U. S.

DEPARfME NT OF THE INTErtiOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Industria l Minerals Deposit Models:

Grade and tonnage models

edited by
G.J. Orris and J.D. Bliss

Open-File Report
92-437

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with
U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American
Stratigraph ic Code. Any use of trade. product or firm names is for
descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorseme nt by the U.S. .
Governmen t.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction .1
Grade and tonnage model of serpentinehosted asbestos (8d) ..2
Grade, tonnage, and deposit-specific model of
diamond kimberlite pipes (12) 5
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of lithium
pegmatites (13b) 11
Contained material model of feldspar in
pegmatites (13e) 14
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of quartz
veins and pegmatites (13g) .17
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of wollastonite
skarns (18g) 20
Grade and tonnage model of amorphous
graphite (18k) 23
Grade and tonnage model of fumarolic sulfur (25m) .26
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of fluorite
veins (26b) ..29
Preliminary grade and tonnge model of barite
veins (27e) ..32
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of
sandstone/quartzite silica (30e) 35

Grade and tonnage model of bedded barite (31b) ...40

Preliminary contained material model of
sedimentary kaolin (31k) 43
Preliminary contained material model of
limestone (32g) ..45
Preliminary grade and tonnage
model of bedded celestite (35a.1) ..47
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of
potash-bearing bedded salt (35a.2) 50
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of marine
bedded gypsum (35a.5) 53
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of
lacustrine borates d(35b.3) .56
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of lacustrine
gypsum (35b.9) ..60
Preliminary solute model of sodium carbonate
brines (35b.21) ...63
Grade and tonnage model of disseminated flake
graphite (37f) ..67
Preliminary contained material model of residual
kaolin (38h) ....71
Grade, volume, and deposit-specific models
of diamond placers (39d) .73
Preliminary grade and tonnage model of
silica sand (39I) .78

References 81
Appendix A: Country Codes 82

INTRODUCT ION
This report consists ofa series of grade, tonnage, and other depositspecific models for industrial minerals similar to those found in U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Bulletin 1693 (Cox and Singer,1986) ; Most of
these models are new, others are updates of models originally .published .
in Cox and Singer (1986), and three of the models have been preViously
published in non-USGS publications and are included here for the
convenience of model users. Correlations between grades anq tonnages_
are reporte.d .only when they are Significant at the 5 percent level.
Country codes for the deposits listed in this report may be found in
AppendiX A. Model numbers refer to the classification system used by
Cox and Singer (1986) and modified by Orris and Bliss (1991) . ..
Descriptive models for most of the quantitative models in .this report can
be found in Orris and Bliss (1991) or in Cox and Singer (1986).
The user should be also be aware of the following items: .
Deposits, except for diamond placers, were not grouped by the
authors using distance rules such as those used to model
polymetallic veins (Bliss and Cox, 1986) or low-sulfide Au-quartz
veins (Bliss, 1986}. However, some deposits as reported ate
probably composed of multiple bodies of mineralization .
The grade distributions for barite veins, sandstone-qua rtzite
silica, bedded bartte, silica sand, martne bedded gypsum, and
bedded cefestite exhibit extreme economic bias towards high
grades. .
.
.
.
.
.

The grade distributions of wollastonite, potash in bedded salt,

lacustrine gypsum, and lacustrine borates are normal.
For several deposit types, grades and ore tonnages were not
available, but contained material figures were used to construct
models.

"'
.

In all cases, all known production and re&erves were used to .

estimate deposit size, but the user should be aware that marty
industrial mineral deposits are never formally evaluated for
reserves (reserve .figures are geologic estimates and not drilled .
ore bodies) artd production figures may be incomplete.
For some deposits, the exact physical nature of a deposit is not
known. Some deposits may be single lenses or veins: others
could be groups of lenses or veins within a single stratigraphic
> .
horizon or host rock.

..
Some deposit types such as different types of pegmatites,
skarns, and brines may be as reflective of economic divisions as
geologic differences.

Model8d
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF
SERPENTINE-HOSTED ASBESTOS
By G.J. Orris
An earlier version of this model was published by Orris (1986a). Deposits

in this model are single deposits composed of stockworks of chrysotile

asbestos. Grade is reported as percent of asbestos fibers with no
distinction made between cross and slip fibers. There is no significant
correlation between grade and tonnage in this model. See figs: 1. 2.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Name

Country

Abitibi
Advocate
Asbestos Hill
Asbestos Island
Baryulgil
Be11 Mine
Belvidere
Bird-Ginn (Matheson)
Black Lake
British Canadian
Caley
Carey/East Broughton
CanaBrava
Cassiar Mine
Clinton Creek
Coalinga
Continental
Copperopolis
Courvan
Cranboume
Daffodil
Eagle
Gilmont
Golden Age
Havelock Mine
Hedman
Ingessana Hills
Jeffrey
King-Beaver Mine
Kinlock
Kolubara-Azbet
Kudu Asbestos Mine

CNQU
CNNF
CNQU
CNQU
AUNS
CNQU
USVT
CNON
CNQU
CNQU
CNIT
CNQU
BRZL
CNBC
CNYT
USCA
CNQU
USCA
CNQU
CNQU
CNON
USAK
CMQU
CMQU
SWAZ
CNON
SUDN
CNQU
CNQU
SAFR

Kwangchon
Lake Asbestos
Las Brtsas
Lili
Lewis Brook
Loghar
Maizerets
McAdam
McDame
Midlothian
Moladezhnoye
Morro Dois Irmaos
Msauli
Munro
National
Nicolet Asbestos
Normandie/Penhale
Pontbriand
Qala-el-Nahl
Reeves
Rex
Roberge Lake
St. Adrien Mtn.
St. Cyr
Santiago Papalo
Sayan
Shihmien
Steele Brook
Tuolumne
Windsor
Woodsreef Mine
Zidani

SKOR
CNQU
ClBA
CNQU
CNNF
AFGH
CNQU
CNQU
CNBc
CNON
USSR
BRZL
SAFR
CNON
CNQU
CNQU
CNQU
CNQU
SUDN
CNON
CNYT
CNQU
CNQU
CNQU
MX.CO
USSR
CINA
CNQU
USCA
CNQU
AUNS
GREC

YUGO

ZIMB
2

Serpentine-hosted Asbestos

0.7

C/)

0
c..
r;q

0.6

Q
~

0.5

0.4

0
c..

c..

0.3

0.0~--~~--~-----L-----L----~----~--~~--~~--_.~~~

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

400

MILLION TONNES

Figure 1. Tonnage model for serpentine-hosted asbestos.

1,600

Serpentine- hosted Asbestos

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

CJ)

0
0..
r:tl

0.6

.;,o.s

z
0

0.4

0..

0..

0.3

0.2

0.1
0.0~--~~--_.----~--~~----~--~--~~--~~----~0--~
0.01
0.16
0.063
0.025
0.4
1.0
2.5
6.3
16
40
100

ASBESTOS GRADE IN PERCENT

Figure 2 . Grade model for serpentine-hos ted asbestos.

