Eastern Interior

Region Alaska, Alaska
Mineral systems
Deposit types
Other minerals

Information leading to the delineation of this focus area

Basis for focus area Prospectivity analysis highlights multiple moderate and high prospectivity HUCs across the region. Devonian to Mississippian tectonic regime was favorable for the development of volcanogenic seafloor systems across the Yukon-Tanana upland in eastern interior Alaska.
Identified resources None.
Production None recorded.
Status Minimal past exploration.
Estimated resources None.
Geologic maps Statewide geologic map database; Wilson, Hults and others (2015), scale 1:1,584,000; sparse additional modern mapping at 1:63:360 or better.
Geophysical data Geophysical needs are being increased to cover more than 70% of the focus area with Tier 2 geophysics as part of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Earth MRI funding.
Favorable rocks and structures Mineralized Mississippian-Devonian meta felsic volcanic and sedimentary packages including the Totatlanika schist and the Paleozoic Proterozoic Healy schist
Deposits None.
Evidence from mineral occurrences ARDF occurrences including the Boundary occurrence.
Geochemical evidence Sediment and soil anomalies in pathfinder elements including Cu, Ag, Pb, Zn, Cd, or Co. Additional geochemical evidence comes from pan concentrates containing anglesite, cerussite, chalcopyrite, copper sulfide/oxide, galena, or sphalerite. Heavy Mineral concentrates containing Cu, Pb, Zn or Ag.
Geophysical evidence No data.
Evidence from other sources Moderate to high potential defined by prospectivity analysis; Karl and others (2016).
Comments During the Devonian-Mississippian time period, the geologic setting was favorable for the development of multiple VMS-related mineral systems in both seafloor and continental margin extensional settings. Several ARDF occurrences are clustered on the Yukon-Canada border, and favorable geology extends through much of the remote Yukon-Tanana upland in interior Alaska.
Cover thickness and description Unknown.
Authors Douglas C. Kreiner, James V. Jones, III.
New data needs New geologic mapping, and well-constrained geochemical sampling.
Geologic mapping and modeling needs Mapping at 1:100,000 scale or better.
Geophysical survey and modeling needs Ensuring entirety of belt is covered by FY19-FY20 aeromagnetic surveys and infill any remaining portions.
Digital elevation data needs IfSAR coverage is complete over entire focus area.