The deposit models project is an attempt to classify the many known metallic mineral deposits and occurrences in Yukon into specific mineral deposit models. This work began with the initiation of regional mineral potential assessments by the Yukon government (e.g., Bradshaw and vanRanden, 2004). The quantitative method used for regional mineral assessments in Yukon is based on a method developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which uses the mineral deposit models of Cox and Singer (1986). The reader is encouraged to consult this reference for further discussion on the fundamental purpose for defining mineral deposit models. In general terms, resource assessments require that tracts of land be assessed on the basis of probability for the occurrence of one or more specific deposits of a particular type with previously defined grades and tonnages. In the course of conducting regional mineral potential assessments, grade and tonnage information for deposit types that occur or potentially could occur in Yukon was compiled, grade and tonnage curves were constructed, and deposit models were assigned to known mineral deposits and occurrences (i.e., Yukon MINFILE occurrences).

This paper serves as an update to an earlier paper published by the Yukon Geological Survey: New mineral potential mapping methodology for Yukon: case studies from the Beaver River and Dawson regional land use planning areas (Bullen, 2020). Since the release of the earlier paper, a number of the methods have been modified, and new techniques introduced. These are incorporated into this update paper — the reader is referred to the earlier paper for details of the method itself. Mineral potential maps have thus far been completed for the Beaver River watershed, and the Dawson, Teslin, Na-Cho Nyäk Dun, and Ross River regions. There have been significant updates made to the mineral potential mapping method: 1. Modifications to buffer distance and factors (these are an important fuzzy logic (i.e., non-Boolean) component of the mineral potential mapping process) to enhance mapping outcomes. 2. The introduction of an in-house generated, machine learning algorithm (unsupervised, clustering-type) to classify mineral potential in order to remove the potential for human bias. The method replaces the statistical, areas-under-the-curve approach used previously. 3. A new method for delineating anomalous stream sediment data based on the lithological makeup of each watershed basin. The method computes and compares expected assay values to actual assay values, with values exceeding a certain threshold taken as anomalous. The previous method did not take lithology into account, relying on simple percentile methods only, and was considered insufficiently robust. 4. A new method for categorizing mineral potential confidence. Mineral potential maps produced by the Geological Survey contain measures of bedrock mapping confidence to facilitate land use planning. The updated method is significantly more robust than that used previously. 5. Revisions to the map legend to account for the new, machine learning-based mineral potential categorization methodology. 6. Revisions to the map colour scheme to make them colour blind-safe.

Territory-wide mineral potential mapping in Yukon was last conducted 18 years ago. An updated suite of maps for land use planning is, therefore, necessary. The YGS has developed a new GIS-based mapping process for this purpose. Industry-based applications using the new method will be developed going forward. The approach makes use of mineral system components that potentially contribute to metal accumulations in an area. The method is a hybrid between a classic data-driven probabilistic approach and an expert-driven fuzzy logic approach. It is non-specific in terms of commodity and/or deposit type – however, the claim and assessment report footprint data that are integral to the mapping process capture these important components. The procedure makes use of block modeling techniques where each block is assigned a prospectivity and (bedrock mapping) confidence score. Calculations are based on the presence or absence of categorical features within unit cells, and the scores represent the posterior favourability of each cell. Evidential layers are weighted according to buffer distance and/or through the application of knowledge-based factors. Lithology classes are factored using a multiclass weights-of-evidence approach. Mineral potential and confidence scores are converted to either a 1, 2 or 3 according to a defined mathematical schema. The values are then combined – blocks with scores of 1:1 have the lowest mineral potential/lowest confidence whereas blocks with scores of 3:3 have the highest mineral potential/highest confidence. Nine possible combinations exist. Mineral potential maps containing measures of both potential and confidence are generated based on the cumulative contrast values. Areas cut by major structures along which significant displacement has occurred need to be evaluated separately, and then stitched back together at the end of the assessment process. Concurrently, the mineral potential data need to be leveled to account for prospectivity differences across the structure concerned.

Aggregate potential was analyzed and classified for a four-kilometre corridor centred on Yukon highways and in a 20 km radius around Yukon communities excluding Whitehorse to support maintenance and development of Yukon infrastructure. Aggregate potential scores are derived from existing surficial geology mapping; higher scores are given to map units containing gravel with minimal silt and clay. Scores are lowered for units where overburden must be stripped to access the aggregate or where permafrost is present. Results are presented in a series of maps and a digital geodatabase.

Geological map (1:1,000,000 scale) of the Yukon Territory, including platinum potential, platinum occurrences, a list of selected geological units with PGE potential, density of geochemical anomalies for nickel, chromium and cobalt and selected stream silt anomalies for nickel, cobalt and chromium. Accompanying the map is a brief report describing: Yukon MINFILE occurrences with reported PGE mineralization and anomalies; interpretation of regional silt geochemical anomalies; placer PGEs in Yukon; gravity anomalies; and PGE potential in Yukon (concepts and localities).

This publication is intended as a snapshot of the hard rock mineral resources of Yukon. It is up-to-date as of December 1, 2023. The tables herein have been compiled from information derived from Yukon MINFILE – A database of mineral occurrences, and from various technical reports and information filed in SEDAR (system for electronic document analysis and retrieval). This document does not include cut-off grades for resources and reserves. Numbers have been rounded for readability. Tonnages and grade are provided in metric measure – converted from imperial as required. Total contained metals are estimated as a result of tonnage multiplied by grade; reported values are converted to either metric or imperial as required. Amounts are for all deposits/zones on the property. Deposit resources are identified as being compliant with either the minimum requirement for mineral resources and reserves as defined by the Canadian National Instrument for the standards of disclosure for mineral projects (NI 43-101), the Australasian code for reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC) standards or the disclosure requirements for the mining companies in the United States, in accordance to the Securities and Exchange Commission Industry Guide 7 (S-K 1300). Deposits that are not compliant with these definitions are identified as historical estimates. The Owner/optionee indicate the company owner as stated in the resource estimate or on the company website. In the case of historical resource calculations where there is no resource estimate or website available, the owner is the registered quartz claim holder. The reader is encouraged to refer to the original reference for detailed information. We accept no responsibility for any errors or omissions.

not_specified

The following tables have been compiled from information derived from the Yukon MINFILE 2005 A database of mineral occurrences (Deklerk and Traynor, 2005). Reserve and resource figures presented are not calculated by Yukon MINFILE personnel, but are quoted from referenced industry sources, publications, assessment and/or technical reports, etc. The reader is encouraged to refer to the original data for detailed information.