Mineral Deposit Models

Dennis P. Cox and Donald A. Singer, Editors

INTRODUCTION Yukio Togashi of the Geological Survey of Japan.

Among the many geologists from private industry who
By Dennis P. Cox, Paul B. Barton, provided helpful information and suggestions were R.
and Donald A. Singer G. Blair, A. E. Soregaroli, E. I. Bloomstein, and G. E.
McKelvey.
The U.S. Geological Survey has a long and
distinguished history in assessing the mineral resources SOME FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS
of the public domain, and that role remains active
today in programs designed to assess the mineral A “mineral occurrence” is a concentration of a
resources of the lands administered by the U.S. Bureau mineral (usually, but not necessarily, considered in
of Land Management and Forest Service, the Alaska terms of some commodity, such as copper, barite or
Mineral Resource Assessment Program, and the gold) that is considered valuable by someone
Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment somewhere, or that is of scientific or technical
Program. The Survey has thus an immediate and interest. In rare instances (such as titanium in a
constantly recurring need to upgrade and maintain the rutile-bearing black sand), the commodity might not
capability of its staff to identify and assess areas even be concentrated above its average crustal
favorable for mineral deposits. One major step toward abundance.
fulfilling this need is the assembly of a comprehensive A “mineral deposit” is a mineral occurrence of
group of mineral deposit models that enable any sufficient size and grade that it might, under the most
geologist to compare his or her observations with the favorable of circumstances, be considered to have
collective knowledge and experience of a much wider economic potential.
group of geoscientists. An “ore deposit” is a mineral deposit that has
This report deals exclusively with nonfuel minerals been tested and is known to be of sufficient size,
(including uranium), for these show a commonality of grade, and accessibility to be producible to yield a
geologic expressions that differ markedly from those profit. (In these days of controlled economies and
of the areally much larger (and economically even integrated industries, the “profit” decision may be
more important) coal, oil, and gas deposits. based on considerations that extend far beyond the
mine itself, in some instances relating to the overall
CITATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS health of a national economy.)
On one hand, the field observations usually
This report has been assembled through the begin with “mineral occurrences” (or with clues to
generous efforts of many persons. The authors of the their existence) and progress with further study to
individual models and many of the other sections are “mineral deposits” and only rarely to “ore deposits,”
indicated. We all would appreciate it if the individual but we must present information that helps us deal
authors could be cited whenever practical rather than with all classes of “mineral occurrences,” not just “ore
simply refering to the whole compilation. deposits.” On the other hand, in terms of accessible
Among the editors, Dennis Cox had the lead in information our sample is strongly biased toward “ore
soliciting the model authors and in assembling the deposits,” for it is only in them that sufficient
brief models; Donald Singer played a similar role for exposure is available to develop a real knowledge of
all of the grade and tonnage models; and Paul Barton the overall character of the mineralization process.
provided the attribute cross-indexes and carefully Some mineral occurrences are, therefore,
reviewed the overall package. The editors greatly unrecognized mineral deposits, while others are simply
appreciate the encouragement and suggestions from (in mineralized localities where ore-forming processes
alphabetical order) Larry Bernstein, John H. DeYoung, were so weak or incomplete that a deposit was not
Jr., Bob Earhart, Ralph Erickson, Fred Fisher, Bill formed. Thus we summarize the state of knowledge
Greenwood, Carroll Ann Hodges, Kate Johnson, Steve regarding ore deposit models, and we call them
Ludington, Dick McCammon, Hal Morris, Rob “mineral deposit models” with the hope that what we
Robinson, Don White, and many others. The editors have learned about large and high-grade metal
were greatly helped by suggestions from geologists concentrations will help us sort out all mineral
outside the USGS, particularly D. F. Sangster, R. V. occurrences to identify their true character and, we
Kirkham, and J. M. Franklin of the Geological Survey hope, to recognize which have potential to constitute
of Canada, and by Ryoichi Kouda, Takeo Sate, and ore deposits.
1
 The attributes or properties of a mineral Or could it be correct that the critical property is
occurrence are, of course, those features exhibited by permeability and that the formation of dolomite either
the occurrence. When applied to a model, these terms (1) enhances permeability (and thereby makes the
refer to those features possessed by the class of ground more favorable), or (2) reflects pre-existing
deposits represented by the model. It is useful to permeability that is exploited by both the dolomite and
consider attributes on at least two scales: the first the ore? Perhaps the dolomite merely records a
deals with local features that may be observed directly particular range of Ca/Mg ratio in the fluid which in
in the field (mineralogy, zonal patterns, local chemical turn is characteristic of the basinal brines that
haloes, and so on); the second is those features constitute the ore fluid. In any event, the dolomite is
concerning the regional geologic setting and which a powerful ore guide and belongs somewhere in the
must be interpreted from the local studies or may be “final model.”
inferred from global tectonic considerations (for
instance, t h a t t h e r o c k sequence under study
represents a deep-water, back-arc rift environment, or CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED IN THIS
that the area is underlain by anomalously radioactive COMPILATION
high-silica rhyolite and granite). Two of the most
prominent attributes, the commodities/geochemical For the purpose at hand the classification
patterns and the mineralogy, are cross-indexed to scheme has two requirements: (1) it must be open so
model types in Appendixes C and D, respectively. that new types of deposits can be added in the future,
To the greatest extent possible, models were and (2) the user must be able to find easily the
constructed so as to be independent of site-specific appropriate models to apply to the rock and tectonic
attributes and therefore contain only those features environments being investigated.
which are transferable from one deposit to another. Figure 1 maps out the four logic trees that
This goal is difficult to attain, because we do not constitute a broad lithotectonic classification; this
always know which features are site specific. system is similar to one developed by Page and others
The term “model” in an earth-science context (1982c). The classification of deposits by the
elicits a wide variety of mental images, ranging from environment of formation of their host rocks is
the physical duplication of the form of a subject, as in continued on a finer scale in table 1. This
a scale model of the workings of a mine, to a unifying classification scheme is relatively straightforward for
concept that explains or describes a complex deposits formed essentially contemporaneously with
phenomenon. In this context we shall apply only the their host rock. However, for epigenetic deposits a
latter usage. Therefore, let us propose a working conflict arises between the lithotectonic environment
definition of “model” in the context of mineral of the formation of the host and the lithotectonic
deposits, the overriding purpose being to communicate environment of the mineralization process. Therefore,
information that helps mankind find and evaluate for epigenetic deposits we have selected the most
mineral deposits. A mineral deposit model is the important aspect of the lithotectonic alternatives and
systematically arranged information describing the classified the deposit accordingly. This procedure
essential attributes (properties) of a class of mineral
deposits. The model may be empirical (descriptive), in GEOLOGIC-TECTONIC ENVIRONMENT DEPOSIT MODELS
which instance the various attributes are recognized as
essential even though their relationships are unknown; Stable area

