite, staurolite, and riebeckite. The heavy-mineral fractions that were not treated with hydrochloric acid contain "iron-stained aggregates", grains of unidentifiable material encrusted with limonite. Samples containing relatively high percentages of iron-stained aggregates and altered opaque minerals occur in depths less than 10 m and within 16 km from shore. Garnet increases in abundance from east to west, which corresponds to a similar increase in garnet abundance in coastal outcrops of the Gubik Formation sands. Only garnet and iron-stained aggregates appear to have source-related distribution patterns. The other heavy minerals lack distinct distributive provinces, reflecting an environment dominated by intense mixing by ice-gouging and bioturbation and a homogenous source area. Waves and currents are not strong enough to sort sediments at depths greater than 10 m except during summer storms. The source of the Beaufort Sea heavy minerals is dominated by contributions from the Alaskan North Slope deposits of Tertiary and younger age. The Colville River, largest in the region, is probably the most influential in transporting sediments, but because of wave and current—mixing of sediments on the shelf, exact contributions from each river drainage cannot be ascertained. Coastal erosion of the Gubik Formation is probably at least as important as the Colville River in supplying heavy minerals to the Beaufort Sea.

Alaska↗

USGS1979

Mineral resources of the Minarets Wilderness and adjacent areas, Madera and Mono counties, California

A mineral survey of the Minarets Wilderness area and adjacent areas in the central Sierra Nevada, Calif., was conducted during 1973 through 1975. The total area covers about 620 km 2 (237 sq mi) in the Sierra and Inyo National Forests, of which about 440 km 2 (170 sq mi) are within the officially designated Minarets Wilderness. The mineral resource potential was evaluated by geological, geochemical, and geophysical studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, and by examination of mineralized rocks, prospects, and mining claims by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The results of the survey indicate that the study area has small to moderate submarginal to paramarginal resources of copper, silver, zinc, lead, iron, and tungsten and an unevaluated potential for molybdenum resources. Limestone is present, but not of commercial quantity or quality. No other industrial minerals have been recognized in quantity. Granitic rocks have potential use as decorative stone and sand and gravel could be produced from either alluvial deposits or glacial drift. However, these commodities are more accessible elsewhere at localities closer to markets. The study area has no potential for fossil fuels, and, because of the general geologic environment, the potential for nuclear fuel minerals is considered to be low. The study area has low geothermal potential, even though it is on the western edge of the Mono-Long Valley "Known Geothermal Resource Area" (KGRA). The area is underlain by metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks that have been intruded by granitic rocks of the Sierra Nevada batholith. Pliocene volcanic rocks are present locally. With few exceptions, the known occurrences of mineralized rock are confined to the metamorphic rocks, and the exceptions appear to be confined to plutonic rocks that are older than the Late Cretaceous granitic rocks that make up the bulk of the batholithic rocks in the study area. Although no mineral production has been recorded from prospects within the study area, mines adjacent to it have produced significant amounts of gold and tungsten. Production figures are incomplete, but mines in the Mammoth mining district (fig. 1) may have produced as much as $1 million worth of gold, silver, and other metals at the then-existing prices. The Monte Cristo mine in the Mammoth district was in production during 1978.

California↗

USGS1978

Implementation plan for Bolivian Mineral Exploration Fund

Bolivia ranks second among world producers of tin and antimony, and first in bismuth production. Mineral exports in 1975 were valued at $314.2 million, nearly 60 percent of the value of all exports, and petroleum product exports totalled nearly $157 million, or 30 percent of the total. Tin accounted for 58 percent of the total value of metallic mineral exports. The central government derived about 19 percent of its total tax revenues in 1975 from the mining sector. The mining sector consists of the large, medium, and small mining subsectors, a classification established by the government. Individual operations are referred to as large, medium, or small depending upon the subsector into which they are classified. All large mining enterprises are owned and operated by a government corporation, COMIBOL; the medium and small operations are privately owned. COMIBOL's exports in 1975 were valued at $171.8 million or 70 percent of the total mineral exports; the medium mines accounted for $55.5 million or 23 percent, and the small mines for $17.5 million or 7 percent of the total. The combination of high operating costs, low productivity, inadequate ore reserves, and insufficient risk capital for exploration and development has led to the realization that there is an urgent need to improve the situation for mining in Bolivia. Proposals are being studied to revise the tax code, a program is underway to evaluate selected mineral deposits for possible exploration and development, and programs are under consideration to encourage minerals exploration. A minerals exploration plan is proposed which would offer technical and financial aid to various segments in the minerals field. A program, estimated to cost between $2 million and $2.5 million annually, and to be operated by a new agency in the Ministry of Mining and Metallurgy, is outlined.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1980

