USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Activities and Commodities Report”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2020

Energy and minerals division tight oil and gas committee: Activities and commodity report for 2019-2020

In 2019, total daily tight oil and gas production increased in the United States month over month, with annualized growth of 14% for oil and 12% for gas. Those gains leveled off in the first quarter of 2020 due to aggressive price competition and increases in international production. Then came the pandemic with a substantially larger dose of economic turmoil, driving down demand due in part to shelter in place orders and safety concerns around travel. Between March and May, tight oil and gas production dropped by nearly 2 million bpd and almost 5 Bcf/day before beginning to recover. Production has continued to increase for the most part through the second half of 2020, but drilling remains subdued throughout most of the U.S. and uncertainty around long term demand along with the current price environment and general state of the economy has contributed to layoffs throughout the industry. Some shale-gas production has declined recently, but a few areas have seen expansion due to construction of LNG facilities along the East Coast of the U.S. (e.g., the Haynesville Formation). Current U.S. shale-gas production is still higher now than in 2019, with daily production of almost 71 Bcf as of October 2020 driven in large part by increased production from the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Basin and shales within the Permian Basin. Shale liquids production is down by around a million bpd to approximately 7.1 million (September 2020; U.S. EIA) from pre-pandemic production levels at the end of 2019 and beginning of 2020. Tight oil production remains dominated by plays in the Permian Basin as well as the Bakken and Eagle Ford Formations. On the development and production front, new enhanced oil recovery approaches for tight shale reservoirs are being more widely implemented. Natural gas or CO2 injection is currently being utilized in the Bakken Formation, Eagle Ford Formation, Anadarko Basin, and the Permian Basin to optimize injection sequences and boost recovery. Refracturing of existing wells to reduce drilling costs, improve production, and prolong well productive life has also begun to occur more widely in developed plays. International interest in exploiting hydrocarbons from unconventional reservoirs continues to develop, with active exploration projects on most continents. Europe remains relatively underexplored as compared to North America, although a total of 141 exploration and appraisal wells with a possible shale-gas exploration component have been spudded, including horizontal legs from vertical wells. Shale exploration has made a breakthrough in China with shale gas output in 2019 of 10 billion cubic meters (35.3 Bcf), 60% of which was produced from Sinopec’s Fuling Shale Gas field. Lacustrine shale oil exploration has also been successful in the Sichuan and Ordos Basins in central China, Junggar and Tarim Basins in northwest China, and Songliao Basin in north China, and Bohai Bay Basins in northeast China as of 2018. South America’s potential as an unconventional shale gas and oil province is mainly in Argentina and Brazil, where the production from Neuquen Basin’s tight shale of the Vaca Muerta Formation has been steadily increasing since 2016, but only 4% of the shale resource has been developed thus far. According to International Energy Agency’s report in 2013, Brazil holds the 9th largest unconventional gas reserves. Brazil has shale oil and gas potential in the Parana, Solimoes and Amazon Basins and is actively producing from the oil shale unit of the Irati Formation. In 2019, the Brazil energy ministry launched REATE 2020 to boost onshore investments that include the expectation of drilling an experimental unconventional well in the northeast region. For this inaugural report, the new AAPG EMD Tight Oil and Gas Committee (TO&G; formerly the Shale Gas & Liquids and Tight Gas Sands committees) has developed new commodity report requirements for contributors. This includes shorter annual reports focused on new developments, play concepts, along with the typical updates on production and new drilling in the play areas they cover. We are also asking contributors to collect background geologic and production related information into a document that summarizes important features of the plays they cover that will be stored on the TO&G webpage along with our commodity reports. TO&G is currently working to expand the number of contributors to cover more play areas and replace committee and advisory board members that have recently stepped down. Changes to committee leadership occurred in October as recent chairs transition to EMD elected positions.