Model 12
GRADE, TONNAGE, AND DEPOSIT-SP ECIFIC MODELS
OF DIAMOND KIMBERLITE PIPES
By James D. Bliss
COMMENT: In addition to size and grade, average carat size and
percentage of diamonds of industrial grade are needed to characterized
diamond kimberlite pipes. Also included is a target-area model of
outcrop areas. Classification of kimberlite pipes and kimberlite dikes is
not always clear and one or more diamond kimberlite dikes may have
been included. Data sets are rarely complete and resulted in various
number of deposits used in each model. Percentage of industrial
diamonds was not used from the Letlhankane and Jwaneng pipes. Both
are outliers on a scatter plot of diamond grade and percentage of
industrial diamonds. There is no significant correlation between grade
and tonnage. There is significant correlation between largest diamond
size and tonnage (r=0.82, n=10), and between outcrop area and tonnage
(r=O. 74, n~18). See figs.3-7.
DEPOSITS
Name
Bultfontein
De Beers
Dokolwayo
Dutoitspan
Finsch
Frank Smith
J agersfontein
Jwaneng
Kamfersdam
Kimberley
Koffiefon tein .
Letlhankane (DKl)
Letlhankane (DK2)

Country
SAFR
SAFR

Name
Letseng-La-Te rai
Majhgawan
Mir
Monastery
Mwadwi (W1lliamson)
Orapa
Premier
Sloan 1 & 2
Udatchnaya
Venetia
Victory No. 1
Wesselton
Zarnitsa

SWAZ
SAFR
SAFR
SAFR
SAFR

BOTS
SAFR
.SAFR
SAFR

BOTS
BOTS

Counby
LSTO
INDA
USSR
SAFR
TNZN
BOTS
SAFR

usco

USSR
SAFR
CINA
SAFR
USSR

DIAMOND KIMBERLITE PIPES

n

20

0.8

C/)

0.7

0..

ril

0.6

0.5

0..

~
0..

0.4

0.3

----._----~--~----~----~~--~--~~--_.--~~--~
o .o~
100
1,600
1.6
400
0.4
6.3
0.1
0.0063 . 0.025
25
0.0016

MILLION METRIC TONS

Figure 3 . Tonnage model of diamond kimberlite pipes.

DIAMON D KIMBER LITE PIPES

1.0

n .. 20

0.8

. ~
(j)

0.7

0.6

C:r.c

z
0

0.5

0.4

~ll.t

0.3

o .o~--~~~~----._-4~----~--~~--~--~~----~--

0.032

0.056

0.1

0.18

0.32

0.56

1.0

1.8

3.2

DIAMOND GRADE IN CARATS PER METRIC TON

Figure 4. Model of diamond grade distribut ion

in diamond kimberlit e pipes.

5.6

10.0 .

DIAMOND KIMBERLITE PIPES

0

~rJ)
0
c.c
r.l
0

n - . 24

0.7

0.6

0.5

0
c.c
0

0.4

0.3

0 . 0~--~----~----~--~----~~--~~~--~~----~--~
0.0063 0.025
0.0016
0.1
0.4
1.6
6.3
100
25
400
1,600

OUTCROP AREA (ha)

Figure 5. Model of outcrop areas of diamond

kimberlite pipes.

DIAMOND KIMBERLITE PIPES

1.0

n-

12

0.9

0.8

0.7

Cf)

~
f:rl

0.6

0.5

0.4

0..

@
0..

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 .0 L..----L--.....1....---1---'-----IL--.....I.. ..---L-..1---'---'----'--...,....J
10
0
20
30
40
60
50
70
80
. 100
90

PERCENTAGE OF INDUSTRIAL DIAMONDS

Figure 6 . Model of the percentage of industrial

diamonds in diamond kimberlite pipes .
i_

DIAMOND KIMBERLITE PIPES

n ,.. 9

. :0.8
0

0.7
0

(/')

.0-t
C:z:l
0
,,

0.6

Cz.c

0.5

0.4

~
Cl.

0.3

a:

0.0081

0.07
0.04

0.1

0.25

0 .63

1.6

'

AVERAGE DIAMOND SIZE IN CARATS

Figure 7. Model of average diamond size.

10

4.0

10.

Model l3b
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF LITHIUM PEGMATITES
By J.D. Bliss and G.J. Onis

v-

The grades and tonnages in this model are for the distribution of lithium
minerals, especially spodumene, in pegmatites. Other commodities,
commonly from other zones of the pegmatite may also be of economic
interest. The deposits are composed of single pegmatites or groups of
closely spaced pegmatites. There is no significant correlation between
grade and tonnage in this model. See figs. 8, 9.
DEPOSITS
Name

Counby .

Ann (Ann Dyke)

Assinica Lake
Aumacho
Authier
Bernie Lake
Bet (Best Bet)
Big (Murphy~ UM)
BIN (LI)
Bouvier
Buck/Coe
Buckham Lake
Conway
Duwl
Eagle
Elk
Fl (J.M., Lit)
Georgia Lake
Goldreef
HID (lita)
lnternatlonal _Lithium
Irgon
Jake
.jarnanak
Jean Lake
Jim (Greg, Ben)
KI (Hidden Lake)
Kings .Mountain
Lac La Croix
Lens
Lit (Green Bay)

CNNT
CNQU
CNON
CNQU
CNMN
CNNT
CNNT
CNNT
CNQU
CNMN
CNNT
CNON
CNQU
CNMN
CNNT
CNNT
CNON
CNMN
CNNT
CNQU
CNMN
CNNT
AFGH
CNON
CNNT
CNNT
USNC
CNON
CNNT
CNMN

11

Name
Lower Pasghushta
Lucy (Lucy No. 1)
Lun-Echo (Mavis Lake)
MAC (McDonald)
Manono
McVittie
Mount Marion
MUT (J.S.J.-2)
Nama
Nite (LI)
Obok-tong
Ontario Lithium
Paint
Pasghushta
Paskhi
Pidlite Dike
Quebec Lithium
Root Lake (McCombe)
Sao Jose da Safira
Shamakit
Spot
Taghawlor
-Tanyang
Thor (Echo, Tanco)
Tsangal
. Vegan
Violet
VO (Cota)
Wisa Lake
Yaryhgul

Countiy
AFGH
CNMN
CNON
CNNT
ZIRE
CNON
AUWA
CNNT
CNON
CNNT
SKOR .
CNON
CNNT
AFGH
AFGH
USNM
CNQU
CNON
BRZL .
AFGH
CNMN
AFGH
SKOR
CNNT
AFGH
CNON
CNMN
CNNT
CNON

AFGH

Lithium in Pegmatites

~C/l

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.0 ~--~~------._~----~--~~----~----~----~----~----~
1,600
400
100
25
6.3
1.6
0.4
0.1
O.Cl063 0.025
0.0016

MILLION TONNES

Figure 8. Tonnage model for lithium pegmatites.

12

Lithium in Pegmatites
1.0

0.7

(/'J

0
0-c
ril

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

GRADE IN PERCENT Li20

Figure 9. Grade model for lithium pegmatites.

