Advertisement

Resource estimation from historical data: Mercury, a test case

  • S. M. Cargill
  • D. H. Root
  • E. H. Bailey
Article

Abstract

A simple technique based on historical records of tonnage and grade of ore produced provides a means for calculating how much of a mineral product will be available in the future at various average grades. Estimates made on this basis are independent of geologic considerations or changing economic and political factors, although they are based on mining history, which was largely determined by these factors. The relatively minor element, mercury, was used for the test case reported here, but the method has been found applicable to forecasts of resources for other mineral products. Mercury resources available in ore in which the average grade is as low as 0.1% are estimated to be 53 ×106kg (1.5 ×106flasks) for the United States and 1551 ×106kg (45 ×106flasks) for the world; this amount is more than adequate to meet predicted demand to the year 2000. The expectable price of mercury in 1978 dollars at this 0.1% grade is projected to be $58.75 per kg ($2,025 per flask), but at a 10% annual inflation rate, it would be more than $12,000 per flask. To satisfy just the projected U.S. demand for mercury by 2000, the price is calculated to be $48.96 per kg ($1,688 per flask) in 1978 dollars at an average annual grade of 0.12%.

Key words

mercury resource estimation production data 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, E. H. and Everhart, D. L., 1964, Geology and quicksilver deposits of the New Almaden district, Santa Clara County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 360, 206 p.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, E. H., Clark, A. L., and Smith, R. M., 1973, Mercury,in Brobst, D. A. and Pratt, W. P., eds., United States mineral resources: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, p. 401–414.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, J. W. and Bailey, E. H., 1972, Turkey's major mercury mine today and how it was mined 8,000 years ago: World Mining, v. 25, no. 4, p. 49–55.Google Scholar
  4. Brinck, J. W. and Wambeke, L. van, 1974, World resources of mercury; I: Congress Internacional del Mercurio, Barcelona, Fabrica Nacional, p. 49–53.Google Scholar
  5. Concha, J. F., Yates, R. G., and Kent, D. F., 1952, Geología del distrito mercurífero de Huancavelica: Peru, Institute Nacional de Investigacion y Fomento Mineros, Boletín 5, 56 p.Google Scholar
  6. Demaret, L., 1904, Les principaux gisements des minerais de mercure du mode: Annal. Mines Belgique, v. IX, 80 p.Google Scholar
  7. Eckel, E. B. and Meyers, W. B., 1946, Qucksilver deposits of the New Idria district, San Benito and Fresno Counties, California: California Jour. Mines and Geol., v. 42, no. 2, p. 81–124.Google Scholar
  8. Erickson, R. L., 1973, Crustal abundance of elements, and mineral reserves and resources,in Brobst, D. A. and Pratt, W. P., eds., United States mineral resources: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, p. 21–25.Google Scholar
  9. Etadistica Minera de Espana, 1912–1977 (annual reports), Consejo de Ministro: Direccion General del Instituto Geografico, Catastral y de Estadistica.Google Scholar
  10. Goldwater, K. J., 1972, Mercury, a history of quicksilver: Baltimore, Maryland, York Press, 318 p.Google Scholar
  11. Goodyear, W. A., 1888, Report on an examination of the quicksilver mines of California (May 1871): Economic Geology of the Coast Ranges, Cambridge, John Wilson & Son, 147 p.Google Scholar
  12. Jankovic, S., 1960, Ziva: Economic Geology (part one), Belgrade, “RAD” Press, 547 p.Google Scholar
  13. Jennings, H., 1886, The quicksilver mines of Almaden and New Almaden (private correspondence to J. B. Randol): Mining reports of properties located in California, 13 p.Google Scholar
  14. K. K. Quecksilberwerk zu Idria in Krain, 1881, Wien, K. K. Bergdirection zu Idria, 66 p.Google Scholar
  15. McKelvey, V. E., 1973, Mineral resource estimates and public policy: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, p. 9–19.Google Scholar
  16. President's Minerals Policy Commission, 1952, Resources for Freedom, the outlook for key commodities: v. 2, p. 136.Google Scholar
  17. Roper, L. D., 1976, Where have all the metals gone?: Blacksburg, University Publications, 66 p.Google Scholar
  18. Sterner-Rainer, R., 1914, The present state of the metallurgy of mercury in Europe (translation by Osias L. Schwarz): Oesterreichische Zeitschrift fur Berg-und Huttenwegen, v. 62, p. 529–544, 563–573.Google Scholar
  19. Strappa, O., 1974, Histoire de l'industrie du mercure en Italie; I: Congreso Internacional del Mercurio, Barcelona, Fabrica Nacional, p. 99–108.Google Scholar
  20. Tercero, L. P., 1974, Evolucion historica del mercurio y sus aplicaciones; I: Congreso Internacional del Mercurio, Barcelona, Fabrica Nacional, p. 109–116.Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1965, Mercury potential of the United States: Information Circular 8252, 376 p.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1939–1977, Minerals Yearbooks.Google Scholar
  23. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1976, Mineral commodity summaries.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1975, Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, p. 669–682.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, 1947, Mineral Position of the United States,in Appendix to the hearing before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Lands, U.S. Senate, 80th Congress, 1st Session, May 15, 16, and 20.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Geological Survey, 1882–1939, Mineral resources of the United States.Google Scholar
  27. Wambeke, L. van, 1974, Production, consommation et demande future de mercure dans le monde et dans la Communaute europeenne; I: Congreso Internacional del Mercurio, Barcelona, Fabrica Nacional, p. 65–92.Google Scholar
  28. Wambeke, L. van, 1976, Le Mercure: production, consommation et demande future dans le monde et dans la Communaute europeene: Environment et Qualite de la Vie, Luxembourg, Commission of the European Communities, 123 p.Google Scholar
  29. Yates, R. G., Kent, D. F., and Concha, J. F., 1951, Geology of the Huancavelica quicksilver district, Peru; Geologic Investigations in the American Republics, 1950–51, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 975-A, 45 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Cargill
    • 1
  • D. H. Root
    • 1
  • E. H. Bailey
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyRestonUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations