SEARCH · Search USGS
Results for “Geoscience Canada”
Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Assessment of undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Canada, 2012
The U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a geoscience-based assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of provinces within the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin primarily comprises the (1) Alberta Basin Province of Alberta, eastern British Columbia, and the southwestern Northwest Territories; (2) the Williston Basin Province of Saskatchewan, southeastern Alberta, and southern Manitoba; and (3) the Rocky Mountain Deformed Belt Province of western Alberta and eastern British Columbia. This report is part of the U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum Resources Project assessment of priority geologic provinces of the world. The assessment was based on geoscience elements that define a total petroleum system (TPS) and associated assessment unit(s). These elements include petroleum source rocks (geochemical properties and petroleum generation, migration, and accumulation), reservoir description (reservoir presence, type, and quality), and petroleum traps (trap and seal types, and timing of trap and seal formation relative to petroleum migration). Using this framework, the Elk Point-Woodbend Composite TPS, Exshaw-Fernie-Mannville Composite TPS, and Middle through Upper Cretaceous Composite TPS were defined, and four conventional assessment units within the total petroleum systems were quantitatively assessed for undiscovered resources in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.
Toward an effective global green economy: The Critical Minerals Mapping Initiative (CMMI)
Global population growth, economic development and the accelerating pace of technological innovation are driving increased demand for non-fuel mineral commodities that are vital for emerging and low-carbon technologies. Examples of such commodities include cobalt and graphite for rechargeable batteries, tellurium in thin-film solar photovoltaics and rare earth elements (REE) in permanent magnets, electronics and medical technologies. These commodities are known as critical elements and/or minerals (collectively referred to as critical minerals), with the term critical used to define not only their importance for new technologies, but also their demand and vulnerability to supply disruption. The demand for critical minerals is likely to continue to grow, but supply is not assured. Therefore, national strategies in Australia, Canada, United States and elsewhere (e.g. Europe: Wittenberg et al. 2021) are being developed to encourage exploration and production, including resolving the geological processes responsible for their enrichrichment into viable ore deposits. In 2019, Geoscience Australia (GA), the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) formed the Critical Minerals Mapping Initiative (CMMI) to undertake research to develop a better understanding of critical mineral resources in known deposits, determine the geological controls on critical mineral distribution for deposits currently producing by-products, and identify new sources of supply through mineral prospectivity mapping and resource assessment.
Data-driven prospectivity modelling of sediment-hosted Zn-Pb mineral systems and their critical raw materials
Demand for critical raw materials is expected to accelerate over the next few decades due to continued population growth and the shifting consumption patterns of the global economy. Sedimentary basins are important sources for critical raw materials and new discoveries of sediment–hosted Mississippi Valley–type (MVT) and/or clastic–dominated (CD) Zn–Pb deposits are likely required to mitigate future supply chain disruptions for Zn, Pb, Ag, Cd, Ga, Ge, Sb, and In. Herein we integrate public geoscience datasets using a discrete global grid to system to model the mineral potential for MVT and CD deposits across Canada, the United States of America, and Australia. Statistical analysis of the model results demonstrates that surface–wave tomography and derivative products from satellite gravity datasets can be used to map the most favourable paleo–tectonic settings of MVT and CD deposits inboard of orogenic belts and at the rifted edges of cratonic lithosphere, respectively. Basin development at pre–existing crustal boundaries was likely important for maintaining the low geothermal–gradients that are favourable for metal transport and generating the crustal fluid pathways that were reactivated during ore–formation, as suggested by the statistical association of both sediment–hosted mineral deposit types with the edges of upward–continued gravity and long–wavelength magnetic anomalies. Multivariate statistical analysis demonstrates that the most prospective combination of these geophysical datasets varies for each geological region and deposit type. We further demonstrate that maximum and minimum geological ages, coupled with Phanerozoic paleogeographic reconstructions, represent mappable proxies for the availability of oxidized, brine–generating regions that are the most likely source of ore–forming fluids (e.g., low– to mid–latitude carbonate platforms and evaporites). Ore deposition was likely controlled by interaction between oxidized, low–temperature brines and sulfidic and/or carbonaceous rocks, which, in some cases, can be mapped at the exposed surface or identified using the available rock descriptions. Baseline weights–of–evidence models are based on regional geophysics and are the least impacted by missing surface information but yield relatively poor results, as demonstrated by the low area–under–the–curve (AUC) for the spatially independent test set on the success–rate plot (AUC = 0.787 for MVT and AUC = 0.870 for CD). Model performance can be improved by: (1) using advanced methods that were trained and validated during a series of semi–automated machine learning competitions; and/or (2) incorporating geological and geophysical datasets that are proxies for each component of the mineral system. The best–performing gradient boosting machine models yield higher AUC for the test set (AUC = 0.983 for MVT and AUC = 0.991 for CD) and reduce the search space by >94%. The model results highlight the potential benefits of mapping sediment–hosted mineral systems at continental scale to improve mineral exploration targeting for critical raw materials.
