Results for “The Alaska Miner” — Page 51

USGS2010

Tectonic and metallogenic model for northeast Asia, Chapter 9 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.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2010

Appendix A: Description of the Northeast Asia Project and Associated Products

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.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2009

Appendix B: Description of Map Units for Northeast Asia Summary Geodynamics Map

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.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2010

Appendix C: Summary of Major Metallogenic Belts in Northeast Asia (the Russian Far East, Yakutia, Siberia, Transbaikalia, Northern China, Mongolia, South Korea, and Japan)

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.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2007

Introduction to Regional Geology, Tectonics, and Metallogenesis of Northeast Asia

Purpose This introduction presents an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia. The major purposes are to provide a relatively short summary of these features for readers who are unfamiliar with Northeast Asia; a general scientific introduction for the succeeding chapters of this volume; and an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis employed for Northeast Asia. The introduction also describes how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including synthesis of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit refinement of mineral deposit models and deposit genesis; improvement of assessments of undiscovered mineral resources as part of quantitative mineral resource assessment studies; land-use and mineral exploration planning; improvement of interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts; and suggestions for new research. The compilation, synthesis, description, and interpretation of metallogenesis and tectonics of major regions, such as Northeast Asia (Eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (Russian Far East, Alaska, and Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology. The methodology includes: (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 the determination of mineral deposit models, and 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 of the region; (5) compilation of a series of maps of metallogenic belts constructed on the regional geologic base map; and (6) formulation of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis in this introduction is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that were led by the U.S. Geological Survey. These studies have produced two broad types of publications. One type is a series of regional geologic, mineral deposit, and metallogenic belt maps and companion descriptions for the regions. Examples of major publications of this type are Obolenskiy and others (2003a, b, 2004), Parfenov and others (2003, 2004a, b), Nokleberg and others (2004), Rodionov and others (2004), and Naumova and others (2006). The other type is a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of these same regions. Examples of major publications of this type are Rodionov and others (2004), Nokleberg and others (2000, 2004, 2005), and Naumova and others (2006). The Northeast Asia project area consists of eastern Russia (most of Siberia and most of the Russian Far East), Mongolia, Northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. This area is approximately bounded by 30 to 82? N. latitude and 75 to 144? E. longitude. The major participating agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia), VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian University of Science and Technology, Mongolian National University, Jilin University, Changchun, China, the China Geological Survey, the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources, the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST, University of Texas Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Northeast Asia project extends and build on 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 that was conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys,

Open-File Report↗

USGS1996

The atomic arrangement of iimoriite-(Y), Y2(SiO4)(CO3)

Iimoriite-(Y) from Bokan Mountain, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska has been studied using single-crystal X-ray-diffraction techniques. The mineral, ideally Y2(SiO4)(CO3), crystallizes in space group P1, with a 6.5495(13), b 6.6291(14), c 6.4395(11)A??, ?? 116.364(15), ?? 92.556(15) and ?? 95.506(17)??. The atomic arrangement has been solved and refined to an R value of 0.019. The arrangement of atoms consists of alternating (011) slabs of orthosilicate groups and carbonate groups, with no sharing of oxygen atoms between anionic complexes in adjacent slabs. Y1 atoms separate adjacent tetrahedra along [100] within the orthosilicate slab, and Y2 atoms separate adjacent carbonate groups along [100] within the carbonate slab. Adjacent orthosilicate and carbonate slabs are linked in (100) by bonding Y atoms from each slab to oxygen atoms of adjacent slabs, in the form of YO8 polyhedra. The Y1 atoms exist in Y12O14 dimers in the orthosilicate slab, and the Y2 atoms exist in continuous [011] ribbons of edge-sharing Y2O8 polyhedra in the carbonate slab.