Summaries of data on and lists of references to metallic and selected nonmetallic mineral deposits in fifteen quadrangles in southwestern and west-central Alaska

These summaries of data on metallic and selected nonmetallic mineral occurrences and lists of selected references to them in Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Mines, and State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (and predecessor State and Territorial agencies) reports and maps released before Jan. 1, 1980, and in one abstract of a report presented orally at a scientific meeting, are designed to aid in library research on the mineral resources of 14 quadrangles in southwestern Alaska and the Saint Lawrence quadrangle in west—central Alaska. The references are selected in the sense that mainly statistical reports such as the annual Minerals Yearbook of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and many annual and biennial reports of the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys and its predecessor agencies are not included. Also not included are data on many claims about which little more than their locations is known (for example, localities 11 to 14 in MacKevett and Holloway, 1977 (OF 77-169D), p. 28). These omissions should not be interpreted as a judgement that the claims are not on valid mineral occurrences, but only that there are insufficient data to describe any mineral deposit that might be present. Geochemical anomalies determined by analyses of rock and stream—sediment samples in which no metallic mineral was identified are also omitted. Work now in progress should add greatly to the knowledge of mineral resources in several quadrangles on the Alaska Peninsula.

Alaska↗

USGS1982

Radioactive mineral spring precipitates, their analytical and statistical data and the uranium connection

Major radioactive mineral springs are probably related to deep zones of active metamorphism in areas of orogenic tectonism. The most common precipitate is travertine, a chemically precipitated rock composed chiefly of calcium carbonate, but also containing other minerals. The mineral springs are surface manifestations of hydrothermal conduit systems which extend downward many kilometers to hot source rocks. Conduits are kept open by fluid pressure exerted by carbon dioxide-charged waters rising to the surface propelled by heat and gas (CO2 and steam) pressure. On reaching the surface, the dissolved carbon dioxide is released from solution, and calcium carbonate is precipitated. Springs also contain sulfur species (for example, H2S and HS-), and radon, helium and methane as entrained or dissolved gases. The HS- ion can react to form hydrogen sulfide gas, sulfate salts, and native sulfur. Chemical salts and native sulfur precipitate at the surface. The sulfur may partly oxidize to produce detectable sulfur dioxide gas. Radioactivity is due to the presence of radium-226, radon-222, radium-228, and radon-220, and other daughter products of uranium-238 and thorium-232. Uranium and thorium are not present in economically significant amounts in most radioactive spring precipitates. Most radium is coprecipitated at the surface with barite. Barite (barium sulfate) forms in the barium-containing spring water as a product of the oxidation of sulfur species to sulfate ions. The relatively insoluble barium sulfate precipitates and removes much of the radium from solution. Radium coprecipitates to a lesser extent with manganese-barium- and iron-oxy hydroxides. R-mode factor analysis of abundances of elements suggests that 65 percent of the variance of the different elements is affected by seven factors interpreted as follows: (1) Silica and silicate contamination and precipitation; (2) Carbonate travertine precipitation; (3) Radium coprecipitation; (4) Evaporite precipitation; (5) Hydrous limonite precipitation and coprecipitated elements including uranium; (6) Rare earth elements deposited with detrital contamination (?); (7) Metal carbonate adsorption and precipitation. Economically recoverable minerals occurring at some localities in spring precipitates are ores of iron, manganese, sulfur, tungsten and barium and ornamental travertine. Continental radioactive mineral springs occur in areas of crustal thickening caused by overthrusting of crustal plates, and intrusion and metamorphism. Sedimentary rocks on the lower plate are trapped between the plates and form a zone of metamorphism. Connate waters, carbonate rocks and organic-carbon-bearing rocks react to extreme pressure and temperature to produce carbon dioxide, and steam. Fractures are forced open by gas and fluid pressures. Deep-circulating meteoric waters then come in contact with the reactive products, and a hydrothermal cell forms. When hot mineral-charged waters reach the surface they form the familiar hot mineral springs. Hot springs also occur in relation to igneous intrusive action or volcanism both of which may be products of the crustal plate overthrusting. Uranium and thorium in the sedimentary rocks undergoing metamorphism are sometimes mobilized, but mobilization is generally restricted to an acid hydrothermal environment; much is redeposited in favorable environments in the metamorphosed sediments. Radium and radon, which are highly mobile in both acid and alkaline aqueous media move upward into the hydrothermal cell and to the surface.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1983

Alteration and vein mineralization, Schwartzwalder uranium deposit, Front Range, Colorado

