Mineral Deposit Models

. ' '

u.s. GEOLOGICA'L 'SURVEY BULLETIN 1693 I

•
 AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
•
Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with the last offerings, are given in the current-year
issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Survey
publications released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" Publications that are
listed in various U.S. Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability
List" are no longer available.
Prices of reports released to the open files are given in the listing "U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports," updated monthly,
which is for sale in microfiche from U.S. Geological Survey Book and Open-File Report Sales, Box. 25425, Denver, CO 80225.
Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices given below.

BY MAIL
OVER THE COUNTER
Books Books
Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Books of the U.S. Geological Survey arc available over
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, pub- the counter at the following U.S. Geological Survey offices, all
lications of general interest (such as leaflets, pamphlets, book- of which arc authorized agents of the Superintendent of Doc-
lets), single copies of periodicals (Earthquakes & Volcanoes, uments.
Preliminary Determination of Epicenters), and some miscella-
neous reports, including some of the foregoing series that have
ANCHORAGE, Alaska--4230 University Dr., Rm. 101
gone out of print at the Superintendent of Documents, are
obtainable by mail from ANCHORAGE, Alaska--605 West 4th Ave., Rm G-84

U.S. Geological Survey, Book and Open-File Report Sales

Box 25425
Denver, CO 80225

Subscriptions to periodicals (Earthquakes & Volcanoes

and Preliminary Determination of Epicenters) can be obtained
DENVER, Colorado--Federal Bldg., Rm. 169, 1961 Stout
St.
LAKEWOOD, Colorado-- Federal Center, Bldg. 810
MENLO PARK, California--Bldg. 3, Rm. 3128,345 Mid-
dlefield Rd.
RESTON, Virginia--National Center, Rm. 1C402, 12201
•
ONLY from Sunrise Valley Dr.
Superintendent or Documents SALT LAKE CITY, Utah--Federal Bldg., Rm. 8105,125
U.S. Government Printing Office South State St.
Washington, DC 20402 SAN FRANCISCO, California--Customhouse, Rm. 504,
555 Battery St.
(Check or money order must be payable to Superintendent
of Documents.) SPOKANE, Washington--U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 678,
West 920 Riverside Ave.
WASHINGTON, D.C.--U.S. Department of the Interior
Maps Bldg., Rm. 2650, 1849 C St., NW.
For maps , address mail orders to
U.S. Geological Survey, Map Sales Maps
Box 25286 Maps may be purchased over the counter at the U.S.
Denver, CO 80225
Geological Survey offices where books arc sold (all addresses
in above list) and at the following Geological Survey offices:
Residents of Alaska may order maps from
U.S. Geological Survey, Map Sales
ROLLA, Missouri--1400 Independence Rd.
101 Twelrth Ave.- Box 12 FAIRBANKS, Alaska--New Federal Buildmg, 101
Fairbanks, AK 99701 Twelfth Ave.

•
Mineral Deposit Models

DENNIS P. COX and DON.ALD A. SINGER, Editors

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1693

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dallas L. Peck, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names

in this publication is for descriptive purposes only
and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government

First printing 1986

Second printing 1987
Third printing 1992

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1992

For sale by
Book and Open-File Report Sales
U.S. Geological Survey
Federal Center, Box 25425
Denver, CO 80225

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mineral deposit models

(U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693}

Bibliography
1. Ore Deposits. 2. Mines and mineral resources. I. Cox, Dennis P.
II. Singer, Donald A. Ill. Series.
QE75.B9 No. 1693 622 s 86-600250
[TN263] 622'.1]
PREFACE incomplete in some degree, models can be put to
rigorous tests that screen out many of our heretofore
By Paul B. Barton sacred dogmas of mineral formation. Examples are
legion, but to cite a few: (1) fluid-inclusion studies
Conceptual models that describe the essential have shown conclusively that the classic Mississippi
characteristics of groups of similar deposits have a Valley-type ores cannot have originated from either
long and useful role in geology. The first models were syngenetic processes or unmodified surface waters; (2)
undoubtedly empirical attempts to extend previous epithermal base- and precious-metal ores have been
experiences into future success. An example might be proved (by stable-isotope studies) to have formed
the seeking of additional gold nuggets in a stream in through the action of meteoric waters constituting
which one nugget had already been found, and the fossil geothermal systems; and (3) field and laboratory
extension of that model to include other streams as investigations clearly show that volcanogenic massive
well. Emphasis within the U.S. Geological Survey on sulfides are the products of syngenetic, submarine,
the synthesis of mineral deposit models (as contrasted exhalative processes, not epigenetic replacement of
with a long line of descriptive and genetic studies of sedimentary or volcanic rocks. Economic geology has
specific ore deposits) began with the collation by R. L. evolved quietly from an "occult art" to a respectable
Erickson ( 1982) of 48 models. The 85 descriptive science as the speculative models have been put to
deposit models and 60 grade-tonnage models presented definitive tests.
here are the culmination of a process that began in Several fundamental problems that may have no
1983 as part of the USGS-INGEOMINAS Cooperative immediate answers revolve around these questions: Is
Mineral Resource Assessment of Colombia (Hodges and there a proper number of models? Must each deposit
others, 1984). Effective cooperation on this project fit into one, and only one, pigeon-hole? Who decides
required that U.S. and Colombian geologists agree on a (and when?) that a model is correct and reasonably
classification of mineral deposits, and effective complete? Is a model ever truly complete? How
resource assessment of such a broad region required complete need a model be to be useful?
that grade-tonnage models be created for a large In preparing this compilation we had to decide
number of mineral deposit types. A concise one-page whether to discuss only those deposits for which the
format for descriptive models was drawn up by Dennis data were nearly complete and the interpretations
Cox, Donald Singer, and Byron Berger, and Singer concordant, or whether to extend coverage to include
devised a graphical way of presenting grade and many deposits of uncertain affiliation, whose
tonnage data. Sixty-five descriptive models (Cox, characteristics were still subjects for major debate.
1983a and b) and 37 grade-tonnage models (Singer and This compilation errs on the side of scientific
Mosier, 1983a and b) were applied to the Colombian optimism; it includes as many deposit types as
project. Because interest in these models ranged far possible, even at the risk of lumping or splitting types
beyond the Colombian activity, it was decided to incorrectly. Nevertheless, quite a few types of
enlarge the number of models and to include other deposits have not been incorporated.
aspects of mineral deposit modeling. Our colleagues in The organization of the models constitutes a
the Geological Survey of Canada have preceded this classification of deposits. The arrangement used
effort by publishing a superb compilation of models of emphasizes easy access to the models by focusing on
deposits important in Canada (Eckstrand, 1984). Not host-rock lithology and tectonic setting, the features
surprisingly, our models converge quite well, and in most apparent to the geologist preparing a map. The
several cases we have drawn freely from the Canadian system is nearly parallel to a genetic arrangement for
publication. syngenetic ores, but it diverges strongly for the
It is a well-known axiom in industry that any epigenetic where it creates some strange
excuse for drilling may find ore; that is, successful juxtapositions of deposit types. Possible ambiguities
exploration can be carried out even though it is are accommodated, at least in part, by using multiple
founded upon an erroneous model. Examples include entries in the master list in table 1.
successful exploration based on supposed (but now In considering ways to make the model
proven erroneous) structural controls for volcanogenic compilation as useful as possible, we have become
massive sulfide deposits in eastern Canada and for concerned about ways to enhance the ability of the
carbonate-hosted zinc in east Tennessee. As the older relatively inexperienced geoscientist to find the
ideas have been replaced, additional ore has been model(s) applicable to his or her observations.
found with today's presumably more valid models. Therefore, we have included extensive tables of
Although models have been with us for attributes in which the appropriate models are
centuries, until recently they have been almost identified.
universally incomplete when descriptive and Our most important immediate goal is to
unreasonably speculative when genetic. What is new provide assistance to those persons engaged in mineral
today is that, although we must admit that all are resource assessment or exploration. An important
III
secondary goal is to upgrade the quality of our model have set up as separate models some types that will
compilation by encouraging (or provoking?) input from ultimately be blended into one, and there surely are
those whose experience has not yet been captured in groupings established here that will subsequently be
the existing models. Another target is to identify divided. We also recognize that significant gaps in
specific research needs whose study is particularly coverage still exist. Even at this stage the model
pertinent to the advance of the science. We have compilation is still experimental in several aspects and
chosen to err on the side of redundancy at the expense continues to evolve. The product in hand can be useful
of neatness, believing that our collective today. We anticipate future editions, versions, and
understanding is still too incomplete to rule out some revisions, and we encourage suggestions for future
alternative interpretations. Thus we almost certainly improvements.

IV
CONTENTS

Preface, by Paul B. Barton III

Introduction, by Dennis P. Cox, Paul B. Barton, and Donald A. Singer

Deposit models

Deposits related to mafic and ultramafic intrusions in stable environments

Descriptive model of Stillwater Ni-Cu, by Norman J Page 11
2a Descriptive model of Bushv eld Cr, by Norman J Page 13
2b Descriptive model of Merensky Reef PGE, by Norman J Page 14
3 Descriptive model of Bushv eld Fe-Ti-V, by Norman J Page 15

Deposits related to mafic-ultramafic rocks in unstable areas

5a Descriptive model of Duluth Cu-Ni-PGE, by Norman J Page 16
5b Descriptive model of Noril'sk Cu-Ni-PGE, by Nor·man J Page 17
6a Descriptive model of komatiitic Ni-Cu, by Norman J Page 18
Grade and tonnage model of komatiitic Ni-Cu, by Donald A. Singer, Norman J Page, and
W. David Menzie 18
6b Descriptive model of dunitic Ni-Cu, by Norman ,J Page 24
Grade and tonnage model of dunitic Ni-Cu, by Donald A. Singer and Norman J Page 24
7a Descriptive model of synorogenic-synv olcanic N:L-Cu, by Norman J Page 28
Grade and tonnage model of synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu, by Donald A. Singer,
Norman J Page, and W. David Menzie 28
7b Descriptive model of anorthosite Ti, by Eric R. Force 32
8a Descriptive model of pediform chromite, by John P. Albers 34
Grade and tonnage model of minor pediform chromite, by Donald A. Singer and
Norman J Page 34
8b Grade and tonnage model of major pediform chromite, by Donald A. Singer, Norman J Page,
and Bruce R. Lipin 38
Be Descriptive model of Limassol Forest Co-Ni, by Norman J Page 45
Bd Descriptive model of serpentine-hosted asbestos, by Norman J Page 46
Grade and tonnage model of serpentine-hosted asbestos, by Greta J. Orris 46
9 Descriptive model of Alaskan PGE, by Norman J Page and Floyd Gray 49

Deposits related to alkaline intrusions

10 Descriptbe model of carbonatite deposits, by Donald A. Singer 51
Grade and tonnage model of carbonatite deposits, by Donald A. Singer 52
12 Descriptive model of diamond pipes, by Dennis P. Cox 54

Deposits related to felsic phanerocrystalline intrusive rocks

14a Descriptive model of W skarn deposits, by Denni.s P. Cox 55
Grade and tonnage model of W skarn deposits, by w. David Menzie and Gail M. Jones 55
14b Descriptive model of Sn skarn deposits, by Bruce L. Reed and Dennis P. Cox 58
Grade and tonnage model of Sn skarn deposits, by w. David Menzie and Bruce L. Reed 58
14c Descriptive model of replacement Sn, by Bruce L. Reed 61

v
 Grade and tonnage model of replacement Sn, by w. Dav id Menzie and Bruce L. Reed 62
15a Descriptive model of Wveins, by Dennis P. Cox and William C. Bagby 64
Grade and tonnage model of Wveins, by Gail M. Jones and W. David Menzie 65
15b Descriptive model of Sn veins, by Bruce L. Reed 67
Grade and tonnage model of Sn veins, by w. David Menzie and Bruce L. Reed 67
15c Descriptive model of Sn greisen deposits, by Bruce L. Reed 70
Grade and tonnage model of Sn greisen deposits, by w. David Menzie and Bruce L. Reed 71