Applications of natural language processing to geoscience text data and prospectivity modelling
Geological maps are powerful models for visualizing the complex distribution of rock types through space and time. However, the descriptive information that forms the basis for a preferred map interpretation is typically stored in geological map databases as unstructured text data that are difficult to use in practice. Herein we apply natural language processing (NLP) to geoscientific text data from Canada, the U.S., and Australia to address that knowledge gap. First, rock descriptions, geological ages, lithostratigraphic and lithodemic information, and other long-form text data are translated to numerical vectors, i.e., a word embedding, using a geoscience language model. Network analysis of word associations, nearest neighbors, and principal component analysis are then used to extract meaningful semantic relationships between rock types. We further demonstrate using simple Naive Bayes classifiers and the area under receiver operating characteristics plots (AUC) how word vectors can be used to: (1) predict the locations of “pegmatitic” (AUC = 0.962) and “alkalic” (AUC = 0.938) rocks; (2) predict mineral potential for Mississippi-Valley-type (AUC = 0.868) and clastic-dominated (AUC = 0.809) Zn-Pb deposits; and (3) search geoscientific text data for analogues of the giant Mount Isa clastic-dominated Zn-Pb deposit using the cosine similarities between word vectors. This form of semantic search is a promising NLP approach for assessing mineral potential with limited training data. Overall, the results highlight how geoscience language models and NLP can be used to extract new knowledge from unstructured text data and reduce the mineral exploration search space for critical raw materials.
The quest for the perfect gravity anomaly: Part 2 - Mass effects and anomaly inversion
Gravity anomalies have become an important tool for geologic studies since the widespread use of high-precision gravimeters after the Second World War. More recently the development of instrumentation for airborne gravity observations, procedures for acquiring data from satellite platforms, the readily available Global Positioning System for precise vertical and horizontal control, improved global data bases, and enhancement of computational hardware and software have accelerated the use of the gravity method. As a result, efforts are being made to improve the gravity databases that are made available to the geoscience community by broadening their observational holdings and increasing the accuracy and precision of the included data. Currently the North American Gravity Database as well as the individual databases of Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America are being revised using new formats and standards. The objective of this paper is to describe the use of the revised standards for gravity data processing and modeling and there impact on geological interpretations. ?? 2005 Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Surficial geology and benthic habitat of the German Bank seabed, Scotian Shelf, Canada
To provide the scientific context for management of a newly opened scallop fishing ground, surficial geology and benthic habitats were mapped on German Bank on the southern Scotian Shelf off Atlantic Canada. To provide a seamless regional dataset, multibeam sonar surveys covered 5320 sqaure kilometres of the bank in water depths of 30–250 m and provided 5 m horizontal resolution bathymetry and backscatter strength. Geoscience data included high-resolution geophysical profiles (seismic reflection and sidescan sonar) and seabed sediment samples. Geological interpretation and is overlain in places by glacial and postglacial sediment. Biological data included seafloor video transects and photographs from which 127 taxa of visible megabenthos were identified. Trawl bycatch data were obtained from government annual research surveys. Statistical analysis of revealed that bedrock is exposed at the seafloor on much of German Bankthese two datasets and a suite of oceanographic environmental variables demonstrated that significantly different fauna exist on bedrock, glacial sediment and postglacial sediment.