Activities and Commodities Report↗
USGS2025

AAPG Energy and Minerals Division Tight Oil and Gas Committee Activities and Commodity Report for 2021-2022: Tuscaloosa Marine Shale, Gulf Coast basin, Louisiana and Mississippi

The Upper Cretaceous Tuscaloosa marine shale (TMS) potential production area encompasses 20.4 million acres across central Louisiana (LA), southern Mississippi (MS), southwestern Alabama (AL), and a small southwestern section of the Florida panhandle (Hackley et al., 2018). It remains a minor and largely undeveloped unconventional shale oil play with production from the TMS confined along the east-west LA-MS State boundary (Fig. 1). The mean undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in the TMS are estimated at 1.5 billion barrels of oil and 4.6 trillion cubic feet of gas (Hackley et al., 2018). Geochemical analyses of source rock solvent extracts and oil samples indicate that, in the play area, the TMS is the primary source of shale oil produced from the TMS as well as of accumulated oils in the underlying conventional reservoirs of the lower Tuscaloosa (Hackley et al., 2020). The API gravity of TMS oils ranges from approximately 34 to 46 degrees (Hackley et al., 2020; Croke et al., 2020).

AAPG Wiki↗
USGS2009

Unconventional energy resources: 2007-2008 review

This paper summarizes five 2007–2008 resource commodity committee reports prepared by the Energy Minerals Division (EMD) of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Current United States and global research and development activities related to gas hydrates, gas shales, geothermal resources, oil sands, and uranium resources are included in this review. These commodity reports were written to advise EMD leadership and membership of the current status of research and development of unconventional energy resources. Unconventional energy resources are defined as those resources other than conventional oil and natural gas that typically occur in sandstone and carbonate rocks. Gas hydrate resources are potentially enormous; however, production technologies are still under development. Gas shale, geothermal, oil sand, and uranium resources are now increasing targets of exploration and development, and are rapidly becoming important energy resources that will continue to be developed in the future.

Natural Resources Research↗
USGS1997

Exploration

This summary of international nonfuel mineral exploration activities for 1996 uses available data from literature, industry, and US Geological Survey (USGS) specialists. Data on exploration budgets by region and commodity are reported, significant mineral discoveries and exploration target areas are identified and government programs affecting the mineral exploration industry are discussed. Inferences and observations on minerals industry direction are drawn from these data.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS1998

Exploration

This summary of international nonfuel mineral exploration activities for 1997 draws upon available data from literature, industry and US Geological Sulvey (USGS) specialists. Data on exploration budgets by region and commodity are reported, significant mineral discoveries and exploration target areas are identified and government programs affecting the mineral exploration industry are discussed. Inferences and observations on mineral industry direction are drawn from these data and discussions.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS1999

Exploration

This summary of international nonfuel mineral exploration activities for 1998 draws on available data from literature, industry and US Geological Survey (USGS) specialists. Data on exploration budgets by region and commodity are reported, significant mineral discoveries and exploration target areas are identified and government programs affecting the mineral exploration industry are discussed. Inferences and observations on mineral industry direction are drawn from these data and discussions.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2017

Global nonfuel mineral exploration trends 2001-2015

This review summarizes significant exploration trends related to active sites and budgets, mineral commodities and regional factors for the years 2001-2015. Data were compiled by specialists in the USGS-NMIC, and reported annually in the USGS-NMIC Minerals Yearbook series and in the May issue of Mining Engineering magazine. External data for these analyses were derived from industry sources, published literature, and SNL Metals & Mining, an offering of S&P Global Market Intelligence (New York, NY).

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2000

Exploration

This summary of international nonfuel mineral exploration activities for 1999 draws upon available data from literature, industry and US Geological Survey (USGS) specialists. The report documents data on exploration budgets by region and commodity and identifies significant mineral discoveries and exploration target areas. It also discusses government programs affecting the mineral exploration industry. And it presents inferences and observations on mineral industry direction based on these data and discussions.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2008

Factors that Influence the Price of Al, Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Rare Earth Elements, and Zn