{
1 to 4
Mafic - ultramafic
or it may be theoretical (genetic), in which instance Unstable area _ 5 to 10

the attributes are interrelated through some Intrusive Alkaline and basic 11to12
fundamental concept. Phanerocrystalline— 13 to 15
One factor favoring the genetic model over the
simply descriptive is the sheer volume of descriptive
Igneous
Felsic
{ Porphyroaphanitic_ 16 to 22

information needed to represent the many features of Mafic 23 to 24

complex deposits. If all such information were to be Extrusive

included, the number of models would escalate until it Felsic - mafic 25 to 28

approached the total number of individual deposits

considered. Thus we should no longer have models, but Clastic rocks 29 to 31

simply descriptions of individual deposits. Therefore, Sedimentary Carbonate rocks 32

the compilers must use whatever sophisticated or Chemical sediments 33 to 35

rudimentary genetic concepts are at their disposal to

distinguish the critical from the incidental attributes. Regional
Metavolcanic and metasedimentary 36
It is commonly necessary to carry some possibly metamorphic
Metapelite and metaarenite 37
superficial attributes in order not to preclude some
permissible but not necessarily favored, multiple Residual 38
Surficial
working concepts. Depositional 39
The following example illustrates the problem.
One of the commonly accepted attributes of the model
for the carbonate-hosted lead-zinc deposits of the
Mississippi Valley type is the presence of secondary Figure 1. Tree diagram showing relationship of broad
dolomite. But do we know that this is essential? geologic-tectonic environments to models. These
Suppose a deposit were found in limestone; would we deposit models are classified on a finer scale in table
reject its assignment to the Mississippi Valley class? 1.
2
Table 1. Classification of deposit models by lithologic-tectonic environment
[*indicates that model is not included in this bulletin]

Deposit environment Model No.

