Skip to content
LITHOEN

Deposit

Aitik

A mineral deposit recorded by the USGS sediment-hosted copper database, at Sweden. Its reported host rocks are Biotite schist, amphibolite. Minerals reported present include chalcopyrite, pyrite, magnetite, pyrrhoyite, barite, calcite, fluorite, scapolite.

Classification

recognition basis
authoritativeDatabase
realm
europe

What this record is, and who says so

Recognised on the basis of

Authoritative database

A curated deposit database published by a scientific institution, in which inclusion is itself a documented editorial decision with stated criteria.

A deposit is an occurrence of sufficient size and grade that it might, under the most favourable circumstances, be considered to have economic potential. Lithoen records that a named authority made that judgement. It is not a statement that anything here is recoverable, and it is not a resource or a reserve.

How it is interpreted

A deposit is not a mineral system. A source interprets it as an example of one, and interpretations change while the rock does not.

  • Interpreted as an example of Porphyry copper system

    By — Wanhainen (2005), reported in GTK Special Paper 53: a Palaeoproterozoic porphyry copper deposit overprinted by iron oxide mineralisation about 100 million years later.

    An interpretation attributed to a named study, not an observation. The overprint half of the interpretation — a later iron oxide event — has no counterpart in the systems this corpus models and is carried only in the claim.

Commodities documented here

  • Copper (commodity)documented association

    The compilation reports a grade for this metal at this deposit. Lithoen records the documented association and infers nothing about how it would be worked.

  • Silver (commodity)documented association

    The compilation reports a grade for this metal at this deposit. Lithoen records the documented association and infers nothing about how it would be worked.

Reported figures, and what each one is

A sample assay, a deposit average, a compiler total and a reported reserve are different quantities. Each figure below carries which one it is; none of them is a current resource or reserve.

1,066 Mt

Compiler total, for modelling

A sum assembled by a database compiler from production plus reserves plus resources at the lowest available cut-off, so that deposits can be compared in a grade-and-tonnage model. It is not a resource, not a reserve and not production; it is a modelling quantity, and the USGS databases Lithoen reads define their tonnage exactly this way.

The usgs sediment-hosted copper database reports an ore tonnage of 1066.0 million tonnes for Aitik.

502 Mt

Historical production

effective 2009-12-31

Material reported as mined over a stated period. Gone, not remaining.

The volume reports accumulated production at Aitik to the end of 2009 as 502 Mt of ore at 0.4 per cent copper, 0.2 grams per tonne gold and 4 grams per tonne silver, and separately reports reserves of 733 Mt at 0.25 per cent copper, attributing the reserve figures to Boliden.

0.4 wt%m Copper

Deposit average

An average grade attributed to a whole deposit by a compiler, over a tonnage defined by that compiler at a stated cut-off. Not a measurement of anything: a summary of an estimate.

The usgs sediment-hosted copper database reports a copper grade of 0.4 weight percent for Aitik.

0.3 g/t Silver

Deposit average

An average grade attributed to a whole deposit by a compiler, over a tonnage defined by that compiler at a stated cut-off. Not a measurement of anything: a summary of an estimate.

The compilation reports a silver grade of 0.3 grams per tonne of ore for Aitik. The field is defined as the average grade of silver for the deposit, stated as grams per metric ton of ore.

The source records behind this

What one row of a published dataset was taken to mean, and why. The original record stays traceable after reconciliation.

  • Sediment-hosted copper deposits of the world (USGS OFR 03-107), record 276

    Named there
    Aitik
    The source calls it
    deposit
    Lithoen reads it as
    deposit (stated)

    The usgs sediment-hosted copper database states what one of its rows is, and this row is read as the deposit the compilers named. The compilation is a database of sediment-hosted copper deposits.

    Read and refused

    • grade and tonnage columns with no value — The compilation writes "(no value)" or leaves the field empty where the information was not available. Reading an empty field as zero would publish a measurement nobody made.

How this is mapped

One published representation of where Aitik is. Each is one interpretation, by one identified source, at one scale — not the shape of the thing itself.