This report is based on a presentation delivered at The 12th International Battery Materials Recycling Seminar, March 17-20, 2008, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., about the factors that influence prices for aluminum, cadmium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, nickel, rare earth elements, and zinc. These are a diverse group of metals that are of interest to the battery recycling industry. Because the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) closely monitors, yet neither buys nor sells, metal commodities, it is an unbiased source of metal price information and analysis. The authors used information about these and other metals collected and published by the USGS (U.S. production, trade, stocks, and prices and world production) and internationally (consumption and stocks by country) from industry organizations, because metal markets are influenced by activities and events over the entire globe. Long-term prices in this report, represented by unit values, were adjusted to 1998 constant dollars to remove the effects of inflation. A previous USGS study in this subject area was 'Economic Drivers of Mineral Supply' by Lorie A. Wagner, Daniel E. Sullivan, and John L. Sznopek (USGS Open File Report 02-335). By seeking a common cause for common behavior of prices among the various metal commodities, the authors found that major factors that influence prices of metal commodities were international events such as wars and recessions, and national events such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and economic growth in China, which started its open door policy in the 1970s but did not have significant market impact until the 1990s. Metal commodity prices also responded to commodity-specific events such as tariff or usage changes or mine strikes. It is shown that the prices of aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc are at historic highs, that world stocks are at (or near) historic lows, and that China's consumption of these metals had increased substantially, making it the world's leading consumer of these metals.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Annual review 2016: Exploration review

This summary of international mineral exploration activities for the year 2016 draws upon information from industry sources, published literature, SNL Metals & Mining (SNL), an offering of S&P Global Market Intelligence (New York, NY), and specialists in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Minerals Information Center. Three types of information are reported and analyzed in this annual review of international exploration: 1) budgetary statistics expressed in U.S. dollars provided by SNL; 2) regional and site-specific exploration activities that took place in 2016 as compiled by the USGS and 3) regional events and legislation that affected exploration activities including economic, social and political conditions, which were derived from published sources and discussions with USGS and industry specialists. Commodity and regional compilations are presented in this summary. Because multiple sources were used to develop commodity and regional compilations, statistics may vary depending on the source and type of data that are being reported.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2013

Exploration Review

This summary of international mineral exploration activities for 2012 draws upon information from industry sources, published literature and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) specialists. The summary provides data on exploration budgets by region and mineral commodity, identifies significant mineral discoveries and areas of mineral exploration, discusses government programs affecting the mineral exploration industry and presents analyses of exploration activities performed by the mineral industry. Three sources of information are reported and analyzed in this annual review of international exploration for 2012: 1) budgetary statistics expressed in U.S. nominal dollars provided by SNL Metals Economics Group (MEG) of Halifax, Nova Scotia; 2) regional and site-specific exploration activities that took place in 2012 as compiled by the USGS and 3) regional events including economic, social and political conditions that affected exploration activities, which were derived from published sources and unpublished discussions with USGS and industry specialists.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2012

Geologic and environmental characteristics of porphyry copper deposits with emphasis on potential future development in the Bristol Bay Watershed, Alaska (Appendix H)

This report is prepared in cooperation with the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment being conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The goal of the assessment is to help understand how future large-scale development in this watershed may affect water quality and the salmon fishery. Mining has been identified as a potential source of future large scale development in the region, especially because of the advanced stage of activity at the Pebble prospect. The goal of this report is to summarize the geologic and environmental characteristics of porphyry copper deposits in general, largely on the basis of literature review. Data reported in the Pebble Project Environmental Baseline Document, released by the Pebble Limited Partnership in 2011, are used to enhance the relevance of this report to the Bristol Bay watershed. The geologic characteristics of mineral deposits are paramount to determining their geochemical signatures in the environment. The geologic characteristics of mineral deposits are reflected in the mineralogy of the mineralization and alteration assemblages; geochemical associations of elements, including the commodities being sought; the grade and tonnage of the deposit; the likely mining and ore-processing methods used; the environmental attributes of the deposit, such as acid-generating and acid-neutralizing potentials of geologic materials; and the susceptibility of the surrounding ecosystem to various stressors related to the deposit and its mining, among other features (Seal and Hammarstrom, 2003). Within the Bristol Bay watershed, or more specifically the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds, the geologic setting is permissive for the occurrence of several mineral deposit types that are amenable for large-scale development. Of these deposit types, porphyry copper deposits (e.g., Pebble) and intrusion-related gold deposits (e.g., Shotgun) are the most important on the basis of the current maturity of exploration activities by the mining industry. The Pebble deposit sits astride the drainage divide between the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds, whereas the Humble, Big Chunk, and Shotgun deposits are within the Nushagak watershed. The Humble and Big Chunk prospects are geophysical anomalies that exhibit some characteristics similar to those found at Pebble. Humble was drilled previously in 1958 and 1959 as an iron prospect on the basis of an airborne magnetic anomaly. Humble is approximately 85 miles (137 km) west of Pebble; Big Chunk is approximately 30 miles (48 km) north-northwest of Pebble; and Shotgun is approximately 110 miles (177 km) northwest of Pebble. The H and D Block prospects, west of Pebble, represent additional porphyry copper exploration targets in the watershed.

