mining records curator arizona geological survey tucson...
TRANSCRIPT
The following file is part of the
James Doyle Sell Mining Collection
ACCESS STATEMENT
These digitized collections are accessible for purposes of education and research. We have indicated what we know about copyright and rights of privacy, publicity, or trademark. Due to the nature of archival collections, we are not always able to identify this information. We are eager to hear from any rights owners, so that we may obtain accurate information. Upon request, we will remove material from public view while we address a rights issue.
CONSTRAINTS STATEMENT
The Arizona Geological Survey does not claim to control all rights for all materials in its collection. These rights include, but are not limited to: copyright, privacy rights, and cultural protection rights. The User hereby assumes all responsibility for obtaining any rights to use the material in excess of “fair use.”
The Survey makes no intellectual property claims to the products created by individual authors in the manuscript collections, except when the author deeded those rights to the Survey or when those authors were employed by the State of Arizona and created intellectual products as a function of their official duties. The Survey does maintain property rights to the physical and digital representations of the works.
QUALITY STATEMENT
The Arizona Geological Survey is not responsible for the accuracy of the records, information, or opinions that may be contained in the files. The Survey collects, catalogs, and archives data on mineral properties regardless of its views of the veracity or accuracy of those data.
CONTACT INFORMATION Mining Records Curator
Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress St., Suite 100
Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-770-3500
http://www.azgs.az.gov [email protected]
W
%
" ~ /. 4 %' --J.-
, ~ ~ = ~ - ~ , j W . Y .
Pan#~, --"3 r,, / 2 ; ~ / ! ,, ............. , -- ~-~,-.v>.. ~ Jz--~:~:~
. ~ \r,~ , z ~ m
.~< ~. ~ ~.~.., ~ , . -~~ ,,~11/. t j :-.,-.. - <:::-.:.~:~z.~-:----.... 4 , ~ i l j ~ I ~ ] i
l i ~ ' - -0" i~ . e ' ~ - . ~ : .~ t.~ ~~ i~ '~ ~ ,,~ • ",,.< ~ ,~ ' : " t ¢" # ~ q .~ ~," .< ( ' ~ ' ~ : - . . : . . . ~) ' - .
_t~ . ~ ~!
.~, ,~ : i , . I_ - ~ . ~ . . .
~055 / ..I I " "
-%'%....
, . - i f O ~ J
o - i ~ - ~ ~ ,~-, ~ - ~
F
< , - , , .- q "~ . . .. : ' - .x \ ~ ,-r:: * o ~ o S b . ' &
. . . . • "~ . ~ _ L _ _ _ L _ _ _ . L _ . ¢ - . " . .~! L ' _ _ _ L . . ~ / ~ ' _ . - . ~ k ~ - - f - - - ,
--- . ~ -J- - ' . , . / . ~ - - ' ~ , ~ M X 3 ~ s I . ! . - - " ' . . - - ' - ~ - - ' , ~ ~.~" ' / Y - P - " - ~ ' ~ :~ ~ 1 ~ _ ~ ' Y ' . - " ~ , _ - - ~ - ' ~ " ~ ' ~ _ . - ~ " ~ l ~ - - : x _ . ~ > ' - ~ , .~ . -~ ~ " - . - \ ~1'1 i ~ k . ~ , _ . ~ ' ~ ~ Z .,.
.,, . . . o l X ~ O C ~ . - ' . . , ' 4 o o" . . ~ . , . . - v t ~ - , _ / . , , + o .1 ~ o , ~',,o t , ~ ;~'.~--'~_'t5
.~ . .k :" -~ ' : ' " ~ , I ~ • . / " I ~ ~ ~ ~ r • ~ " i~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' _ ~ , l ~ ~ _ ~ I = , ~ ' - = " ' " " | J " ~ " ~ ' - ' : ~ ' - " . / - - ' . . , . - , - " -" - % J % ' ~ ' - . ~ \ . ~ , A r ~ "~Z.~"~ '~ I - " - - 1 - ' - " . "
.~ x ~ . . - ~ , . : ~ - - ~ - - \ ~ ~ x _ / e . J > . - ~ ' t . ~ , - : ! c - . ~ - - . ~ k 5 4 ._ ~ . . ~ x J " ~ ~ • , r ~ . _ , % / , ~ v Z L "< . . . . . , \ ~ l < l ' . - . , ~ . "~( . - ". ~ m - x i . . . . . :
. . . . . . . 1 - __ . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . . . . ,'kk = " - • - ' - - . ; / ~, / "~ ' . . . • ' " • ~ ' . . > , , k " ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ , I ~,.. v~ ~ ,~, " ~..~ ". .- .<..
