2014 Minerals Yearbook

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

ALASKA [ADVANCE RELEASE]

December 2018

Au

Gar

AuAu

Au, A

g,Pb

, Zn

Au, A

g,Pb

, Zn

Au

Au

Au

Gyp

^JU

NEA

U

EXPL

AN

ATI

ON

Non

fuel

min

eral

com

mod

ity

^Ca

pita

l city

Regi

onal

bou

ndar

y

Regi

on

Regi

on p

rodu

cing

onl

y cr

ushe

d st

one

Regi

on p

rodu

cing

bot

h co

nstr

uctio

n

sand

and

gra

vel a

nd c

rush

ed s

tone

Ag Au Gar

PbGyp

Zn

Silv

erGo

ldGa

rnet

Lead

Gyps

um

Zinc

Figu

re 1

. M

ap s

how

ing

maj

or n

onfu

el-m

iner

al-p

rodu

cing

are

as in

Ala

ska

in 2

014.

Sou

rces

: Ala

ska

Divi

sion

of G

eolo

gica

l and

Geo

phys

ical

Sur

veys

and

U.

S. G

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey.

Albe

rs E

qual

-Are

a Co

nic

proj

ectio

nBa

se fr

om U

.S. G

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey

digi

tal d

ata

030

060

015

0M

ILES

042

585

021

2KI

LOM

ETER

S

I II III IV V VI VII

Nor

ther

nW

este

rnEa

ster

n In

teri

orSo

uthc

entr

alSo

uthw

este

rnA

lask

a Pe

nins

ula

Sout

heas

tern

I

IIIII

VIV

VI

VII

alaska—2014 [aDVaNCE RElEasE] 4.1

The Mineral Industry of AlaskaBy Madan M. singh

In 2014, in the State of Alaska (fig. 1), the value of nonfuel mineral production1 was $3.60 billion. This was a 1.2% increase from the State’s revised nonfuel mineral production value of $3.55 billion in 2013 (table 1). Nonfuel mineral production value in the State fell below $3 billion in 2008‒9, and has been above that number since 2010 (fig. 2). Alaska accounted for approximately 4.5% of the total U.S. nonfuel mineral value in 2014, which ranked it sixth among the 50 States, based on total value. On a per capita basis, the value of nonfuel mineral production in Alaska increased to $4,880 in 2014 compared with the average national value of $252. In 2014, the number of mines increased but the mine employment decreased (table 2).

The principal minerals produced in 2014 in the State, in descending order of value, were zinc, gold, lead, silver, and construction sand and gravel. Copper was produced as a byproduct of gold mining in 2012, but not in 2013 or 2014. In 2014, there were 41% fewer placer mines than in 2013; output from the placer mines declined overall in 2014 (Freeman and others, 2015, p. 34). At the end of fiscal year 2014, Alaska had 6,815 active claims on Federal lands, which covered 63,485 hectares (156,872 acres) (Bureau of Land Management, 2015, p. 140).

Events, Trends, and Issues

In 2014, metals contributed about 98% of the value of minerals mined in Alaska. Gold production was 3% lower in quantity in 2014 and 13% lower in value. Lead production increased by 16%, but the value rose by 7%. Silver production went up by 1% but the value decreased by 18%. Zinc production rose by 8% and its value increased by 21% (table 1). In 2014, the average price of gold for the year was $1,270 per troy ounce, whereas it was $1,420 per troy ounce in 2013. The average price of lead was $1.0617 per pound in 2014 and $1.0998 per pound in 2013; for silver, it was $19.37 per troy ounce and $23.87 per troy ounce; and for zinc, $1.0712 per pound and $0.9557 per pound for 2014 and 2013, respectively. The value of nonfuel minerals produced in Alaska decreased from about $3.5 billion in 2007 to about $2.5 billion in 2008 and 2009; it then returned to greater than the 2007 level, but has fluctuated since 2012 primarily owing to changes in metal prices (fig. 2).

In 2014, mineral exploration expenditures in Alaska were $96.2 million, down by 45% from $175.1 million in 2013.

1The terms “nonfuel mineral production” and related “values” encompass variations in meaning, depending upon the mineral products. Production may be measured by mine shipments, mineral commodity sales, or marketable production (including consumption by producers) as is applicable to the individual mineral commodity.

All USGS mineral production data published in this chapter are those available as of June 2017. All USGS Mineral Industry Surveys and UsGs Minerals Yearbook chapters—mineral commodity, State, and country—can be retrieved over the internet at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals.

The exploration expenditures for the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project decreased to $11.21 million in 2014 from $66.8 million a year earlier because of concerns regarding the regulatory and political viability of large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed and Anglo American plc withdrawing from the partnership in 2013. Overall, there was a 25% decrease in global exploration expenditures with Alaska following that trend (Freeman and others, 2015, p. 1, 7).

In 2014, the production quantity of construction sand and gravel decreased by 15.6% and crushed stone decreased by 10.6% from 2013 (table 1). The quantity of crushed stone had increased markedly in 2011‒12 because of the requirements for the construction of a rail bridge over the Tanana River. Production of aggregates decreased when demand decreased after the bridge was completed (Richardson, 2014).

Aggregates by State and End Use

A companion dataset, “Aggregates by State and End Use,” replaces the discrete aggregate tables that were included in the individual State chapters prior to 2014, and is available on the State Minerals Statistics and Information web page at https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/. This dataset is updated annually.