A bibliometric profile of the Remote Sensing Open Access Journal published by MDPI between 2009 and 2018
Remote Sensing Open Access Journal (RS OAJ) is an international leading journal in the field of remote sensing science and technology. It was first published in the year 2009 and is currently celebrating tenth year of publications. In this research, a bibliometric analysis of RS OAJ was conducted based on 5588 articles published during the 10-year (2009–2018) time-period. The bibliometric analysis includes a comprehensive set of indicators such as dynamics and trends of publications, journal impact factor, total cites, eigenfactor score, normalized eigenfactor, CiteScore, h-index, h-classic publications, most productive countries (or territories) and institutions, co-authorship collaboration about countries (territories), research themes, citation impact of co-occurrences keywords, intellectual structure, and knowledge commutation. We found that publications of RS OAJ presented an exponential growth in the past ten years. From 2010 to 2017 (for which complete years data were available), the h-index of RS OAJ is 67. From 2009–2018, RS OAJ includes publications from 129 countries (or territories) and 3826 institutions. The leading nations contributing articles, based on 2009–2018 data, and listed based on ranking were: China, United States, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Canada, England, Australia, Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland and Austria. The leading institutions, also for the same period and listed based on ranking were: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan University, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing Normal University, The university of Maryland, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, China University of Geosciences, United States Geological Survey, German Aerospace Centre, University of Twente, and California Institute of Technology. For the year 2017, RS OAJ had an impressive journal impact factor of 3.4060, a CiteScore of 4.03, eigenfactor score of 0.0342, and normalized eigenfactor score of 3.99. In addition, based on 2009–2018, data co-word analysis determined that “remote sensing”, “MODIS”, “Landsat”, “LiDAR” and “NDVI” are the high-frequency of author keywords co-occurrence in RS OAJ. The main themes of RS OAJ are multi-spectral and hyperspectral remote sensing, LiDAR scanning and forestry remote sensing monitoring, MODIS and LAI data applications, Remote sensing applications and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Through author keywords citation impact analysis, we find the most influential keyword is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), followed, forestry, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), terrestrial laser scanning, airborne laser scanning, forestry inventory, urban heat island, monitoring, agriculture, and laser scanning. By analyzing the intellectual structure of RS OAJ, we identify the main reference publications and find that the themes are about Random Forests, MODIS vegetation indices and image analysis, etc. RS OAJ ranks first in cited journals and third in citing, this indicates that RS OAJ has the internal knowledge flow. Our results will bring more benefits to scholars, researchers and graduate students, who hopes to get a quick overview of the RS OAJ. And this article will also be the starting point for communication between scholars and practitioners. Finally, this paper proposed a nuanced h-index (nh-index) to measure productivity and intellectual contribution of authors by considering h-index based on whether the one is first, second, third, or nth author. This nuanced approach to determining h-index of authors is powerful indicator of an academician’s productivity and intellectual contribution.