",~ ; "- , ~ , ~ ,,--- ~..~
- - : - - , . o , , ~ I a ~ . . ... . : . .
i (o_._ ,. ' ° - L A N D S T A T U S M A P - : . . .
I
i t
\ J ~ / J ' l
[ x6"x - '. t
I ' t J ~ x . . . . ~ . " I • ~ '.~_'_'_'_'_'_'_~,-',.~ ~ ' ..... ~ ° I
~4~.:~:-:.7 ~-~
'..t " £~ /
,~- . i~--~
4055, / . . ! t '
,..,._---1
, ~ z - ,~. H_,. "c-~Z.-, ~-
"'i dO ." ~ ve
"~, ./ iu.~ , ~o--..~:L~
, I ,,. ,-bJ ~ -"-":.,"--"-2~ C--,'l "
- ] . . . . F - " ..... - ) I
~ ,~,[&/ ./7 oi
~ --.--~ - ~L<:..P .:,_,-, .---~ r,<.,...%, Z B 2/A'" ~H~.-~ , u,,. , "-. ~ ~ , ~ ' ~-'~--J.---:. ,...'-,,...-':~._
" "" ,';- -. -", I t. "~ '-~-~l~, ~ ~ : :
p , . . ~ , ' , .I , - , ] Y t P . T I I n ~ J ~ / ,. ~ I ~ I II - , , , - - - : ,
i: ':I--'Y ~l .'m ~( $ 4'~ ~ ~ ~ SLICK ROCK" PROJECT : , i{ °-~" 'J ' l LAND STATUS M A P &~ii227 ~'~. 5 'Z'"---"I I s×a,a~. GRAHAMCOUNTY, ARiZONA : . ' /
/ |H: I' : 2 0 0 0 I C O N T O U R I N T E R V A L : : . .: " : . . . . . [~.viS~C~,4~ ;' ~ ~ ~1 F t "-- 1 . t "r'' .. ~ , " : -- 9 / 2 a / Z 3 1 ~ / ~ :
I ! I . : ! ~ , ~ .:. ....... :: . . . . : t ~ : _. ,o,~,~<~s.i_- • .
i
4
] % 4
i l
K .E INC. RUEGER NTERPRISES, GEOC,,HRON ,LABORATORIES D!._VISlON 24 BLACKSTONE STREE3 =- CAMBRIDGE, MA. 02139 • (617)-@76-3691 ..-:: ....
/
POTASSIUM-ARGON AGE DETERk~INATiON
Our Sample No.
Your Reference:
Submitted by:
R-4186
TgA-2-1-C
L, Clark. ArnoId P i l l a r , Lowell & Assoc. 5115 North Oracle Road Tucson, ARIZONA 85704
Sample Description & Locality: I/olcan4c rock.
REPORT OF ANALYTICAL WORK
Date Received- 28 Apr~l ~978
Date Reported: 1 3~me 1978
/
Sample TEV 040, #~A-2-1-C. CPushed rock.
Mater~at Analyzed: Whole rock, -601÷100 mesh. Treated wt th ~ l x tu re o f HN03 and ElF to remove aTterat tons.
A r 4 ° * / K 4° = ..001632 AGE = 27,7 ~ 1,3 M.Y.
Argon Analyses:
Ar 40* ppm,
,004139 .OO3858
Ar 40./Total Ar 40
,23t .151
Ave. Ar 40 *,ppm,
,,003999
Potassium Analyses-
%K
'2,,056 1.960
Ave. %K
2.008
K 4o • ppm ,
2.449
Constants Used:
;~ --" 4.72x 10-z0/year
~e = 0.585 x 10-z °/year K 4o/K = 1.22 x 10 .4 g./g.