  • Representative point

    Point · 1 positionspreferred for publication

    A single position standing for something that is not a point. It exists so a feature can be shown on a map or listed by location, and it asserts NOTHING about extent. A representative point for a 2,000 km province is a label anchor, not a location.

    A representative point for Aitik from the USGS sediment-hosted copper database. It marks where the compilation places the deposit; it is not a boundary, not a shaft, and implies nothing about the body's extent.

    Boundary certainty
    ApproximateThe position is known only within a distance much larger than the line width on any map that shows it. Drawing it thinner does not make it better known.
    Status of this geometry
    inferredThe status of the geometry, which need not match the status of what the entity’s claims assert.
    Dataset
    Sediment-hosted copper deposits of the world (USGS OFR 03-107)Cox, D.P., Lindsey, D.A., Singer, D.A., Moring, B.C., and Diggles, M.F., 2003, Sediment-hosted copper deposits of the world: Deposit models and database: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-107, doi:10.3133/ofr03107.

    What was done to this geometry

    • By Lithoen — Rounded to 4 decimal places. The compilation computed its decimal degrees from authored degrees-minutes-seconds columns, and the further digits are conversion residue rather than knowledge.
    • Before it reached Lithoen — The compilation computed these decimal degrees from the degrees-minutes-seconds columns its compilers authored.

How this record is known

1
Directly recorded
Observed or measured, reported by the party that made the observation.
10
Settled consensus
Cited as the accepted position of the discipline.
1
Interpretation
Reached by reasoning from evidence, or produced by a named model.
1
Contested or proposed
Experts disagree, or the statement is a proposal rather than a conclusion.
1
Open questions
Sourced statements that the answer is not currently known.

14 of 14 claims on this page cite at least one registered source. Counts describe how each statement is known, not how likely it is to be true.

What Lithoen records

Each claim states how it is known and cites its evidence.

DisputedSediment-hosted copper (USGS compilation) versus interpreted porphyry copper with iron oxide overprint (GTK / Wanhainen 2005).

How a source classifies it

Two authorities place Aitik in different classes. The USGS sediment-hosted copper database carries it among sediment-hosted copper deposits; the Geological Survey of Finland’s Fennoscandian volume places it in the Aitik–Nautanen Cu-Au metallogenic area and reports it as an interpreted porphyry copper deposit overprinted by iron oxide mineralisation. The two agree on what is there — the same host rocks and the same ore minerals — and disagree on what it is.

  • non uniqueness: Shared observations: biotite-bearing schist and gneiss host, chalcopyrite with pyrite, pyrrhotite and magnetite, strong deformation and metamorphism. Disputed: whether the copper was introduced with a porphyry system or is sediment-hosted in the sense the USGS compilation uses.
  • precision note: The USGS compilation assigns no deposit-type label to the Aitik row; its classification is its inclusion in a database of sediment-hosted copper deposits. That is a weaker statement than the Finnish volume’s, and the disagreement is recorded rather than resolved.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_CLASSIFICATION

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence 2 sources, multiple sources, independence unknown

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority; D.P. 2003 Primary authority

Established0.4 wt%m Copper

Reported for this deposit

The usgs sediment-hosted copper database reports a copper grade of 0.4 weight percent for Aitik.

  • scope: depositAverage
  • definition basis: Grade as the compilation reports it for this deposit.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence 2 sources, single source

Evidence: D.P. 2003 Primary authority

EstablishedBiotite schist; amphibolite

Reported for this deposit

The rocks reported as hosting Aitik are Biotite schist, amphibolite, as named for this deposit by the USGS sediment-hosted copper database.

  • precision note: The host lithologies are those the compilation names for this deposit. They are not inferred from a class description and not from a point falling inside a mapped polygon.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence 2 sources, single source

Evidence: D.P. 2003 Primary authority

Establishedchalcopyrite; pyrite; magnetite; pyrrhoyite; barite; calcite; fluorite; scapolite

Reported for this deposit

The compilation reports 8 distinct minerals present at Aitik: chalcopyrite, pyrite, magnetite, pyrrhoyite, barite, calcite, fluorite, scapolite. It records presence only: no abundance, no paragenesis and no assay follows from it.