Deposits related to felsic porphyroaphanitic intrusions

16 Descriptive model of Climax Mo deposits, by Stephen D. Ludington 73
Grade and tonnage model of Climax Mo deposits, by Donald A. Singer, Ted G. Theodore, and
Dan L. Mosier 73
17 Descriptive model of porphyry Cu, by Dennis P. Cox 76
Grade and tonnage model of porphyry Cu, by Donald A. Singer, Dan L. Mosier, and
Dennis P. Cox 11
18a Descriptive model of porphyry Cu, skarn-related deposits, by Dennis P. Cox 82
Grade and tonnage model of porphyry Cu, skarn-related deposits, by Donald A. Singer 82
18b Descriptive model of Cu skarn deposits, by Dennis P. Cox and Ted G. Theodore 86
Grade and tonnage model of Cu skarn deposits, by Gail M. Jones and W. David Menzie 86
18c Descriptive model of Zn-Pb skarn deposits, by Dennis P. Cox 90
Grade and tonnage model of Zn-Pb skarn deposits, by Dan L. Mosier 90
18d Descriptive model of Fe skarn deposits, by Dennis P. Cox 94
Grade and tonnage model of Fe skarn deposits, by Dan L. Mosier and W. David Menzie 94
18e Descriptive model of carbonate-hosted asbestos, by Chester T. Wrucke Jr. and
Andrew F. Shride 98
19a Descriptive model of polymetallic replacement deposits, by Hal T. Morris 99
Grade and tonnage model polymetallic replacement deposits, by Dan L. Mosier,
Hal T. Morris, and Donald A. Singer 101
19b Descriptive model of replacement Mn, by Dan L. Mosier 105
Grade and tonnage model of replacement Mn, by Dan L. Mosier 105
20a Descriptive model of porphyry Sn, by Bruce L. Reed 108
20b Descriptive model of Sn-polymetallic veins, by Yukio Togashi 109
20c Descriptive model of porphyry Cu-Au, by Dennis P. Cox 110
Grade and tonnage model of porphyry Cu-Au, by Donald A. Singer and Dennis P. Cox 110
21a Descriptive model of porphyry Cu-Mo, by Dennis P. Cox 115
Grade and tonnage model of porphyry Cu-Mo, by Donald A. Singer, Dennis P. Cox, and
Dan L. Mosier 116
21b Descriptive model of porphyry Mo, low-F, by Ted G. Theodore 120
Grade and tonnage model porphyry Mo, low-F, by W. David Menzie and Ted G. Theodore 120
22a Descriptive model of volcanic-hosted Cu-As-Sb, by Dennis P. Cox 123
22b Descriptive model of Au-Ag-Te veins, by Dennis P. Cox and William C. Bagby 124
22c Descriptive model of polymetallic veins, by Dennis P. Cox 125
Grade and tonnage model polymetallic veins, by James D. Bliss and Dennis P. Cox 125

VI
Deposits related to subaerial mafic extrusive rocks
23 Descriptive model of basaltic Cu, by Dennis P. Cox 130

Deposits related to marine mafic extrusive rocks

24a Descriptive model of Cyprus massive sulfide, by Donald A. Singer 131
Grade and tonnage model of Cyprus massive sulfide, by Donald A. Singer and
Dan L. Mosier 131
24b Descriptive model of Bess hi massive sulfide, by Dennis P. Cox 136
Grade and tonnage model of Besshi massive sulfide, by Donald A. Singer 136
24c Descriptive model of volcanogenic Mn, by Randolph A. Koski 139
Grade and tonnage model of volcanogenic Mn, by Dan L. Mosier 139
24d Descriptiv~ model of Blackbird Co-Cu, by Robert L. Earhart 142

Deposits related to subaerial felsic to mafic extrusive rocks

25a Descriptive model of hot-spring Au-Ag, by Byron R. Berger 143
25b Descriptive model of Creede epithermal veins, by Dan L. Mosier, Takeo Sa to, Norman J Page,
Donald A. Singer, and Byron R. Berger 145
Grade and tonnage model of Creede epithermal VElins, by Dan L. Mosier, Takeo Sato, and
Donald A. Singer 146
25c Descriptive model of Comstock epithermal veins,, by Dan L. Mosier, Donald A. Singer, and
Byron R. Berger 150
Grade and tonnage model of Comstock epithermal veins, by Dan L. Mosier, Takeo Sato, and
Donald A. Singer 151
25d Descriptive model of Sado epithermal veins, by Dan L. Mosier, Byron R. Berger, and
Donald A. Singer 154
Grade and tonnage model of Sado epithermal veins, by Dan L. Mosier and Takeo Sa to 155
25e Descriptive model of epithermal quartz-alunite Au, by Byron R. Berger 158
Grade and tonnage model of epithermal quartz-alunite Au, by Dan L. Mosier and
W. David Menzie 159
25f Descriptive model of volcanogenic U, by William C. Bagby 162
Grade and tonnage model of volcanogenic U, by Dan L. Mosier 162
25g Descriptive model of epithermal Mn, by Dan L. Mosier 165
Grade and tonnage model of epithermal Mn, by Dan L. Mosier 166
25h Descriptive model of rhyolite-hosted Sn, by Bruce L. Reed, Wendell Duffield,
Stephen D. Ludington, Charles H. Maxwell, and Donald H. Richter 168
Grade and tonnage model rhyolite-hosted Sn, by Donald A. Singer and Dan L. Mosier 169
25i Descriptive model of volcanic-hosted magnetite, by Dennis P. Cox 172
Grade and tonnage model volcanic-hosted magnetite, by Dan L. Mosier 172
26a Descriptive model of carbonate-hosted Au-Ag, by Byron R. Berger 175
Grade and tonnage model carbonate-hosted Au-Ag, by William C. Bagby, W. David Menzie,
Dan L. Mosier, and Donald A. Singer 175
27a Descriptive model of hot-spring Hg, by James J. Rytuba 178
Grade and tonnage model of hot-spring Hg by James J. Rytuba 178
27b Descriptive model of Almaden Hg, by James J. Hytuba 180

VII
 27c Descriptive model of silica-carbonate Hg, by James J. Rytuba 181
Grade and tonnage model of silica-carbonate Hg, by James J. Rytuba and
Simon M. Cargill 181
27d Descriptive model of simple Sb deposits, by James D. Bliss and Greta J. Orris 183
Grade and tonnage model of simple Sb deposits, by James D. Bliss and Greta J. Orris 184
27e Grade and tonnage model of disseminated Sb deposits by James D. Bliss and
Greta J. Orris 187

Deposits related to marine felsic to mafic extrusive rocks

28a Descriptive model of kuroko massive sulfide, by Donald A. Singer 189
Grade and tonnage model kuroko massive sulfide, by Donald A. Singer and Dan L. Mosier 190
28b Descriptive model of Algoma Fe, by William F. Cannon 198

Deposits in clastic sedimentary rocks

29a Descriptive model of quartz pebble conglomerate Au-U, by Dennis P. Cox 199
29b Descriptive model of Olympic Dam Cu-U-Au, by Dennis P. Cox 200
30a Descriptive model of sandstone-hosted Pb-Zn, by Joseph A. Briskey 201
Grade and tonnage model of sandstone-hosted Pb-Zn, by Dan L. Mosier 202
30b Descriptive model of sediment-hosted Cu, by Dennis P. Cox 205
Grade and tonnage model of sediment-hosted Cu, by Dan L. Mosier, Donald A. Singer, and
Dennis P. Cox 206
30c Descriptive model of sandstone U, by Christine E. Turner-Peterson and
Carroll A. Hodges 209
31a Descriptive model of sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb, by Joseph A. Briskey 211
Grade and tonnage model of sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb, by W. David Menzie and
Dan L. Mosier 212
31b Descriptive model of bedded barite, by Greta J. Orris 216
Grade and tonnage model of bedded barite, by Greta J. Orris 216
31c Descriptive model of emerald veins, by Dennis P. Cox 219

Deposits in carbonate rocks

32a Descriptive model of southeast Missouri Pb-Zn, by Joseph A. Briskey 220
32b Descriptive model of Appalachian Zn, by Joseph A. Briskey 222
Grade and tonnage model of southeast Missouri Pb-Zn and Appalachian Zn deposits, by
Dan L. Mosier and Joseph A. Briskey 224
32c Descriptive model of Kipushi Cu-Pb-Zn, by Dennis P. Cox and Lawrence R. Bernstein 227

Chemical-sedimentary deposits
34a Descriptive model of Superior Fe, by William F. Cannon 228
Grade and tonnage model of Superior Fe and Algoma Fe deposits, by Dan L. Mosier and
Donald A. Singer 228
34b Descriptive model of sedimentary Mn, by William F. Cannon and Eric R. Force 231
Grade and tonnage model of sedimentary Mn, by Dan L. Mosier 231
34c Descriptive model of upwelling type phosphate deposits, by Dan L. Mosier 234

VIII
 Grade and tonnage model of upwelling type phosphate deposits, by Dan L. Mosier 234
34d Descriptive model of warm-current type phosphate deposits, by Dan L. Mosier 237
Grade and tonnage model warm-current type phosphate deposits, by Dan L. Mosier 237

Deposits related to regionally metamorphosed rocks

36a Descriptive model of low-sulfide Au-quartz veins, by Byron R. Berger 239
Grade and tonnage model low-sulfide Au-quartz veins, by James D. Bliss 239
36b Descriptive model of Homestake Au, by Byron R. Berger 244
Grade and tonnage model of Homestake Au, by Dan L. Mosier 245
37a Descriptive model of unconformity U-Au, by Richard I. Grauch and Dan. L. Mosier 248
Grade and tonnage model of unconformity U-Au, by Dan L. Mosier 249
37b Descriptive model of gold on flat faults, by Bruce A. Bouley 251

Deposits related to surficial processes and unconformities

38a Descriptive model of lateritic Ni, by Donald A. Singer 252
Grade and tonnage model lateritic Ni, by Donald A. Singer 252
38b Descriptive mode 1 of laterite type bauxite deposits, by Sam H. Patterson 255
Grade and tonnage model laterite type bauxite deposits, by Dan L. Mosier 255
38c Descriptive model of karst type bauxite deposits, by Sam H. Patterson 258
Grade and tonnage model karst type bauxite deposits, by Dan L. Mosier 258
39a Descriptive model of placer Au-PGE, by Warren E. Yeend 261
Grade and tonnage model of placer Au-PGE, by Greta J. Orris and James D. Bliss 261
39b Descriptive model of placer PGE-Au, by Warren E. Yeend and Norman J Page 265
Grade and tonnage model of placer PGE-Au, by Donald A. Singer and Norman J Page 265
39c Descriptive model of shoreline placer Ti, by Eric R. Force 270
Grade and tonnage model of shoreline placer Ti, by Emil D. Attanasi and
John H. DeYoung, Jr. 270
39d Descriptive model of diamond placers, by Dennis P. Cox 274
39e Descriptive model of alluvial placer Sn, by Bruce L. Reed 275

References 276
Appendixes
A. Locality abbreviations 291
B. Summary statistics of grade-tonnage models, by Donald A. Singer 293
C. Commodity geochemical index, by Paul B. Barton 303
D. Mineralogical index, by Paul B. Barton 318
E. Index of deposits 349

IX
FIGURE'S

1. Tree diagram showing relationship of broad lithologic-tectonic environments to deposit models 2

2. Flow sheet showing the evolution of model types 9
3. Schematic growth patterns for the unrterstanding of some typical genetic model 10
4. Comparison of the relative levels of understanding of some important model types 10
5. Diagram of a typical mafic-ultramafic stratiform complex 12
6. Cartoon cross-section of a typical komatiitic volcanic sedimentary sequence 19
1. Tonnages of komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits 20
8. Nickel and gold grades of komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits 21
9. PGE grades of komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits 22
10. Base metal grades among komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits 23
11. Tonnages of dunitic Ni-Cu deposits 26
12. Nickel grades of dunitic Ni-Cu deposits 26
13. PGE grades of dunitic Ni-Cu deposits 27
14. By-product grades of dunitic Ni-Cu deposits 27
15. Tonnages of synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu deposits 29
16. Nickel grades of synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu deposits 30
17. Copper grades of synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu deposits 30
18. By-product grades of synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu deposits 31
19. Cartoon cross-section of anorthosite ferrodiorite intrusions 33
20. Cartoon cross-section of pediform chromite deposits 40
21. Tonnages of pediform chromite deposi a typical mafic-ultramafic stratiform complex 41
22. Chromite grades of pediform chromite deposits from California and Oregon, U.S.A. 41
23. PGE grades of pediform chromite deposits from California and Oregon, U.S.A. 42
24. Tonnages of major pediform chromite deposits 43
25. Chromite grades of major pediform chromite deposits 43
26. PGE grades of major pediform chromite deposits; A, rhodium; B, iridium; C, ruthenium;
D, palladium; E, platinum 44
27. Tonnage of serpentine-hosted asbestos deposits 48
28. Asbestos grade of serpentine-hosted asbestos deposits 48
29. Generalized geologic map of a zoned ultramafic complex 50
30. Tonnages of carbonatite deposits 52
31. Grades of carbonatite deposits 53
32. Tonnages of W skarn deposits 57
33. Tungsten grades of W skarn deposits 57
34. Cartoon cross section showing relationship between Sn skarn, replacement Sn and Sn vein
deposits to granite intrusions 59
35. Tonnages of Sn skarn deposits 60
36. Tin grades of Sn skarn deposits 60
37. Tonnages of replacement Sn deposits 63
38. Tin grades of replacement Sn deposits 63
39. Maps and sections of W-vein deposits illustrating mineral and alteration zoning 65
40. Tonnages of Wvein deposits 66
41. Tungsten grades of Wvein deposits 66
42. Tonnages of Sn vein deposits 69
43. Tin grades of Sn vein deposits 69
44. Cartoon cross section of a Sn greisen 71
45. Tonnages of Sn greisen deposits 72
46. Tin grades of Sn greisen deposits 72
47. Cartoon cross section of a Climax Mo deposit 74
48. Tonnages of Climax Mo deposits 75
49. Molybdenum grades of Climax Mo deposits 75
50. Cartoon cross section of illustrating a generalized model for porphyry Cu deposits 79
51. Tonnages of porphyry Cu deposits 80
52. Copper grades of porphyry Cu deposits 80
53. By-product grades of porphyry Cu deposits 81
54. Tonnages of porphyry Cu-skarn-related deposits 84
55. Copper grades of porphyry Cu-skarn-related deposits 84
56. By-product grades of porphyry Cu-skarn-related deposits 85
57. Cartoon cross section of a Cu skarn deposit 87
58. Tonnages of Cu skarn deposits 88
59. Copper grades of Cu skarn deposits 88
60. Precious metal grades of Cu skarn deposits 89
61. Tonnages of Zn-Pb skarn deposits 91
62. Zinc grades of Zn-Pb skarn deposits 92