13

Model13e
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF FELDSPAR IN
PEGMATITES
.By J.D. BUss and G.J. Orris

This model shows the contained feldspar within pegmatites. This

distribution represents those pegmatltes that have been worked by hand
or could be worked by hand. Other commodities, commonly from other
zones of the pegmatite, may also be of economic interest. See fig. I 0.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Ambeau
CNOT
Besner
CNOT
Big Boulder
usco
Bobs Lake
CNOT
Botelhos
BRZL
Brignall
CNOT
Burnham
CNOT
C.F. McQuire
CNOT
Cameron
CNOT
Cameron & Aleck
CNOT
Canadian
CNOT
Canadian Bexyllium
CNOT
Card
CNOT
Carey
CNOT
BRZL
Caruaru
Causeway
CNOT
Charles
CNOT
Christie Township
CNOT
Clora May
usco
Conger
CNOT
Consolidated Feldspar CNOT
Craig
CNOT
usco
Crystal No. 8
Cubar
CNOT
Devil's Hole
usco
Dryden Township
CNOT
Elizabeth
CNOT
Equador
BRZL
Eureka
CNOT
F. Raymond
CNOT
Federal
CNOT
Feldspar Quarries
CNOT
Five Mile
CNOT

14

Name

Country

Foxton
Friction
Furlong
Gardner
Genesee No. 2
Gleason-Campbell
Gole
Gunter
Hickey
Holmes
Hop pins
Imperial
Jenkins
Keays
Keyfortmore
Kirkham
Loughrin Township
MacDonald
Magnetawan
Mahoney & Morin
Martin
Mattawa
McQuire & Robinson
Me ndels
Mink Lake
Morin & Neault
Mt Pleasant
Muqul
Nepawassi Lake
Norrero
O'Brien & Fowler
(Calvin Township)

CNOT
USAZ
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
BRZL
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT

"

.
,~

Name
O'Brien & Fowler
(March Township)
O'Brien & Fowler
. (Mattawan Township)
Ojaipee
Orser
Orser-Kraf t
Outpost
Patterson
Perth
Prince & Prince
Purdy
Purdy Mica
Reeves
Reynolds
Rock Lake
Rosemont

Countty
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
USAZ
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT

usco

15

Name
Rowe;s N orth Mine
. Silver Queen
T.H. Craig
Thompson
Tough
Truelove
W.B. Cameron
W.J. Barr
Wanup (Davis
Township)
Wanup (Dill Township)
Watson No. 2 & 3
Wheeling
Wilson
Winnipeg
Woodcox
Woods

Countiy

usco
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT
CNOT

Feldspar in Pegmatites

0.8
~

~
en

0.7

0..
~

0.6

0.5

0.4

p.. .

o
0:::

0..

0.3

O .OL---~----~~--~--~~--_.~--~~--~--~----~--~

0.006

0.02

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

400

1600

TiiOUSAND TONNES

Figure 10. Contained tonnage model of feldspar in pegmatites.

16

6300

Model 13g
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODELS OF QUARTZ VEINS
By G.J. Orris

The quartz in this model is of interest for its silica content and not for
quartz crystals. The deposits consist of single veins or pegmatltes or
, closely clustered groups of veins. There is no significant correlation
between grade and tonnage in quartz veins and pegmatltes. See figs. 11 . .
12.
DEPOSITS
Name

Countzy

Name

Country

Bahia Kino
Brown
Corral Gulch
Diamond Cove
El Novillo
Freeman Lake
Getberget
Haines . Point
La Scie
Lac Bouchette

MXCO
USMT
USMT
CNNF
USMX
USID
SWDN
USMT
CNNF
CNQU

lahey
langsjokullen
Leu
Mejdasen
Palmyra
Petty Creek
Quartz Creek
Ranaka
Veta Grande
West Beach

USMT
SWDN
USMT
SWDN
USVA
USMT
USMT
BOTS
USNV
CNNB

17

QUARIZVEI N

~
C/)
~
~
~

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.0~--~~--~--.______.~----------~----~--~~--~----~

0.0016 0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

MILLION METRIC TONS

Figure 11. Tonnage model for quartz in veins and

pegmatltes.

18

400

1,600

QUARTZ VEIN
1.0

0.7

C/l

0.6

r:tl

rx.
0

0.5

0.4

0..3

94.
0.0 '--_ ___.__ __.__ _....____
0
10
20
30

__.__ __.__ _....____ __.__ _........__ _..L..--1--....I..Jl

40

50

60

70

80

7
L

GRADE IN PERCENT Si02

90

ss.=.J
99.

Figure 12. Grade model for quartz in veins and

pegmatltes.

19

100

Modell8g
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF WOLLASTONITE SKARNS
By G .J. Orris

There is signjficant correlation between grade and tonnage in this model

(r = - 0 .581). The grade distribution for this model is normal, not
lognormal. See figs. 13, 14.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Name

Country

Deershead
Del oro
Ethiudna
Fox Knoll
Garies
Kimmerica
Lapeenranta
Lewis
Limestone Creek
Lolkidongai
Mannora

USNY
CNON
AUSA
USNY

Mineral Hill
Motueka
Mouth Kopaonik
Mt. Grove
Nakpai
Oak Hill
Puumala
Sandy Bay
San MartinSou th Body
Sechelt

CNBC
NZLD

SAFR

GREC
FNLD
USNY
AUTS
KNYA
CNON

20

YUGO

CNON
USSR
USNY
FNLD
NZLD
MXCO
CNBC

WOLlA STONI TE SKARN

1.0

~(/)
0
c..

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

c..

0.0~--~-----L--~~~--~--~----~~--~---

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

-~--~~--~

100

MILLION TONNE S

Figure 13. Tonnag e model for wollasto nite skarns.

21

400

1,600

WOLLASTONITE SKARN
"1.0

0.9

'.: 0.8

~ 0 .7
rJ)

0
0..
w

0.6

rz..

~- 0.5

0.4

0.1

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

GRADE IN PERCENT WOLLASTONITE

-Figure 14. Grade model for wollastonite skarns.

22

90

100

Model 18k .
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF AMORPHOUS GRAPHITE
By James D. Bliss and David M. Sutphin
COMMENT: Classification of deposits into amorphous and disseminated flake
is not always clear and this may lead to some deposits being misclassifi.ed
(also see disseminated flake graphite) . Amorphous-graphite deposits have
been mined using mechanized and hand methods. In the latter case. the
grade and tonnage reported may be for the hand-sorted ore. This can result
in higher grades and lower tonnages then if the mines were worked
mechanically. The mix of mining methods probably accounts for some of the .
irregularities see in the distribution of data points in the model. See Sutphin
and Bliss (1990) for a comparison between amorphous and disseminated flake
graphite deposit types. See figs. 15, 16.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Name

COuntry

Amakaze

JAPN
JAPN

Mutale
Nippon
Noginskoje
Ohara
Paileng
Sanya-Wolmyong
Shirogahara
Sogung
Takase
Takimoto
Tonic hi
Trabajo y Fe
Tsutsu
Tung Shan
Undereliffe Mountain

SAFR
JAPN
USSR
JAPN
TIWN
SKOR
JAPN
SKOR
JAPN
JAPN
MXCO
MXCO
JAPN
CINA
AUNS

Asahina

Bukovik Mt.
Chinoya
Chubang
Collinsville
East Heilongjiang
Hanaki
Hatakedani
Kaerim
Kanekawa
Kureyka
Kurosawa
Lourdes
Mount Bauple
Mtubatuba

YUGO

JAPN
SKOR
AUQL
CINA
JAPN
JAPN
SKOR
JAPN
USSR
JAPN
MXCO
AUQL
SAFR

23

AMORP HOUS GRAPH ITE

1.0
0

n =31

0.8

0
0
CJ)

0.7

CJ)

0
0...
w.
0

0
0
0

0.6

u..
0

0.5

t-

a:

0...

0.4

a:

0...

0.3

0.0

0
______ ___....._ __.____:-'-_ _.....__ __...__'"'- -_ ___.__ _
__,
0.0063 0.025
0.1
0.4
1.6
6.3
25
100
400
1,600

~-__.

