Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · pp907F

The Nature and Use of Copper Reserve and Resource Data

Abstract

Copper reserve, resource, and production data can be combined to produce disaggregated resource estimates and trends and, when combined with demand forecasts, can be used to predict future exploration and development requirements. Reserve estimates are subject to uncertainties due mainly to incomplete exploration and rapidly changing economic conditions. United States' reserve estimates in the past have been low mainly because knowledge of the magnitude of very large porphyry-copper deposits has been incomplete. Present estimates are considerably more reliable because mining firms tend to drill out deposits fully before mining and to release their reserve estimates to the public. The sum of reserves and past production yields an estimate of the total ore, total metal contained in ore, and average grade of ore originally in each of the deposits known in the United States. For most deposits, estimates of total copper in ore are low relative to the total copper in mineralized rock, and many estimates are strongly affected by the economic behavior of mining firms. A better estimate of the real distribution of copper contained in deposits can be obtained by combining past production data with resource estimates. Copper resource data are disaggregated into categories that include resources in undeveloped deposits similar to those mined in the past, resources in mines closed because of unfavorable economic conditions, resources in deep deposits requiring high-cost mining methods, arid resources in deposits located in areas where environmental restrictions have contributed to delays in development. The largest resource is located in the five largest porphyry deposits. These deposits are now being mined but the resources are not included in the present mining plan. Resources in this last category will not contribute to supply until some future time when ores presently being mined are depleted. A high correlation exists between total copper contained in deposits and annual production from deposits. This correlation can be used to predict roughly the potential production from undeveloped deposits. Large deposits annually produce relatively less metal per ton of copper contained than do medium and small deposits. Dividing reserves by annual production gives a depletion date for each copper mine. The sum of annual production capacity of all mines not yet depleted at any year of interest gives the minimum production capacity for that year. A graph of minimum production capacity by year combined with curves representing potential capacity from undeveloped identified resources can be compared with various demand scenarios to yield a measure of copper requirements from new sources. Since 1950 reserves have been developed in the United States at a rate of about 1 million tons of copper per year. Since 1960 the number of deposits developed per 10-year period has greatly increased without a commensurate increase in tonnage of copper. This is in part due to the fact that recent exploration successes have been increasingly represented by smaller and (or) lower grade deposits containing less metal.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dennis P. Cox, Nancy A. Wright, George J. Coakley. 1981. The Nature and Use of Copper Reserve and Resource Data. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp907f

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