X
 63. Lead grades of Zn-Pb skarn deposits 92
64. Silver grades of Zn-Pb skarn deposits 93
65. Metal grades of Zn-Pb skarn deposits 93
66. Tonnages of Fe skarn deposits 97
67. Iron grades of Fe skarn deposits 97
68. Generalized map showing metal- and mineral-zoning in a polymetallic replacement deposits 100
69. Tonnages of polymetallic replacement deposits 102
70. Lead grades of polymetallic replacement deposits 102
71. Zinc grades of polymetallic replacement deposits 103
72. Copper grades of polymetallic replacement deposits 103
73. Silver grades of polymetallic replacement deposits 104
74. Gold grades of polymetallic replacement deposits 104
75. Tonnages of replacement Mn deposits 106
76. Manganese and copper grades of replacement Mn deposits 107
77. Cartoon cross section of a porphyry Cu-Au deposit 111
78. Tonnages of porphyry Cu-Au deposits 112
79. Copper grades Qf porphyry Cu-Au deposits 112
80. Gold grades of porphyry Cu-Au deposits 113
81. By-product grades of porphyry Cu-Au deposits 114
82. Cartoon cross section of a porphyry Cu-Mo deposit 116
83. Tonnages of porphyry Cu-Mo deposits 117
84. Copper grades of porphyry Cu-Mo deposits 117
85. Molybdenum grades of porphyry Cu-Mo deposits 118
86. Gold grades of porphyry Cu-Mo deposits 118
87. Silver grades of porphyry Cu-Mo deposits 119
88. Tonnages of porphyry Mo-low F deposits 122
89 Molybdenum grades of porphyry Mo-low F deposits 122
90. Tonnages of polymetallic vein deposits 127
91. Silver grades of polymetallic vein deposits 12•7
92. Gold grades of polymetallic vein deposits 128
93. Lead grades of polymetallic vein deposits 128
94. Zinc and copper grades of polymetallic vein deposits 129
95. Generalized stratigraphic column through the Troodos ophiolite showing Cyprus massive sulfides
and other deposit types and their associated rock types 133
96. Cross section through the Kalavos district Cyprus showing relationship of massive sulfide
deposits to faults and spreading axis 133
97. Tonnages of Cyprus massive sulfide deposits 134
98. Copper grades of Cyprus massive sulfide deposits 134
99. By-product grades of Cyprus massive sulfide deposits 135
100. Tonnages of Besshi massive sulfide deposits 137
101 • Copper grades of Besshi massive sulfide deposits 138
102. By-product grades of Besshi massive sulfide deposits 138
103. Tonnages of volcanogenic Mn deposits 141
104. Metal grades of volcanogenic Mn deposits 141
105. Cartoon cross-section of a hot-spring Au-Ag deposit 144
106. Cartoon cross section of a typical Creede type epithermal vein deposit 146
107. Tonnages of Creede epithermal vein deposits 1t~7
108. Copper grades of Creede epithermal vein deposits 147
109. Lead grades of Creede epithermal vein deposits 148
110. Zinc grades of Creede epithermal vein deposits 148
111 • Silver grades of Creede epithermal vein deposits 149
112. Gold grades of Creede epithermal vein deposits 149
113. Tonnages of Comstock epithermal vein deposits 152
114. Gold grades of Comstock epithermal vein deposits 152
115. Silver grades of Comstock epithermal vein deposits 153
116. By-product grades of Comstock epithermal vein deposits 153
117. Tonnages of Sado epithermal vein deposits 156
118. Gold grades of Sado epithermal vein deposits 156
119. By-product of Sado epithermal vein deposits 157
120. Tonnages of epithermal quartz-alunite vein deposits 160
121. Gold grades of epithermal quartz-alunite vein deposits 160
122. Silver grades of epithermal quartz-alunite vein deposits 161
123. Copper grades of epithermal quartz-alunite vein deposits 161
124. Tonnages of volcanogenic U deposits 164
125. Uranium grade of volcanogenic U deposits 164
126. Tonnages of epithermal Mn deposits 167

XI
127. Manganese grade of epithermal Mn deposits 167
128. Cartoon cross section of a rhyolite-hosted Sn deposit 170
129. Tonnages of rhyolite-hosted Sn deposits 171
130. Tin grades of rhyolite-hosted Sn deposits 171
131. Tonnages of volcanic-hosted magnetite deposits 173
132. Iron grades of volcanic-hosted magnetite deposits 174
133. Phosphorus grades of volcanic-hosted magnetite deposits 174
134. Tonnages of carbonate-hosted Au-Ag deposits 177
135. Precious metal grades of carbonate-hosted Au-Ag deposits 177
136. Tonnages of hot-spring Bg deposits 179
137. Mercury grades of hot-spring llg deposits 179
138. Tonnages of silica-carbonate Hg deposits 182
139. Mercury grades of silica-carbonate Hg deposits 182
140. Tonnages of simple Sb deposits 185
141. Antimony grades of simple Sb deposits 185
142. Precious metal grades of simple Sb deposits 186
143. Tonnages of disseminated simple Sb deposits 188
144. Antimony grades of disseminated simple Sb deposits 188
145. Cartoon cross section of a kuroko massive sulfide deposit 194
146. Tonnages of kuroko massive sulfide deposits 195
147. Copper grades of kuroko massive sulfide deposits 195
148. Lead-zinc grades of kuroko massive sulfide deposits 196
149. Precious metal grades of kuroko massive sulfide deposits 197
150. Tonnages of sandstone-hosted Pb-Zn deposits 203
151. Lead grades of sandstone-hosted Pb-Zn deposits 203
152. Zinc grades sandstone-hosted Pb-Zn deposits 204
153. Silver grades sandstone-hosted Pb-Zn deposits 204
154. Tonnages of sediment-hosted Cu deposits 207
155. Copper grades of sediment-hosted Cu deposits 207
156. By-product grades of sediment-hosted Cu deposits 208
157. Cartoon sections showing diagenetic and roll-front mineralization in sandstone U deposits 210
158. Cartoon cross section showing mineral zoning in sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb deposits 213
159. Tonnages of sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb deposits 213
160. Zinc grades of sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb deposits 214
161. Lead grades of sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb deposits 214
162. Silver grades of sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb deposits 215
163. Copper grades of sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb deposits 215
164. Tonnages of bedded barite deposits 218
165. Barite grades of bedded barite deposits 218
166. Cartoon cross section of a southeast Missouri Pb-Zn deposit 221
167. Cartooncross section illustrating a typical Appalachian Zn deposit 223
168. Tonnages of southeast Missouri Pb-Zn and Appalachian Zn deposits 225
169. Zinc grades of southeast Missouri Pb-Zn and Appalachian Zn deposits 225
170. Lead grades of southeast Missouri Pb-Zn and Appalachian Zn deposits 226
171. Silver grades of southeast Missouri Pb-Zn and Appalachian Zn deposits 226
172. Tonnages of Algoma Fe and Superior Fe deposits 229
173. Iron grades of Algoma Fe and Superior Fe deposits 230
174. Phosphorus grades of Algoma Fe and Superior Fe deposits 230
175. Cartoon cross section showing relation of sedimentary facies to sedimentary Mn deposits 232
176. Tonnages of sedimentary Mn deposits 233
177. Metal grades of sedimentary Mn deposits 233
178. Tonnages of upwelling type phosphate deposits 236
179. P2o5 grades of upwelling type phosphate deposits 236
180. Tonnages of warm-current type phosphate deposits 238
181. P2o5 grades of warm-current type phosphate deposits 238
182. Tonnages of low-sulfide Au-quartz vein deposits 242
183. Precious metal grades of low-sulfide Au quartz vein deposits 243
184. Tonnages of Homestake Au deposits 246
185. Gold grades of Homestake Au deposits 247
186. Silver grades of Homestake Au deposits 247
187. Tonnages of unconformity U-Au deposits 250
188. Uranium grades of unconformity U-Au deposits 250
189. Tonnages of lateritic Ni deposits 254
190. Metal grades of lateritic Ni deposits 254
191.
192.
Tonnages of laterite type bauxite deposits 257
Alumina grades of laterite type bauxite deposits 257 f' I

XII
193. Tonnages of karst type bauxite deposits 260
194. Alumina grades of karst type bauxite deposits 260
195. Cartoon cross section showing three stages of heavy mineral concentrations typical of placer Au-
PGE deposits 263
196. Tonnages of placer Au-PGE deposit 263
197. Precious metal grades of placer Au-PGE deposits 264
198. Tonnages of placer PGE-Au deposits 267
199. Precious metal grades of placer PGE-Au deposits 268
200. Other PGE grades of placer PGE-Au deposits 269
201. Tonnages of shoreline placer Ti deposits 271
202. Zro 2 grades from zircon in shoreline placer Ti deposits 272
203. Ti02 grades from ilmenite in shoreline placer Ti deposits 272
204. Ti02 grades from rutile in shoreline placer Ti deposits 273
205. Other metal grades of shoreline placer Ti deposits 273
206. Matrix diagram showing deposit models and their geochemical signature 304

TABLES

1. Classification of deposit models by lithologic-tectonic environment 3

2. Comparison of application of the five model subtypes by various users 10
3. Types of hydrothermal alteration characteristic of porphyry copper and other deposit models 79

XIII
Mineral Deposit Models
Dennis P. Cox and Donald A. Singer, Editors

INTRODUCTION Yukio Togashi of the Geological Survey of Japan.