  • precision note: The compilation’s mineral table holds 8 entries for this row and the claim carries all 8, so the list is complete and the count is not a selection. Presence is not abundance, and the alphabetical order carries no paragenetic meaning.
  • source verbatim: The compilation writes “pyrrhoyite” for this row. No mineral bears that name. The same database writes “pyrrhotite” for ten other rows, so the string is almost certainly a typing error for pyrrhotite — but that is Lithoen’s inference and not the source’s word, so the value keeps the source’s spelling and no substitution has been made.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence 2 sources, single source

Evidence: D.P. 2003 Primary authority

EstablishedRecorded as a deposit by the USGS sediment-hosted copper database, record 276.

How a source classifies it

Aitik is recorded as a deposit because the USGS sediment-hosted copper database includes it, as record 276. The compilation is a database of sediment-hosted copper deposits and carries this row among them.

  • source record: usgs-sediment-hosted-copper-deposits-of-the-world record 276
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_CLASSIFICATION

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence 2 sources, single source

Evidence: D.P. 2003 Primary authority

Established0.3 g/t Silver

Reported for this deposit

The compilation reports a silver grade of 0.3 grams per tonne of ore for Aitik. The field is defined as the average grade of silver for the deposit, stated as grams per metric ton of ore.

  • scope: depositAverage
  • definition basis: Grade as the compilation reports it for this deposit.
  • precision note: Unit corrected in Phase 9. An earlier version published this figure as 0.3 weight percent, because the bulk ingestion mapped every grade column to weight percent. The compilation defines aggrd as “average grade of silver for the deposit, as grams per metric ton of ore” — copper and molybdenum are percentages in these files, silver and gold are grams per tonne. The published number was overstated by four orders of magnitude, and for several deposits it exceeded 100 percent, which is not a grade any rock can have.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence 2 sources, single source

Evidence: D.P. 2003 Primary authority

Open question

Derived by Lithoen

Lithoen records no mineral-system interpretation for Aitik. The corpus models six mineral systems and sediment-hosted copper is not among them, so there is nothing here to interpret this deposit as. The absence is a gap in Lithoen's system layer, not a statement about the deposit.

  • precision note: Forcing this deposit into the nearest system the corpus happens to hold would assert a classification no source made.
  • assertion basis: LITHOEN_DERIVED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence 2 sources, single source

Evidence: D.P. 2003 Primary authority

Established1,066 Mt

Reported for this deposit

The usgs sediment-hosted copper database reports an ore tonnage of 1066.0 million tonnes for Aitik.

  • tonnage category: compilerTotalForModelling
  • definition basis: Ore tonnage as the compilation reports it for this deposit, compiled for grade-and-tonnage modelling rather than as a resource statement under a reporting code.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence 2 sources, single source

Evidence: D.P. 2003 Primary authority

Measured1,887 ± 8 Ma before present

Measured at this deposit

The deformed quartz monzodiorite intrusion in the Aitik footwall has been dated twice: at 1873 ± 24 Ma by Witschard (1996) and at 1887 ± 8 Ma by Wanhainen and others (2006). The volume reports both without choosing between them, and states no analytical method and no dated mineral for either.

  • method: Not stated. The volume reports the two determinations by author and year and gives neither the analytical method nor the mineral dated. Lithoen does not supply either.
  • non uniqueness: Two determinations exist: 1873 ± 24 Ma (Witschard 1996) and 1887 ± 8 Ma (Wanhainen and others 2006). Their uncertainties overlap. The value carried here is the later and more precise one; the earlier is recorded in this qualifier rather than discarded.
  • precision note: This dates the footwall intrusion, not the mineralisation. The volume separately reports an interpretation that ore formed at about 1890 Ma, which is an interpretation and not this measurement.
  • assertion basis: SUBJECT_MEASURED
  • precision note: The stored value carries ±8 Ma, the uncertainty of the determination it holds. The earlier determination, 1873 ± 24 Ma, is recorded in the nonUniqueness qualifier with its own uncertainty rather than merged into this one: two determinations are not one measurement with a wider error.