Alaska↗
USGS2007

Cr, Cu, Mn, Mo, Ni, and Steel Price Drivers

Summary This report contains the 55 slide images from a presentation made by the author at the meeting of the Metal Powder Industries Federation held in Denver, CO, on May 15, 2007. The Metal Powder Industries Federation (MPIF) invited the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to speak at their annual meeting about the price drivers for chromium, copper, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, and steel. These metals are of interest to MPIF because the prices of these raw materials used by their industry were at historically high levels. Because the USGS closely monitors, yet neither buys nor sells, metal commodities, it is an unbiased source of metal price information and analysis. The authors used information about these and other metals collected and published by the USGS (U.S. production, trade, stocks, and prices) and about consumption and stocks internationally by country from industry organizations that publish such information, because metal markets are influenced by activities and events over the entire globe. By seeking a common cause for common behavior among the various metal commodities, the authors found that major price drivers on metal commodities were inflation, major international events such as wars and recessions, and major national events such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and economic growth in China, which started with the open door policy in the 1970s but did not have significant market impact until starting in the 1990s. Metal commodity prices also responded to commodity-specific events.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Idaho and Montana non-fuel exploration database 1980-1997

This report describes a relational database containing information about mineral exploration projects in the States of Idaho and Montana for the years 1980 through 1997 and a spatial (geographic) database constructed using data from the relational database. The focus of this project was to collect information on exploration for mineral commodities with the exception of sand, gravel, coal, geothermal, oil, and gas. The associate databases supplied with this report are prototypes that can be used or modified as needed. The following sources were used to create the databases-serial mining periodicals; annual mineral publications; mining company reports; U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications; an Idaho mineral property data base developed by Dave Boleneus, USGS, Spokane, Washington; Montana state publications; and discussions with representatives of Montana, principally the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and the Department of Environmental Quality. Fifty commodity groups were reported between the 596 exploration projects identified in this study. Precious metals (gold, silver, or platinum group elements) were the primary targets for about 67 percent of the exploration projects. Information on 17 of the projects did not include commodities. No location could be determined for 51 projects, all in Idaho. During the time period evaluated, some mineral properties were developed into large mining operations (for example Beal Mountain Mine, Stillwater Mine, Troy Mine, Montana Tunnels Mine) and six properties were reclaimed. Environmental Impact Statements were done on four properties. Some operating mines either closed or went through one or more shutdowns and re-openings. Other properties, where significant resources were delineated by recent exploration during this time frame, await the outcome of important factors for development such as defining additional reserves, higher metal prices, and the permitting process. Many of these projects examined relatively minor mineral occurrences. Approximately half of the exploration projects are located on Federal lands and about 40 percent were on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. More than 75 percent of the exploration occurred in areas with significant previous mineral activity.

Data Series↗
USGS2014

A geologic and mineral exploration spatial database for the Stillwater Complex, Montana

The Stillwater Complex is a Neoarchean, ultramafic to mafic layered intrusion exposed in the Beartooth Mountains in south-central Montana. This igneous intrusion contains magmatic mineralization that is variably enriched in strategic and critical commodities such as chromium, nickel, and the platinum-group elements. One deposit, the J-M Reef, is the sole source of primary production and reserves for platinum-group elements in the United States. A large amount of information has been collected on the Stillwater Complex. In the 1930s, academics, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the [U.S.] Bureau of Mines initiated geologic investigations on the Stillwater Complex. Since that time, more than 600 publications on the Stillwater Complex have appeared in the scientific literature. Exploration and mining companies have collected even more information since the 1920s. This report provides essential spatially referenced datasets based on geologic mapping and mineral exploration activities conducted from the 1920s to the 1990s. This information will facilitate research on the complex and provide background material needed to explore for mineral resources and to develop sound land-management policy.