Mafic and ultramafic intrusions

A. Tectonically stable area; stratiform complexes
Stratiform deposits
Basal zone
Stillwater Ni-Cu ------------------------------------- 1
Intermediate zone
Bushveld chromitite ------------------------------------ 2a
Merensky Reef PGE --------------------------------------2b
Upper zone
Bushveld Fe-Ti-V ---------------------------------------3
Pipe-like deposits
Cu-Ni pipes ---------------------------------------------- 4a*
PGE pipes ------------------------------------------------ 4b*
B. Tectonically unstable area
Intrusions same age as volcanic rocks
Rift environment
Duluth Cu-Ni-PGE --------------------------------------- 5a
Noril’sk Cu-Ni-PGE -------------------------------------- 5b
Greenstone belt in which lowermost rocks of
sequence contain ultramafic rocks
Komatiitic Ni-Cu --------------------------------------- 6a
Dunitic Ni-Cu ------------------------------------------- 6b
Intrusions emplaced during orogenesis
Synorogenic in volcanic terrane
Synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu --------------------------7a
Synorogenic intrusions in non-volcanic terrane
Anorthosite-Ti ----------------------------------------- 7b
Ophiolite
Podiform chromite ------------------------------------- 8a
Major podiform chromite -------------------------------- 8b
(Lateritic Ni) ----------------------------------------- (38a)
(Placer Au-PGE) ---------------------------------------- (39a)
Serpentine
Limassol Forest Co-Ni ------------------------------ 8C
Serpentine-hosted asbestos --------------------------- 8d
(Silica-carbonate Hg) -------------------------------- (27c)
(Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein) ------------------------- (36a)
Cross-cutting intrusions (concentrically zoned)
Alaskan PGE --------------------------------------------9
(Placer PGE-Au) ---------------------------------------- (39b)

C. Alkaline intrusions in stable areas

Carbonatite ------------------------------------------------- 10
Alkaline complexes ----------------------------------------- 11*
Diamond pipes -------------------------------------------- 12

Felsic intrusions

D. Mainly phanerocrystalline textures

Pegmatitic
Be-Li pegmatites ------------------------------------------ 13a*
Sn-Nb-Ta pegmatites --------------------------------------- 13b*
Granitic intrusions
Wallrocks are calcareous
W skarn ------------------------------------------------ 14a
Sn skarn ----------------------------------------------- 14b
Replacement Sn ------------------------------------------ 14c
3
 Ta ble 1. Classification of deposit models by lithologic-tectonic environment
--Continued

D. Mainly phanerocry stalline texture s--Con tinued

Gran itic intrus ions--Continued
Other wallrocks
W veins ------------------- --------- ---- ----------- ---- 1 5a
Sn veins ------------------- --------- ---- ----------- ---- 1 5b
Sn greisen ----------------- --------- ---- ----------- ----1 5c
(Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein) -------- --------------- ---- ( 36a )
(Homestake Au) ------------- -------- --------------- ---- ( 36b )
An orthosite intrusions
(Anorthosite Ti) ------------- --------- --------------- ---- ( 7b)
E. Porphyroaphanitic intrusions present
High-silica granites and rhyolites
Climax Mo ------------------------------------------------ 16
(Fluorspar deposits) ------------------------------------- (26b *)
Ot her felsic and mafic rocks including alkalic
Porphyry Cu ---------------------------------------------- 17
Wallrocks are calcareous
Deposits near contact
Porphyry Cu, skarn-related --------------------------- 18a
Cu skarn --------------------------------------------- 18b
Zn-Pb skarn ------------------------------------------ 18c
Fe skarn --------------------------------------------- 18d
Carbonate-hosted asbestos --------------------------- 18e
Deposits far from contact
Polymetallic replacement ----------------------------------- 19a
Replacement Mn --------------------------------------- 19b
(Carbonate-hosted Au) -------------------------------- (26a )
Wallrocks are coeval volcanic rocks
In granitic rocks in felsic volcanics
Porphyry Sn ------------------------------------------20a
Sn-polymetallic veins -------------------------------- 20b
In calcalkalic or alkalic rocks
Porphyry Cu-Au --------------------------------------- 20c
(Epithermal Mn) -------------------------------------- (25g )
Wallrocks are older igneous and sedimentary rocks
Deposits within intrusions
Porphyry Cu-Mo --------------------------------------- 21a
Porphyry MO} low-F -------------------------------------- 21b
Porphyry W ------------------------------------------- 21c*
Deposits within wallrocks
Volcanic hosted Cu-As-Sb -----------------------------22a
Au-Ag-Te veins ---------------------------------------22b
Polymetallic veins -----------------------------------22c
(Epithermal quartz-alunite Au)--------------------------(25e)
(Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein) ----------------------------(36a)
Extrusive rocks
F. Mafic extrusive rocks
Continental or rifted craton
Basaltic Cu ------------------------------------------- ---23
(Sediment-hosted Cu) ---------------------------------- ---(30b )
Marine, including ophiolite-related
Cyprus massive sulfide -------------------------------- ---24a
Besshi massive sulfide -------------------------------- ---24b
Volcanogenic Mn ----------------------------------- ---24c
Blackbird Co-Cu --------------------------------------- ---24d
(Komatiitic Ni-Cu) ------------------------------------ ---(6a)
4
Table 1. Classification of deposit modeis by lithologic-tectonic environment
--Continued

Deposit environment Model No.

