USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70016152

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

D. A. Brew·L. J. Drew·S. D. Ludington
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Nonrenewable ResourcesArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D. A. Brew, L. J. Drew, S. D. Ludington. 1992. The study of the undiscovered mineral resources of the Tongass National Forest and adjacent lands, Southeastern Alaska. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01782695

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS1997

Classification of mineral deposits into types using mineralogy with a probabilistic neural network

In order to determine whether it is desirable to quantify mineral-deposit models further, a test of the ability of a probabilistic neural network to classify deposits into types based on mineralogy was conducted. Presence or absence of ore and alteration mineralogy in well-typed deposits were used to train the network. To reduce the number of minerals considered, the analyzed data were restricted to minerals present in at least 20% of at least one deposit type. An advantage of this restriction is that single or rare occurrences of minerals did not dominate the results. Probabilistic neural networks can provide mathematically sound confidence measures based on Bayes theorem and are relatively insensitive to outliers. Founded on Parzen density estimation, they require no assumptions about distributions of random variables used for classification, even handling multimodal distributions. They train quickly and work as well as, or better than, multiple-layer feedforward networks. Tests were performed with a probabilistic neural network employing a Gaussian kernel and separate sigma weights for each class and each variable. The training set was reduced to the presence or absence of 58 reported minerals in eight deposit types. The training set included: 49 Cyprus massive sulfide deposits; 200 kuroko massive sulfide deposits; 59 Comstock epithermal vein gold districts; 17 quartzalunite epithermal gold deposits; 25 Creede epithermal gold deposits; 28 sedimentary-exhalative zinc-lead deposits; 28 Sado epithermal vein gold deposits; and 100 porphyry copper deposits. The most common training problem was the error of classifying about 27% of Cyprus-type deposits in the training set as kuroko. In independent tests with deposits not used in the training set, 88% of 224 kuroko massive sulfide deposits were classed correctly, 92% of 25 porphyry copper deposits, 78% of 9 Comstock epithermal gold-silver districts, and 83% of six quartzalunite epithermal gold deposits were classed correctly. Across all deposit types, 88% of deposits in the validation dataset were correctly classed. Misclassifications were most common if a deposit was characterized by only a few minerals, e.g., pyrite, chalcopyrite,and sphalerite. The success rate jumped to 98% correctly classed deposits when just two rock types were added. Such a high success rate of the probabilistic neural network suggests that not only should this preliminary test be expanded to include other deposit types, but that other deposit features should be added.

Nonrenewable Resources↗