Note: Ar 4o, refers to radiogenic Ar 40 M.Y. refers to millions of years.
AGE = Xe + ~
Jn[ 7"B+ ~'e Ar4°* 1 Xe × ~ + 1 K4O
I KRUEGER,ENTERPRISES, INC. GEOCHRON LABORATORIES DIVISION
I I I I I I III .-- I
24 B L A C K S T O N E S T R E E T • C A M B R I D G E , MA. (]2139 • {617) -876-3691
POTASSIUM-ARGON AGE DETERMINATION
Our Sample No.
Your Reference:
Submitted by:
R-417s
WA- I- 3-C
L. ClaPk Araold Ptllar, Lmml] & Assoc. 5115 ~ h Oracle. Road Tucson, ~ZOI~ 85704
REPORT OF ANALYTICAL WORK
Date Received: 24 ApH~ 1978
Date Reported: 1 30a= 1978
Sample Description & Locality:
Material
Swple TEV 033, ~q~A-1/-3-C, Crushed rock .
Analyzed: gho le ~ k , - ~ / ~ Z 0 0 . . ~ s h . T ~ W(r~ m~ X t ~ e 0 f ' Hti03 and ttF to r e ~ e a l t e~ t l ons .
Ar 4°*/K =o = °001477 AGE = 25o.1 + 1,2 M.Y.
Argon Analyses;
Ar 4 g *. ppm. Ar 4o,/Total Ar 40 Ave. Ar 4 o , ppm.
,003678 ,190 .003566 ,003454 ,668
PotassiumAn~yses: ...
% K Ave. %K K 40 ppm
1,992 1,979 2,414 1.966
Constants Used:
= 4.72x 10-~°/year
Ze = 0.585 x 10 -1 o/year
K 4 ° / K = 1 . 2 2 x 10-4 gjg.
Note: Ar 4° * refers to radiogenic Ar 4o M.Y. refers to millions of years.
I ~! K R U E G E R E N T E R P R I S E S , | N C ,
~: 2 4 BLACKSTONE STREET • CAMt~RIDGF~ MASSACHUSETTS 0 2 1 3 9 e ( ~ 1 7 } B 7 - ~ - 3 6 9 1
1 June 1978
L. Clark Arnold Pi l lar , Lowell & Assoc. 5115 North Oracle Road ~ucson, ARIZONA 8570~
Dear M~. Arnold:
I am enclosing the f inal w~itten ~epo~ts on the three ~ock samples you sent to us for K-At age determinations. Enclosed also is the invoice for this work for you to approve and 9ass along for payment.
Ali three of analyses had to be done as whole ~ock~, and al l three ~ere suff iciently altered that we had to remove the carbonates and alteration products with a mixture of n i t r ic and hydrofluoric acid. Samples R-4176 and R-4186 were similar mineralogically and similar in their potassium content, and were of nearly equal ages. Sample R-4175 was quite different from the others mineralogically, in potassium content, and also appears to be somewhat older.
I f you should have any questions concerning these analyses, please do not hesitate to give me a cal l .
We ~ook forward to serving you Bgain in the future.
S i nce~'el y,
........... - ~ / / / / ........... " ..... t " ~ ~ /
Harold W. Krueger HWK :mhs encl.
SPECIAL ISTS IN G E O C H R O N O L O G Y 8~ tSOTCIPE G E O L O G Y
KRUEGER ENTERPRISES, INC. GEOCHRON LABORATORIES DIVISION
IJ I
24 BLAC~STONE STREF-'r • CAMBRIDGE, I~A 02~39 • ( 6 1 7 ) ~ 7 6 3691
POTASSIUM-ARGON AGE DETERNWINATtON REPORT OF ANALYTICAL WORK nl i in mu f f
Our Sample No.