Canadian Mineralogist↗

USGS2004

Paleomagnetism of the Red Dog Zn-Pb massive sulfide deposit in northern Alaska

Paleomagnetic methods have isolated two ancient magnetizations in and around the Paleozoic shale-hosted Red Dog ore deposit in northern Alaska. A high-latitude, westerly magnetization carried by magnetite, termed characteristic remanent magnetization A, was found in rocks that have barite and/or substantial quartz replacement of barite. An intermediate- to low-latitude, southerly magnetization (characteristic remanent magnetization B) is carried by pyrrhotite and was found in rocks dominated by galena and sphalerite. The ages the two components are constrained by their relationship with geochemistry, radiometric age dating, and hypotheses for the Mesozoic tectonic history of the Brooks Range. Characteristic remanent magnetization A fails the fold test so it must postdate the end of Brookian orogenesis (??? 150 Ma). It is always found with replacement quartz that has a radiometric date (white mica from a vug, 39Ar/40Ar) of 126 Ma. The paleolatitude for characteristic remanent magnetization B is too shallow to be Mesozoic or younger, regardless of the model for the tectonic origin of northern Alaska, and must predate Brookian orogenesis. Geologic mapping suggests that most of the ore is syngenetic, formed at 330 to 340 Ma, and a radiometric date (Re-Os on pyrite) yields an age of 338 Ma. Since characteristic remanent magnetization B predates deformation, is found in mineralized rocks and is carried by pyrrhotite, it was probably acquired during the mineralizing process as well. The combined radiometric ages and paleomagnetic data sets can be best interpreted by assuming that northern Alaska was part of an accreted terrane that was translated northward by about 30?? into its current location relative to the rest of North America and then rotated counterclockwise by 50?? to 70??. This tectonic interpretation yields plausible magnetization ages for both characteristic remanent magnetization A and B. Geologic evidence, isotopic ages, and paleomagnetic data indicate formation of the deposit at a paleolatitude that is much lower than today. ?? 2004 by Economic Geology.

Economic Geology↗

USGS2003

USGS Alaska Tissue Archival Projects: An update on FY02 activities

The banking of environmental specimens under cryogenic conditions for future retrospective analysis has been recognized for many years as an important part of environmental monitoring programs. Since 1987, the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP) has been collecting tissue samples from marine mammals for archival in the National Biomonitoring Specimen Bank (NBSB) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. The USGS, Alaska Biological Science Center (ABSC), the NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources (NMFS), and the NIST conduct this partnership project, which began under the Mineral Management Service (MMS) Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. MMS remains the primary client agency for the AMMTAP providing programmatic guidance and review. The purpose of the project is to collect tissue samples from Alaska marine mammals and to store these specimens under the best conditions so that they can be analyzed for environmental contaminants and other constituents. A substantial part of the sample collection is from Arctic species and, since most of the animals sampled are from Alaska Native subsistence harvests, the project relies on cooperation and collaboration with several Alaska Native organizations and local governmental agencies. Although a substantial amount of recent research has been conducted on contaminants in Alaskan marine mammals, few data exists on colonial seabirds nesting in Alaska. Like marine mammals, seabirds are an important group of upper trophic level marine organisms with a potential for accumulating lipophilic contaminants and are identified by MMS as species of interest for monitoring activities. More than 95% of the seabirds breeding in the continental United States nest at colonies in the Bering and Chukchi seas and Gulf of Alaska (see USFWS 1992). Realizing the value of colonial seabirds in environmental monitoring and the lack of recent data from Alaskan seabird colonies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS-AMNWR), the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) in 1998. The project was designed as a 100-year-long program to monitor long-term trends in environmental quality by collecting eggs at nesting colonies using standardized protocols, banking the egg contents under conditions that ensure chemical stability during long-term (decadal) storage, and analyzing subsamples of the stored material to establish baseline levels for persistent bioaccumulative contaminants (e.g., chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, mercury).

