Geology topics

Matthew Granitto

Publications and source records attributed to Matthew Granitto.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2021

GIS-based identification of areas that have resource potential for lode gold in Alaska

Several comprehensive, data-driven geographic information system (GIS) analyses were conducted to assess prospectivity for lode gold in Alaska. These analyses use available geospatial datasets of lithologic, geochemical, mineral occurrence, and geophysical data to build models for recognizing different types of gold deposits within physiographic units defined by stream drainage basins that are approximately 100 square kilometers in area. The analytical methods successfully delineated areas in the State that contain known lode gold deposits and occurrences, providing some measure of confidence in their ability to predict gold prospectivity in areas of unknown lode gold potential. The results of our analyses indicate high prospectivity in a few areas scattered around the State that are not known to contain lode gold deposits. In addition to assessing the potential for lode gold deposits in Alaska, we designed analyses to distinguish different lode gold deposit types, including orogenic, reduced-intrusion-related, epithermal, and gold-bearing porphyry. These can primarily be differentiated using their unique trace element geochemical fingerprints and elemental enrichments, which reflect the characteristics of the geologic environment and chemistry of the ore-forming fluids. We identified multiple parameters that would discriminate the different types of gold deposits, but owing to the limits of available data, the compositional similarity of ore-forming fluids among some types of lode gold deposits, and overlapping geologic environments, distinguishing deposit types at the state scale in Alaska remains problematic. These limitations resulted in overlapping areas of prospectivity for different deposit types, highlighting the challenges for targeted gold exploration in Alaska. Adjustment of some scoring parameters and recharacterization at smaller scales to highlight individual mineral systems for application of prospectivity analyses may be helpful at a district scale. At a regional scale, the aerial overlap of individual deposit type analyses reinforces confidence in prospectivity for a lode gold resource in a drainage basin. Our analysis for undivided lode gold deposits will be the most practical analysis for landuse decisions in which delineation of areas that have confident potential for gold deposits in general is the primary goal. Data-driven GIS analysis for lode gold potential in Alaska, although limited by the size and uneven coverage of available datasets, objectively indicates prospectivity in areas where exposure is good as well as in areas under cover. The results of our analyses show medium to high prospectivity in areas that surround known deposits, indicating an overall expansion of areas that have the potential to contain gold deposits. Exploration in these areas may help improve the balance between the volume of gold produced in placer districts statewide and the relatively low volume of identified lode resources that contribute to these placer deposits. The results of our analyses can help focus future investigations in areas that show prospectivity but are not known to contain gold deposits, as well as in areas where data are lacking and the geology is poorly understood, and acquisition of additional data may help better define and constrain gold prospectivity.

Alaska↗

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↗

USGS2021

Tungsten skarn mineral resource assessment of the Great Basin region of western Nevada and eastern California

A new quantitative mineral resource assessment for tungsten, a critical mineral commodity with highly concentrated production and a moderate risk of global supply disruption, was conducted for the Great Basin region of western Nevada and eastern California. This assessment was part of a larger effort focusing on three regions in the United States and represents the first study of domestic tungsten resources and mineral potential in over twenty years. By integrating geology, bedrock and stream sediment geochemistry, geophysics, and remote sensing data with recently developed software tools and analyses, estimates of undiscovered tungsten skarn deposits in permissive tracts are combined with grade and tonnage distributions of known deposits to generate probabilistic estimates of undiscovered resources. Identified resources in the Great Basin region total 168 thousand metric tons (kt) of tungsten trioxide (WO 3 ), including 116 kt of past production and 52 kt remaining in place. Consistent with the historic significance of the Great Basin region as a past producer containing a large portion of U.S. identified resources, undiscovered resources are likely to occur adjacent to known deposits and prospects and at unexplored depths. Undiscovered deposits are estimated to contain median resources of 940 kt of WO 3 with a 90% probability of at least 420 kt and a 10% probability of at least 1.7 million metric tons (Mt), of which 240 kt to 1.1 Mt may be economic to extract. Based on a 20-year average price, median recoverable undiscovered resources are estimated at 570 kt WO 3 equivalent with a net present value of $3 billion U.S. dollars. The methods, data, results, and economic significance of the assessment contribute to a scientific understanding of a critical mineral resource with direct implications for policy and land management decisions.