Among the many geologists from private industry who
By Dennis P. Cox, Paul B. Barton, provided helpful information and suggestions were R.
and Donald A. Singer G. Blair, A. E. Soregaroli, E. I. Bloomstein, and G. E.
McKelvey.
The U.S. Geological Survey has a long and
distinguished history· in assessing the mineral resources SOME FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS
of the public domain, and that role remains active
today in programs designed to assess the mineral A "mineral occurrence" is a concentration of a
resources of the lands administered by the U.S. Bureau mineral (usually, but not necessarily, considered in
of Land Management and Forest Service, the Alaska terms of some commodity, such as copper, barite or
Mineral Resource Assessment Program, and the gold) that is considered valuable by someone
Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment somewhere, or that is of scientific or technical
Program. The Survey has thus an immediate and interest. In rare instances (such as titanium in a
constantly recurring need to upgrade and maintain the rutile-bearing black sand), the commodity might not
capability of its staff to identify and assess areas even be concentrated above its average crustal
favorable for mineral deposits. One major step toward abundance.
fulfilling this need is the assembly of a comprehensive A "mineral deposit" is a mineral occurrence of
group of mineral deposit models that enable any sufficient size and grade that it might, under the most
geologist to compare his or her observations with the favorable of circumstances, be considered to have
collective knowledge and experience of a much wider economic potential.
group of geoscientists. An "ore deposit" is a mineral deposit that has
This report deals exclusively with nonfuel minerals been tested and is known to be of sufficient size,
(including uranium), for these show a commonality of grade, and accessibility to be producible to yield a
geologic expressions that differ markedly from those profit. On these days of controlled economies and
of the areally much larger (and economically even integrated industries, the "profit" decision may be
more important) coal, oil, and gas deposits. based on considerations that extend far beyond the
mine itself, in some instances relating to the overall
CITATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS health of a national economy.)
On one hand, the field observations usually
This report has been assembled through the begin with "mineral occurrences" (or with clues to
generous efforts of many persons. The authors of the their existence) and progress with further study to
individual models and many of the other sections are "mineral deposits" and only rarely to "ore deposits,"
indicated. We all would appreciate it if the individual but we must present information that helps us deal
authors could be cited whenever practical rather than with all classes of "mineral occurrences," not just "ore
simply refering to the whole compilation. deposits." On the other hand, in terms of accessible
Among the editors, Dennis Cox had the lead in information our sample is strongly biased toward "ore
solid ting the model authors and in assembling the deposits," for it is only in them that sufficient
brief models; Donald Singer played a similar role for exposure is available to develop a real knowledge of
all of the grade and tonnage models; and Paul Barton the overall character of the mineralization process.
provided the attribute cross-indexes and carefully Some mineral occurrences are, therefore,
reviewed the overall package. The editors greatly unrecognized mineral deposits, while others are simply
appreciate the encouragement and suggestions from (in mineralized localities where ore-forming processes
alphabetical order) Larry Bernstein, John H. DeYoung, were so weak or incomplete that a deposit was not
Jr., Bob Earhart, Ralph Erickson, Fred Fisher, Bill formed. Thus we summarize the state of knowledge
Greenwood, Carroll Ann Hodges, Kate Johnson, Steve regarding ore deposit models, and we call them
Ludington, Dick McCammon, Hal Morris, Rob "mineral deposit models" with the hope that what we
Robinson, Don White, and many others. The editors have learned about large and high-grade metal
were greatly helped by suggestions from geologists concentrations will help us sort out all mineral
outside the USGS, particularly D. F. Sangster, R. V. occurrences to identify their true character and, we
Kirkham, and J. M. Franklin of the Geological Survey hope, to recognize which have potential to constitute
of Canada, and by Ryoichi Kouda, Takeo Sato, and ore deposits.
1
 The attributes or properties of a mineral Or could it be correct that the critical property is
occurrence are, of course, those features exhibited by permeability and that the formation of dolomite either
the occurrence. When applied to a model, these terms (1) enhances permeability (and thereby makes the
refer to those features possessed by the class of ground more favorable), or (2) reflects pre-existing
deposits represented by the model. It is useful to permeability that is exploited by both the dolomite and
consider attributes on at least two scales: the first the ore? Perhaps the dolomite merely records a
deals with local features that may be observed directly particular range of Ca/Mg ratio in the fluid which in
in the field (mineralogy, zonal patterns, local chemical turn is characteristic of the basinal brines that
haloes, and so on); the second is those features constitute the ore fluid. In any event, the dolomite is
concerning the regional geologic setting and which a powerful ore guide and belongs somewhere in the
must be interpreted from the local studies or may be "final model."
inferred from global tectonic considerations (for
instance, that the rock sequence under study
represents a deep-water, back-arc rift environment, or CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED IN THIS
that the area is underlain by anomalously radioactive COMPILATION
high-silica rhyolite and granite). Two of the most
prominent attributes, the commodities/geochemical For the purpose at hand the clas_sification
patterns and the mineralogy, are cross-indexed to scheme has two requirements: (1) it must be open so
model types in Appendixes C and D, respectively. that new types of deposits can be added in the future,
To the greatest extent possible, models were and (2) the user must be able to find easily the
constructed so as to be independent of site-specific appropriate models to apply to the rock and tectonic
attributes and therefore contain only those features environments being investigated.
which are transferable from one deposit to another. Figure 1 maps out the four logic tre~s that
This goal is difficult to attain, because we do not constitute a broad lithotectonic classification; this
always know which features are site specific. system is similar to one developed by Page and others
The term "model" in an earth-science context (1982c). The classification of deposits by the
elicits a wide variety of mental images, ranging from environment of formation of their host rocks is
the physical duplication of the form of a subject, as in continued on a finer scale in table 1. This
a scale model of the workings of a mine, to a unifying classification scheme is relatively straightforward for
concept that explains or describes a complex deposits formed essentially contemporaneously with
phenomenon. In this context we shall apply only the their host rock. However, for epigenetic deposits a
latter usage. Therefore, let us propose a working conflict arises between the lithotectonic environment
definition of "model" in the context of mineral of the formation of the host and the lithotectonic
deposits, the overriding purpose being to communicate environment of the mineralization process. Therefore,
information that helps mankind find and evaluate for epigenetic deposits we have selected the most
mineral deposits. A mineral deposit model is the important aspect of the lithotectonic alternatives and
systematically arranged information describing the classified the deposit accordingly. This procedure
essential attributes (properties) of a class of mineral
deposits. The model may be empirical (descriptive), in GEOLOGIC- TECTONIC ENVIRONMENT DEPOSIT MODELS
which instance the various attributes are recognized as
St~ble ~rea - - - 1 to 4
essential even though their relationships are unknown; M~fic- ultr~m~fic
{ Unstable
or it may be theoretical (genetic), in which instance ~rea _ _ 5 to 10

the attributes are interrelated through some Intrusive Alk~line ~nd b~sic 11 to 12
fundamental concept. { Ph~nerocryst~lline-13 to 15

!
Felsic
One factor favoring the genetic model over the Igneous {
Porphyro~ph~nitic-16 to 22
simply descriptive is the sheer volume of descriptive
information needed to represent the many features of M~fic 23 to 24
complex deposits. If all such information were to be Extrusive
{
included, the number of models would escalate until it Felsic- m~fic 25 to 28

approached the total number of individual deposits

29 to 31
considered. Thus we should no longer have models, but {""''0 '"'"rocks
simply descriptions of individual deposits. Therefore, Sediment~ry c~rbon~te 32

the compilers must use whatever sophisticated or Chemic~ 1 sediments 33 to 35

rudimentary genetic concepts are at their disposal to

distinguish the critical from the incidental attributes. Region~!
{ Met~vo lc~nic ~nd met~sediment~ry 36
It is commonly necessary to carry some possibly metamorphic
Met~pelite ~nd met~~renite 37
superficial attributes in order not to preclude some
permissible but not necessarily favored, multiple { Residu~l 38
Surficial
working concepts. Depositiona1 39
The following example illustrates the problem.
One of the commonly accepted attributes of the model
for the carbonate-hosted lead-zinc deposits of the
Mississippi Valley type is the presence of secondary Figure 1. Tree diagram showing relationship of broad
dolomite. But do we know that this is essential? geologic-tectonic environments to models. These
Suppose a deposit were found in limestone; would we deposit models are classified on a finer scale in table
reject its assignment to the Mississippi Valley class? l.
2
Table 1. Classification of deposit models by lithologic-tectonic environment

(*indicates that model is not included in this bulletin]

Deposit environment Model No.

Mafic and ultramafic intrusions

A. Tectonically stable area; stratiform complexes

Stratiform deposits
Basal zone
Stillwater Ni-Cu ---------------------------------------1
Intermediate zone
Bushveld chromitite ------------------------------------2a
Merensky Reef PGE --------------------------------------2b
Upper zone
Bushveld Fe-Ti-V ---------------------------------------3
Pipe-like deposits
Cu-Ni pipes ----------------------------------------------4a*
PGE pipes ------------------------------------------------4b*

B. Tectonically unstable area

Intrusions same age as volcanic rocks
Rift environment
Duluth Cu-Ni-PGE ---------------------------------------5a
Noril'sk Cu-Ni-PGE -------------------------------------5b
Greenstone belt in which lowermost rocks of
sequence contain ultramafic rocks
Komatiitic Ni-Cu ---------------------------------------6a
Dunitic Ni-Cu ------------------------------------------6b
Intrusions emplaced during orogenesis
Synorogenic in volcanic terrane
Synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu --------------------------7a
Synorogenic intrusions in non-volcanic terrane
Anorthosite-Ti -----------------------------------------7b
Ophiolites
Pediform chromite --------------------------------------8a
Major pediform chromite --------------------------------8b
(Lateritic Ni) -----------------------------------------(38a)
(Placer Au-PGE) ----------------------------------------(39a)
Serpentine
Limassol Forest Co-Ni --------------------------------8c
Serpentine-hosted asbestos ---------------------------8d
(Silica-carbonate Hg) --------------------------------(27c)
(Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein) -------------------------(36a)
Cross-cutting intrusions (concentrically zoned)
Alaskan PGE --------------------------------------------9
(Placer PGE-Au) ----------------------------------------(39b)

C. Alkaline intrusions in stable areas

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

Felsic i~trusions

D. Mainly phanerocrystalline textures

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

Deposit environment Model No.

D. Mainly phanerocrystalline textures--Continued

Granitic intrusions--Continued

Other wallrocks
W veins ------------------------------------------------15a
Sn veins -----------------------------------------------15b
Sn greisen ---------------------------------------------15c
(Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein) ---------------------------(36a)
(Homestake Au) -----------------------------------------(36b)
Anorthosite intrusions
(Anorthosite Ti) -----------------------------------------(7b)

E. Porphyroaphanitic intrusions present

High-silica granites and rhyolites
Climax Mo ------------------------------------------------16
(Fluorspar deposits) -------------------------------------(26b*)
Other felsic and mafic rocks including alkalic
Porphyry Cu ----------------------------------------------17
Wallrocks are calcareous
Deposits near contact
Porphyry Cu, skarn-related ---------------------------18a
Cu skarn ---------------------------------------------18b
Zn-Pb skarn ------------------------------------------18c
Fe skarn ---------------------------------------------18d
Carbonate-hosted asbestos ----------------------------18e
Deposits far from contact
Polymetallic replacement -----------------------------19a
Replacement Mn ---------------------------------------19b
(Carbonate-hosted Au) --------------------------------(26a)
Wallrocks are coeval volcanic rocks
In granitic rocks in felsic volcanics
Porphyry Sn ------------------------------------------20a
Sn-polymetallic veins --------------------------------20b
In calcalkalic or alkalic rocks
Porphyry Cu-Au ---------------------------------------20c
(Epithermal Mn) --------------------------------------(25g)
Wallrocks are older igneous and sedimentary rocks
Deposits within intrusions
Porphyry Cu-Mo ---------------------------------------21a
Porphyry Mo, low-F -----------------------------------21b
Porphyry W -------------------------------------------21c*
Deposits within wallrocks
Volcanic hosted Cu-As-Sb -----------------------------22a
Au-Ag-Te veins ---------------------------------------22b
Polymetallic veins -----------------------------------22c
(Epithermal quartz-alunite Au) -----------------------(25e)
(Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein) -------------------------(36a)
Extrusive rocks

F. Mafic extrusive rocks

Continental or rifted craton
Basaltic Cu ----------------------------------------------23
(Sediment-hosted Cu) -------------------------------------(30b)
Marine, including ophiolite-related
Cyprus massive sulfide -----------------------------------24a
Besshi massive sulfide -----------------------------------24b
Volcanogenic Mn ------------------------------------------24c
Blackbird Co-Cu ------------------------------------------24d
(Komatiitic Ni-Cu) ---------------------------------------(6a)
 Table 1. Classification of deposit models by lithologic-tectonic environment
--Continued

1 Deposit environment Model No.

G. Felsic-mafic extrusive rocks

Subaerial
Deposits mainly within volcanic rocks
Hot-spring Au-Ag ---------------------------------------25a
Creede epithermal vein ---------------------------------25b
Comstock epithermal vein -------------------------------25c
Sado epithermal vein -----------------------------------25d
Epithermal quartz-alunite Au ---------------------------25e
Volcanogenic U -----------------------------------------25f
Epithermal Mn ------------------------------------------25&
Rhyolite-hosted Sn -------------------------------------25h
Volcanic-hosted magnetite ------------------------------25i
(Sn polymetallic veins) --------------------------------(20b)
Deposits in older calcareous rocks
Carbonate-hosted Au-Ag ----------------------------~----26a
Fluorspar deposits -------------------------------------26b*
Deposits in older clastic sedimentary rocks
Hot-spring Hg ------------------------------------------27a
Almaden Hg ---------------------------------------------27b
Silica-carbonate Hg ------------------------------------27c
Simple Sb ----------------------------------------------27d
Marine

,
Kuroko massive sulfide -----------------------------------28a
Algoma Fe ------------------------------------------------28b
(Volcanogenic Mn) ----------------------------------------(24c)
(Volcanogenic U) -----------------------------------------(25f)
(Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein) -----------------------------(36a)
(Homestake Au) -------------------------------------------(36b)
(Volcanogenic U) -----------------------------------------(25f)

Sedimentary rocks

H. Clastic sedimentary rocks

Conglomerate and sedimentary breccia
Quartz pebble conglomerate Au-U --------------------------29a
Olympic Dam Cu-U-Au --------------------------------------29b
(Sandstone U) --------------------------------------------(30c)
(Basaltic Cu) --------------------------------------------(23)
Sandstone
Sandstone-hosted Pb-Zn -----------------------------------30a
Sediment-hosted Cu ---------------------------------------30b
Sandstone U ----------------------------------------------30c
(Basaltic Cu) --------------------------------------------(23)
(Kipushi Cu-Pb-Zn) ---------------------------------------(32c)
(Unconformity U-Au) --------------------------------------(37a)
Shale-siltstone
Sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb -----------------------------31a
Bedded barite --------------------------------------------31b
Emerald veins --------------------------------------------31c
(Basaltic Cu) --------------------------------------------(23)
(Carbonate-hosted Au-Ag) ---------------------------------(26a)
(Sediment-hosted Cu) -------------------------------------(30b)

I. Carbonate rocks
No associated igneous rocks
Southeast Missouri Pb-Zn ---------------------------------32a
Appalachian Zn -------------------------------------------32b
Kipushi Cu-Pb-Zn -----------------------------------------32c
(Replacement Sn) -----------------------------------------(14c)
5
 Table 1. Classification of deposit models by lithologic-tectonic environment
--Continued

Deposit environment Model No.