0.0016

HUNDRE D THOUSA ND METRIC TONS

Figure 15. Tonnage model for amorpho us graphite

(modified from Sutphin and Bliss, 1990).

24

AMORPHOU S GRAPHITE
0

~
C/'J

n = 31

0.7

P.,.

til 0.6

0.5

0p.. 0.4

@
p..

0.3

0.0~--~---+~----~----~~~----~----~--~~--~----~

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

CARBON GRADE IN PERCENT'

Figure 16. Grade model for amorphous graphite

(modified from Sutphin and Bliss, 1990) .

25

90

100

Model 25m
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF FUMAROLIC SULFUR
By Keith Long
There is no significant correlation between grade and tonnage in this
model. See figs . 17. 18.
DEPOSITS
Name
Abra de Chutinza
Aucanquilcha
Cerro Bayo
Cerro Orero
Chocosuela I
Chocosuela II
Coquimbo
Crater Group
Dos Conos
El Desierto
El Portal - Cabana
El Tatlo Este
Golovnin
Gongora
Hilda Mary
Huallatlre
Irruputuncu
Ishizu
Juan de la Vega
Julia
Kengtzeping
La Fortuna

Countiy
CILE
CILE
AGTN
AGTN
CORI
CORI
CILE
USCA
AGTN
BLVA
BLVA
CILE
USSR
CORI
AGTN
CILE
CILE
JAPN.
CILE
AGTN
TIWN
CORI

Name
Leviathan
Luz Marina
Ocana
Ocana

Ollague - Santa Rosa

Piedra Parada
Polan
Purace
Rio Grande
Rosario
Rosario del Rey
Saciel
Salar de Azufrera
San Pablo de Napa
Sillayhuay
Sillillica
Tacora
Tahapaca
Takinosawa
Tocarauri
Volcan Overo
Volcan Viejo

26

Country
USNV
BLVA
BLVA
CILE
CILE
CILE
CILE
CLBA
AGTN
CILE
BLVA
CILE
CILE
BLVA
BLVA
CILE
CILE
CILE
JAPN
CILE
AGTN
CORI

Fumarolic Sulfur

0.7

U)

0.6

C:z:l

~ t

0.5

0
~
0

0.4

g:

1.6

6.3

25

100

MILLION TONNES

Figure 17. Tonnage model for fumarolic sulfur.

27

400

1,600

Fumarolic Sulfur

0.7

rJ)

0.6

' 0.5

0.4

~
0..

0.3

GRADE IN PERCENT S

Figure 18. Grade model for fumarolic sulfur.

28

Model26b
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF FLUORITE VEINS.
By G.J. Orris

This model does not include deposits with a significant barite

component. There is no significant correlation between grade and
tonnage in this model. See figs. 19, . 20.
DEPOSITS
Name

Countiy

Name

Counby

Achemeche
Argentelle
Baton-Whangapeka
Buffalo
Canxixe
Chioco-Djanguire
Director Mine
El Hamman
Escarro
Fission (Richardson)
Great Eagle
Hlabisa
Huckleberry Mine
Jebel Semeih

MRCO
FRNC
NZLD

Jebel Tirremi
Le Barlet
Longstone EdgeSallet Hole
Macossa
Muscadroxiu-Genna
Tres Montis
Okorusu-Marburg
Osor
Pakozd
Sierra du Lujar
White Eagle
Zwartkloof

MRCO
FRNC

SAFR

MZMB
MZMB
CNNF
MRCO
FRNC
CNON
USNM
SAFR

USNM
SUDN

29

UKEN
MZMB
ITLY
NAMB
SPAN
HUNG
SPAN
USNM
SAFR

FLUORITE VEINS
n

~
(/)

25

0.7

fil

0.6

0.5

0.4

~
~

0.3

0 .0~--~~--~~--_.

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

____~_.--~----._~--~--~~--~----~
1.6
0.4
6.3
25
100
1,600
400

0.1

MILLION TONNES

...

Figure 19. Tonnage model for fluorite veins .

30

FLUORITE VEINS
n = 25

0.7

C/)

0 0.6
c..
ril
Q

0.5

z
0

0.4

c..

0.3

0.2

0.0~--~----~~--~----~~~----~~~~----~--~~--~

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

FLUORITE GRADE IN PERCENT CAF2

Figure 20. Grade model for fluorite veins.

31

90

100

Model27e
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF BARITE VEINS
By G.J. Orris
There is no significant correlation between grade and tonnage in this
model. The grade distribution for this model reflects extreme economic
bias towards high grade deposits. See figs. 21, 22.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Name

Asht Mostec
Affensou .
Barite Mountain
Bear Mine
Beulah
Bogus?.ow
Cliefden Springs
Cobargo
Collier Cove
Cranbrook
Darreh
Dorchester
Gouraya
Hamiz Dam
Ibitlara
Inverway
Jebel Ighoud
Keddara/Palestro
Lacan
Les Porres

MXCO
ALGR
CNYT
USNV
AUTS
PLND
AUNS
AUNS
CNNF
AUWA
IRAN
CNNB
ALGR
ALGR
BRZL
AUNT
MRCO
ALGR
FRNC
FRNC

Madam Howard Plain AUTS

Madsen Mine
USWA
Mata
:MRCO
McKeller
CNON
Montega (Mont 'Ega) ITLY
Mouzai les Minesa
ALGR
Noarlunga
AUSA
Oraparinna
AUSA
Palestro Narrows
ALGR
Pemathy Lagoon
AUSA
Porres
FRNC
Premier Langmuir
CNON
Sangilyn
AFGH
St. Fabien (Roy-Ross) CNQU
MRCQ
Tarhwacht Mine
Taza (Tarza)
MRCO
Wildcat
USNV
Zelmou
MRCO
Zouggara
ALGR

. 32

Country

BARITE VEINS
n = 39

0.9
0

0.8

~C/J

0.7

o.c
Cl:l 0.6

0.5

0
0

0.4

0
0

o.c

~
o.c

0.3

. 0.2

0.1

0.11
0.004
0.0 L....-----'---- '--L----'------ -......___ _..__...._____.~...-..,_--~,_ _

,_L___;__

0.004

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

MILLION TONNES

Figure 21 .

Tonn~ge

model for barite veiris.

33

100

__,

400

BARITE VEINS
1.0

0.7

ffl

&l

0.6

0.5

0-c

g
0-c

60.

BARITE GRADE IN PERCENT BaS04

Figure 22. Grade model for barite veins.

34

91. 98.

Model30e

GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF

SANDSTONE/QUA RTZITE SILICA
By G.J. Orris
There is no significant correlation between grade and tonnage in this .
model. Iron oxide and alumina contents may restrict the usage of the
silica derived from these deposits. See figs . 23, 24. 25, 26.
DEPOSITS
Name
Aorere
Burchill Road .
Chashma-1-Shafa
Chegoggin Quartzite
Chesnaye Lake
Delmas
Dicks Point
Ditsotswane Hill
Dunville
Fortune
Grey River - Gulch
Cove
Hajigak
Hastings
Jabal Burmah

Country

Name

Country

NZLD

Joyceville
Kati-Takalyar
Landsllp Hill
Leeds Metals
Leven
Lobatse
Nantucket Island
Paddle
Petit Lac Malbaie
Plumbago Creek
Reefton
St. Vianney
Unidentified Quartzite
Deposit
White Head Island

CNON
AFGH
NZLD
CNQU
AUTS
BOTS
CNNB
CNON
CNQU
USWY
NZLD
CNQU

CNNB

AFGH
CNNS
CNQU
SAFR
CNNF
BOTS
CNNF
CNNF
CNNF
AFGH
. AFGH
SAAR

35

CNIA
CNNB

SANDSTONE /QUARTZITE SILICA

0.9

0.8

~ .0.7

en

0.6

0
~

0.5

0.4

0..