Conference Paper↗

USGS2024

Neogene hydrothermal Fe- and Mn-oxide mineralization of Paleozoic continental rocks, Amerasia Basin, Arctic Ocean

Rocks dredged from water depths of 1,605, 2,500, 3,300, and 3,400 m in the Arctic Ocean included Paleozoic continental rocks pervasively mineralized during the Neogene by hydrothermal Fe and Mn oxides. Samples were recovered in three dredge hauls from the Chukchi Borderland and one from Mendeleev Ridge north of Alaska and eastern Siberia, respectively. Many of the rocks were so pervasively altered that the protolith could not be identified, while others had volcanic, plutonic, and metamorphic protoliths. The mineralized rocks were cemented and partly to wholly replaced by the hydrothermal oxides. The Amerasia Basin, where the Chukchi Borderland and Mendeleev Ridge occur, supports a series of faults and fractures that serve as major zones of crustal weakness. We propose that the stratabound hydrothermal deposits formed through the flux of hydrothermal fluids along Paleozoic and Mesozoic faults related to block faulting along a rifted margin during minor episodes of Neogene tectonism and were later exposed at the seafloor through slumping or other gravity processes. Tectonically driven hydrothermal circulation most likely facilitated the pervasive mineralization along fault surfaces via frictional heating, hydrofracturing brecciation, and low- to moderate temperature Fe- and Mn-rich hydrothermal fluids, which mineralized the crushed, altered, and brecciated rocks.

Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems↗

USGS2007

Aufeis accumulations in stream bottoms in arctic and subarctic environments as a possible indicator of geologic structure: Chapter F in Recent U.S. Geological Survey studies in the Tintina Gold Province, Alaska, United States, and Yukon, Canada--results of a 5-year project

Thick accumulations of ice, called “aufeis,” form during winter along stream and river valleys in arctic and subarctic regions. In high-gradient alpine streams, aufeis forms mostly as a result of ground-water discharge into the stream channel. The ice occludes this discharge, perturbing the steady-state condition, and causing an incremental rise in the local water table until discharge occurs higher on the stream bank above the previously formed ice. Successive freezing of onlapping ice layers can lead to aufeis accumulations several meters thick. The location and extent of aufeis in high-gradient streams may be useful to relate local hydrology to geologic structure. In the Goodpaster River basin study area, mineral deposits are known to occur, the location of which may be structurally controlled. Therefore, a more thorough understanding of regional geologic structures may facilitate a more detailed understanding of the genesis of the mineral deposits. Extensive aufeis was observed during visits to the Goodpaster River basin in east-central Alaska during 1999, 2001, and 2002. Seeps from the sides of the valleys caused ice to build up, giving the ice surface a concave-upward shape perpendicular to the stream direction. This concavity is evidence for ground-water discharge along the length of the aufeis, as opposed to discharge from a single upstream point. During thaw, streamflow is commonly observed out of the normal channel, evidence that occlusion of the channel (and shallow sediments) by ice is a viable mechanism for causing the water table to rise. The thickest (>3 meters) and most extensive aufeis (100’s of meters to kilometers along valleys) coincided with locations of laterally extensive (>5 kilometers) mapped high-angle brittle fault zones, suggesting that the fault zones are hydraulically conductive. Additional evidence of water flow is provided by observed changes in stream-water chemistry in reaches in which aufeis forms, despite a lack of surface tributaries. Minor or no aufeis was observed in many other drainage valleys where no laterally extensive structures have been mapped, implying that aufeis formation results from more than a topographic effect or discharge from bank storage. Thus, the presence of thick, laterally extensive aufeis in highgradient streams may be a useful aid to geologic structural mapping in arctic and subarctic climates.