Your Reference:
R-4269
letter of 9 June 1978
Date Received:
Date Reported:
12 June 1978
8 August 197B
Submitted by: L. Clark APnold Pfl lac, Lo~11 & Associates 5115 North Oracle Road Tucson, ARIZONA 85704
r,
C
Sample Description & Locality" A~Jes'~te.
Material A~alyzed: ~;hole rock, -60i+200 mesh.
A r 4 0 * / K 4 0 = . 0 0 1 1 9 8 A G E = 2 0 , 4 + , 8 M .Y .
Argon Analyses~
Ar 4O*,ppm
.008522 °009028
Ar 40,/Total Ar 4o
.638 .619
Ave. Ar 40-, ppm.
°008775
Potassium Analyses:
%K
6.009 5.999
Ave. %K
6.004
K 40 ppm •
7,, 324
Constants Used;
x# -- 4.721 10-1°/year
~e = 0.585 x 10 -z o/year
K " ° /K = 1.22 x 10 -4 g./g.
Note: Ar 4o. refers to radiogenic Ar 40.
M . Y . refers to millions of years.
A G E - 1 _ - x + 1
Xe K 40
: - " : ! ~ - - - - ~ Y / ' "-' , \~, , k " ' , f . " t ' t ' . ' " , t . 4 . <" ~" - , • I , x t . I - ! / , ' . . ' " ~ , , t r . ' ; ~ . . ~ r
5 > . " , - . - . . ~ . , < _ , - - , .,-'.'~',.,,~.;.,,,<,.~!., i-~k,~,.~Li..'~ ( . / ~ 3 ' . " l - , . .. \ • ~ " ' ~ " , , q ' ~ , ' " • " ' " D " " " ~ " , i , . . < . . . . , - , t It-..YJ,,, . . , I t , j ; \ " s ~ ' 4 - \ Z J ? - [, " , . . . - - ~ -
< . . . . . . , : .
,'.. - I ~- , . . t . ' ; P - " " , - 7 - c " ,' : ~ " - - ~ • - ' , ~ ~ '& , , - " ~ I . . . . i / - . ; . . j , . ~ , . , ~ . . ~ . ,~ . , _ . w : i . , ' - ~ . - " / ~ . : ' 4 ' ~ _ l J , m , ' . . ~ . : ~, ." . z \ . ~.~ "~.~:;) . ~. ~ ~ ~ ÷ . ~ , C ~ . - 7 , - . ~ ~ ~ " Z ~ , , ~ ~ - " ' _
~ -----~ . . , J V ~ ' . ~ : r / ' ~ r , : " - . . .~ , . ' ? . . . . - , , ~ ~ ~ ' s , : r , ~ _ , , 'u s . , ~ . ¢ " ~ - - , ,- /,:. ~ .~. _ ~ " - . . _ . . - ~ - / " ~ . . ~ . , - , , .
, , . _ i -._-_- . - ~ - ' , , ( , ~ , . ~ . ~ . ~ > , . / ~ - . - . ~ . - ' \ ' ~ _ . / ~ " - ~ I / , " • ~ - [ . V .~ _ . ' o , - o / ~ ; ; t - - ~ . . . ' - . ~ " , ~, ".~.~ - - : 2 ~ _ 1 \ ~ .