California, Nevada↗

USGS2020

Evaluation of the analytical methods used to determine the elemental concentrations found in the stream geochemical dataset compiled for Alaska

A recent U.S. Geological Survey data compilation of stream-sediment geochemistry for Alaska contains decades of analyses collected under numerous Federal and State programs. The compiled data were determined by various analytical methods. Some samples were reanalyzed by a different analytical method than the original, resulting in some elements having concentrations reported by multiple analytical methods. Consideration of the analytical methods used to determine the elemental concentrations is an important step in a mineral prospectivity analysis. We used the compiled data to compare concentrations of barium (Ba), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) determined by different analytical methods to show how simple data comparisons can identify bias and provide a general sense of the comparability of different analytical methods. The elements were selected because they have a range of geochemical properties that may affect the performance of different analytical procedures. Generally, agreement between Ba, Co, Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb, and Zn concentrations is good for most quantitative methods that use a total decomposition of the sample. However, Cr concentrations typically were lower for methods using quantitative-instrumental analysis following a multi-acid dissolution technique that included hydrofluoric acid compared to those using sinter decomposition. Additionally, low- to middle-range concentrations for Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn by instrumental neutron activation (NA) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analyzed by the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program have high uncertainty. Concentrations determined by methods that use partial decomposition of the sample generally correspond well to concentrations determined by methods that use a total decomposition technique, except for Ba and Cr. For Ba and Cr, partial decomposition techniques yield lower concentrations than those determined by methods that use a total decomposition technique. Comparison of Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn concentrations determined by semiquantitative visual six-step direct-current arc emission spectrography (ES_SQ) to those determined by quantitative methods using either a total or partial decomposition technique consistently show scatter that exceeds the values expected based on the range represented by the semiquantitative concentration. The data compilation includes a best-value determination that was selected based on the analytical method from the all concentration data for that sample. Ba, Cr, Co, and Zn concentrations determined by NA usually are selected as the best-value determination. However, the NURE-NA method was designed for high throughput and the uncertainty associated with low- and mid-range concentrations is greater than that of the multi-acid method used to reanalyze many samples. Selection of the multi-acid method over the NURE-NA method for Ba, Co, and Zn could be warranted. Additionally, concentrations determined by ES_SQ usually are selected as the best-value determination over all methods that use a partial decomposition of the sample. Substitution of concentrations determined by methods that use a partial decomposition for those of ES_SQ may be warranted for Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn. Regardless of the selection of the best-value determination, the dataset remains a mixed method dataset and the uncertainty due to differences in analytical methodology must be considered when using the dataset.

Alaska↗

USGS2019

Alaska Geochemical Database Version 3.0 (AGDB3)—Including “Best Value” Data Compilations for Rock, Sediment, Soil, Mineral, and Concentrate Sample Media

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 3.0 (AGDB3) contains new geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one “best value” determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving speed and efficiency of use. Like the Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 before it, the AGDB3 was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, element concentrations and associations, environmental impact assessments, and studies in public health associated with geology. This relational database, created from data-bases and published datasets of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Atomic Energy Commission National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE), Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), U.S. Bureau of Mines, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management serves as a data archive in support of Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects and contains data tables in several different formats describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 112 laboratory and field analytical methods on 396,343 rock, sediment, soil, mineral, heavy-mineral concentrate, and oxalic acid leachate samples. Most samples were collected by personnel of these agencies and analyzed in agency laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various agency programs and projects from 1938 through 2017. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy-mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB3 includes historical geochemical data archived in the USGS National Geochemical Database (NGDB) and NURE National Uranium Resource Evaluation-Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance databases, and in the DGGS Geochemistry database. Retrievals from these data-bases were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. In other words, the data of AGDB3 supersedes data in the AGDB and the AGDB2, but the background about the data in these two earlier versions are needed by users of the current AGDB3 to understand what has been done to amend, clean up, correct and format this data. Corrections were entered, resulting in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset, the AGDB3. Data that were not previously in these databases because the data predate the earliest agency geochemical data-bases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB3 and will be added to the NGDB and Alaska Geochemistry. The AGDB3 data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB3 data provided in the online version of the database may be updated or changed periodically.