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

(Sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb) ---------------------------(31a)

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

Regionally metamorphosed rocks

K. Derived mainly from eugeosynclinal rocks

Low-sulfide Au-quartz vein ---------------------------------36a
Homestake Au -----------------------------------------------36b
(Serpentine-hosted asbestos) -------------------------------(8d)
(Gold on flat faults) --------------------------------------(37b)

L. Derived mainly from pelitic and other sedimentary rocks

Unconformity U-Au ------------------------------------------37a
Gold on flat faults ----------------------------------------37b
Surficial and unconformity-related

M. Residual
Lateritic Ni -----------------------------------------------38a
Bauxite, laterite type -------------------------------------38b
Bauxite, karst type ----------------------------------------38c
(Unconformity U-Au) ----------------------------------------(37a)
N. Depositional
Placer Au-PGE ----------------------------------------------39a
Placer PGE-Au ----------------------------------------------39b
Shoreline placer Ti ----------------------------------------39c
Diamond placers --------------------------------------------39d
Stream placer Sn -------------------------------------------39e
(Quartz pebble conglomerate Au-U) --------------------------(29a)

inevitably introduces a substantial bias on the part of MODEL NAMES

the classifier, thus we have followed a system of
including, parenthetically, alternative classifications Each model has been assigned a name that is
less favored by the compiler at the appropriate derived either from the special characteristics of the
alternative points in the classification scheme. classes or from a type locality. The latter strategy
6
was employed to avoid excessively long descriptive GRADE-TONNAGE MODELS
names. The use of type names derived from specific
deposits does produce confusion in some readers, Estimated pre-mining tonnages and grades from
however, who may feel, for example, that a deposit over 3,900 well-explored, well-characterized deposits
that does not look "exactly" like Comstock cannot be were used to construct 60 grade-tonnage models.
represented by a "Comstock epithermal vein" model. Where several different estimates were available for a
This confusion may be minimized by realizing that deposit, the estimated tonnages associated with the
most models are blends of attributes from a large lowest cutoff grades were used. Grades not available
number of deposits and that the names are only (always for by-products) were treated as zero. Except
conveniences, not constrictions. The contributors to for a few instances, the data base is so large as to
this report and the literature in general are not preclude specific references. Several published
without disagreements regarding nomenclature (as well compilations of data were particularly useful sources
as genetic aspects and some facets of the groupings for multiple deposit types (Canada Department of
made here), but provision for alternative names is Energy, Mines and Resources, 1980; DeYoung and
made in the model format under the heading of others, 1984; Krauss and others, 1984; Laughlin, 1984;
approximate synonyms. Menzie and Mosier, 1985; Mosier and others, 1983;
Mosier and others, in press; Singer and others, 1980;
Yamada and others, 1980). The U.S. Geological Survey
has a great deal of data available in the Mineral
Resources Data System.
DESCRIPTIVE MODELS The grade-tonnage models are presented in
graphical format to make it easy to compare deposit
Because every mineral deposit, like every types and to display the data. All plots show either
fingerprint, is different from every other in some grade or tonnage on the horizontal axis, while the
finite way, models have to progress beyond the purely vertical axis is always the cumulative proportion of
descriptive in order to represent more than single deposits. Plots of the same commodity or tonnages
deposits. Deposits sharing a relatively wide variety are presented on the same scale; a logarithmic scale is
and large number of attributes come to be used for tonnage and most grades. Each dot represents
characterized as a "type," and a model representing an individual deposit (or, rarely, a district), cumulated
that type can evolve. As noted above, generally in ascending grade or tonnage. Where a large number
accepted genetic interpretations play a significant role of deposits is plotted, individual digits represent the
in establishing model classes. Here we shall emphasize number of deposits. Smoothed curves are plotted
the more descriptive aspects of the deposits because through arrays of points, and intercepts for the 90th,
our goal is to provide a basis for interpreting geologic 50th, and lOth percentiles are constructed. For
observations rather than to provide interpretations in tonnages and most grades, the smoothed curves
search of examples. The attributes listed are intended represent percentiles of a lognormal distribution that
to be guides for resource assessment and for has the same mean and standard deviation as the
exploration, both in the planning stage and in the observed data; exceptions are plots where only a small
interpretation of findings. percentage of deposits had reported grades and grade
The descriptive models have two parts. The plots that are presented on an arithmetic scale, such
first, the "Geological Environment," describes the as iron or manganese, for which the smoothed curve
environments in which the deposits are found; the was fit by eye. Summary statistics by deposit type are
second gives the identifying characteristics of the provided in Appendix B. The number of deposits in
deposits. The headings "Rock Types" and "Textures" each type is indica ted at the upper right of each
cover the favorable host rocks of deposits as well as diagram. The deposits used to construct each model
source rocks believed to be responsible for are listed with the model and cross-indexed to model
hydrothermal fluids which may have introduced types in Appendix E. Correlations among grades and
epigenetic deposits. "Age" refers to the age of the between tonnage and each grade are indica ted only
event responsible for the formation of the deposit. when significant at the 1 percent level.
"Tectonic Setting" is concerned with major features or There are important limitations inherent in the
provinces (perhaps those that might be portrayed only data base used for all grade-tonnage models.
at 1:1,000,000 or smaller scale), not ore control by Estimates of cutoff grades within individual deposit
structures that are local and often site-specific. types can vary because of regional, national, or
"Associated Deposits" are listed as deposits whose operator differences. All too commonly there is no
presence might indicate suitable conditions for mention of the actual cutoff grades or mining widths
additional deposits of the type portrayed by the model. that are incorporated into published reserve figures;
The second part of the model, the "Deposit nevertheless, the grade-tonnage figures given do
Description," provides the identifying characteristics represent material that the company or the
of the deposits themselves, particularly emphasizing government believed might someday be economic ta
aspects by which the deposits might be recognized mine. Stratiform deposits of large areal extent, such
through their geochemical and geophysical anomalies. as phosphate or sedimentary manganese, are special
In most cases the descriptions also contain data useful problems because of differences in opinion and
in project planning for mineral assessment or practice regarding how closely drilled they must be to
exploration; this aspect is especially important where "prove" ore tonnages and regarding the thicknesses and
limited financial and manpower resources must be depths of what may be considered for eventual
allocated to the more significant tasks. mining. Effects of another source of variation, mining
'1
methods, are recognized in some of the placer models; estimated number of deposits to be consistent with a
typically, however, mining methods are fairly grade-tonnage model, approximately half of the
consistent within a deposit type. In a few instances,
irregular cumulative frequency plots reflect mixing of
economic and scientific data sources, such as in the
plot of gold in porphyry copper deposits. In spite of
deposits estimated should have greater than the
model's median tonnage or grade. Thus the probability
that an untested prospect represents a significant
deposit can too easily be overestimated.
r
the current difficulty of quantifying variation of
grades and tonnages with respect to changes in cutoff OTHER TYPES OF MODELS AND THEIR
grades or mining methods, the models presented here INTERRELATIONSHIPS
are believed to account for the main source of
variation in grades and tonnages of mineral deposits-- The bulk of this report deals with descriptive
variation due to differences among types of deposits. mineral deposit models and their grade-tonnage
The question of whether one counts deposits counterparts, but there are other useful aspects which
within a cluster of related deposits as individuals or as we wish to discuss even though we have not yet had
a total will probabJy never be resolved to everyone's the opportunity to develop or exploit them. They are
satisfaction. Some geostatisticians would separate the genetic, occurrence probability, and quantitative
each ore body (and then argue about whether two process models.
operations on the same body should be counted Many authors prefer to keep a clear distinction
separately), whereas some economic geologists would between descriptive and genetic models, apparently
lump everything from a single district (and then argue feeling that the descriptive models somehow represent
about district boundaries). For the most part the "pure truth" whereas the genetic constitute a less
entities summarized are individual deposits, but in objective philosophical position (or at least make the
some instances such data are mixed with data investigator "skate on thin ice"). It is altogether
representing entire districts. Because of these desirable to avoid confusing interpretation with fact;
inconsistencies, some care is necessary in comparing but it is well to remember, for example, that each
grade-tonnage models between deposit types or in time a field geoscientist extrapolates geology across a
comparing this summary with those prepared using covered area he or she adds an element of
alternative methods. "interpretation" to a "factual" map, and that this
Care is also warranted in interpreting the grade interpretation is not necessarily any more "real" (or
distributions for which data are missing; this concerns "unreal") than, for example, an isotope geologist's
principally by-product grades. In some instances, such conclusion that a given oxygen and hydrogen isotopic
as the platinum-group element (PGE) contents in signature extracted from fluid inclusions points to a
podiform chromite and the cobalt content of laterites, meteoric origin for the fluid. The point is that the
the fragmentary information given probably represents whole of our professional know ledge rests on a broad
the entire class. In other instances, such as the lead continuum of interpretations; many of them are so
content of Cyprus massive sulfide deposits, the missing commonly accepted that they are no longer
grades probably represent values below the lowest questioned, but many others still evoke challenges.
reported grades. The grades derived from studies of Thus we suggest that a combination descriptive-
trace elements in ores more probably represent the genetic model is not inconsistent with professional
former situation rather than the latter. practice. The model begins as a description, but
Deposits strongly suspected to be small or very various aspects of the model become genetic as they
low grade are seldom sampled well enough to be acquire satisfactory genetic explanations. Eventually
characterized in terms of grade and tonnage, thus the much of the model becomes genetic, as has happened,
sample of many deposit classes is truncated by for example, with the Cyprus-type massive sulfide
economics. Nonetheless, probably 4-0 percent of the deposits or the sandstone uranium deposits of the
deposits used in these models are, in fact, non- Colorado Plateau.
economic today; and a perusal of the figures will As the attributes of a model become understood
discover examples of both small deposits and low- in a genetic sense, the descriptive model evolves to a
grade deposits. genetic model:
Potential metal supply is domina ted by the very 1. Genetic models are compilations of the
few largest tonnage deposits, as shown by Singer and properties of a group of related deposits
DeYoung (1980), who also pointed out that inverse in which the reasons for certain attributes
correlations between grade and tonnage are being favorable are identified.
surprisingly rare. Thus the fact that a deposit is large Descriptive models evolve into genetic
does not necessarily mean that it will prove to be of models, and as such they become far more
low grade. This means that most low-grade deposits flexible and powerful.
are not likely to have huge resources and also that the We have presented the three model subtypes
omission of a few low-grade or small tonnage deposits above as if they constituted a linear logical sequence
will not seriously degrade the predictions of potential leading toward the "final" model, but in fact there
national supplies for most commodities. In contrast, must be an iterative relationship among descriptive,
the missing low-grade and small deposits suggest that genetic, and grade/tonnage models. The consequence
the grade-tonnage models represent a biased sample of of examining any of these three may be a reassessment
the large number of low-grade or small-tonnage of the groupings of deposits chosen to be represented
occurrences and prospects found by exploration. This by a model type and the redesignation of the attributes
fact must be considered in cases where the number of diagnostic for that type.
undiscovered deposits is estimated. In order for the With a dominantly genetic model in hand, two
8
 more model types can be generated:
2. Occurrence probability models are models
that predict the probability of a deposit
(of a size and grade indicated by the
appropriate grade-tonnage models)
occurring within a given area. As with the
descriptive and genetic models,
probability models that are tied to lithic
or structural geologic entities (that is,
they are genetic) are far more focused; in
fact, it is probably impossible to generate
a useful probability model before the
establishment of a genetic model.
Accurate probability models are very
difficult to construct because although the
technical community has very complete
data on mineral producers (mines), the
data on non-producing mineral deposits
(prospects and mineral shows) are much
less well documented, a point also covered
in the discussion of grade-tonnage
models. Even more importantly, data on
barren areas are sparse. We must
extrapolate from a very fragmentary base
toward a completely unseen target.
There is much to learn before the probability
model can be made a dependable tool; yet the
successful targeting of exploration programs by
industry demonstrates that, at least on a qualitative Figure 2. Flow sheet showing evolution of model
basis, areas with better-than-average probabilities can types. Individual model subtypes are discussed in
be identified. It is worth noting, also, that mineral text. It is essential that such a structure represents
fuels are much more predictable and now can have the repetitive cycling of information leading to
realistic probability-of-occurrence values attached to continual refinement of groupings of deposits that
specific volumes of sediments provided that the initial represent each model type.
character and postdepositional histories of the
sediments are well known. It is a distant but not MATURITY OF DESCRIPTIVE-GENETIC MODELS
unreasonable dream to anticipate that some day we
shall approach that level of certainty for some types The rate at which we gain understanding and
of nonfuel mineral deposits. the current levels of genetic knowledge vary
3. Quantitative process models are models that considerably from one deposit type to another, as
describe quantitatively some process figures 3 and 4 show. Such types as placers and
related to mineral deposit formation; they evaporites are well known genetically and the
are offshoots of the genetic model. problems in their exploration and utilization concern
Examples would be models of heat or fluid local site-specific geologic issues rather than mineral
flow around a cooling pluton; rates of genesis or the degree of rna tura tion of the model. In
crystal growth as functions of contrast, others such as the Coeur d'Alene Ag-Pb-Zn
supersaturation, impurities, and veins, or the massive Zn-Mn-Fe oxide/silicate bodies
temperature; or sequences and amounts of at Franklin and Sterling Hill, or the Cu-U-Au at
minerals deposited from evaporating Olympic Dam, or the Cu-Zn-Pb-Ge ores of Kipushi and
seawater. the Tsumeb pipe remairt genetic enigmas despite, in
All five of these model subtypes can be parts of the the instances of the first two, extensive research
"final" model, and recycling of the model back to the spanning many years. Still others, such as the
original groupings stage helps refine the selection diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes, are geologically
process. Figure 2 shows the flow of information that well understood regarding their origin yet very poorly
results in the generation of the models we have understood in terms of the reasons for their existing at
discussed. any particular site. Our rate of acquisition of
Table 2 compares the five model subtypes with information is very irregular, as the schematic
five distinct types of uses for the information. Note diagram in figure 3 shows. The several scarps between
that persons engaged in research guidance and plateaus in the knowledge curve for the marine
especially exploration and development have broad- phosphate model might mark, successively, the
ranging needs, whereas those dealing with the recognition that the phosphate was a chemical
availability of minerals or of land-use allocation have precipitate, that it occurred on continental shelves
less use for genetic or quantitative process models. where upwelling of deep marine waters occurred, and
Overall there is a need for a comprehensive array of that the upwelling regions were related to wind and
mineral deposit models to meet these individual current patterns that were tied to the global
objectives. configuration of the continents and ocean basins. A
9
Table 2. Comparison of application of the five model subtypes COMPLETE
PLACER GOLD
by various users