G. Felsic-mafic extrusive rocks

Subaerial
Deposits mainly within volcanic rocks
Hot-spring Au-Ag ----------------------------------------- 25a
Creede epithermal vein ---------------------------------25b
Comstock epithermal vein ------------------------------- 25c
Sado epithermal vein ------------------------------------ 25d
Epithermal quartz-alunite Au ---------------------------- 25e
Volcanogenic U ----------------------------------------25f
Epithermal Mn --------------------------------------25g
Rhyolite-hosted Sn -------------------------------------- 25h
Volcanic-hosted magnetite ------------------------------ 25i
(Sn polymetallic veins) -------------------------------- (20b)
Deposits in older calcareous rocks
Carbonate-hosted Au-Ag ---------------------------------26a
Fluorspar deposits ------------------------------------- 26b*
Deposits in older elastic sedimentary rocks
Hot-spring Hg -------------------------------------------- 27a
Almaden Hg --------------------------------------------- 27b
Silica-carbonate Hg ------------------------------------ 27c
Simple Sb ---------------------------------------------- 27d
Marine
Kuroko massive sulfide ----------------------------------- 28a
Algoma Fe -------------------------------------------------28b
(Volcanogenic Mn) ----------------------------------------(24c)
(Volcanogenic U) ----------------------------------------- (25f)
(Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein) ----------------------- (36a)
(Homestake Au) -------------------------------------------(36b)
(Volcanogenic U) -------------------------------------- (25f)
Sedimentary rocks
H. Clastic sedimentary rocks
Conglomerate and sedimentary breccia
Quartz pebble conglomerate Au-U -------------------------- 29a
Olympic Dam Cu-U-Au --------------------------------------29b
(Sandstone U) -------------------------------------------- (30c)
(Basaltic Cu) -------------------------------------------- (23)
Sandstone
Sandstone-hosted Pb-Zn ---------------------------------- 30a
Sediment-hosted Cu --------------------------------------- 30b
Sandstone U ---------------------------------------------- 30c
(Basaltic Cu) -------------------------------------------- (23)
(Kipushi Cu-Pb-Zn) ---------------------------------------- (32c)
(Unconformity U-Au) --------------------------------------- (37a)
Shale-siltstone
Sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb ----------------------------- 31a
Bedded barite -------------------------------------------- 31b
Emerald veins -------------------------------------------- 31c
(Basaltic Cu) ------------------------------------------- (23)
(Carbonate-hosted Au-Ag) --------------------------------- (26a)
(Sediment-hosted Cu) ------------------------------------- (30b)
I. Carbonate rocks
No associated igneous rocks
Southeast Missouri Pb-Zn --------------------------------- 32a
Appalachian Zn -------------------------------------------- 32b
Kipushi Cu-Pb-Zn ------------------------------------------ 32c
(Replacement Sn) ------------------------------------------ (14c)
5
 Table 1. Classification of deposit models by lithologic-tectonic environment
--continued
Deposit environment
Model No.

I. Carbonate rocks--Continued
No associated igneous rocks--Continued

(Sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb) ---------------------------

(Karst bauxite) ------------------------------------------ (31a)
Igneous heat sources present (38c)
(Polymetallic replacement) -------------------------------
(Replacement Mn) ---------------------------------------- (19a)
(Carbonate-hosted Au-Ag) ---------------------------------- (19b)
(Fluorspar deposits) ------------------------------------- (26a)
(26b*)
J. Chemical sediments
Oceanic
Mn nodules -----------------------------------------------
Mn crusts ---------------------------------------------- 33a*
Shelf 33b*
Superior Fe ----------------------------------------------
Sedimentary Mn ------------------------------------------- 34a
Phosphate, upwelling type -------------------------------- 34b
Phosphate, warm-current type ----------------------------- 34C
Restricted basin 34d
Marine evaporite ----------------------------------------
Playa evaporite ------------------------------------------ 35a*
(Sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb) --------------------------- 35b*
(Sedimentary Mn) ----------------------------------------- (31a)
(34b)
Regionally metamorphosed rocks