Alaska↗

USGS2016

Geology and mineral resources of the North-Central Montana Sagebrush Focal Area: Chapter D in Mineral resources of the Sagebrush Focal Areas of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

Summary The U.S. Department of the Interior has proposed to withdraw approximately 10 million acres of Federal lands from mineral entry (subject to valid existing rights) from 12 million acres of lands defined as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming (for further discussion on the lands involved see Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5089–A). The purpose of the proposed action is to protect the greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) and its habitat from potential adverse effects of locatable mineral exploration and mining. The U.S. Geological Survey Sagebrush Mineral-Resource Assessment (SaMiRA) project was initiated in November 2015 and supported by the Bureau of Land Management to (1) assess locatable mineral-resource potential and (2) to describe leasable and salable mineral resources for the seven SFAs and Nevada additions. This chapter summarizes the current status of locatable, leasable, and salable mineral commodities and assesses the potential of locatable minerals in the North-Central Montana SFA. The proposed withdrawal area that is evaluated in this report is located in north-central Montana, and includes parts of Fergus, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley Counties.

Montana↗

USGS2016

The geochemical atlas of Alaska, 2016

A rich legacy of geochemical data produced since the early 1960s covers the great expanse of Alaska; careful treatment of such data may provide significant and revealing geochemical maps that may be used for landscape geochemistry, mineral resource exploration, and geoenvironmental investigations over large areas. To maximize the spatial density and extent of data coverage for statewide mapping of element distributions, we compiled and integrated analyses of more than 175,000 sediment and soil samples from three major, separate sources: the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Uranium Resource Evaluation program, and the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys geochemical databases. Various types of heterogeneity and deficiencies in these data presented major challenges to our development of coherently integrated datasets for modeling and mapping of element distributions. Researchers from many different organizations and disparate scientific studies collected samples that were analyzed using highly variable methods throughout a time period of more than 50 years, during which many changes in analytical techniques were developed and applied. Despite these challenges, the U.S. Geological Survey has produced a new systematically integrated compilation of sediment and soil geochemical data with an average sample site density of approximately 1 locality per 10 square kilometers (km 2 ) for the entire State of Alaska, although density varies considerably among different areas. From that compilation, we have modeled and mapped the distributions of 68 elements, thus creating an updated geochemical atlas for the State.

Alaska↗

USGS2015

GIS-Based Identification of Areas with Mineral Resource Potential for Six Selected Deposit Groups, Bureau of Land Management Central Yukon Planning Area, Alaska

This study, covering the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Yukon Planning Area (CYPA), Alaska, was prepared to aid BLM mineral resource management planning. Estimated mineral resource potential and certainty are mapped for six selected mineral deposit groups: (1) rare earth element (REE) deposits associated with peralkaline to carbonatitic intrusive igneous rocks, (2) placer and paleoplacer gold, (3) platinum group element (PGE) deposits associated with mafic and ultramafic intrusive igneous rocks, (4) carbonate-hosted copper deposits, (5) sandstone uranium deposits, and (6) tin-tungsten-molybdenum-fluorspar deposits associated with specialized granites. These six deposit groups include most of the strategic and critical elements of greatest interest in current exploration. This study has used a data-driven, geographic information system (GIS)-based method for evaluating the mineral resource potential across the large region of the CYPA. This method systematically and simultaneously analyzes geoscience data from multiple geospatially referenced datasets and uses individual subwatersheds (12-digit hydrologic unit codes or HUCs) as the spatial unit of classification. The final map output indicates an estimated potential (high, medium, low) for a given mineral deposit group and indicates the certainty (high, medium, low) of that estimate for any given subwatershed (HUC). Accompanying tables describe the data layers used in each analysis, the values assigned for specific analysis parameters, and the relative weighting of each data layer that contributes to the estimated potential and certainty determinations. Core datasets used include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB2), the Alaska Division of Geologic and Geophysical Surveys Web-based geochemical database, data from an anticipated USGS geologic map of Alaska, and the USGS Alaska Resource Data File. Map plates accompanying this report illustrate the mineral prospectivity for the six deposit groups across the CYPA and estimates of mineral resource potential. There are numerous areas, some of them large, rated with high potential for one or more of the selected deposit groups within the CYPA.