[Level of use: Major, X; minor, X; minimal, X) CJ

z PHOSPHORITE
0
z
Subtypes of models oct:
f-
(/)
'+< a:
<!)
00
0
<!)
w
0
ell <II :>, ;:. z
p ;:. .u <II ·.-i
p •.-i •.-i u .u :::>
Uses 0 .u ,..., p ell ()
.u p.. u ·.-i <!) .u Ul i=
....... Ti •.-i ..0 ~ •.-i Ul w
<II ~ .u ell ~ .u <!) zw
"d u <II ..0 ;:l p u
ell Ul p 0 u ell 0 MISSISSIPPI VALLEY Pb·Zn
~ <II <!) ~ u ;:l ~
CJ
0 A 0 p.. 0 CfP.. lL
0
..J
w
Exploration/development X X X X X >
w
..J
Supply potential X X X X X
Land use X X X X X
Education X X X X X
Research guidance NIL
X X X X X

PERSON· YEARS OF EFFORT (Schematic log scale)

second example from the Mississippi Valley-type ores Figure 3. Schematic growth patterns for
might involve scarps marking the recognition (from understanding of some typical genetic models.
fluid-inclusion evidence) that the ores were deposited Individual curves discussed in text.
from warm (about 100 °C) highly saline solutions that
could represent neither simple surface nor marine
waters. A second scarp might be associated with the and schematic, curve to be illustrated. As with figure
recognition that the deposits were integral parts of a 3, there is no documentation to support this diagram,
regional hydrologic regime whose distribution and although the general concept meets with agreement
character was susceptible to interpretation. among most contributors to this volume.
Figures 3 and 4 bring out another point: some
aspects of any model always remain to be determined,
thus we never acquire a "complete" model. Indeed, the
approach to "complete" understanding is asymptotic, COMPLETE . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
and a lot of additional effort to dear up the "last" Plac~r Au, ~vaporit~s

uncertainty in a nearly perfect model is probably Lat~rit~s

Magmatic sulfides
unwarranted. But, as the examples in figure 3 show, Phosphorites
new ideas and new technologies can provide the Band~d iron-formation
Vo lcanog~nic massive sulfid~s
impetus for new spurts in knowledge for heretofore
Porphyry Cu-Mo
incomplete models.
Epitherma 1 Au- Ag
Note that the horizontal axis in figure 3 is Sandstone U
simply "years of effort" devoted to fundamental S~dimentary Mn
geologic investigation. The scale certainly needs to be Podiform chromit~

exponential in order to fit the intensively studied and Mississippi Va!ley Pb -Zn
sparsely studied deposit types, but this figure is S~dim~ntary exhalative Zn-Pb
strictly schematic, there being no source of Kipushi Cu-Pb-Zn
documentation for either coordinate. The figure also Coeur d' Al~n~ } Th~s~ ar~ so poorly und~rstood that
Franklin Furnace
indicates that different deposit types may require Olympic Dam
th~y d~fy classification. Each deposit
constitutes its own cless
different amounts of effort to achieve a similar level NIL
RATIO OF EFFORT EXPENDED TO EFFORT NEEDED
of genetic understanding.
Figure 4 shows a hypothetical growth curve
along which different types of deposits have been
schematically arrayed. Because some deposits (such as Figure 4. Comparison of relative levels of
volcanogenic massive sulfides) are so much more understanding of some important model types.
difficult to understand than others (gold placers), the Vertical coordinate same as for figure 3; but because
horizontal axis has been "normalized" by plotting a difficulty of acquiring the genetic information differs
ratio of effort done to effort needed thereby so widely among model types, the horizontal
permitting a smooth, although admittedly subjective coordinate is "normalized" as noted in text.

10
 Model 1

DESCRIPTIVE HODEL OF STILLWATER Ni-Cu

By Norman J Page

APPROXIMATE SYNONYM Stratiform mafic-ultramafic Ni-Cu.

DESCRIPTION Ni, Cu sulfides at base of large repetitively layered mafic-ultramafic intrusion.

(see fig. 5).

GENERAL REFERENCES Geological Society of South Africa, Special Publication 1 (1969); Economic
Geology, v. 77, no. 6 (1982) and v. 71, no. 7 (1976).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Layered intrusion contains norite, gabbro-norite, dunite, harzburgite, peridotite,
pyroxenite, troctolite, anorthosite, and gabbro.

Textures Cumulate textures; layers with gradational proportions of euhedral crystals; locally with
poikilitic matrix.

Age Range Generally Precambrian, but may be as young as Tertiary.

Depositional Environment Intruded into granitic gneiss or volcanic-sedimentary terrane.

Tectonic Setting(s) Cratonal, mostly in Precambrian shield areas.

Associated Deposit Types Bushveld Cr, Merensky Reef PGE, Bushveld Fe-Ti-U. PGE placers.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Pyrrhotite + chalcopyrite + pentlandite + cobalt sulfides, by-product platinum group

metals ( PGE).

Texture/Structure Locally massive; interstitial to silicates; disseminated.

Alteration None related to ore.

Ore Controls Basins in basal contact of intrusion with rapidly varying lithologies. Sulfides may
intrude fractures in footwall country rock. Ingress of sulfur through fractures in footwall may be
important ore control.

Weathering Gossan.

Geochemical Signature Cu, Ni, PGE, Co. High Mg; low Na, K, and P.

EXAMPLES
Stillwater Complex, USMT (Page , 1977)

11
Model 1--Con.

-A.-A.-..:.: .0.

Cumulus ferrogabbro -At: ..:.:

..:.: ..:.:
V- Ti magnetite layers
to diorite ( Bushveld Fe- Ti- V)
..:.: ..:.:
..:.: .0.:
..:.: ..:.:

Cumulus gabbro and

gabbro-norite

Cumulus anorthosite,
troctolite, gabbro

Cumulus no rite, anorthos-

ite, minor troctolite
x-x-x-x- PGE zone ( Merensky Reef PGE)
r-o--o-o-o-
-o-o-o-

-o-o-o-
Cumulus pyroxenite - - - + _ 0 _ _ 0 __

Chromite layers can

-o-o-o-
Cumulus harzburgite, occur ( Bus hve 1d Cr)
-o-o-
dunite, pyroxenite - - - + -
-o-o-o-
Cumulus pyroxenite,
norite, gabbro-----+-
----
-o-o-
Massive and matrix
disseminated Cu- Ni sulfides
Diabase and no rite dikes
and sills
~ _.
-.-
(Still'w'ater Cu- Ni)

Metased i menta ry rocks

Fisure 5. Diagram of typical mafic-ultramafic stratiform complex, 500 to

1,500 m thick, showing stratigraphic relations of rock units and mineral
deposits. Deposit models shown in parentheses.

12
 Model 2a

DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF BUSHVELD Cr

By Norman J Page

SYNONYM Stratiform mafic-ultramafic Cr.

DESCRIPTION Layered chromitite in lower intermediate zone of large repetitively layered mafic-
ultramafic intrusions (see fig. 5).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Intrusion may contain norite, gabbro-norite, dunite, harzburgite, peridotite,
pyroxenite, troctolite, anorthosite, and gabbro.

Textures Cumulate textures; layers with gradational proportions of euhedral crystals; locally with
poikilitic matrix.

Age Range Generally Precambrian, but may be as young as Tertiary.

Depositional Environment Intruded into granitic gneiss or into volcanic-sedimentary terrane.

Tectonic Setting(s) Cratonal, mostly in Precambrian shield areas.

Associated Deposit Types Stillwater-Ni-Cu, Merensky Reef PGE, and Bushveld Fe-Ti-V deposits. PGE
placers.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Chromite ± ilmenite ± magnetite ± pyrrhotite ± pentlandite ± chalcopyrite ± PGE minerals

(dominantly laurite, cooperite, and braggite) .

..,, Texture/Structure Massive to disseminated layers, cumulus texture.

Alteration None related to ore.

Ore Controls May be in dunite, orthopyroxenite, or anorthosite. Thickness of chromite increases

in basinal depressions in layering.

Weathering Abundant blocks of chromitite in soil and alluvium.

Geochemical Signature Cr, PGE. High Mg; low Na, K, P.

EXAMPLES
Bushveld Complex, SAFR (Cameron and Desborough, 1969)
Stillwater Complex, USMT (Jackson, 1969)
Great Dyke, ZIMB ( Bichan, 1969)

13
Model 2b

DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF MERENSKY REEF PGE

By Norman J Page

SYNONYM Stratiform mafic-ultramafic PGE.

DESCRIPTION Disseminated PGE-rich sulfides in olivine-rich rocks in anorthosite-gabbro zone of

large layered intrusions (see fig. 5).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Norite, gabbro-norite, dunite, harzburgite, peridotite, pyroxenite, troctolite,

anorthosite, and gabbro.

Textures Cumulate textures; layers with gradational proportions of euhedral crystals; locally with
poikilitic matrix.

Age Range Generally Precambrian, but may be as young as Tertiary.

Depositional Environment Intruded into granitic gneiss or into volcanic-sedimentary terrane.

Tectonic Setting(s) Cratonal, mostly in Precambrian shield areas.

Associated Deposit Types Stillwater Ni-Cu, Bushveld Cr, and Bushveld Fe-Ti-V. PGE placers.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Pyrrhotite + chalcopyrite + pentlandite ± chromite ± graphite. PGE minerals are

braggite, cooperite, kotulskite, vysotskite, sperrylite, moncheite, and alloys of platinum-group
metals.

Texture/Structure Clots of massive sulfide and disseminated grains.

Alteration None related to ore.

Ore Controls In layers near first reappearance of olivine as a cumulate phase after thick
accumulation of plagioclase pyroxene rocks. May be related to introduction of new magma. Locally
associated with pipes of Fe-rich olivine.

Weathering Difficult to see ore zone on weathered surface, exploration requires extensive sampling
and chemical analysis.

Geochemical Signature PGE, Cu, Ni, Cr, Ti. High Mg; low Na, K, P.

