USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70017572

Conditional estimates of the number of podiform chromite deposits

D.A. Singer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A desirable guide for estimating the number of undiscovered mineral deposits is the number of known deposits per unit area from another well-explored permissive terrain. An analysis of the distribution of 805 podiform chromite deposits among ultramafic rocks in 12 subareas of Oregon and 27 counties of California is used to examine and extend this guide. The average number of deposits in this sample of 39 areas is 0.225 deposits per km2 of ultramafic rock; the frequency distribution is significantly skewed to the right. Probabilistic estimates can be made by using the observation that the lognormal distribution fits the distribution of deposits per unit area. A further improvement in the estimates is available by using the relationship between the area of ultramafic rock and the number of deposits. The number (N) of exposed podiform chromite deposits can be estimated by the following relationship: log10(N)=-0.194+0.577 log10(area of ultramafic rock). The slope is significantly different from both 0.0 and 1.0. Because the slope is less than 1.0, the ratio of deposits to area of permissive rock is a biased estimator when the area of ultramafic rock is different from the median 93 km2. Unbiased estimates of the number of podiform chromite deposits can be made with the regression equation and 80 percent confidence limits presented herein. ?? 1994 Oxford University Press.

Explore related subjects

Nonrenewable ResourcesArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D.A. Singer. 1994. Conditional estimates of the number of podiform chromite deposits. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02259045

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↗