Discovery rates for all metals, including gold, are declining, the cost per significant discovery is increasing sharply, and the economic situation of the industry is one of low base rate. The current hierarchical str...Discovery rates for all metals, including gold, are declining, the cost per significant discovery is increasing sharply, and the economic situation of the industry is one of low base rate. The current hierarchical structure of the exploration and mining industry makes this situation difficult to redress. Economic geologists can do little to influence the required changes to the overall structure and philosophy of an industry driven by business rather than geological principles, However, it should be possible to follow the lead of the oil industry and improve the success rate of greenfield exploration, necessary for the next group of lower-exploration-spend significant mineral deposit discoveries. Here we promote the concept that mineral explorers need to carefully consider the scale at which their exploration targets are viewed. It is necessary to carefully assess the potential of drill targets in terms of terrane to province to district scale, rather than deposit scale, where most current economic geology research and conceptual thinking is concentrated. If orogenic, IRGD, Carlin-style and IOCG gold-rich systems are viewed at the deposit scale, they appear quite different in terms of conventionally adop- ted research parameters. However, recent models for these deposit styles show increasingly similar source-region parameters when viewed at the lithosphere scale, suggesting common tectonic settings. It is only by assessing individual targets in their tectonic context that they can be more reliably ranked in terms of potential to provide a significant drill discovery. Targets adjacent to craton margins, other lithosphere boundaries, and suture zones are clearly favoured for all of these gold deposit styles, and such exploration could lead to incidental discovery of major deposits of other metals sited along the same tectonic boundaries.展开更多
文摘Discovery rates for all metals, including gold, are declining, the cost per significant discovery is increasing sharply, and the economic situation of the industry is one of low base rate. The current hierarchical structure of the exploration and mining industry makes this situation difficult to redress. Economic geologists can do little to influence the required changes to the overall structure and philosophy of an industry driven by business rather than geological principles, However, it should be possible to follow the lead of the oil industry and improve the success rate of greenfield exploration, necessary for the next group of lower-exploration-spend significant mineral deposit discoveries. Here we promote the concept that mineral explorers need to carefully consider the scale at which their exploration targets are viewed. It is necessary to carefully assess the potential of drill targets in terms of terrane to province to district scale, rather than deposit scale, where most current economic geology research and conceptual thinking is concentrated. If orogenic, IRGD, Carlin-style and IOCG gold-rich systems are viewed at the deposit scale, they appear quite different in terms of conventionally adop- ted research parameters. However, recent models for these deposit styles show increasingly similar source-region parameters when viewed at the lithosphere scale, suggesting common tectonic settings. It is only by assessing individual targets in their tectonic context that they can be more reliably ranked in terms of potential to provide a significant drill discovery. Targets adjacent to craton margins, other lithosphere boundaries, and suture zones are clearly favoured for all of these gold deposit styles, and such exploration could lead to incidental discovery of major deposits of other metals sited along the same tectonic boundaries.