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

InferredPalaeoproterozoic porphyry Cu formed ca. 1890 Ma, overprinted by iron oxide mineralisation ca. 100 Ma later.

Interpretation for this deposit

Aitik is interpreted as a Palaeoproterozoic porphyry copper deposit formed at about 1890 Ma and overprinted by an iron oxide mineralisation roughly 100 million years later. The interpretation is Wanhainen’s (2005), reported by the Geological Survey of Finland; it is an interpretation of the deposit’s origin, not an observation made at it.

  • model: Wanhainen (2005), as reported in GTK Special Paper 53.
  • precision note: A two-stage history: a porphyry system, then an unrelated iron oxide event long afterwards. Lithoen records the interpretation and does not adjudicate it.
  • assertion basis: SUBJECT_INTERPRETED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

EstablishedBiotite-sericite schist or gneiss; amphibole-biotite gneiss; protolith believed Svecofennian volcaniclastic (Porphyrite Group), not established.

Reported for this deposit

The Geological Survey of Finland’s Fennoscandian metallogeny volume states that the main ore at Aitik is hosted by a biotite-sericite schist or gneiss and an amphibole-biotite gneiss. It adds that the precursor to that altered, metamorphosed and deformed host is not clear, and is believed to be a Svecofennian volcaniclastic rock of the Porphyrite Group.

  • precision note: The host as this volume names it, attributed to Zweifel (1976) and Monro (1988). The protolith is explicitly not established, and this claim does not settle it. The USGS sediment-hosted copper compilation independently records the host as “Biotite schist, amphibolite”, which is the same rock in fewer words.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

EstablishedVeinlet and disseminated chalcopyrite, pyrite, pyrrhotite, magnetite; accessories bornite, chalcocite, malachite, molybdenite, sphalerite, galena, arsenopyrite, scheelite, uraninite.

Reported for this deposit

The mineralisation at Aitik is veinlet and disseminated chalcopyrite, pyrite, pyrrhotite and magnetite in hydrothermally altered, metamorphosed and strongly deformed rocks. The volume lists bornite, chalcocite, malachite, molybdenite, sphalerite, galena, arsenopyrite, scheelite and uraninite as accessory minerals — nine named accessories, and the list is the volume’s own and complete as given.

  • precision note: The USGS compilation records eight minerals for this deposit; this volume names four ore minerals and nine accessories. The two lists overlap and neither is a superset of the other, which is what two independent compilations of the same deposit usually look like.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

EstablishedOre-related potassic alteration of the footwall intrusion and the volcaniclastic rocks.

Observed at this deposit

Potassic alteration is reported at Aitik itself: the volume states that the footwall quartz monzodiorite intrusion and the volcaniclastic rocks were affected by ore-related potassic alteration. This is alteration recorded for this deposit, not a property carried onto it from a description of porphyry systems in general.

  • assumption: The volume calls the alteration “ore-related”. It gives no zoning, no mineral assemblage for the alteration and no timing beyond that association.
  • assertion basis: SUBJECT_OBSERVED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

Established502 Mt

Reported for this deposit

The volume reports accumulated production at Aitik to the end of 2009 as 502 Mt of ore at 0.4 per cent copper, 0.2 grams per tonne gold and 4 grams per tonne silver, and separately reports reserves of 733 Mt at 0.25 per cent copper, attributing the reserve figures to Boliden.

  • tonnage category: historicalProduction
  • effective date: 2009-12-31
  • definition basis: Accumulated production to the end of 2009 as the volume states it. This is ore mined, not a resource and not a reserve; the reserve figures the volume also reports are attributed to the operating company and are not carried as a Lithoen claim.
  • precision note: The USGS sediment-hosted copper compilation records 1066 Mt for Aitik as a compiler total spanning production, reserves and resources at the lowest possible cut-off. The two numbers are not in conflict: they count different things, and Lithoen publishes both with what each counts stated.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

In the knowledge graph

Record last updated 2026-09-07. Corrections follow the published corrections policy; superseded claims are retained, never silently edited.