. . 1 1 " ( 1 z - , - " .~ , : " ~ . , - ~ , . ~ ~ - -'-4 " : r u ~ ~ ~ . / i ; , _ : t . , . . D r , / ( - - " . ~ , ; - ~ -. / .,. . . ! [ _ ~ / • I T.-" ~ , . . ~ S ~ l ' ) ~Lk~ " ~ ; ~ - t " \ ~. , ,-- .-7--,_. \ '~. ~/I , . I:,~. ~ / ~ - < _ ' ,
.... I "- / I I ~ -
. . . . . . ~ . . ~,Y~ ~. . . . . . i . . , , , , -
. . ,-- r .... - ' -~ , ~ ' - 7 - - - ----3 '" ' " " ~ - " ,
. ...., . . , \ .. /~ . l [ I r - ~ . ',----_'-~.~,
, z-::.:: .... --W~,,,, ,;If- ~+,". ; 1 i ( / ' . , < " ',-~ d(" B u e n a V k S ~ " >> , ! ,/~ .... I f . ~ ~" I
- ~ ( ~ . • i . . . ~ ~ - . ~ - - - ~ " ' / ~ , - ) ' t ~ - ~ .- t ) - ~ - ~ , 4 . , ,,, :. , . . . ~ . ~ n , , ~ U" ,.. ~ , ~ . - " " " ~ " - " * ~ , - , . ' . r . - - - - - - - ' . ~ . / ~ ~ , - ~ , .., , .... _ ~ , : , . . . _ . . ~ . ; < _ , ~ x - - - - - W , . ~ , , : < " ~ ~ , . " ~ " _ __ . ' _ ' - ' ~ _ - - , _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ 2 - _ _ - - ~ - - -
- - - - - ' - - 7 - J , . ; ~ < , , k ~ , w . d " - -: - ~ " " _ ~ . ' '% ~ %~"- -~. " - - -~-W' \ ~, -'- ',' , ~ ' " ~7:'-~ ~ ~ " "-"-4__C-\~\ . ..~.~-- __, . , . f ~ _ ) : ~ : . , ,--. / ' _ ~ t \ ~ X ~ I F a "-~',,
¢ ii
• , ~ . ~ : "
( f
/ --~ . f f ~ , "
@ ' " ~ A
, -_ .. ¢ ; ' - . . =
J l S l
• i '. ', S O L
f
i
:. ~ k . --'" " > ---~" ' - "
j ~ ' " i
_k__ .-_";- _,_ .L\_<.;.._-~:_-;;_~..u_..
.. ! ', .,...,..,f, t l . . ,
---. ~ ~.. . .~.~ "-.,.. c _
;e.~ --~TL-~...-.,-L, .'-,"-.-,~.,,w<--~_ ~ k , . , ~ . . : -
, " - ~ .- : :" " - ~ ' - . _ ~ . " ~ ' ~ , C
(
,l ,L-"
* "1°°. -
" I
"% . r . .
"1 ~-,. j %
%
/
• ? . c ~ ~ .
: -. _9.
8 V ¢ - ' - - , ~ ° ~ 8 s"
#
) i (
k I
J N D - 4
i~,~1~ ,~ ~-" )
"~ " "°'qL~
!f -@'..;x: ~ . , k :
."~'.--~_ " "....
_~.~ : n . ~
+ i "
- - W
~ - , t
i
.4 .~,,c / ' , . C'
• 2. ]_4 / > (
• %
2 0
. - . - ; 2 = "
- _ . . ~ . ~
I • ' ,
-h . . , ~ 4 , ,f'~L ~.
t~',,,"-. ~ ' ' ' " , ' - , " ' " . . - . ; ' . " . ' - " L
" f
2 . . . . ~ # .
. ..J
~,, .~,?
4.. h,,(
i
,-,,?,
- 4 2 i 4 @ " ~....~'f" "--J I<Z .v
.%..
/ . , . ~
/"C::-'.--~;; ~-"~\
• -J.--- . .~d ~,. ., , . ~ j
" " " . ~ - - % 7 ,
t ~ - - " - " - " "'- .J~-~-<~-~_.;-
c, t?-
4 ~
• /
. , \ y . .
#
- i
L , ~ _'r'
.%
_.
\
,] I ~ ¢
/ , . i
; % 4 ; " ~ ! '~
",% )
L__. "x • "°
i
• i
,,, ut; . . i,-, ._ I - ~-''~-,~
f - • V ," , it -
, .~ ( ~. ,., ,
/ ','~" .... /- ' V- "' ,
- f _ j -
~a
r- ~ - ' ~ . I .
I \,
i
i • I " % n f
i \k C '""3~''.?
: ,......3._-: ..... "'"
I
! t I
~ - ~ - J ~ - ~ " ~
, 1
) .r'J"--V -
,X.. "~
/
L
r . : f - _
~" Ee~er,
X
s i
i •
,/
I
q (
/ f ) /
.f
%
I
%
%
c s ' C
'7" ':;
t \
J ~ . 4
/ /
k
• ... :: "
Z " - "
(
L.