0..

0.1

0.0~--~----~----~--~~--~--~~----~~--~----~--~

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

400

MILLION TONNES

'

Figure 23. Tonnage model for sandstone/ quartzite silica.

36

1,600

SANDSTONE/QUARTZITE SILICA

0.7

{/)

ril

0.6

0.5

z
0

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

87.

97.

0.0~--~----~----~--~----~----~--~----~--~~--~

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

GRADE IN PERCENT Si02

Figure 24. Grade model for sandstone/quartzite silica.

37

90

100

99._j

SANDSTONE/QUARTZITE SILICA
1.0

n = 28

C/)

0..
~

0.6

0.5

0.4

0..

~ 0.3
0.2

0.18

0.32

0.56

1.0

3.2

5.6

IRON CONTENf IN PERCENT Fe203

Figure 25. Iron model for sandstone/ quartzite silica.

38

10.0

SANDSTONE /QUARTZITE SILICA

. 1.0

= 28

0.7

rJ)

0p..
~

0.6

0.5

0.4

0p..

~
p..

0.3

0 .0~--~-----L----~----~--~----~----~~--~--~~--~

0.032

0.056

0.1

0:18

0.32

. 0.56

1.0

1.8

3.2

5.6

ALUMINUM CONTENT IN PERCENT Al203

Figure 26. Alumina model for sandstone/qua rtzite silica.

39

10.0

Model3lb
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF BEDDED BARITE
By G.J. Orris
There is no significant correlation between grade and tonnage in this
model. This model is an updated version of a previously published model
(Orris, 1986b) . See figs. 27, 28.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Balleynoe
(Silvermines)
Ban Thimontha
Barite (Moose)
Barite'Mountain
Barite Valley
BawHinKhao
Big Stubby
Brookfield
CamamuBay
Castle Island
Cathy (Walt)
Changdo
Cirque
Cobachi
Democrat
Dodge
El Portal
Farenjal
Foss-Ben Eagach
Greystone
Gurrunda

IRLD
.THLD
CNYT
CNYT
SWAZ.
THLD
AUWA
CNNS
BRZL
USAK
CNYT
NKOR
Cl'4"BC
:MXCO
USCA
ZIMB
USCA
AFGH
UKSL
USNV
AUNS

Name

Country

Homes take
Kempfield
Khuzdar
La Minita
Magnet Cove
Mangampeta North
Mangampeta South

CNBC
AUNS
PKTN
MXCO
USAR
INDA
INDA.
MXCO
GRMY
CNIT
USNV
USAK .
THLD
GRMY
CNIT
USCA
SAFR
USNV
CNIT
USWA
CNNS
AUSA

Mazatan

Meggen
Mel
Mountain Springs
Nimiuktuk
Phu Mai Tong
Rammelsberg
Rein
Savercool
Schoonaard
Snake Mountain
Tea
Uribe
Walton
Weekaroo

40

BEDDED BARITE
1.0

= 43

0.7

(/)

a..

0.6

{).5

0.4

0
0
0
0

a..

@
a..

0.3

400

MILLION TONNES

Figure 27. Tonnage model for bedded barite.

41

1,600

BEDDED BARITE

0.9

0.8

0.7

Cl)

fil

0.6

0.5

0.4

~
~

0.3

0.2

0.1

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

BARITE GRADE IN PERCENT

Figure 28. Grade model for bedded barite.

42

90

100

Model 3lk
PRELIMINARY CONTAINED MATERIAL MODEL
OF SEDIMENTARY KAOLIN
By G .J. Orris

Grade information was insufficient for a grade model. This model is for
contained kaolin. See fig. 29.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Name

Bovill
Boralesgamuwa
Bratunac
Escalera
Etsubora
Iwate Hine
Jart
Kalabsha
Khushaym Radi
Maomtng
Meudon

USID
SRIL

Onakawana Lignite
Area
CNON
Ploemeur-D'Arvor
FRNC
Ploemeur-Morbihan
FRNC
Pugu Hills
TNZN
Rio Capim
BRZL
Stanford Clay Deposit USID
Wadi Sallah
SAAR
Wankie
ZIMB
Wilkinson Kaolin
USGA
Xuzhou
CINA

YUGO

VENE
JAPN
JAPN
BRZL
EGPT
SAAR
CINA
FRNC

.!i

43

Country

SEDIMENTA RY KAOLIN
1.0

0.7

rf)

0..
~

0.6

0.5

0.4

0..

0.3

0.0~~~----~-----L----~----~----~--L-L---~~--~----~

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

MILLION TONNES

Figure 29. Contained kaolin model for

sedimentary kaolin deposits.

44

400

1,000

Model32g
PRELIMINARY CONTAINED MATERIAL MODEL OF
LIMESTONE
By G .J. Orris

This is a contained material model and no distinction is made as to the

type of end usage. Insufficient grade and chemical data were available for
further modeling. See fig. 30.
DEPOSITS

'?--

Name

Country

Name

Country

Amador Camacho
Bamyon-1
Blue Rocks
Borenore
Cabano
Cal-White
Ewekoro
Glencoe
Kingsdale
Lower Cove Bay
Mount Frome
Mountain Springs

MXCO
AFGH
AUNS
AUNS
CNQU
USCA
NIGR
CNNS
AUNS
CNNF
AUNS
USCA

Nkalagu
Onigbolo
Pilkington
Rosebrook
San Pedro
Santa Ana
Sormony
Tin Hrassan
Umm a1 Ghirban
Wazo Hill
White Hope
Yacuses

NIGR
BENN
AUQU
AUNS
MXCO
MXCO
CNNB
UVOL

45

SAAR

TNZN
USCA
BLVA

LIMESTONE

0.9

0.8

0.7

en
~
fil
Q

~... 0.5
z

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.4

100

MILLION TONNES

Figure 30. Contained material model for limestone.

46

400

1,600

Model3 5a.l
PRELIM INARY GRADE AND TONNA GE MODEL OF
BEDDE D CELEST ITE
By G .J. Orris

). There-is no significa nt correlatio n between grade and tonnage in this

model. See figs. 31, 32.
DEPOSIT S
Name

Countzy

Name

Country

Black Butte
Kaiser (Loch
Lomond, Enon)
Kunduz (Qonduz)
Monteviv e
Montezu ma Claims
Nakhjir- Dashte Kavir
(Molkaba d)

USAZ

Nuevo Leon
Quesseir
San Agustin
Tangt-M urch
Unname d

MXCO
EGPT
MXCO
AFGH
QATR

CNNS
AFGH
SPAN
USAZ
IRAN

47

CELESTITE

0.7

r/)

0
c.. 0.6
P:l
0
~

0.5

0.4

c..

~
c..

0.3

o.o~--~----~----~----.__.~-----4----~----~--~~--~

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

MILLION TONNES

Figure 31. Tonnage model for marine bedded celestite.

48

400

1,600

CELESTfl'E
1.0

. 0.9

0.8

0.7

rJ)

0.6

Q
~

0.5

0.4

@
Cl.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 .0~--~----~----~----~~~----~----~----~--~--~~

10

20

30 .