K. Derived mainly from eugeosynclinal rocks

Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein ---------------------------------
36a
Homestake AU -----------------------------------------------
(Serpentine-hosted asbestos) ------------------------------- 36b
(Gold on flat faults) (8d)
--------------------------------------------(37b)
L. Derived mainly from pelitic and other sedimentary rocks
Unconformity U-Au ------------------------------------------
Gold on flat faults ---------------------------------------- 37a
37b
Surficial and unconformity-related
M. Residual
Lateritic Ni -----------------------------------------------
Bauxite, laterite type ------------------------------------ 38a
Bauxite, karst type ---------------------------------------- 38b
(Unconformity U-Au) ---------------------------------------- 38c
(37a)
N. Depositional
placer Au-PGE -----------------------------------------------
placer PGE-Au ---------------------------------------------- 39a
Shoreline placer Ti ---------------------------------------- 39b
Diamond placers ------------------------------------------- 39C
Stream placer Sn ------------------------------------------ 39d
(Quartz pebble conglomerate Au-U) -------------------------- 39e
(29a)

inevitably introduces a substantial bias on the part of MODEL NAMES

the classifier, thus we have followed a system of
including, parenthetically, alternative classifications
less favored by the compiler at the appropriate Each model has been assigned a name that is
derived either from the special characteristics of the
alternative points in the classification scheme. classes or from a type locality. The latter strategy
6
was employed to avoid excessively long descriptive GRADE-TONNAGE MODELS
names. The use of type names derived from specific
deposits does produce confusion in some readers, Estimated pre-mining tonnages and grades from
however, who may feel, for example, that a deposit over 3,900 well-explored, well-characterized deposits
that does not look “exactly” like Comstock cannot be were used to construct 60 grade-tonnage models.
represented by a "Comstock epithermal vein” model. Where several different estimates were available for a
This confusion may be minimized by realizing that deposit, the estimated tonnages associated with the
most models are blends of attributes from a large lowest cutoff grades were used. Grades not available
number of deposits and that the names are only (always for by-products) were treated as zero. Except
conveniences, not constrictions. The contributors to for a few instances, the data base is so large as to
this report and the literature in general are not preclude specific references. Several published
without disagreements regarding nomenclature (as well compilations of data were particularly useful sources
as genetic aspects and some facets of the groupings for multiple deposit types (Canada Department of
made here), but provision for alternative names is Energy, Mines and Resources, 1980; DeYoung and
made in the model format under the heading of others, 1984; Krauss and others, 1984; Laughlin, 1984;
approximate synonyms. Menzie and Mosier, 1985; Mosier and others, 1983;
Mosier and others, in press; Singer and others, 1980;
Yamada and others, 1980). The U.S. Geological Survey
has a great deal of data available in the Mineral
Resources Data System.
DESCRIPTIVE MODELS The grade-tonnage models are presented in
graphical format to make it easy to compare deposit
Because every mineral deposit, like every types and to display the data. All plots show either
fingerprint, is different from every other in some grade or tonnage on the horizontal axis, while the
finite way, models have to progress beyond the purely vertical axis is always the cumulative proportion of
descriptive in order to represent more than single deposits. Plots of the same commodity or tonnages
deposits. Deposits sharing a relatively wide variety are presented on the same scale; a logarithmic scale is
and large number of attributes come to be used for tonnage and most grades. Each dot represents
characterized as a “type,” and a model representing an individual deposit (or, rarely, a district), cumulated
that type can evolve. As noted above, generally in ascending grade or tonnage. Where a large number
accepted genetic interpretations play a significant role of deposits is plotted, individual digits represent the
in establishing model classes. Here we shall emphasize number of deposits. Smoothed curves are plotted
the more descriptive aspects of the deposits because through arrays of points, and intercepts for the 90th,
our goal is to provide a basis for interpreting geologic 50th, and 10th percentiles are constructed. For
observations rather than to provide interpretations in tonnages and most grades, the smoothed curves
search of examples. The attributes listed are intended represent percentiles of a lognormal distribution that
t o b e g u i d e s for resource assessment and for has the same mean and standard deviation as the
exploration both in the planning stage and in the observed data; exceptions are plots where only a small
interpretation of findings. percentage of deposits had reported grades and grade
The descriptive models have two parts. The plots that are presented on an arithmetic scale, such
first, the “Geological Environment,” describes the as iron or manganese, for which the smoothed curve
environments in which the deposits are found; the was fit by eye. Summary statistics by deposit type are
second gives the identifying characteristics of the provided in Appendix B. The number of deposits in
deposits. The headings “Rock Types” and “Textures” each type is indicated at the upper right of each
cover the favorable host rocks of deposits as well as diagram. The deposits used to construct each model
source rocks believed to be responsible for are listed with the model and cross-indexed to model
hydrothermal fluids which may have introduced types in Appendix E. Correlations among grades and
epigenetic deposits. “Age” refers to the age of the between tonnage and each grade are indicated only
event responsible for the formation of the deposit. when significant at the 1 percent level.
“Tectonic Setting” is concerned with major features or There are important limitations inherent in the