Alaska;Yukon↗

USGS1978

United States Geological Survey Yearbook, fiscal year 1977

Fiscal 1977 marked the 98th year the U.S. Geological Survey has endeavored in the unceasing task of providing information about the Earth and its physical resources, and regulating the activities of lessees engaged in extracting petroleum and other minerals from the public domain. The past year also marked the beginning of a third and challenging mission, drawing upon the Survey's scientific talents, to explore and assess the petroleum potential of a vast 37,000 square miles expanse of Alaska's North Slope known as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The first two missions require detailed and continuing investigations of the location, character, and extent of the Nation's land, water, mineral, and energy resources; a continuing National Topographic Mapping Program; the classification of Federal lands for mineral and waterpower potential; and a continuing program of technical review, safety inspection and royalty auditing of the operations of private parties engaged in mineral development on Federal lands to assure standards of safety, environmental protection, resource conservation, and a fair market return to the public for the development of their resources.

Yearbook↗

USGS1987

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment: Report and recommendation to the Congress of the United States and final legislative environmental impact statement

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in the northeastern corner of Alaska, was first established as the Arctic National Wildlife Range by Public Land Order 2214 in 1960, for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values. The original 8.9-millionacre Range was withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including mining laws but not including mineral leasing laws. This order culminated extensive efforts begun more than a decade earlier to preserve this unique part of Alaska. The following report analyzes the potential environmental consequences of five management alternatives for the coastal plain, ranging from opening for lease of the entire area for oil and gas development, to wilderness designation. A legislative environmental impact statement has been integrated into the report.

Alaska↗

USGS1962

Zinc in the United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Mineral Investigations Resource Map↗

USGS2004

A geologic framework for mineralization in the western Brooks Range

The Brooks Range is a 950-km-long north-vergent fold and thrust belt, which was formed during Mesozoic convergence of the continental Arctic Alaska terrane and the oceanic Angayucham terrane and was further shortened and uplifted in Tertiary time. The Arctic Alaska terrane consists of parautochthonous rocks and the Endicott Mountains and De Long Mountains subterranes. The Endicott Mountains allochthon of the western Brooks Range is the setting for many sulfide and barite occurrences, such as the supergiant Red Dog zinc-lead mine. Mineralization is sediment hosted and most commonly is present in black shale and carbonate turbidites of the Mississippian Kuna Formation. The reconstructed Kuna basin is a 200 by +600 km feature that represents the culmination of a remarkable chain of events that includes three fluvial-deltaic and two or more orogenic cycles, Middle Devonian to Mississippian episodes of extension and igneous activity, and the emergence of a seaward Lower Proterozoic landmass that may have constituted a barrier to marine circulation. Mississippian extension and related horst-and-graben architecture in the western Brooks Range is manifested in part by strong facies variability between coeval units of allochthons and structural plates. Shallow marine to possibly nonmarine arkose, platform to shelf carbonate, slope-to-basin shale, chert and carbonate turbidites, and submarine volcanic rocks are all represented in Mississippian time. The structural setting of Mississippian sedimentation, volcanism, and mineralization in the Kuna basin may be comparable to documented Devono-Mississippian extensional sags or half-grabens in the subsurface north of the Brooks Range. Climate, terrestrial ecosystems, multiple fluvial-deltaic aquifers, and structural architecture affected the liberation, movement, and redeposition of metals in ways that are incompletely understood.