EXAMPLES
Bushveld Complex, SAFR (Vermaak and Hendriks, 1976)
Stillwater Complex, USMT (Todd and others, 1982)

14
 Model 3

DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF BUSHVELD Fe-Ti-V

By Norman J Page

SYNONYM Stratiform mafic-ultramafic Fe-Ti-V.

DESCRIPTION Layers of Ti-V-rich magnetite in upper parts of large repetitively layered mafic-
ultramafic intrusions (see fig. 5).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Norite, gabbro-norite, dunite, harzburgite, peridotite, pyroxenite, troctolite,

anorthosite, and gabbro.

Textures Cumulate textures; layers with gradational proportions of euhedral crystals; locally with
poikilitic matrix.

Age Range Generally Precambrian, but may be as young as Tertiary.

Depositional Environment Intruded into granitic gneiss or into volcanic-sedimentary terrane.

Tectonic Setting(s) Cratonal, mostly in Precambrian shield areas.

Associated Deposit Types Bushveld Cr, Stillwater Ni-Cu, and Merensky Reef PGE. PGE placers.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Vanadium-bearing magnetite ± ilmenite ± traces of sulfides.

Texture/Structure Massive magnetite-ilmenite, cumulus textures.

Ore Controls Layers near top of intrusion. Layers may be cut by pipes and veins rich in ilmenite.

Weathering Blocks of magnetite in soil and alluvium.

Geochemical Signature Fe, Ti, V.

EXAMPLES
Bushveld Complex, SAFR (Williams, 1969; Molyneux, 1969)

15
Model 5a

DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF DULUTH Cu-Ni-PGE

By Norman J Page

DESCRIPTION Sporadically distributed massive to disseminated sulfides associated with basal

portion of large layered intrusions in rift environments.

GENERAL REFERENCE Weiblen and Morey (1980).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Peridotite, harzburgite, pyroxenite, norite, augite, troctolite, anorthosite.

Associated with pyritic shale, anhydrite, or recognizable source of sulfur to contaminate magma.

Textures Cumulus textures, locally diabasic or ophitic textures.

Age Range Precambrian to Tertiary(?).

Depositional Environment Intruded during rifting into metasedimentary (slate, argillite,

graywacke) and metavolcanic rocks.

Tectonic Setting(s) Rift environment.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Pyrrhotite + pentlandite + chalcopyrite + cubanite ± PGE minerals ± graphite.

Texture/Structure Disseminated, matrix, and massive sulfides.

Alteration Locally sulfides may show evidence of hydrothermal remobilization.

Ore Controls Zone of active syn-intrusion faulting forming basins, in basal part of intrusion;
source of external sulfur; source of silicic material to contaminate magma.

Geochemical Signature Ni/Cu approximately 1/3, Cu, Ni; PGE, Co, Ti; sulfur isotopes show non-
magmatic sulfur.

EXAMPLES
Duluth Complex, USMN (Weiblen and Morey, 1980;
(Dunka Road deposits) Bonnichsen, 1972; Ripley, 1981)

16
 Model 5b

DESC~IPTIVE MODEL OF NORIL'SK Cu-Ni-PGE

By Norman J Page

DESCRIPTION Massive to disseminated sulfides in small shallow mafic to ultramafic intrusives with
an external source of sulfur.

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Flood basalts, picritic intrusive rocks, picritic gabbro, norite, olivine gabbro,
dolerite, intrusive and volcanic breccias. Associated with evaporites or some external source of
sulfur.

Textures Ophitic, subophitic, gabbroic, cumulate.

Age Range Paleozoic.

Depositional Environment Magma has intruded through evaporites or pyritic shale, and formed sills
in flood basalts during active faulting.

Tectonic Setting(s) Rift environment.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Pyrrhotite + pentlandite + chalcopyrite + cubanite + millerite + vallerite + pyrite +

bornite + gersdorffite + sperrylite + PGE alloys + polarite + PGE tellurides, arsenides, and
antimonides.

Texture/Structure Lenses, layers of massive, matrix, and disseminated sulfide.

Alteration None related to ore.

-- Ore Controls External source of sulfur; sulfides form persistent basal layers to intrusion and
dike-like bodies into country rock; and form in fault-bounded depressions.

Geochemical Signature Ni/Cu = 1.5 to 0.5, Co/Ni = 1/16; Pt/(Pd/Ni) = 1/500

EXAMPLES
Noril'sk, USSR (Krauss and Schmidt, 1979)

17
Model 6a

DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF KOMATIITIC Ni-Cu

By Norman J Page

DESCRIPTION Lenticular, irregular elongate to tabular, pipelike Ni-Cu sulfides associated with
komatiitic volcanic extrusive rocks (see fig. 6).

GENERAL REFERENCE Arndt and Nisbet (1982).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Dunite, pyroxenite, peridotite, basalt, komatiites, komatiitic basalts. Rocks contain
more than 15 percent and may approach 40 percent MgO.

Textures Bladed olivine or pyroxene with skeletal appearance in random or parallel orientations;
spinifex textures, fracture or joint patterns that resemble pillows.

Age Range Archean or Proterozoic generally, but some may be Cretaceous or Tertiary.

Depositional Environment Mafic to felsic rock sequences with numerous volcanic events.

Tectonic Setting(s) Greenstone belts.

Associated Deposit Types Dunitic Ni.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Pyrite + pyrrhotite + chalcopyrite + pentlandite, by-product PGE.

Texture/Structure Sulfide contents vary from base to top of deposit. Base contains massive
sulfide grading into net-textured or matrix sulfide into disseminated sulfide.

Alteration None related to ore.

Ore Controls In lowermost flows more than 10 m thick; in zones of increased spinifex development;
and near feeder areas for the flows. Orebodies show evidence of active faulting at the time the
flows were deposited and have thickening and thinning of flows along strike. Ore occurs in
irregularities at bottom of flows. Unit contains greater than 1,000 ppm sulfur or is associated
with sulfide-bearing chert and argillite. Shale or iron carbonate sequences occur below flows.

Weathering Develop gossans, laterites.

Geochemical Signature High Mg, Ni, Cu, Mg, PGE. Gossans contain 15 to 30 ppb Pd and 5 to 10 ppb
Ir over known Ni-Cu deposits where Cu and Ni are leached out of the gossan.

EXAMPLES
Kambalda, AUWA (Gresham and Loftus-Hills, 1981)
Damba, ZIMB (Williams, 1979)
Langmuir, CNON (Green and Naldrett, 1981)

GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF KOMATIITIC Ni-Cu

By Donald A. Singer, Norman J Page, and W. David Menzie

COMMENTS Nickel grade is correlated with tonnage (r = -0.47) and with copper grade
(r = 0.59, n = 21). Au, Ir, Pt, and Pd grades are based on reported analyses of samples from the
deposits. See figs. 7-10.

~
I

18
 Model 6a--Con.

DEPOSITS
~')
Name Country Name Country

Carnilya E. AUWA Munda AUWA

Carnilya Hill AUWA Nepean AUWA
Damba ZIMB Perseverance ZIMB
Epoch ZIMB Rankin Inlet CNNT
E. Scotia AUWA Red ross AUWA
Hitura FNLD Scotia AUWA
Hunters Road ZIMB Selukwe ZIMB
Kambalda AUWA Shang ani ZIMB
Kotalahti FNLD Sothman Twp. CNON
Langmuir 1 CNON Spargoville AUWA
Langmuir 2 CNON S. Windarra AUWA
Marbridge CNQU Textmont CNON
McWatters CNON Trojan ZIMB
Miriam AUWA Wannaway AUWA
Mt. Edwards AUWA Wigie 3 AUWA
Mt. Windarra AUWA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........
. Alluvium

1000 m " Paleo faults " active during Feeder area

early phase of komatiite extrusion

EXPLANATION

Thin komatiite 1lows with

Graywacke and shale
spinifex texture

Banded iron-formation,
Tholeiitic basalt
chert, sulfide-rich sediments

Komatiitic basalt

Fi8Ure 6. Cartoon cross section of typical komatiitic volcanic sedimentary

sequence showing ore controls of komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits. Modified from
Marston and others (1981).

19
Model 6a--Con.

KOMATIITE NICKEL-COPPER

1.0

n = 31

0.9

0.8

0.7

(/)
1-
U5
0 0.6
0...
w
0
LL
0 0.5
z
0
i=
a: 0.4
0
0...
0
a:
0...
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0063 6300

MILLION TONNES

Figure 7. Tonnages of komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits.

20
 Model 6a--Con.

KOMATIITE NICKEL--COPPER

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

(/)
f-
ii5
0 0.6
a..
w
0
u..
0 0.5
z
0
i=
a: 0.4
0
a..
0
a:
a..
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.032 0.056 10

A NICKEL GRADE IN PERCENT

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.00.01 100

B\ GOLD GRADE IN GRAMS PER TONNE

Figure 8. Nickel and gold grades of komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits. A,

Nickel. B, Gold.

21
Model 6a--Con.

KOMATIITIC NICKEL--COPPER

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

A. PALLADIUM GRADE IN PARTS PER BILLION

(j)
I- 0.3
U5
0
0..
w
0
0.2
l.L
0
z
0
i= 0.1
a:
0
0..
0
a: 0.0
1,000
0..

B. IRIDIUM GRADE IN PARTS PER BILLION

::t : : : : : : 05;~:
1

c.
2 4 8 16 32 63 130 250 500
I
1,000

PLATINUM GRADE IN PARTS PER BILLION

Figure 9. PGE grades of komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits. !, Palladium.

~, Iridium. ~, Platinum.

22
 Model 6a--Con.

~'l

KOMATIITIC NICKEL--COPPER
Cf)
I- 0.3
U5
0 0
a..
UJ
0
0.2
LL
0
z
Q
I- 0.1
a:
0
a..
0
a: 0.0
a.. 0.01 1.0

A. COBALT GRADE IN PERCENT

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

Cf)
I-
U5
0 0.6
a..
UJ
0
LL
0 0.5
z
0
"""'' ~
~ a:
0
a..
0.4

0
a:
a..
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.032 10.0

B~ COPPER GRADE IN PERCENT

Figure 10. Base-metal grades among komatiitic Ni-Cu deposits. ~'

Cobalt. !!_, Copper.

23
Model 6b

DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF DUNITIC Ni-Cu

By Norman J Page

DESCRIPTION Disseminated sulfide mineralization in intrusive dunites.

GENERAL REFERENCE Marston and others (1981); Ross and Travis (1981).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Dunite, olivine peridotite in subconcordant lenses 500-1,000 m long, 50-100m thick.

Textures Dunite; coarse-grained (2-20 mm) subequant olivine (Fo 87 _9?) interlocked to give
polygonal to mosaic texture; olivine peridotite; ovate olivine with lntercumulus pyroxene, sulfide
and oxide minerals.

Age Range Precambrian.

Depositional Environment Intruded into contacts between clastic sedimentary and felsic volcanic
rocks and mafic to ultramafic volcanic rocks.

Tectonic Setting(s) Greenstone belts.

Associated Deposit Types Komatiitic Ni, synorogenic-synvolcanic-Ni talc-carbonate Ni-Au, layered

sedimentary Ni.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy High grade (1-9 percent Ni): pyrrhotite+ pentlandite +magnetite+ pyrite+
chalcopyrite+ chromite. Low grade (0.4-1 percent Ni): the same minerals± millerite±
heazlewoodite ± godlevskite ± polydymite ± vaesite ± awaruite ± bravoite ± cobaltite ±
nickeliferous linnaeite ± cubanite ± Fe-Ni arsenides. ~
I

Texture/Structure Lenticular shoots of massive, matrix, and breccia ores are fine to medium
grained, also occurs as interstitial films. Ol~~~ne ~s commonly rounded when sulfide is present.

Alteration Prograde and retrograde serpentinization after deposition; usually metamorphosed.

Ore Controls Dunitic lenses close to major strike-slip faults and at high stratigraphic position
in volcanic pile; most Ni-rich ores concentrated at one margin, perhaps at base of intrusion.

Weathering Lateritic zones may be enriched in PGE.

Geochemical Signature Ni, Cu, PGE, Cr, Co, Mg. Ni/Cu = 19-70+, Ni/Co:30-70. Massive sulfide ores
6-9 percent Ni, disseminated ores up to 3 percent Ni.

EXAMPLES
Agnew (Perseverance), AUWA (Martin and Allchurch, 1975)
Mt. Keith, AUWA (Burt and Sheppy, 1975)

GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF DUNITIC Ni-Cu

By Donald A. Singer and Norman J Page

COMMENTS Nickel grade is correlated with tonnage (r = -0.54) and

copper grade (r = 0.84, n = 12). Ir, Pd, Au, and Co grades are based on reported analyses of
samples from the deposits. See fig. 11-14.