,¢
i #-
i'-.~ T
,'C~
7
PA~GEA RESOURCES, INC. 2002 N. Forbes Blvd., Suite I01
Tucson, Arizona.85705
A. D. Wandke 1"O . . . . . . . FROM THOMAS W, MITCHAM ~AT-'- I18175 __----
January 6, 1975
MEMO TO: Thomas W. Mitcham From: John E. Kinnison Subject: New Deal (Faulkner-Riebold) claims, drill holes,
Graham County, Arizona
Accordin~ to the arrangement reached with Mike Riebold at our conference December 28, I reviewed the drill core from two holes, at Safford, December 31.
The attached logs, locatlonmap, and graphic logs are of these two diamond drill holes (Nos. 3 and 4). Although other holes (Nos. 1 and 2) are shown on Ted ¥aulkner's claim map, I have not seen samples or core from them. DDH 3 and 4 were drilled at the expense of Riebold, and are stored at Alfred Haralson's farm at Safford, whereas Nos. 1 and 2 were drilled by Faulkner-- who has the samples, if any.
The drill core is poorly stored and difficult of access. The upper half of ND-4 requires complete re-staking before moving any boxes, and so only the upper box of each stack in the upper half was seen. For the most part, my review was limited to spot checking at i~tervals, due ~o time limitation imposed by R/ebold's conditions of examination.
Important conclusions are:
i. Mineralization in ND-3 could be the pyrlticmargin or .fringe of a zone of copper mineralization, possibly 2000-4000 feet distant, o
2. Thickness of post-mineral volcanics is not exactly known, but is not more than the rotary depths (DD-3, 1775'; ~-4 , 1080').
3. The Silver Bell fo= ti0n has been, .od. d in Apparently the drill holes pene~rateo tne unoer±y Claflin Ranch formation and the Cretaceous Pinkard
f o r m a t i o n .
4. Quartz monzonite porphyry in ND-3 lends additional encouragement to the Faulkner ground.
I ,
: A ~ : "
"- i. ~ / , . . .J ; '~ '~ , . ( ,P , , ' -~ , ' :~ L,', t "
$
K
New Deal Claims Faulkner-Riebold DDH-3
Notes on s ~ Dec" 31, 1974~
Core begins at 177'. Only 10'(2690-2700) split.
Foo ta Ke
1776
1840
1960
1970
1990
2100
2210
2360
2530
2560
2660-90
2690-2700
2710
2740
Notes
Red brown andesite or latite. A few green-gray andesite frag
Volc.-latlte or andesite, finely porph. Red w/ irregular patches of green color-possible large
frags?
Same. Green patches are more porphyritic and appear to be frags or inclusions.-- almost looks like eel, alternating w/ solid red latite.
Same as above
S i m i l a r to above, w i t h f r a g s , bu t c o l o r has. changed from reddish to green-gray.
Similar to above but more frags. Matrix is tan with volcanic-looking texture.
Agglomerate?, yellow to tan. Py diss, about 27., in small grains and hairline veinlets. Some hem on
edges of veinlets.
Aggl or cgl, gray-green. Vy hard. fine diss pY and some hairline stringers. 3~ total sulph. No oxid. Some chl & clay alt.
Aggl or cgl, gray-green.. Chl alt and diss py, 1/27..
Same. Looks like an arkosic cgl. Very dense and hard.
I12~ py, rood. chl.
Oxidized. Siltstone or tuff. Limlpy es= 1-37,. This section has been split for assay.
Siltstone or tuff, white. 1% diss py.
Same. I~ pY. I0" vertical py-qtz vein 118" wide.
Some oxid.
Siltstone or tuff. 45=bedding w/py strgs on bd. One 1/16" ~ert. py vein. 3~ total sulph
@ 2748 45 ¢- t h i n hem s l i p .
-2-
2748-55
2760
2770
2800-2820
@ 2934
2993
3070
5210
3450
5t clay. 3% py diss, first inch below Porphyry? 45 ° contact is granulated.
Por? odd texture. St clay.
