Abstract
It has been proposed that the spatial distribution of mineral deposits is bifractal. An implication of this property is that the number of deposits in a permissive area is a function of the shape of the area. This is because the fractal density functions of deposits are dependent on the distance from known deposits. A long thin permissive area with most of the deposits in one end, such as the Alaskan porphyry permissive area, has a major portion of the area far from known deposits and consequently a low density of deposits associated with most of the permissive area. On the other hand a more equi-dimensioned permissive area, such as the Arizona porphyry permissive area, has a more uniform density of deposits. Another implication of the fractal distribution is that the Poisson assumption typically used for estimating deposit numbers is invalid. Based on data sets of mineral deposits classified by type as inputs, the distributions of many different deposit types are found to have characteristically two fractal dimensions over separate non-overlapping spatial scales in the range of 5–1,000,km. In particular, one typically observes a local dimension at spatial scales less than 30–60 km, and a regional dimension at larger spatial scales. The deposit type, geologic setting, and sample size influence the fractal dimensions. The consequence of the geologic setting can be diminished by using deposits classified by type. The crossover point between the two fractal domains is proportional to the median size of the deposit type. A plot of the crossover points for porphyry copper deposits from different geologic domains against median deposit sizes defines linear relationships and identifies regions that are significantly under explored. Plots of the fractal dimension can also be used to define density functions from which the number of undiscovered deposits can be estimated. This density function is only dependent on the distribution of deposits and is independent of the definition of the permissive area. Density functions for porphyry copper deposits appear to be significantly different for regions in the Andes, Mexico, United States, and western Canada. Consequently, depending on which regional density function is used, quite different estimates of numbers of undiscovered deposits can be obtained. These fractal properties suggest that geologic studies based on mapping at scales of 1:24,000–1:100,000 may not recognize processes that are important in the formation of mineral deposits at scales larger than the crossover points at 30–60,km.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agterberg FP, Cheng Q, Wright DF (1993) Fractal modeling of mineral deposits. In: Proceeding 24th APCOM symposium, vol 1. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum Engineers, Montréal, Canada, pp 43–53
Barnsley MF (1988) Fractals everywhere. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, p 394
Blenkinsop TG, Sanderson DJ (1999) Are gold deposits in the crust fractals? A study of gold mines in the Zimbabwe craton. In: McCaffrey KJW, Lonergan L, Wilkinson JJ (eds) Fractures, fluid flow and mineralization: geological society. Special Publication 155, London, pp 141–151
Carlson CA (1991) Spatial distributions of ore deposits. Geology 19: 111–114
Cheng Q, Agterberg FP (1995) Multifractal modeling and spatial point processes. Math Geol 27 (7): 831–845
Herzfeld UC (1993) Fractals in geosciences—challenges and concerns. In: Davis JC, Herzfeld UC (eds) Computers in geology—25 years of progress. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 217–230
Johnston JD, McCaffrey KJW (1996) Fractal properties of vein systems and the variation of scaling relationships with mechanism. J Struct Geol 18: 349–358
King PB, Beikman HM (1974) Geologic map of United States: U.S. Geological Survey, 3 sheets, scale 1:2,500,000
Long KR, DeYoung J, Ludington SD (1998) Database of significant deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc in the United States: U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report 98–206, Online version 1.0 (http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of98-206/)
Mandelbrot BB (1985) Self-affine fractals and fractal dimension. Phys Scr 32: 257–260
McCaffrey KJW, Johnston JD (1996) Fractal analysis of mineralized vein deposit: Curraghinalt gold deposit, County Tyrone. Mineral Deposita 31: 52–58
Mutschler FE, Ludington S, Bookstrom AA (1999) Giant porphyry-related metal camps of the world—a database: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of99-556/ and database
Raines GL, Sawatzky DL, Connors KA (1996) Great Basin geoscience data base: U.S.Geological Survey Digital Data Series 41
Roberts S, Sanderson DJ, Gumiel P (1998) Fractal analysis of Sn-W mineralization from Central Iberia-insights into the role of fracture connectivity in the formation of an ore deposit. Econ Geol 93 (3): 360–365
Roberts S, Sanderson DJ, Gumiel P (1999) Fractal analysis and percolation properties of veins. In: McCaffrey KJW, Lonergan L, Wilkinson JJ (eds) Fractures, fluid flow and mineralization: geological society. Special Publication 155, London, pp 7–16
Sanderson DJ, Roberts S, Gumiel P (1994) A fractal relationship between vein thickness and gold grade in drill-core from La Codosera, Spain. Econ Geol 89: 68–173
Singer DA (1994) Conditional estimates of the number of podiform chromite deposits. Nonrenew Resour 2 (2): 69–81
Singer DA, Berger VI, Moring BC (2005) Porphyry copper deposits of the world: database, map, and grade and tonnage models: U.S.Geological Survey Open File Report 2005–1060, p 9 and database, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1060
Singer DA, Berger VI, Menzie WD, Berger BR (2005) Porphyry copper deposit density. Econ Geol 100: 491–514
Singer DA, Menzie WD (2005) Statistical guides to estimating the number of undiscovered mineral deposits: an example with porphyry copper deposits. In: Proceeding of IAMG’05, GIS Spatial Analysis, vol 2, pp 1028–1029
Stewart JH, Carlson JE (1978) Geologic map of Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey, 2 sheets, scale 1: 500,000
U.S.Geological Survey National Mineral Assessment Team (1998) Assessment of undiscovered deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1178, p 29 and database
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Raines, G.L. (2008). Are Fractal Dimensions of the Spatial Distribution of Mineral Deposits Meaningful?. In: Bonham-Carter, G., Cheng, Q. (eds) Progress in Geomathematics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69496-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69496-0_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-69495-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69496-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)