24
 Model 6b--Con.

DEPOSITS
'"')
Name Country Name Country

Agnew (Perserverance) AUWA Honeymoon Well AUWA

Amax CNMN Manibridge CNMN
Birch Tree CNMN Moak CNMN
Black Swan AUWA Mt. Keith AUWA
Bowden Lake CNMN Mystery Lake CNMN
Bucko CNMN Pipe CNMN
Discovery CNMN Six Mile AUWA
Dumont CNQU Soab N. CNMN
Forrestania Group AUWA Soab S. CNMN
Geol. Reser. No. 34 CNMN Thompson CNMN
Ham bone CNMN Weebo Bore AUWA

25
Model 6b--Con.

DUNITIC NICKEL--COPPER

1.0

0 n = 22

0.9

0.8

0.7

Cf)
1-
(i)
0 0.6
c...
w
0
lL
0 0.5
z
0
f=
a: 0.4
0
c...
0
a:
c...
0.3

0.2

0.1

Figure 11. Tonnages of dunitic Ni-Cu 0.0

0.1
deposits.
MILLION TONNES

DUNITIC NICKEL--COPPER

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

Cf)
1-
(i)
0 0.6
c...
w
0
lL
0 0.5
z
0
f=
a: 0.4
0
c...
0
a:
c...
0.3

0.2

0.1

Figure 12. Nickel grades of dunitic Ni-Cu 0.0

0.032 10
deposits.
NICKEL GRADE IN PERCENT ,
I

26
 DUNITIC NICKEL--COPPER
0.9
Model 6b--Con.

~,,

~
0.8

0.7

(/)
1-
U5
0 0.6
a...
w
0
lL
0 0.5
z
0
f=
a: 0.4
0
a...
0
a:
a...
0.3

0.2
0

0.1

0.0
1

A. IRIDIUM GRADE IN PARTS PER BILLION

0.3

0
0.2

0.1

Figure 13. PGE grades of dunitic Ni-Cu

0.0
1000 deposits. ~' Iridium. ~' Palladium.
B. PALLADIUM GRADE IN PARTS PER BILLION

DUNITIC NICKEL--COPPER

0.3

0 n = 22
0.2

0.1

0.0
0.01 100

~
A. GOLD GRADE IN GRAMS PER TONNE
U5

LJ ~:
0
0

Q 0.01 O.Q16 0.025

:
0.04
:
0.063
:
0.1
:
0.16
:
0.25
:
0.4
:
0.63
I
1.0
a...
0 B. COBALT GRADE IN PERCENT
a:
a...
0.3
0

Figure 14. By-product grades of dunitic

Ni-Cu deposits. !_, Gold. ~' Cobalt • .£,
Copper.
C. COPPER GRADE IN PERCENT 27
Model 7a

DESCRIPTIVE HODEL OF SYNOROGENIC-SYNVOLCANIC Ni-Cu

By Norman J Page

APPROXIMATE SYNONYMS Gabbroid class (Ross and Travis, 1981), gabbroid associated (Marston and
others, 1981).

DESCRIPTION Massive lenses, matrix and disseminated sulfide in small to medium sized gabbroic
intrusions in greenstone belts.

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Norite, gabbro-norite, pyroxenite, peridotite, troctolite, and anorthosite forming
layered or composite igneous complexes.

Textures Phase and cryptic layering sometimes present, rocks usually cumulates.

Age Range Archean to Tertiary, predominantly Archean and Proterozoic.

Depositional Environment Intruded synvolcanically or during orogenic development of a metamorphic

terrane containing volcanic and sedimentary rocks.

Tectonic Setting(s) Metamorphic belts, greenstone belts, mobile belts.

Associated Deposit Types Komatiitic Ni-Cu, dunitic Ni-Cu, talc-carbonate Ni-Au (no model
available).

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Pyrrhotite + pentlandite + chalcopyrite ± pyrite ± Ti-magnetite ± Cr-magnetite ±

graphite--by-product Co and PGE.

Texture/Structure Predominantly disseminated sulfides; commonly highly deformed and metamorphosed

so primary textures and mineralogy have been altered. Deformation about the same age as the
deposit.

Ore Control Sulfides commonly are in the more ultramafic parts of the complex and near the basal
contacts of the intrusion.

Weathering Lateritic.

Geochemical Signature Ni, Cu, Co, PGE.

EXAMPLES
Sally Malay, AUWA (Thornett, 1981)
Rana, NRWY (Boyd and Mathiesen, 1979)
Moxie pluton, USMA (Thompson and Naldrett, 1984)

GRADE AND TONNAGE HODEL OF SYNOROGENIC-SYNVOLCANIC Ni-Cu

By Donald A. Singer, Norman J Page, and W. David Menzie

COMMENTS Pd, Pt, Au, and Co grades are based on reported analyses of samples from the deposits.
See figs. 15-18.

DEPOSITS

Name Country Name Country

Bamble NRWY Funter Bay USAK

Carr Boyd AUWA Gap USPA
Empress ZIMB Giant Mascot CNBC
Flaat NRWY Hosanger NRWY

28
 Model 7a--Con.

Kenbridge CNON Phoenix BOTS

~') Kylmakoski FNLD Pikwe BOTS
Lainijaur SWDN Renzy CNQU
Lappuattnet SWDN Risliden SWDN
Laukunkawges FNLD Selebi BOTS
Lorraine CNQU Selebi N. BOTS
Lynn Lake CNMN Selkirk BOTS
Madziwa ZIMB Tekwane BOTS
Makela FNLD Thierry CNON
Mjodvattnet SWDN Vakkerlien NRWY
Montcalm CNON Vammala FNLD
Mt. Sholl AUWA Yakobi Island USAK

SYNOROGENIC--SYNVOLCANIC NICKEL--COPPER

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

(/)
I-
U5
0 0.6
11..
w
0
LL
0 0.5
..,,_
z
0
f=
a: 0.4
0
11..
0
a:
11..
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0063 6300

MILLION TONNES

Figure 15. Tonnages of synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu deposits.

29
Model ?a--Con.
SYNOROGENIC--SYNVOLCANIC NICKEL--COPPER

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

(J)
f-
Ui
0 0.6
(L
w
0
LL
0 0.5
z
0
f=
a: 0.4
0
(L
0
a:
(L
0.3

0.2

0.1

Figure 16. Nickel grades of synorogenic- 0.0

0.032
synvolcanic Ni-Cu deposits.
NICKEL GRADE IN PERCENT

SYNOROGENIC--SYNVOLCANIC NICKEL--COPPER

1.0

n = 32

0.9

0.8

0.7

(J)
f-
Ui
0 0.6
(L
w
0
LL
0 0.5
z
0
f=
a: 0.4
0(L
0
a:
(L
0.3

Figure 17. Copper grades of synorogenic-

synvolcanic Ni-Cu deposits.
COPPER GRADE IN PERCENT

30
 Model ?a--Con.

SYNOROGENIC--SYNVOLCANIC NICKEL--COPPER

::t t;
0.01

A.
0.016 0.025
:
0.04
0 :
0.063
;
0.1

COBALT GRADE IN PERCENT

:
0.16
:
0.25
:
0.4
""'"
0.63
I
1.0

(/)
1-
U)
0
a..
w
0
LL
0
:J ],;
0.01

B.
0.025 0.063
0
: 0:
0.16 0.4
:
1.0

GOLD GRADE IN PARTS PER MILLION

:
2.5
:
6.3
:
16
:
40
I
100

z
0
i=

~ ::t : : : : : or:~ : :
1

c.
2 4 8 16 32 63

PALLADIUM GRADE IN PARTS PER BILLION

130 250 500
I
1000

::t : : : to :
D.
2 4 8 16 32
0 :
63

PLATINUM GRADE IN PARTS PER BILLION

:
130
:
250
:
500
I
1000

Figure 18. By-product grades of synorogenic-synvolcanic Ni-Cu

deposits. !_, Cobalt. ]!, Gold • .f, Palladium • .Q, Platinum.

31
Model 7b

DESCRIPTIVE HODEL OF ANORTHOSITE Ti

By Eric R. Force

DESCRIPTION Ilmenite (and rutile) deposits in granulite metamorphic terranes intruded by

anorthosite-ferrodiorite-clan plutons. Two subsets (1 and 2) distinguished below (see fig. 19).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types (1) Andesine anorthosite massifs in granulite-facies country rocks (associated
mineralization includes rutile if andesine is antiperthitic).
(2) Ferrodiorite-type intrusive rocks (gabbro, charnockite, jutunite) generally
younger than anorthosite, with associated ilmenite ± apatite mineralization.

Textures Granulation in anorthosite, quartz platy and blue where present.

Age Range Most, and perhaps all, between 900 and 1,500 m.y. in age.

Depositional Environment Lower crust, intrusion under hot, dry conditions.

Tectonic Setting(s) Not well known.

Associated Deposit Types None known.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy: (1) Ilmenite ± rutile

(2) Ilmenite ± apatite
Deposit value is much greater if intergrown magnetite and ulvospinel are absent.

Texture/Structure (1) Disseminations to veinlets along anorthosite margins, hosted by both impure
anorthosite and adjacent country rock.
(2) Both concordant layers within or at base of ferrodiorite-clan sheets, and vein-
like massive bodies in underlying structural units (especially anorthosite).

Alteration None related to ore.

Ore Controls (1) High-temperature metasomatism between Ti-Fe oxides-rich country rock, and
anorthosite, coupled with unknown processes in anorthosite magma. Especially concentrated in
swarms of anorthosite sills.
(2) Immiscible Ti, P liquid in ferrodioritic magma, forming both cumulate-like
bodies and fracture fillings.

Weathering Residual enrichment may occur in weathering zone.

Geochemical and Geophysical Signature (2) High Ti, P, and Zr. Magnetic anomalies.

EXAMPLES
( 1) Roseland, USVA (Herz and Force, 1984)
Pluma Hidalgo, MXCO (Paulson, 1964)
(2) Roseland, USVA (Herz and Force, 1984)
Sanford Lake, USNY (Gross, S. 0., 1968)
Laramie Range, USWY (Eberle and Atkinson, 1983)

32
 Model 7b--Con.

100 to 1000 m
Ferrodiorite

Andesine anorthosite

EXPLANATION

Massive ilmenite-apatite

Granulite -facies country rock

R, Disseminated rutile
I, Disseminated ilmenite

Figure 19. Cartoon cross section of a typical anorthosite

ferrodiorite intrusionshowing relation between different
forms of Ti concentrations.

33
Model 8a

DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF PODIFORM CHROMITE

By John P. Albers

APPROXIMATE SYNONYM Alpine type chromite (Thayer, 1964).

DESCRIPTION Podlike masses of chromitite in ultramafic parts of ophiolite

complexes (see fig. 20).

GENERAL REFERENCE Dickey (1975).

GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Rock Types Highly deformed dunite and harzburgite of ophiolite complexes;

commonly serpentinized.

Textures Nodular, orbicular, gneissic, cumulate, pull-apart; most relict

textures are modified or destroyed by flowage at magmatic temperatures.

Age Range Phanerozoic.

Depositional Environment Lower part of oceanic lithosphere.

Tectonic Setting(s) Magmatic cumulates in elongate magma pockets along spreading plate
boundaries. Subsequently exposed in accreted terranes as part of ophiolite assemblage.

Associated Deposit Types Limassol Forest Co-Ni-S-As.

DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION

Mineralogy Chromite ± ferrichromite ± magnetite ± Ru-Os-Ir alloys ± laurite.

Texture/Structure Massive coarse-grained to finely disseminated.

Alteration None related to ore.

Ore Controls Restricted to dunite bodies in tectonized harzburgite or lower portions of ultramafic
cumulate (see fig. 99).

Weathering Highly resistant to weathering and oxidation.

Geochemical Signature None recognized.

EXAMPLES
High Plateau, Del Norte Cty, USCA (Wells and others, 1946)
Coto Mine, Luzon, PLPN (LeBlanc and Violette, 1983)

GRADE AND TONNAGE HODEL OF MINOR PODIFORM CHROMITE

By Donald A. Singer and Norman J Page

DATA REFERENCES Singer and others (1980); Calkins and others (1978); Carlson and others (1985).

COMMENTS All deposits in this grade-tonnage compilation are from California and Oregon. The two
largest tonnage deposits are actually districts rather than individual deposits. The majority of
the grades represent shipping grades. Grades less than 35 percent typically represent in-place
"ore". The mixture of shipping grades and in-place grades may explain the significant negative
correlation (r = -0.25) between grade and tonnage. Rh, Ir, Ru, Pd, and Pt grades are based on
reported analyses of samples from the deposits. Unreported PGE grades are probably similar to
those presented here. Rhodium is correlated with chromite (r = 0.35,
n = 69), platinum (r= 0.69, n = 31), iridium (r = 0.47, n = 35), ruthenium (r = 0.56, n = 28).
Ruthenium is correlated with palladium (r = 0.72, n = 21) and iridium (r = 0.59, n = 29). See
figs. 21-23. ~

34