40

50

60

70

80

CELESTITE GRADE IN PERCENT SrS04

Figure 32. Grade model for marine bedded celestite.

49

90

100

Model35a.2
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF POTASH-BEARING
BEDDED SALT
ByG.J. Onis

Some of the deposits in this model consist of multiple mineralized

horizons which may be hundreds of meters apart stratigraphically. There
is no significant correlation between grade and tonnage in this model.
See figs. 33. 34.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Name

Country

Alsace
Canamex
Cardona
Carlsbad
Colonsay (Central
Canada)
Denison-Potacan
Esterhazy
Holle

FRNC
CNMN
SPAN
USNM

Uobregat
Malargue
McAuley - St. Lazare
Plumweseep
Rocanville
Rosar.io do Catete
Russell
Salt Springs
Zielitz

SPAN
AGTN
CNMN
CNNB
CNSK

CNSK
CNNB
CNSK
CNGO

50

BRZL
CNMN
CNNB
EGER

POTASH-BEARING BEDDED SALT

n = 17

~
C/J

0.7

0
0..
rxl 0.6
Q

ex..
0 "'().5

0.4

0..

0.3

0.4

400

MILLION TONNES

Figure 33. Tonnage model for potash-bearing

bedded salt.

51

1,600

6,300

POTASH-BEARING BEDDED SALT

n

0.7

(/')

&s

0.6

0.5

0.4

~~

0
0

0.3

POTASH GRADE IN PERCENr K20

Figure 34. Grade model for potash-bearing

bedded salt.

52

= 17

Model3 5a.5
PRELIMINARY GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL S OF
MARIN E BEDDE D GYPSUM
By G.J . Orris

) There is no significa nt .correlati on between grade and tonnage in this

. model. This model is a miX of districts /areas and single deposits. The
districts /areas may contain more than one deposit. See figs. 35. 36.
DEPOSIT S
Name
~laineFm-

Southwe st Oklahom a
Cloud Chief
F1atBay
Fort McMurra y
(Athabas ca)
Glangevi n
Peace Point
Pen chard

Country
USOK
USOK
CNNF
CNAL
EIRE
CNAL
FRNC

53

Name

Country

Pouillon
Suria Malableh
Taberna s
Tavemy
Weather ford-Clin ton
District
White Mesa
Winderm ere

FRNC
SOML
SPAN
FRNC
USOK
USMX
CNBC

MARINE BEDDED GYPSUM

0.7

Cl)

C::;l

0.6

0
~

0.5

0.4

@
~

0 .0~--~----~----~----~~~--~~--~~----~--~~--~

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

400

1,600

MILLION TONNES

Figure 35. Tonnage model for marine gypsum .

.

6,300

25,000

MARINE BEDDED GYPSUM

1.0

0.9

0.6

0.7

C/)

~
rxl

0.6

~
~

0.5

z .,
0

~
~

0.1
0.0~--~----~----~----~--~----~----~----~--~~~~

100

GRADE IN PERCENT GYPSUM

Figure 36. Grade model for marine gypsum.

55

Model35b.3
PRELIMINARY GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL OF
LACUSTRINE BORATES
.
By G.J. Onis
In addition to grade and tonnage mod.els (figs. 37, 38), the distribution of
the colemanite content of the borate mineralization is shown in figure 39.
There is no significant correlation between borate grade and tonnage in
this model, nor is there a significant correlation between percent borate
and percent colemanite. However, there is a strong negative correlation
(r = -0.654) between tonnage and percent of borate mineralization
composed of colemanite.
DEPOSITS
Name

Country

Name

Bigadic
Billie
Boraxo
Callville Wash
{Anniversary Mine)
Corkscrew
DeBely
Ernet
Gerstley I
Gerstley II
Grand View
Inyo
Lizzy V. Oakley
Lower Biddy
McCarthy

TRKY
USCA
USCA

Maria*
USCA
Monte Blanco
USCA
Played Out
USCA
Rho (Kramer Junction)
USCA
USCA
Sigma
Terry
USCA
Upper Biddy
McCarthy
USCA
Widow No. 3 (New
Widow)
USCA
Widow No. 7 {Old
Widow)*
USCA

USNV
USCA
USCA
TRKY
USCA
USCA
USCA
USCA
USCA
USCA

56

Country

lACUSTRINE BORA.TES

0.9

'0.8

~ 0.7

en

g 0.6
lo'oo4

0.5

0.4

g:

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.04
0.1

400

MILLION TONNES

Figure 37. Tonnage model for lacustrine borates.

57

1,600

LACUSTRINE BORATES
n = 23

0.7

Cf)

0.6

0.5

0.4

~~

0.3

GRADE IN PERCENT B205

Figure 38. Tonnage model for lacustrine borates.

58

LACUSTRINE BORATES

~rn
~

0.7

0.6

~
p..

PERCENT OF MINERALIZATION COMPOSED OF COLEMANITE

Figure 39. Percent of borate mineralization as colemanite.

59

Model35b.9
PRELIMINARY GRADE AND TONNAGE MODELS OF
LACUSTRINE GYPSUM
By G.J. Orris

There is no significant correlation between grade and tonnage in this

model. See figs . 40, 4L
DEPOSITS
Name
Apex
Boologooro Station
Central Wash
Gemshok Hollow
Lake MacDonnell
Marion Lake
Parcoola
Snow Lake

Countzy

Name

Countiy

USNV
AUWA
USAZ

Spider Lake
Streaky Bay
Tromen-Auguilc6
Vaca Muerta
Yarra Yarra Lakes
Yzerfontein

AUSA
AUSA

SAFR

AUSA
AUSA
AUSA
AUSA

60

AGTN
AGTN
AUWA
SAFR

LACUSTRINE GYPSUM

0.7

(/')

~
r:q 0.6

0
~

z0

0
A.c
0

15:

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

MILLION TONN ES

Figure 40. Tonna ge model for lacust rine gypsu m.

61

400

1,600

LACUSTRINE GYPSUM
1.0

~ 0.7
(j)

0p..

0.6

ril
Cl

0.5

z
0

0.4

0p..

@
p..

0.3

GYPSUM GRADE IN PERCENT

Figure 41 . Grade model for lacustrine gypsum.

62

Model35b.21
CONSTITUENT MODELS OF SODIUM CARBONATE
(SULFATE, CHLORIDE) BRINES
By G.J. Orris
There is significant correlation between the solutes in this model.
SOdium carbonate is correlated with sodium sulfate (r = 0.683), sodium
carbonate with sodium chloride (r =0. 704). and sodium sulfate with
sodium chloride (r = 0.863). See figs. 42-44.
DEPOSITS
Name
Black Lake
Borax Lake
Hail~.r (Hailaeh)
Harney Lake
Jess Lake
Lago Texcoco
Lake Abert
Lake Magadi

Country

Name.

Lake

van
Lonar Lake
Mono Lake
Omak Lake
Pretoria Salt Pan
Soap Lake
Sua Pan
Summer Lake

USCA
USCA
CINA
USOR
USNB
MXCO
USOR
KNYA

63

Country
TRKY
ETHP
USCA
USOR
SAFR
USOR
BOTS
USOR

Soditrm carbonate (sulfate) brines

n

~rJ)

= 16

0 .7

o..c
Cil 0.6
Q

0.5

0.4

flc

0.0 '-----'---.... ...L..-----I. ...L....--"'-f -----'--............-'---......._ --"'-------' .....__

0.4
1.0
16
6.3
2.5
40
100
250
630
1600

SODIUM CARBONAT E GRADE IN GRAMS PER LITER Na2C03

Figure 42. Solute model for sodium carbonate brines.