References Cited

Bureau of Land Management, 2015, Public land statistics, 2014: Bureau of Land Management, v. 199, May, 269 p. (Accessed May 23, 2018, at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls2014.pdf.)

Freeman, L.K., Athey, J.E., Lasley, J.S., and Van Oss, E.J., 2015, Alaska’s mineral industry 2014: Fairbanks, AK, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Special Report 70, September 15, 67 p. (Accessed September 25, 2017, at http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/29515.)

Richardson, Jeff, 2014, Tanana River northern rail extension bridge nears completion: Fairbanks [AK] Daily News-Miner, June 29, p. 1. (Accessed September 25, 2017, at http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/tanana-river-northern-rail-extension-bridge-nears-completion/article_f7a43882-ff64-11e3-a2a7-001a4bcf6878.html.)

4.2 [aDVaNCE RElEasE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2014

Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity ValueCopper4 W (5) -- -- -- --Gemstones, naturale NA 70 NA 70 NA 60Gold4 kilograms 27,700 1,490,000 32,200 1,470,000 31,400 1,280,000Lead4 metric tons 151,000 381,000 143,000 362,000 166,000 388,000Sand and gravel, construction 6,550 r 44,900 r 9,800 r 65,800 r 8,270 62,500Silver4 kilograms 510,000 512,000 476,000 364,000 481,000 299,000Stone, crushed 2,540 22,700 952 r 12,000 r 851 9,230Zinc4 metric tons 583,000 1,230,000 609,000 1,280,000 659,000 1,560,000Total XX 3,680,000 r XX 3,550,000 XX 3,600,000

5Included in “Total.”

TABLE 1NONFUEL MINERAL PRODUCTION IN ALASKA1, 2, 3

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars unless otherwise specified)

2012 2013 2014Mineral

eEstimated. rRevised. NA Not available. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. XX Not applicable. -- Zero.

2Production as measured by mine shipments, sales, or marketable production (including consumption by producers).3Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.4Recoverable content of ores and concentrates.

1Includes data available through June 2017.

2012 2013 2014State rank1 5 7 6Employment, number:2

Nonfuel mineral mines 1892 2017 1,915Mills and plants 519 566 557

Number of nonfuel mineral mines2 318 163 172Number of mills and plants2 73 17 15Average annual wage, all mining3 dollars per year 98,909 101,968 105,407Average annual wage, all industries3 do. 49,604 50,624 52,623Per capita value1, 4 dollars per person 5040 4820 4,880National per capita value1 do. 241 236 252

4Data rounded to no more than three significant digits.

2Source: U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration.3Source: National Mining Association.

TABLE 2MINING ACTIVITY IN ALASKA

1Based on unadjusted State total value.

Mining activity

do. Ditto.

alaska—2014 [aDVaNCE RElEasE] 4.3

Commodity Company RegionGarnet Alaska Garnet Co. Region VII, Southeastern RegionGold, hardrock mines Coeur Alaska, Inc. (Kensington Mine) Region VII, Southeastern Region

Do. Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc. (Fort Knox Mine) Region I, Northern RegionDo. Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo LLC Region III, Eastern Interior RegionDo. Phoenix Offshore Mining Co. (Nome Lease) Region II, Western Region

Gold, placer mines Goldrich (NyacAu)1 (7 operations) Region I, Northern RegionDo. Koyukuk Placer Region II, Western RegionDo. Various (Placer Region I) Region I, Northern RegionDo. Various (Placer Region II) Region II, Western RegionDo. Various (Placer Region III) Region III, Eastern Interior RegionDo. Various (Placer Region IV) Region IV, Southcentral RegionDo. Various (Placer Region V) Region V, Southwestern RegionDo. Various (Placer Region VI) Region VI, Alaska Peninsula RegionDo. Various (Placer Region VII) Region VII, Southeastern Region

Gold and copper (past producer) Waterford Global Value L.P (Nixon Fork Mine) Region II, Western RegionGold, lead, silver, zinc Hecla Greens Creek Mining Co. (Greens Creek Mine) Region VII, Southeastern Region

Do. Teck Alaska Inc. (Red Dog Mine) Region I, Northern RegionGypsum Kaiser Gypsum Co. Region VII, Southeastern RegionDo. Ditto.1Chandalar gold placer (Goldrich/NyacAu) planned to be operational in 2015.

TABLE 3STRUCTURE OF THE NONFUEL MINERAL INDUSTRY IN ALASKA

(Nonfuel-mineral-producing companies, not including aggregate producers)

4.4 [aDVaNCE RElEasE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2014

Oth

erG

old

(lode

)Le

adSi

lver

Zinc

Sand

and

gra

vel (

cons

truc

tion)

Ston

e (c

rush

ed)

EXPL

AN

ATIO

N

Year

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

0

1,00

0

1,50

0

500

2,50

0

3,00

0

3,50

0

4,00

0

2,00

0

Value, in million dollars

Figu

re 2

. Th

e pr

oduc

tion

valu

e of

non

fuel

min

eral

co

mm

oditi

es fr

om 2

004

thro

ugh

2014

in A

lask

a.

Valu

es le

ss th

an $

5 mill

ion

are

not s

how

n. “

Oth

er”

incl

udes

the

“Com

bine

d va

lues

” dat

a lis

ted

in ta

ble

1. Fo

r a c

ompl

ete

list o

f no

nfue

l min

eral

com

mod

i-tie

s and

pro

duct

ion

valu

es

for a

ll Sta

tes,

ple

ase

refe

r to

the

Stat

istic

al S

umm

ary

chap

ter (

tabl

es 5

, 6).