About these layers
Short notes on how each grouping is defined — useful context before reading the map.
Spatial grouping / structuring
Defines how geological, metallogenic and mining-district polygons are meant to relate to one another spatially — including overlap and composition rules between them. The conceptual framework was settled in this round; the spatial layer itself (the polygons and the overlap/composition rules) has not been built yet and stays flagged as work in progress until then.
Geological Provinces
The geological framework proper: the internationally recognised chronostratigraphic hierarchy (from tectonic plate downward), extended with informal-but-widely-used units from the literature — complexes, provinces, basins, nappes, supergroups, subgroups, granitoids, sequences, etc. — since GIS/tabular classification in practice usually stops well short of a formal rank once it reaches “province.” Structural components (rock units, faults, shear zones, geosutures) belong here too. A separate, unrelated subclassification is planned for geochemical and geophysical provinces/regions, which can overlap with each other and across surveys or products derived from the same survey (e.g. deep vs. shallow magnetics via a moving average). GEMAS anchors the geochemical side of that future subclassification.
Metallogenic Provinces
Derived from mineral occurrences reported in the literature, with no fixed predefined methodology — the goal is simply to delineate what the literature records as mineral occurrences and mining activity. Provinces may overlap and are defined per commodity plus genetic type: the same commodity can define more than one province — alluvial gold and orogenic gold, for instance, are distinct provinces despite sharing a commodity. The intent is an area with a reasonable probability of hosting a given mineralisation style, grouping occurrences with known mineralised units/formations, contact zones, etc., and expanding a little beyond what is already known to capture the likely potential. A defining trait of a metallogenic province is that its exploration playbook is already broadly known — what rock type, unit or age, and what geophysical or geochemical anomaly to look for.
Mineral Districts
Calculated from mining reports — a more practical, simpler concept: areas with a track record of consistent mining activity, i.e. where mining operations exist or existed and enabled supporting infrastructure such as roads, drilling and power. (Illustrative example outside the CBGA region: the Bom Futuro tin district in Rondônia, Brazil.)
Data sources — geological surveys and institutions
- Administrative boundaries
- Country polygons, Infomineral base layer.
- Faults & geology by age (IGME 5000)
- International Geological Map of Europe & Adjacent Areas 1:5,000,000 (IGME 5000) — Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) and partner national geological surveys. Original data in EPSG:3034 (ETRS89-LCC Europe); reprojected to WGS84 and simplified for this viewer, age colours from the ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart (see chronology.php).
- World geological / tectonic provinces
- Hasterok, D., Halpin, J.A., Collins, A.S., Hand, M., Kreemer, C., Gard, M.G., Glorie, S. (2022). “New maps of global geological provinces and tectonic plates.” Earth-Science Reviews, 231, 104069. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104069 — data: github.com/dhasterok/global_tectonics
- Romania — regional geology, IQUAME 2500, mineral resources, mining licenses/permits, protected areas
- Romanian national geological survey (IGR) map exports and mining-cadastre/registry data (mineral resources, exploration/exploitation licenses and permits); protected-area layers (National Parks, Natura 2000, Natural Reserves) from Romania's protected-areas network.
- Metallogenic provinces, mineral districts, mining projects
- Derived in-house from academic/technical literature and mining-company technical reports indexed by Infomineral (see Sources for the underlying article and report index).