64

__.

4000

Sodium carbonate (sulfate) brines

n

16

0.9

0.8

~
fJ)

0.7

ril

0 .6

0.5

0.4

~
~

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0~--~--~~----~----~--~----~----~----~--~~--~

0.4

1.0

2.5

6.3

16

40

100

. 250

630

1000

SODIUM SULFATE GRADE IN GRAMS PER LITER OF Na2S04

Figure 43. Solute model for sodium carbonate biines . .

65

4000

Sodium carbonate (sulfate) brines

.-

n=

16

0.7

en

0..

P::l

0.6

rz..

0.5

z
0

0 .4

0..

@
0..

0.3

0.0~--~~--~----~--~~--~----~~--~----._--~~--~

0.4

1.0

2.5

6.3

16

40

100

250

630

1600

SODIUM CHLORlDE GRADE IN GRAMS PER LITER NaCl

Figure 44. Solute model for sodium carbonate brines.

66

4000

Model37f
GRADE AND TONNAGE MODEL
OF DISSEMINATED FLAKE GRAPHITE
By James D. BUss and David M. Sutphin
Disseminated flake graphite deposits have been mineduusing predominantly
mechanized methods. Classification of deposits into amorphous and .
disseminated is not always clear and this may lead to some deposits being
misclassified (also see amorphous graphite). There is no significant
correlation between grade and tonnage in this modeL This model has been
prebiously published in a non-USGS publication (Sutphin and Bliss, 1990).
See Sutphin and Bliss ( 1990) for a comparison between amorphous and
disseminated flake graphite deposit types. See figs. 45, 46.
DEPOSITS
Name
Ambatornitamba
Amo.
Andasifahatelo
Ashidani
Azad Kashmir
Bell Graphite
Black Donald
Bosiljgrad
Buryat
Cal Graphite
Canadian Graphite
Carter Lake
Ceylon
Cheong-pyong -(# 104)
Cheong-pyong (#33.43)
ChungNam
ChungPuk
Cornell
Cup Lake
Dawn 71
Dun Raven
Faliarano
Federal Carbon
Fermont
Genda

Country
:MDGS
JAPN
:MDGS
JAPN
PKTN
CNQU
CNON
YUGO

USSR
CNON
CNQU
USCA
USAL
SKOR
SKOR
SKOR
SKOR
USCA
CNON
SAFR
CNQU _
MDGS
USPA
CNQU
JAPN

67

Name
Girard
Globe
Graphex
Gumbu
Hainan Island
Harcourt
Ito tone
Kanziku
Kashmiri
Katsuno
Kingston
Kirkham
Kongodo
Konstantin
Koppio
Kropfmiihl
Kyeryong
Uu-Mao
Lynx
Madurai
Marovintsky
Mestry-vrch
Mont Laurier
Monte Nipacue
Munglinup River

Counby
USPA
USCA
CNQU
SAFR

CINA
CNON
MZMB
KNYA
PKTN
JAPN
CNON
CNON
JAPN
CZCL .
AUSA
GRMY
SKOR
CINA
ZIMB
INDA
MDGS
CZCL
CNQU
MZMB
AUWA

Name
Naoi
National Graphite
Nhanhar
Njoka
Notre-Dame-du-Laus
Oaxaca
Orrwell
Oryu
PasumponMuthuramalingam
PedraAzul
Pennsylvania Graphite
Pickering Valley
Pollan Lake(Reindeer Lake)
Port Clarence
Princeton
Pyontack

Country
JAPN
CNON

MZMB
ZMBA
CNQU
MXCO
CNQU
SKOR
INDA

BRZL
USPA
USPA
CNSK

USAK
CNON
SKOR

68

Name
Samgong
Satemua
Shihung
Skaland Grafitrerk
Southwestern
Soyusnoye
Ta:skazgan
Tayginsk
Telixtlahuaca
Timmins
Todd
Tonkin-Dupont
Tsavo
Uley
Virginia Graphite
Yongwon
Zaval'yevsky

Count:Iy
SKOR

MZMB
SKOR
NRWY

USTX
USSR
USSR
USSR
MXCO

CNON
CNON
CNON
KNYA
AUSA
CNON
SKOR
USSR

DISSEMINATED GRAPHITE FlAKE

1.0

0
0

0.8

~
&:
(l:l

0.7

C/)

0.6

0
~

0.5

0.4

0..

@
0..

0.3

0.0~--~----~~~~--~----~~~~--~~---Y----~--~

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

400

HUNDRED THOUSAND METRIC TONS

Figure 45. Tonnage model for disseminated graphite

(modified from Sutphin and Bliss, 1990).

69

1,000

DISSEMINATED FLAKE GRAPHITE

n .. 83

0.9

0.8

~
CfJ

0.7

~
w

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0..

GRAPHI1E GRADE IN PERCENT

Figure 46. Grade model for disseminate graphite

(modified from Sutphin and Bliss, 1990).

70

Model38h
PRELIMINARY CONTAINED MATERIAL MODEL
FOR RESIDUAL KAOLIN
By G.J. Orris

There was insufficient information to construct a grade model for this

deposit type. See figure 47.
DEPOSITS
Name

Count:Iy

Name

Count.Iy

Cerro Copeyal
Escalera
Eureka
Hagstad
Karacevo
Km 88
Linden

VENE
VENE
AGTN
SWDN

Nagai Parker
Palmira
Sanchong
Tala-Barfek
Top ira
Weipa

PKTN
BLVA
SKOR

YUGO

VENE
GUYN

71

AFGH
GUYN

AUQL

Residual Kaolin

0.0 ......__-.JI_ ___.__ _..L-.1.._ _.....__ _........,__ _. . __

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

____..__-'-____..._ __ . __ ____,~

25

100

400

MILLION TONNES

Figure 4 7. Contained material model for residual kaolin.

72

1,600

Model39d

GRADEt VOLUME, AND DEPOSIT-SPECIFI C MODELS OF

DIAMOND PLACERS
By James D. Bliss

COMMENT: In addition to size and grade, average carat size and percentage
of diamonds of industrial grade are needed to characterize diamond placers.
Most deposits are alluvial but several are residual placers over kimberlite
pipes. Beach placers are excluded. Given the type of data available, data on
workings within 1.5 km were considered to be a single deposit. Several
deposits are large in area with workings of unknown spacing. Deposits must
have diamond grade and volume to be included m. those models. However.
reporting on average carat size and percentage of diamonds of industrial
quality was less frequently available and all reported values for these
characteristics were used in the models whether or not associated grade and
volume data were available. The percent of diamonds of industrial quality is
correlated with deposit size (r = 0.93, n = 7) if the Prairie Creek residual
placer is excluded from the analysis. Other commodities known to have been
produced from diamond placers, but not modeled, include Au, PGE, Ta205,
and other types of gemstones. See figs. 48-51.
DEPOSITS
Name

Count:Iy

Name

Count:Iy

Acorn Security
Aredor
BauleBasin
Bingara Field
Birim River
Boabab
Boshoff
Copeton
CampoSampaio
Feijao Cru .
Hlane
Koidu Field
Kolmanskop
Kurupung Field

INDO
GNEA
GNEA
AUNS
GHNA
TNZN
TNZN
AUNS
.BRZL
BRZL
SWAZ
SRLN

Limestone Creek
Lower Smoke Creek
Lucapa-AndradaCuango River
Mabuki
Mwamanga
Namaqualand
Potaro Field
Prairie Creek
Raw Bean
Rio Caroni
Tejucana
Upper Smoke Creek
Vila Santa Maria

AUWA
AUWA

SAFR

GUYA

'
.....