provinces (perhaps those that might be portrayed only d a t a b a s e u s e d for all grade-tonnage models.
at 1:1,000,000 or smaller scale), not ore control by Estimates of cutoff grades within individual deposit
structures that are local and often site-specific. types can vary because of regional, national, or
“Associated Deposits” are listed as deposits whose operator differences. All too commonly there is no
presence might indicate suitable conditions for mention of the actual cutoff grades or mining widths
additional deposits of the type portrayed by the model. that are incorporated into published reserve figures;
The second part of the model, the “Deposit nevertheless, the grade-tonnage figures given do
Description,” provides the identifying characteristics represent material t h a t t h e company or the
of the deposits themselves, particularly emphasizing government believed might someday be economic to.
aspects by which the deposits might be recognized mine. Stratiform deposits of large areal extent, such
through their geochemical and geophysical anomalies. as phosphate or sedimentary manganese, are special
In most cases the descriptions also contain data useful problems because of differences in opinion and
in project planning for mineral assessment or practice regarding how closely drilled they must be to
exploration; this aspect is especially important where “prove” ore tonnages and regarding the thicknesses and
limited financial and manpower resources must be depths of what may be considered for eventual
allocated to the more significant tasks. mining. Effects of another source of variation, mining
7
 methods, are recognized in some of the placer models; estimated number of deposits to be consistent with a
typically, however, mining methods are fairly grade-tonnage model, approximately half of the
consistent within a deposit type. In a few instances, deposits estimated should have greater than the
irregular cumulative frequency plots reflect mixing of model’s median tonnage or grade. Thus the probability
economic and scientific data sources, such as in the that an untested prospect represents a significant
plot of gold in porphyry copper deposits. In spite of deposit can too easily be overestimated.
the current difficulty of quantifying variation of
grades and tonnages with respect to changes in cutoff OTHER TYPES OF MODELS AND THEIR
grades or mining methods, the models presented here INTERRELATIONSHIPS
are believed to account for the main source of
variation in grades and tonnages of mineral deposits-- The bulk of this report deals with descriptive
variation due to differences among types of deposits. mineral deposit models and their grade-tonnage
The question of whether one counts deposits counterparts, but there are other useful aspects which
within a cluster of related deposits as individuals or as we wish to discuss even though we have not yet had
a total will probably never be resolved to everyone’s the opportunity to develop or exploit them. They are
satisfaction. Some geostatisticians would separate the genetic, occurrence probability, and quantitative
each ore body (and then argue about whether two process models.
operations on the same body should be counted Many authors prefer to keep a clear distinction
separately), whereas some economic geologists would between descriptive and genetic models, apparently
lump everything from a single district (and then argue feeling that the descriptive models somehow represent
about district boundaries). For the most part the “pure truth” whereas the genetic constitute a less
entities summarized are individual deposits, but in objective philosophical position (or at least make the
some instances such data are mixed with data investigator “skate on thin ice”). It is altogether
representing entire districts. Because of these desirable to avoid confusing interpretation with fact;
inconsistencies, some care is necessary in comparing but it is well to remember, for example, that each
grade-tonnage models between deposit types or in time a field geoscientist extrapolates geology across a
comparing this summary with those prepared using covered area he or she adds an element of
alternative methods. “interpretation” to a “factual” map, and that this
Care is also warranted in interpreting the grade interpretation is not necessarily any more “real” (or
distributions for which data are missing; this concerns “unreal”) than, for example, an isotope geologist’s
principally by-product grades. In some instances, such conclusion that a given oxygen and hydrogen isotopic
as the platinum-group element (PGE) contents in signature extracted from fluid inclusions points to a
podiform chromite and the cobalt content of laterites, meteoric origin for the fluid. The point is that the
the fragmentary information given probably represents whole of our professional knowledge rests on a broad
the entire class. In other instances, such as the lead continuum of interpretations; many of them are so
content of Cyprus massive sulfide deposits, the missing commonly accepted that they are no longer
grades probably represent values below the lowest questioned, but many others still evoke challenges.
reported grades. The grades derived from studies of Thus we suggest that a combination descriptive-
trace elements in ores more probably represent the genetic model is not inconsistent with professional
former situation rather than the latter. practice. The model begins as a description, but
Deposits strongly suspected to be small or very various aspects of the model become genetic as they
low grade are seldom sampled well enough to be acquire satisfactory genetic explanations. Eventually
characterized in terms of grade and tonnage, thus the much of the model becomes genetic, as has happened,
sample of many deposit classes is truncated by for example, with the Cyprus-type massive sulfide
economics. Nonetheless, probably 40 percent of the deposits or the sandstone uranium deposits of the
deposits used in these models are, in fact, non- Colorado Plateau.
economic today; and a perusal of the figures will As the attributes of a model become understood
discover examples of both small deposits and low- in a genetic sense, the descriptive model evolves to a
grade deposits. genetic model:
