Greenland Mineral Resource Assessment Workshops have been held by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) and the Ministry of Mineral Resources (MMR), Government of Greenland, annually since 2009.
The Greenland mineral assessment workshops that have been held are shown in Table 1:
Table 1. Annually held mineral assessment workshops.
|Commodity||Deposit type||Year||GEUS Report||Geology & Ore Magazine No.|
|Copper||Sedimentary-hosted copper type: redbed-, revett- and reduced-facies type||2009||Link||No. 18|
|Rare Earth Elements||Various REE deposit types; this workshop was not carried out according to the 'three-part quantitative assessment' method||2010||Link||No. 20|
|Zinc||Sedimentary-hosted zinc type; SEDEX- and MVT-type||2011||Link||No. 21|
|Nickel||Magmatic nickel; komatiite-hosted, contact- and conduit-type||2012||Link||No. 24|
|Tungsten||Vein- and skarn type||2013||Link||No. 25|
|Gold||Orogenic gold type||2014||To be published||No. 26|
Most of the workshops, besides the one on rare earth elements, have been following the processes and methodologies used in the 'three-part quantitative assessment' method of the U.S. Geological Survey described by Singer (1993). The method does not define deposits or provide mineral resource or reserve estimates according to industrial or international recognised certified standards. The objective is to produce a probabilistic estimate of unknown/undiscovered deposits and corresponding probabilistic estimates of the total amount of metals down to one kilometre depth. The estimates do not take into account economic, technical, social or environmental factors.
In the 'three-part quantitative assessment' method, an expert panel reviewed and discussed all available knowledge and data for a specific region (Tract) to assess the possibility of finding new undiscovered deposits within this Tract. The expert panels consisted of geologists from universities, research institutions, Surveys as well as private exploration and mining companies. The experts have either expertise in/worked with the deposit type in focus, with the regional and/or local geology relevant for the tracts being assessed or have expertise from exploration/mining projects for the deposit type in focus elsewhere in the world. One or two international top-experts on the mineral deposit type in focus for the different workshops have also participated in the workshop. After reviewing the available knowledge and data the members of the panel made their individual estimates (bids) of the number of undiscovered deposits they believed could be found under the best circumstances in a tract. The bids are based on the characteristics derived from descriptive mineral deposit models and a number of key-literature on the mineralisation type. In several of the workshops, critical elements have also been considered in the mineralising system (e.g. McCuaig & Hronsky 2014) associated with the deposit type in focus, when carrying out the bids. A panel discussion of the bids led to a consensus bid, which was used as input to a statistical Monte Carlo simulation. Based on established grade-/tonnage models of e.g. known tungsten deposits worldwide, this simulation can provide a prediction on how much undiscovered metals could be found within a Tract.
The 'Tracts' are spatial polygons that define a certain area that was found to be permissive for the concerned mineral deposit type and which constitutes the same level of geology, knowledge and data coverage. The attribute data is shown in Table 1, where tracts are named with a unique name, tract area is given in square kilometre and consensus bids from team under N90, N50, N10, N05 and N01 headings of undiscovered metals deposits at different confidence levels. The statistics from the Monte Carlo simulation is shown under the headings Numbers of unknown deposits and Deposit density.
Table 1, shows the Header and layout of the attribute table. Added to the polygons are the published reports and Geology and Ore issues. These occur as links. Table 2, shows the layout of the table in Geology and Ore magazine no. 18.
Table 1. Header of the of the attribute table tracts.
|104||Link||Copper||2009||NE 1-9 Hagen Fjord Group||Basaltic||Link||0||0||2||3||6||0||0||40 240 140|
Tabel 2. Header of the assessment tracts (as presented in Geology and Ore no. 18).
|Consensus bids on the number of undiscovered CU deposits per area|
|Type of Cu minralisation||Region||Area||Tract name||Areal extent||Number of undiscovered Cu deposits on different confidence levels|
|Volcanic Redbed Cu||North East Greenland||Neoproterozoic Hagen Fjord Group||NE-1-9||15,000||0||0||2||3||6|