73

ANGL
TNZN
TNZN
SAFR
GUYA
USAR
BRZL
VNZL
BRZL
AUWA
BRZL

Diamond Placers
n .. 25

0.7

C/)

0...

0.6

C:Q
Q

0.5

:z:
0

0.4

0...'

0...

0.3

,, 0.0

L...----"'--__..____,___-'-'""---'----"------4---"L-.-----t.-----L.------ -1

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

MILLION CUBIC METERS

Figure 48. Size model for diamond placers.

74

400

1,600

Diamond Placers

~
r/)

0.7

r:il . 0.6

tz..

0.5

P.c

0.4

~
P.c

0.3

0 . 0~--~-----LL---~----~----~--~L---~----~----~----~

0.0016

0.0063

0.025

0.1

0.4

1.6

6.3

25

100

400

1,600

DIAMOND GRADE IN CARATS

PER CUBIC METER

Figure 49. Diamond grade model for placer diamonds.

75

Diamond Placers
1.0
n - 14

0.7

C/)

0
c..c
~
~

0.6

0.5

0
c..c
0

0.3

0 .0 '-------'------'-1---........L.--1---L-~-.,_.__ _.....___---I,____---I_ ____.~..._ ___.

0.0016 0.0063 0.025
0.1
0.4
1.6
6.3
25
100
400
1,600

AVERAGE DIAMOND SIZE IN CARATS

Figure 50. Diamond size model for placer diamonds.

76

DIAMOND PLACERS
1.0

= 11

0.8

0.7

(J)

r:z:l 0.6
0
~

0.5

0..

0.4

0.3

0.0 L------'----'---.._ ___ __,__ _..........._.___..____

0.1
02
0.8
3.2
0.4
1.6
6.3
13

__,__.L...-......L....--.&...-.-.1~

25

50

100

DIAMONDS OF INDUSTRIAL
QUALI1Y, IN PERCENT

Figure 51. Diamond quality model for placer diamond deposits.

77

Model39i
PRELIMINARY GRADE AND TONNAGE MODELS OF
SILICA SAND
By G.J . Orris .
There is no significant correlation between grade and tonnage in this
model. See figs. 52, 53.
DEPOSITS
Name
AbuDaragupper horizon
AbuDaraglower horizon
Black River
Cape Flats
Demerara River
Diogenes
Madeleine Islands
(North)

Country
EGPT
EGPT
JMCA
SAFR

GYNA
CNNS
CNQU

78

Name

Country

Madeleine Islands
(South)
Nylstroom
Parengarenga
Planknek 43 KS Farm
Plumbago Creek
Red Deer River
Sandy Ground
Weferlingen

CNQU
SAFR
NZLD
SAFR
USWY
CNSK
JMCA
GRMY

SILICA SAND
1.0

n = 15
0.9

0.8

0.7

f/l

ll..

ril

0.6

0.5
0

0.4

2:

0.3

0.2

0.1

15.

1.3

174.

MILLION TONNES

Figure 52. Tonnage model for silica sand.

79

SILICA SAND
1.0

0.7

Cll

0.6

C:rl

0.5

0.4

0.3

SILICA GRADE IN PERCENT Si02

Figure 53. Grade model for silica sand.

80

REFERENCES
Cox, D.P.. and Singer, D.A., 1986, Mineral deposit models: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, 379 p.
Orris, G.J., i986a, Grade and tonnage model of serpentine-hosted
asbestos, in Cox, D .P ., and Singer, D.A., eds., Mineral deposit models:
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, p. 46-48.
Orris, G.J., 1986b, Grade and tonnage model ofbedded barite, in Cox,
D.P., and Singer, D.A, eds., Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1693, p. 216-218.
Orris, G.J., and Bliss, J.D., l991. Some industrial mineral deposit models:
descriptive deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
91-llA, 73 p.
.
Sutphin, D.M., and Bliss, J.D . 1990, Disseminated flake graphite and
amorphous graphite deposit types--an analysis using grade and
tonnage models: Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin, v. 83, no.
940, p. 85-89.

81

APPENDIX A:
COUNTRY CODES
Code

Name

AFGH
AGTN

Mghanistan
Argentina
Algeria
Angola
Australia, New South Wales
Australia, Northern Territory
Australia, Queensland
Australia, South Australia
Australia, Tasmania
Australia, Westem Australia
Austria
Beriin
Bolivia

ALGR

ANGL
AUNS
AUNT
AUQL
AUSA
AUTS
AUWA
ASTR
BENN
BLVA
BOTS
BRZL
CILE
CINA
CIBA
CNAL
CNBC
CNGO
CNMN
CNNB
CNNF
CNNS
CNNT
CNON
CNQU
CNSK
CNYf
CORI
CZCL
EGPT
ETHP
FNLD
FRNC
GHNA
GNEA
GREC
GRMY
GUYN

Botswana

Brazil
Chile
China
Colombia
Canada, Alberta
Canada, British Columbia
Congo
Canada, Manitoba
Canada, New Brunswick
Canada, Newfoundland
Canada; Nova Scotia
Canada, Northwest Territories
Canada, Ontario
Canada, Quebec
Canada. Saskatchewan
Canada. Yukon Territory
Costa Rica
Czechoslovakia
Egypt
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Ghana
Guinea
Greece
Germany
Guyana

82

Code
HUNG
ICI.D
INDA
IRAN
IRLD
ITLY
JAPN
JMCA

KNYA

LSTO
MDGS
MRCO
MXCO

MZMB
NIGR

NKOR
NRWY

NZLD
PKTN
PLND
QATR
SAAR
SAFR

SKOR
SOML
SPAN

SRIL
SRLN
SUDN
SWAZ
SWDN
THLD
TIWN
TNZN
TRKY

UKSL
USAL
USAK
USAZ
USAR
USCA
US0
USGA
USID
USIA
USMT
USNB

Name
Hungary
Iceland
India
. Iran
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jamaica
Kenya
Lesotho
Madagascar
Morocco
Mexico
Mozambique
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
New Zealand
Pakistan
Poland

Qatar
Saudi Arabia
South Mrica
South Korea
Somalia
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sierra Leon
Sudan
Swaziland
Sweden
Thailand
Taiwan
Tanzania
Turkey
United Kingdom, Scotland
United States, Alabama
United States, Alaska
United States, Arizona
United States. Arkansas
United States, California
United States, Colorado
United States, Georgia
United States. Idaho
United States, Louisiana
United States. Montana
United States, Nebraska

83

Code

Name

USNC
USNM
USNV
USNY
USOK
USOR
USPA
USSR
USTN
USTX
USVA
USVT

United States, North Carolina

United States, New Mexico
United States, Nevada
United States, New York
United States, Oklahoma
United States, Oregon
United States, Pennsylvania
formerly of the United Soviet Socialist Republics
United States, Tennessee
United States, Texas
United States, Virginia
United States, Vermont
United States. Washington
United States, Wyoming
Upper Volta (Burkina Fasso}
Venezuela
formerly of Yugoslavia
Zimbabwe
Zaire
Zambia

uswA
USWY

UVOL

VENE
YUGO

ZIMB
ZIRE
Z MBA

84