Alaska↗

USGS1993

Sulfidization and magnetization above hydrocarbon reservoirs

Post-depositional iron-sulfide (Fe-S) minerals that are related to hydrocarbon seepage have changed the original magnetizations at Cement oil field (Anadarko basin, Oklahoma), at Simpson oil field (North Slope basin, Alaska), and above deep Cretaceous oil and gas reservoirs, south Texas coastal plain. At Cement, ferrimagnetic pyrrhotite (Fe 7 S 8 ) formed with pyrite and marcasite in Permian red beds. The Fe-S minerals contain sulfur from two sources: (1) abiogenic sulfide, which has positive δ 34 S values, derived from thermochemical reduction of sulfate in deep reservoirs; and (2) biogenic sulfide, which has negative δ 34 S values, produced by reactions mediated by sulfate-reducing bacteria fed by leaking hydrocarbons. At Simpson, ferrimagnetic greigite (Fe 3 S 4 ) dominates magnetizations in nonmarine Upper Cretaceous clastic beds that contain epigenetic sulfide (δ 34 S > +20 per mil) and seeping biodegraded oil. In this setting, the authigenic magnetic sulfide mineral apparently incorporated sulfide produced by bacterial sulfate reduction under limited sulfate conditions. An inferred hydrocarbon food source for the sulfate-reducing bacteria links the hydrocarbon seepage to the greigite. The greigite is perhaps forming today. In middle Tertiary sandstones of southeast Texas, pyrite and marcasite formed when abiogenic H 2 S (enriched in 34 S) migrated upward from deep reservoirs, or when H 2 S (depleted in 34 S) was produced at shallow depths by bacteria that used organic material dissolved in migrating water from depth. The pyrite and marcasite replaced detrital magnetic iron-titanium oxide minerals. The degree of such replacement appears to increase toward faults that connect deep petroleum reservoirs to shallow sandstone. Our results show that abiologic and biologic mechanisms can generate different magnetic sulfide minerals in some sulfidic zones of hydrocarbon seepage. More commonly the magnetizations in such zones would be diminished as a result of the replacement of detrital magnetic minerals by the common nonmagnetic sulfide minerals, or would remain unchanged if such detrital minerals were originally absent.

Book chapter↗

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↗

USGS2013

Lead isotope determinations from sulfide mineral occurrences--Russian Far East

The lead isotope database for sulfide deposits and occurrences in the Russian Far East was funded by the Mineral Resources Program, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in conjunction with the collaborative studies of mineral resources by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the U. S. Geological Survey (Nokleberg and others, 1996). Comparisons of these data with similar lead isotope data from Alaska published in Church, Delevaux, and others (1987) and Gaccetta and Church (1989) provide a basis for the following three-fold project objectives: 1. To utilize lead isotope signatures, in conjunction with regional mapping, to assess the relative ages and to categorize the types of mineral deposits studied, 2. To relate the lead isotope and trace-element geochemical signatures of specific deposits and occurrences to ore-forming processes, and 3. To use the lead isotope data to correlate lithotectonic terranes within the northern Cordillera (Alaska, Yukon Territories and British Columbia in Canada, and the western Cordillera of the United States). The report by Church, Gray, and others (1987) shows how this fingerprinting methodology can be applied to trace the offset of lithotectonic (or lithostratigraphic as labeled by some authors) terranes.The lead isotope data presented in table 1 represent the work completed on sulfide mineral deposits located in the Russian Far East from 1993 to 1995, when this study was terminated due to lack of funding. The lead isotope data are reported here for use by investigators who may find them of value in mineral exploration. No attempt is made to summarize the voluminous literature on these mineral deposits.

Data Series↗

USGS1975

Radiometric dates from Alaska: A 1975 compilation

The following table of radiometric dates from Alaska includes published material through 1972 as well as some selected later data. The table includes 726 mineral and whole-rock dates determined by the K-Ar, Rb-Sr, fission-track U-Pb, and Pb-alpha techniques. The data are organized in alphabetical order of the 1:250,000 scale quadrangles in which the dated rocks are located. The latitude and longitude of each sample are given. In addition, each sample is located on a 1:250,000 quadrangle map by a grid system. The initial point of the grid is taken as the southwest corner of the quadrangle and the location of the sample is measured in inches east and inches north from that corner, e.g., "156E 126N" indicated 15.6 inches east and 12.6 inches north of the southwest corner of the quadrangle. Zeroes in the location columns for some dates indicate that accurate locations are not available. Rock type, dating method, mineral dated, radiometric age, sample identification number, and reference are also listed where possible. Short comments, mostly geographic locality names, are given for some dates. These comments have been taken from the original references. Sample identification numbers beginning with "AA" or "BB" have been assigned arbitrarily in cases where sample numbers were not assigned in the original references. Abbreviations are explained in the appendix at the end of table 1.

Alaska↗