The Schwartzwalder uranium deposit, in the Front Range west of Denver, Colorado, is the largest vein-type uranium deposit in the United States. The deposit is situated in a steeply dipping fault system that cuts Proterozoic metamorphic rocks. The host rocks represent a submarine volcanic system with associated chert and iron- and sulfide-rich pelitic rocks. Where faulted, the more competent garnetiferous and quartzitic units behaved brittlely and created a deep, narrow conduit. The ores formed 70-72 m.y. ago beneath 3 km of Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks. Mineralization included two episodes of alteration and three stages of vein-mineralization. Early carbonate-sericite alteration pseudomorphically replaced mafic minerals, whereas the ensuing hematite-adularia episode replaced only the earlier alteration assemblage. Early vein mineralization produced a minor sulfide-adularia-carbonate assemblage. Later vein mineralization generated the uranium ores in two successive stages. Carbonates, sulfides, and adularia filled the remaining voids. Clastic dikes composed of fault gouge and, locally, ore were injected into new and existing fractures. Geologic and chemical evidence suggest that virtually all components of the deposit were derived from major hornblende gneiss units and related rocks. The initial fluids were evolved connate/metamorphic water that infiltrated and resided along the extensive fault zones. Complex fault movements in the frontal zone of the eastern Front Range caused the fluids to migrate to the most permeable segments of the fault zones. Heat was supplied by increased crustal heat flow related to igneous activity in the nearby Colorado mineral belt. Temperatures decreased from 225?C to 125?C during later mineralization, and the pressure episodically dropped from 1000 bars. The CO2 fugacity was initially near 100 bars, and uranium was carried as a dicarbonate complex. Sudden decreases in confining pressure during fault movement caused evolution of CO2 and a consequent increase in pH. Uranium was released with destruction of the uranyl complexes; it was subsequently reduced by aqueous sulfur species, thereby leading to the precipitation of pitchblende.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1991

Reconnaissance geochemical survey of the Farah Garan-Kutam mineral belt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Wadi-sediment samples were collected from 450 sites in a 580-km 2 area (sample density 1.5 per km 2 ) as part of an exploration program designed to assess the mineral potential of the Farah Garan - Kutam mineral belt and to evaluate mineralization at the Farah Garan ancient working (DGMR Project 3.03.10). Demagnetized panned-concentrate and sieved minus-80-mesh fractions were prepared from each bulk sample of approximately 5 kg. The fractions were analyzed for silver, arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc by atomic-absorption methods and for gold by an atomic-absorption graphite-furnace method. The analytical results for the panned-concentrate samples delineate 21 anomalies, and the results for the minus-80-mesh samples delineate 24. Of the latter, 14 are coincident with panned-concentrate anomaly areas, whereas 10 are uniquely defined. The analytical results of the panned-concentrate samples uniquely define two areas. Overall, the panned-concentrate samples yielded threshold values higher than the threshold values for the minus-80-mesh samples (for gold, 10 times higher), and delineate anomalous areas larger than those for the minus-80-mesh samples. This observation is consistent with the results of similar surveys elsewhere in the Arabian Shield, which indicate that panned-concentrate samples more effectively outline geochemical anomalies than sieved fine-grained samples. In the present survey, geochemical anomalies locate all the sites of mineralization known from previous work. The survey is therefore technically a success. However, a large number of these anomalies probably result from contamination of the wadi systems by metal dispersed from ancient mine workings, and this particular survey, overall, may be of limited value as a guide to the discovery of hitherto unknown mineralization. Nevertheless, the survey outlines two areas that may mark extensions to known mineralization, and a number of other areas in which no mineralization is known. Based on a consideration of the character of the bedrock geology, the value of each reported analytical result in relation to the respective element thresholds, and the number of anomalous samples that cluster in any given area, four areas are recommended for high-priority follow-up sampling.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1996

Mining properties in Montana that were involved in the DMA, DMEA, OME Mineral Exploration Programs, 1950-1974

Introduction This report and accompanying map (plate 1) presents information on the Defense Minerals Administration (DMA), Defense Minerals Exploration Administration (DMEA), and Office of Minerals Exploration (OME) mineral exploration programs in Montana. Under these programs, the federal government participated in the exploration costs for certain strategic and critical minerals. Federal funds for mineral exploration under the programs were available from 1950 to 1974, although limited funds for OME administrative work were continued until 1979. Federal consideration for exploration at a particular property was initiated by submittal of an application for financial assistance by the owner or operator of the property. Each application received was assigned a docket number and all subsequent correspondence and information resulting from the application was filed under that docket number. The report reviews the three programs and some of the associated regulations and procedures. It also describes the various types of information generated by the programs, presents information on mining properties in Montana that were involved in the exploration programs, and advises on location of compiled mineral exploration information that resulted from the work.