Ordovician sponges from west-central and east-central Alaska and western Yukon Territory, Canada
Moderate collections of fossil sponges have been recovered over a several-year period from a few scattered localities in west-central and east-central Alaska, and from westernmost Yukon Territory of Canada. Two fragments of the demosponge agelasiid cliefdenellid, Cliefdenella alaskaensis Stock, 1981, and mostly small unidentifiable additional fragments were recovered from a limestone debris flow bed in the White Mountain area, McGrath A-4 Quadrangle in west-central Alaska. Fragments of the agelasiid actinomorph girtyocoeliids Girtyocoeliana epiporata (Rigby & Potter, 1986) and Girtyocoelia minima n. sp., plus a specimen of the vaceletid colospongiid Corymbospongia amplia Rigby, Karl, Blodgett & Baichtal, 2005, were collected from probable Ashgillian age beds in the Livengood B-5 Quadrangle in east-central Alaska. A more extensive suite of corymbospongiids, including Corymbospongia betella Rigby, Potter & Blodgett, 1988, C. mica Rigby & Potter, 1986, and C.(?) perforata Rigby & Potter, 1986, along with the vaceletiid colospongiids Pseudo-imperatoria minima? (Rigby & Potter, 1986), and Pseudoimperatoria media (Rigby & Potter, 1986), and with the heteractinid Nucha naucum? Pickett & Jell, 1983, were recovered from uppermost part of the Jones Ridge Limestone (Ashgillian), on the south flank of Jones Ridge, in the Sheep Mountain Quadrangle, in westernmost Yukon Territory, Canada. The fossil sponges from the McGrath A-4 and Livengood B-5 quadrangles were recovered from attached Siberian terranes, and those from the Sheep Mountain Quadrangle were recovered from an allochthonous Laurentian terrane in the Yukon Territory.
A comparison of the weights-of-evidence method and probabilistic neural networks
The need to integrate large quantities of digital geoscience information to classify locations as mineral deposits or nondeposits has been met by the weights-of-evidence method in many situations. Widespread selection of this method may be more the result of its ease of use and interpretation rather than comparisons with alternative methods. A comparison of the weights-of-evidence method to probabilistic neural networks is performed here with data from Chisel Lake-Andeson Lake, Manitoba, Canada. Each method is designed to estimate the probability of belonging to learned classes where the estimated probabilities are used to classify the unknowns. Using these data, significantly lower classification error rates were observed for the neural network, not only when test and training data were the same (0.02 versus 23%), but also when validation data, not used in any training, were used to test the efficiency of classification (0.7 versus 17%). Despite these data containing too few deposits, these tests of this set of data demonstrate the neural network's ability at making unbiased probability estimates and lower error rates when measured by number of polygons or by the area of land misclassified. For both methods, independent validation tests are required to ensure that estimates are representative of real-world results. Results from the weights-of-evidence method demonstrate a strong bias where most errors are barren areas misclassified as deposits. The weights-of-evidence method is based on Bayes rule, which requires independent variables in order to make unbiased estimates. The chi-square test for independence indicates no significant correlations among the variables in the Chisel Lake–Andeson Lake data. However, the expected number of deposits test clearly demonstrates that these data violate the independence assumption. Other, independent simulations with three variables show that using variables with correlations of 1.0 can double the expected number of deposits as can correlations of −1.0. Studies done in the 1970s on methods that use Bayes rule show that moderate correlations among attributes seriously affect estimates and even small correlations lead to increases in misclassifications. Adverse effects have been observed with small to moderate correlations when only six to eight variables were used. Consistent evidence of upward biased probability estimates from multivariate methods founded on Bayes rule must be of considerable concern to institutions and governmental agencies where unbiased estimates are required. In addition to increasing the misclassification rate, biased probability estimates make classification into deposit and nondeposit classes an arbitrary subjective decision. The probabilistic neural network has no problem dealing with correlated variables—its performance depends strongly on having a thoroughly representative training set. Probabilistic neural networks or logistic regression should receive serious consideration where unbiased estimates are required. The weights-of-evidence method would serve to estimate thresholds between anomalies and background and for exploratory data analysis.
Metallogenesis and Tectonics of Northeast Asia
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People's Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Introduction, Chapter 1 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People's Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Methodology of a combined regional metallogenic and tectonic analysis for northeast Asia, Chapter 2 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Mineral-deposit models for northeast Asia, Chapter 3 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Archean through Mesoproterozoic metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 4 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Neoproterozoic through Silurian metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 5 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Devonian through early Carboniferous (Mississippian) metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 6 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Late Carboniferous through early Jurassic metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 7 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.