Potential metal supply is dominated by the very 1. Genetic models are compilations of the
few largest tonnage deposits, as shown by Singer and properties of a group of related deposits
DeYoung (1980), who also pointed out that inverse in which the reasons for certain attributes
correlations between grade and tonnage are being favorable are identified.
surprisingly rare. Thus the fact that a deposit is large Descriptive models evolve into genetic
does not necessarily mean that it will prove to be of models, and as such they become far more
low grade. This means that most low-grade deposits flexible and powerful.
are not likely to have huge resources and also that the We have presented the three model subtypes
omission of a few low-grade or small tonnage deposits above as if they constituted a linear logical sequence
will not seriously degrade the predictions of potential leading toward the “final” model, but in fact there
national supplies for most commodities. In contrast, must be an iterative relationship among descriptive,
the missing low-grade and small deposits suggest that genetic, and grade/tonnage models. The consequence
the grade-tonnage models represent a biased sample of of examining any of these three may be a reassessment
the large number of low-grade or small-tonnage of the groupings of deposits chosen to be represented
occurrences and prospects found by exploration. This by a model type and the redesignation of the attributes
fact must be considered in cases where the number of diagnostic for that type.
undiscovered deposits is estimated. In order for the With a dominantly genetic model in hand, two
8
more model types can be generated:
2. Occurrence probability models are models
Individual deposit descri~ticms
that predict the probability of a deposit
(of a size and grade indicated by the Groupings
appropriate grade-tonnage models)
occurring within a given area. As with the
descriptive and genetic models,
probability models that are tied to lithic
or structural geologic entities (that is,
they are genetic) are far more focused; in
fact, it is probably impossible to generate
a useful probability model before the
establishment of a g e n e t i c model.
Accurate probability models are very
difficult to construct because although the
technical community has very complete
data on mineral producers (mines), the
data on non-producing mineral deposits
(prospects and mineral shows) are much
less well documented, a point also covered
in the discussion of grade-tonnage
models. Even more importantly, data on
barren areas are sparse. We must
extrapolate from a very fragmentary base
toward a completely unseen target.
There is much to learn before the probability
model can be made a dependable tool; yet the
successful targeting of exploration programs by
industry demonstrates that, at least on a qualitative Figure 2. Flow sheet showing evolution of model
basis, areas with better-than-average probabilities can types. Individual model subtypes are discussed in
be identified. It is worth noting, also, that mineral text. It is essential that such a structure represents
fuels are much more predictable and now can have the repetitive cycling of information leading to
realistic probability-of-occurrence values attached to continual refinement of groupings of deposits that
specific volumes of sediments provided that the initial represent each model type.
character and postdepositional histories of the
sediments are well known. It is a distant but not MATURITY OF DESCRIPTIVE-GENETIC MODELS
unreasonable dream to anticipate that some day we
shall approach that level of certainty for some types The rate at which we gain understanding and
of nonfuel mineral deposits. the current levels of genetic knowledge vary
3. Quantitative process models are models that considerably from one deposit type to another, as
describe quantitatively some process figures 3 and 4 show. Such types as placers and
related to mineral deposit formation; they evaporates are well known genetically and the
are offshoots of the genetic model. problems in their exploration and utilization concern
Examples would be models of heat or fluid local site-specific geologic issues rather than mineral
flow around a cooling pluton; rates of genesis or the degree of maturation of the model. In
crystal growth as functions of contrast, others such as the Coeur d’Alene Ag-Pb-Zn
supersaturation, impurities, and veins, or the massive Zn-Mn-Fe oxide/silicate bodies
temperature; or sequences and amounts of at Franklin and Sterling Hill, or the Cu-U-Au at
minerals deposited from evaporating Olympic Dam, or the Cu-Zn-Pb-Ge ores of Kipushi and
seawater. the Tsumeb pipe remain genetic enigmas despite, in
All five of these model subtypes can be parts of the the instances of the first two, extensive research
“final” model, and recycling of the model back to the spanning many years. Still others, such as the
original groupings stage helps refine the selection diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes, are geologically
process. Figure 2 shows the flow of information that well understood regarding their origin yet very poorly
results in the generation of the models we have understood in terms of the reasons for their existing at
discussed. any particular site. Our rate of acquisition of
Table 2 compares the five model subtypes with information is very irregular, as the schematic
five distinct types of uses for the information. Note diagram in figure 3 shows. The several scarps between
that persons engaged in research guidance and plateaus in the knowledge curve for the marine
especially exploration and development have broad- phosphate model might mark, successively, the
ranging needs, whereas those dealing with the recognition that the phosphate was a chemical
availability of minerals or of land-use allocation have precipitate, that it occurred on continental shelves
less use for genetic or quantitative process models. where upwelling of deep marine waters occurred, and
Overall there is a need for a comprehensive array of that the upwelling regions were related to wind and
mineral deposit models to meet these individual current patterns that were tied to the global
objective. configuration of the continents and ocean basins. A
9
Table 2. Comparison of application of the five model subtypes
by various users PLACER GOLD