Montana↗

USGS2013

Metallogenic belt and mineral deposit maps of northeast Asia

This report contains explanatory material and summary tables for lode mineral deposits and placer districts (Map A, sheet 1) and metallogenic belts of Northeast Asia (Maps B, C, and D on sheets 2, 3, and 4, respectively). The map region includes eastern Siberia, southeastern Russia, Mongolia, northeast China, and Japan. A large group of geologists—members of the joint international project, Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of Northeast Asia—prepared the maps, tables, and introductory text. This is a cooperative project with the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian National University, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolian Technical University, Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia, Geological Research Institute, Jilin University, China Geological Survey, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Geological Survey of Japan, and U.S. Geological Survey. This report is one of a series of reports on the mineral resources, geodynamics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia. Companion studies include (1) a detailed geodynamics map of Northeast Asia (Parfenov and others, 2003); (2) a compilation of major mineral deposit models (Rodionov and Nokleberg, 2000; Rodionov and others, 2000); (3) a series of metallogenic belt maps (Obolenskiy and others, 2004); (4) location map of lode mineral deposits and placer districts of Northeast Asia (Ariunbileg and others, 2003b); (5) descriptions of metallogenic belts (Rodionov and others, 2004); (6) a database on significant metalliferous and selected nonmetalliferous lode deposits and selected placer districts (Ariunbileg and others, 2003a); and (7) a series of summary project publications (Ariunbileg and 74 others, 2003b).

Asia↗

USGS2017

Mineral-deposit model for lithium-cesium-tantalum pegmatites

Lithium-cesium-tantalum (LCT) pegmatites comprise a compositionally defined subset of granitic pegmatites. The major minerals are quartz, potassium feldspar, albite, and muscovite; typical accessory minerals include biotite, garnet, tourmaline, and apatite. The principal lithium ore minerals are spodumene, petalite, and lepidolite; cesium mostly comes from pollucite; and tantalum mostly comes from columbite-tantalite. Tin ore as cassiterite and beryllium ore as beryl also occur in LCT pegmatites, as do a number of gemstones and high-value museum specimens of rare minerals. Individual crystals in LCT pegmatites can be enormous: the largest spodumene was 14 meters long, the largest beryl was 18 meters long, and the largest potassium feldspar was 49 meters long. Lithium-cesium-tantalum pegmatites account for about one-fourth of the world’s lithium production, most of the tantalum production, and all of the cesium production. Giant deposits include Tanco in Canada, Greenbushes in Australia, and Bikita in Zimbabwe. The largest lithium pegmatite in the United States, at King’s Mountain, North Carolina, is no longer being mined although large reserves of lithium remain. Depending on size and attitude of the pegmatite, a variety of mining techniques are used, including artisanal surface mining, open-pit surface mining, small underground workings, and large underground operations using room-and-pillar design. In favorable circumstances, what would otherwise be gangue minerals (quartz, potassium feldspar, albite, and muscovite) can be mined along with lithium and (or) tantalum as coproducts. Most LCT pegmatites are hosted in metamorphosed supracrustal rocks in the upper greenschist to lower amphibolite facies. Lithium-cesium-tantalum pegmatite intrusions generally are emplaced late during orogeny, with emplacement being controlled by pre-existing structures. Typically, they crop out near evolved, peraluminous granites and leucogranites from which they are inferred to be derived by fractional crystallization. In cases where a parental granite pluton is not exposed, one is inferred to lie at depth. Lithium-cesium-tantalum LCT pegmatite melts are enriched in fluxing components including H2O, F, P, and B, which depress the solidus temperature, lower the density, and increase rates of ionic diffusion. This, in turn, enables pegmatites to form thin dikes and massive crystals despite having a felsic composition and temperatures that are significantly lower than ordinary granitic melts. Lithium-cesium-tantalum pegmatites crystallized at remarkably low temperatures (about 350–550 °C) in a remarkably short time (days to years). Lithium-cesium-tantalum pegmatites form in orogenic hinterlands as products of plate convergence. Most formed during collisional orogeny (for example, Kings Mountain district, North Carolina). Specific causes of LCT pegmatite-related magmatism could include: ordinary arc processes; over thickening of continental crust during collision or subduction; slab breakoff during or after collision; slab delamination before, during, or after collision; and late collisional extensional collapse and consequent decompression melting. Lithium-cesium-tantalum pegmatite deposits are present in all continents including Antarctica and in rocks spanning 3 billion years of Earth history. The global age distribution of LCT pegmatites is similar to those of common pegmatites, orogenic granites, and detrital zircons. Peak times of LCT pegmatite genesis at about 2640, 1800, 960, 485, and 310 Ma (million years before present) correspond to times of collisional orogeny and supercontinent assembly. Between these pulses were long intervals when few or no LCT pegmatites formed. These minima overlap with supercontinent tenures at ca. 2450–2225, 1625–1000, 875–725, and 250–200 Ma. Exploration and assessment for LCT pegmatites are guided by a number of observations. In frontier areas where exploration has been minimal at best, the key first-order criteria are an orogenic hinterland setting, appropriate regional metamorphic grades, and the presence of evolved granites and common granitic pegmatites. New LCT pegmatites are most likely to be found near known deposits. Pegmatites tend to show a regional mineralogical and geochemical zoning pattern with respect to the inferred parental granite, with the greatest enrichment in the more distal pegmatites. Mineral-chemical trends in common pegmatites that can point toward an evolved LCT pegmatite include: increasing rubidium in potassium feldspar, increasing lithium in white mica, increasing manganese in garnet, and increasing tantalum and manganese in columbite-tantalite. Most LCT pegmatite bodies show a distinctive internal zonation featuring four zones: border, wall, intermediate (where lithium, cesium, and tantalum are generally concentrated), and core. This zonation is expressed both in cross section and map view; thus, what may appear to be a common pegmatite may instead be the edge of a mineralized body. Neither lithium-cesium-tantalum pegmatites nor their parental granites are likely to cause serious environmental concerns. Soils and country rock surrounding a LCT pegmatite, as well as waste from mining operations, may be enriched in characteristic elements relative to global average soil and bedrock values. These elements may include lithium, cesium, tantalum, beryllium, boron, fluorine, phosphorus, manganese, gallium, rubidium, niobium, tin, and hafnium. Among this suite of elements, however, the only ones that might present a concern for environmental health are beryllium and fluorine, which are included in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water regulations with maximum contaminant levels of 4 micrograms per liter and 4 milligrams per liter, respectively.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS1956