Alaska↗

USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Inmachuk, Kugruk, Kiwalik, and Koyuk River drainages, Granite Mountain, and the northern Darby Mountains, Bendeleben, Candle, Kotzebue, and Solomon quadrangles, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 653 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering portions of the Inmachuk, Kugruk, Kiwalik, and Koyuk river drainages, Granite Mountain, and the northern Darby Mountains, located in the Bendeleben, Candle, Kotzebue, and Solomon quadrangles of eastern Seward Peninsula, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗

USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Haines area, Juneau and Skagway quadrangles, southeast Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 212 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the Chilkat, Klehini, Tsirku, and Takhin river drainages, as well as smaller drainages flowing into Chilkat and Chilkoot Inlets near Haines, Skagway Quadrangle, Southeast Alaska. Additionally some samples were also chosen from the Juneau gold belt, Juneau Quadrangle, Southeast Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗

USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Kougarok area, Bendeleben and Teller quadrangles, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 302 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the Kougarok River drainage as well as smaller adjacent drainages in the Bendeleben and Teller quadrangles, Seward Peninsula, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗

USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the northeastern Alaska Range, Healy, Mount Hayes, Nabesna, and Tanacross quadrangles, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 670 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the northeastern Alaska Range, in the Healy, Mount Hayes, Nabesna, and Tanacross quadrangles, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗

USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Tonsina area, Valdez Quadrangle, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 128 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the Tonsina area in the Chugach Mountains, Valdez quadrangle, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies

Alaska↗

USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Zane Hills, Hughes and Shungnak quadrangles, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 105 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the Zane Hills area in the Hughes and Shungnak quadrangles, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗

USGS2014

Reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples for geochemical data from the western part of the Wrangellia terrane, Anchorage, Gulkana, Healy, Mt. Hayes, Nabesna, and Talkeetna Mountains quadrangles, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. For the geochemical part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 1,682 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering the western half of the Wrangellia Terrane in the Anchorage, Gulkana, Healy, Mt. Hayes, Nabesna, and Talkeetna Mountains quadrangles of south-central Alaska (fig. 1). USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the Denver warehouse through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗

USGS2014

Geologic field notes and geochemical analyses of outcrop and drill core from Mesoproterozoic rocks and iron-oxide deposits and prospects of southeast Missouri

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources/Missouri Geological Survey, undertook a study from 1988 to 1994 on the iron-oxide deposits and their host Mesoproterozoic igneous rocks in southeastern Missouri. The project resulted in an improvement of our understanding of the geologic setting, mode of formation, and the composition of many of the known deposits and prospects and the associated rocks of the St. Francois terrane in Missouri. The goal for this earlier work was to allow the comparison of Missouri iron-oxide deposits in context with other iron oxide-copper ± uranium (IOCG) types of mineral deposits observed globally. The raw geochemical analyses were released originally through the USGS National Geochemical Database (NGDB, http://mrdata.usgs.gov). The data presented herein offers all of the field notes, locations, rock descriptions, and geochemical analyses in a coherent package to facilitate new research efforts in IOCG deposit types. The data are provided in both Microsoft Excel (Version Office 2010) spreadsheet format (*.xlsx) and MS-DOS text formats (*.txt) for ease of use by numerous computer programs.

Missouri↗

USGS2013

Alaska Geochemical Database, Version 2.0 (AGDB2)–Including “best value” data compilations for rock, sediment, soil, mineral, and concentrate sample mediaI

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2) contains new geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one “best value” determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving speed and efficiency of use. Like the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB, http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/637/) before it, the AGDB2 was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska in order to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, environmental impact assessments, and studies in medical geology. This relational database, created from the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB) that was released in 2011, serves as a data archive in support of present and future Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects, and contains data tables in several different formats describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 85 laboratory and field analytical methods on 264,095 rock, sediment, soil, mineral and heavy-mineral concentrate samples. Most samples were collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel and analyzed in U.S. Geological Survey laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various U.S. Geological Survey programs and projects from 1962 through 2009. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy-mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB2 includes historical geochemical data originally archived in the U.S. Geological Survey Rock Analysis Storage System (RASS) database, used from the mid-1960s through the late 1980s and the U.S. Geological Survey PLUTO database used from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. All of these data are currently maintained in the National Geochemical Database (NGDB). Retrievals from the NGDB were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. This arduous process of reviewing, verifying and, where necessary, editing all U.S. Geological Survey geochemical data resulted in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset. USGS data that were not previously in the NGDB because the data predate the earliest U.S. Geological Survey geochemical databases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB2 and will be added to the NGDB. The AGDB2 data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date, and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB2 data provided in the linked database may be updated or changed periodically.

Alaska↗

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↗