[Level of use: Major, X; minor, X; minimal, x] PHOSPHORITE

Subtypes of models

Uses

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY Pb-Zn

/
KIPUSHI
COEUR D'ALENE
Exploration/development X x x x x
Supply potential x X X x X
Land use x x X x X
Education X x x x x
Research guidance x x x x x
PERSON-YEARS OF EFFORT(Schematic Iogscale)

second example from the Mississippi Valley-type ores 3. Schematic growth patterns for
might involve scarps marking the recognition (from understanding of some typical genetic models.
fluid-inclusion evidence) that the ores were deposited Individual curves discussed in text.
from warm (about 100 ‘C) highly saline solutions that
could represent neither simple surface nor marine
waters. A second scarp might be associated with the and schematic, curve tobe illustrated. As with figure
recognition that the deposits were integral parts of a 3, there is no documentation to support this diagram,
regional hydrologic regime whose distribution and although the general concept meets with agreement
character was susceptible to interpretation. among most contributors to this volume.
Figures 3 and4 bring out another point: some
aspects of any model always remain to be determined,
thus we never acquire a ’’complete” model. Indeed, the
approach to “complete” understanding is asymptotic, COMPLETE
I
and a lot of additional effort to clear up the “last” Placer Au, evaporates
uncertainty in a nearly perfect model is probably Laterites
Magmatic sulfides
unwarranted. But, as the examples in figure 3 show, Phosphorites
new ideas and new technologies can provide the Banded won-formation

impetus for new spurts in knowledge for heretofore Volcanogenic massive sulfides
Porphyry CU-MO
incomplete models. I
Eplthermal Au-Ag
Note that the horizontal axis in figure 3 is Sandstone U
I

simply “years of effort” devoted to fundamental Sedimentary Mn

I
I
geologic investigation. The scale certainly needs tobe
exponential in order to fit the intensively studied and
sparsely studied deposit types, but this figure is d
>
Podiform chromite
Mississippi Valley Pb -Zn

Sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb

I
strictly schematic, there being no source of !2
Kipushi Cu-Pb-Zn
documentation for either coordinate. The figure also
1
Coeur d’ Alene
These are so poorly understood that
indicates that different deposit types may require Franklin Furnace they defy classification Each deposit
Olgmpic Dam constitutes its own class
different amounts of effort to achieve a similar level NIL

of genetic understanding. RATlO OF EFFORT EXPENDED TO EFFORT NEEDED

Figure 4 shows a hypothetical growth curve

along which different types of deposits have been
schematically arrayed. Because some deposits (suchas Figure 4. Comparison of relative levels of
volcanogenic massive sulfides) are so much more understanding o f s o m e important model types.
difficult to understand than others (gold placers), the Vertical coordinate same as for figure 3; but because
horizontal axis has been “normalized” by plotting a difficulty of acquiring the genetic information differs
ratio of effort done to effort needed thereby so widely among model types, the horizontal
permitting a smooth, although admittedly subjective coordinate is “normalized” as noted in text.

10