Montana↗
USGS2021

Deposit classification scheme for the Critical Minerals Mapping Initiative Global Geochemical Database

A challenge for the global economy is to meet the growing demand for commodities used in today’s advanced technologies. Critical minerals are commodities (for example, elements, compounds, minerals) deemed vital to the economic and national security of individual countries that are vulnerable to supply disruption. The national geological agencies of Australia, Canada, and the United States recently joined forces to advance understanding and foster development of critical mineral resources in their respective countries through the Critical Minerals Mapping Initiative (CMMI). An initial goal of the CMMI is to fill the knowledge gap on the abundance of critical minerals in ores. To do this, the CMMI compiled modern multielement geochemical data generated by each agency on ore samples collected from historical and active mines and prospects from around the world. To identify relationships between critical minerals, deposit types, deposit environments, and mineral systems, a unified deposit classification scheme was needed. This report describes the scheme developed by the CMMI to classify the initial release of geochemical data. In 2021, the resulting database—along with basic query, statistical analysis, and display tools—will be served to the public through a web-based portal managed by Geoscience Australia. The database will enable users to trace critical minerals through mineral systems and identify individual deposits or deposit types that are potential sources of critical minerals.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1998

Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project; energy resources activities

Oil, natural gas, and coal (energy resources) have been produced from rocks in the Front Range of Colorado and Wyoming for more than a century, and significant quantities of oil and gas continue to be developed in the study area of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project (fig. 1). As an infrastructure resource, energy resources helped to fuel past development of (1) urban areas in the Front Range as well as (2) some of the manufacturing and mining upon which the urban centers were built and thrived. At present, much of the oil and gas extracted from rocks beneath the Front Range urban corridor is used locally; the people living in the urban area provide a need and viable marketplace for these commodities.

Colorado, Wyoming↗
USGS2002

Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater

Human society has used freshwater from rivers, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands for many different urban, agricultural, and industrial activities, but in doing so has overlooked its value in supporting ecosystems. Freshwater is vital to human life and societal well-being, and thus its utilization for consumption, irrigation, and transport has long taken precedence over other commodities and services provided by freshwater ecosystems. However, there is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life—and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation. The purpose of this report is to explain how the integrity of freshwater ecosystems depends upon adequate quantity, quality, timing, and temporal variability of water flow. Defining these requirements in a comprehensive but general manner provides a better foundation for their inclusion in current and future debates about allocation of water resources. In this way the needs of freshwater ecosystems can be legitimately recognized and addressed. We also recommend ways in which freshwater ecosystems can be protected, maintained, and restored. Freshwater ecosystem structure and function are tightly linked to the watershed or catchment of which they are a part. Because riverine networks, lakes, wetlands, and their connecting groundwaters, are literally the “sinks” into which landscapes drain, they are greatly influenced by terrestrial processes, including many human uses or modifications of land and water. Freshwater ecosystems, whether lakes, wetlands, or rivers, have specific requirements in terms of quantity, quality, and seasonality of their water supplies. Sustainability normally requires these systems to fluctuate within a natural range of variation. Flow regime, sediment and organic matter inputs, thermal and light characteristics, chemical and nutrient characteristics, and biotic assemblages are fundamental defining attributes of freshwater ecosystems. These attributes impart relatively unique characteristics of productivity and biodiversity to each ecosystem. The natural range of variation in each of these attributes is critical to maintaining the integrity and dynamic potential of aquatic ecosystems; therefore, management should allow for dynamic change. Piecemeal approaches cannot solve the problems confronting freshwater ecosystems. Scientific definitions of the requirements to protect and maintain aquatic ecosystems are necessary but insufficient for establishing the appropriate distribution between societal and ecosystem water needs. For scientific knowledge to be implemented science must be connected to a political agenda for sustainable development. We offer these recommendations as a beginning to redress how water is viewed and managed in the United States: (1) Frame national and regional water management policies to explicitly incorporate freshwater ecosystem needs, particularly those related to naturally variable flow regimes and to the linking of water quality with water quantity; (2) Define water resources to include watersheds, so that freshwaters are viewed within a landscape, or systems context; (3) Increase communication and education across disciplines, especially among engineers, hydrologists, economists, and ecologists to facilitate an integrated view of freshwater resources; (4) Increase restoration efforts, using well-grounded ecological principles as guidelines; (5) Maintain and protect the remaining freshwater ecosystems that have high integrity; and (6) Recognize the dependence of human society on naturally functioning ecosystems.

Ecological Applications↗