X-ray powder data for uranium and thorium minerals

The U.S. Geological Survey has in preparation a comprehensive volume on the mineralogy of uranium and thorium. This work has been done as part of a continuing systematic survey of data on uranium and thorium minerals on behalf of the Division of Raw Materials, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Pending publication of this volume and in response to a widespread demand among workers in uranium and thorium mineralogy, the X-ray powder diffraction data for the known minerals that contain uranium or thorium as an essential constituent are presented here. The coverage is complete except for a few minerals for which there are no reliable data owing to lack of authentic specimens. With the exception of that for ianthinite, the new data either originated in the Geological Survey or in the Mineralogical Laboratory of Harvard University. Data from the literature or other sources were cross-checked against the files of standard patterns of these laboratories; the sources are indicated in the references. Data not accompanied by a reference were obtained from films in the Harvard Standard File and cross-checked as to the identity of the film with the Geological Survey's file. Minor differences can be expected in the d-spacings reported for the same specimens by different investigators because of the manner of preparation of the mount, the conditions of X-ray irradiation, and the method of photography and measurement of the film or chart. The Harvard and Geological Survey data all were obtained from films taken in 114-mm diameter cameras, using either ethyl cellulose and toluene or collodion spindle mounts and Straumanis-type film mounting. Unless otherwise indicated all patterns were taken with copper radiation (Kα 1.5418 A.) and nickel filter and data are given in Angstrom units. The d-spacings are not corrected for film shrinkage. The correction ordinarily is small and in general is less than either the variation in spacing arising from differences in experimental technique of different investigators, including the varying absorption of samples of different thickness and concentration, or the variation attending slight changes in the chemical composition of the mineral. Some uranium minerals give poor diffraction patterns. The best results are generally obtained by using relatively small diameter spindles and long exposures, with a take-off angle from teh X-ray tube of about 4°. It is sometimes advantageous to shield the film from fluorescence in the visible region excited by X-ray irradiation. Copper radiation is preferable. The patterns of a few uranium minerals are greatly impaired by heavy grinding of the sample. Light crushing of the coarse sample after mixing with about one-third its volume of coarsely powdered low-absorption glass is helpful. Many uranium minerals, such as the members of the torbernite group, readily lose zeolithic water or transform to lower hydrates at or near ordinary conditions of temperature and humidity and care should be taken to control this in the manner of preservation and preparation of the sample.

Trace Elements Investigations↗