Q=z monz por. Hornblend pheno. No sulph.
Qtz monz pot. 2~ diss py. Mod clay alt. Texture still looks a bit funny-- more like a very porph volt, but can't tell for sure.
Tight, sharp, healed contact between funny porph, and siltstone below. Probably intrusive contact. Both rocks have 2-3~ diss py. Two or three grains possible
cpy.
White siltstone above changes to white arkose, i% py in arkose as fine discrete grains. Rocks gradationai, sedimentmrY contact.
Siltstone or tuff? Fine white matrix w/ little blebs (pheno?) of white (clay) feldspar, thin crenulated rims of py enclose the white feld. Also, bed? dips b5 e , marked by silica &rains in thin layers, with a crenulated network of py enclosing the area around the grains. Total sulph: 37,.
Fine arkose. St. sericite with 2~ py as discrete diss grains.
Siltstone, white. 2~ py, diss &rains.
T o t a l d e p t h .
New Deal Claims Yaulknew-Kiebdld DDH-A
Notes on spot logKing Dec. 31, 1974; JEK
Core begins at I080 ft. None has been split.
1080
1305
1464
1640
1820
1980
2130
2290
2440
Note:
2590
2740
2890
3051
3060-3123
~otes
Red brown cgl. Rounded frags to 4". Red shaly partings. Fairly hard.
Red brown tel. Arkosic matrix. Hard. Frags of gray-green alt. andeslte, hornblend por, monz pot.
Same
Red brown cgl.
Brown cgl. Some frags w/ st. chl. looks more like the cgl in ND 3.
Greenish tel. ¥rags very well rounded; granules to 4
~t
Andesite or latite. andesite.
Brown. Few rounded frags of
Brown siltstone or mudstone. fractures or parting planes.
Mod soft w/ irreg curving
1080-2440 core boxes are in 9 stacks, all leaning badly and ready to fall over. Only the top box of each stack was examined.
Brown sandy siltstone, some hem on thin fracs.
Banded sandy siltstone w/ layers of siltstone/mudstone. Beddings dip 20". Gray to olive. These beds are essentially hornfels. No sulphide mineralizatlon seen.
Same, with a layer of softer mudstone.
Olive siltstone, then 2 feet nearly black mudstone depositional on arkose, white, very porous-- soaks up water.
Arkose as above alternating with 2 - 5 ft. hands of olive siltstone. At 3121', intraformation cgl of black siltstone.
Porphyritic andesite. St fracs, high-angle, w/ soft transported red hematite, probably after pyrite. Chl alt.
3123-3310
3310
3310-3464
ND 4 Cont.
Stack tipper over-- not examined.
Olive brown siltstone
White arkose and olive siltstone, w/some black mudstone.
Total Depth
~ior/,~
l~'~¢:J 1
t4I)4
/"
i
7~,,4 6,,,,,,,', ,r.~ /
j . IL+.t~, l=
t 7"7' ~,
"fol-,~r 7
i ~<,i, At~,.<.'.,, i,. , ,., s , . a
%
, - ~ i ~ . . ~ ~ , ~ . P~=2 4-=,I~
~.e~T,'~c. L o G | ~
-" ~ i " . . ~ i , . . ,
- ik \ .. ' ~ ' ; - ' , . i / ~ ~ . - ' " ~, ;.. • .~ ,; .- . . . . .,':. ..
• \ ~ ) ~ ~ - : - . 1. ~. , .~_ ~ L
i t :
/ °~:.q_ \
* ~ .
X , ~
" . ~ " . ~'"~ "; t
~\~. ~ --" " "" \ .--....,.--
~ " . - • f ~ . i "~ ~ : ~ : L ~ . • ~ :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . - - ~ . . . . . . . FAULII'~EI{-"I~III.~OLD ,. " - ,
" ~ N ' - ~ " ~ E A Z , , C ~ , R / , ' ~ . . S " '
/
5ole
ND
ND 2
ND 3
ND A
Sol i
3 C?)
(?)
6
i0
C, OPPI~H IL(?I.O}U~TION :;::ILL liOl~ I?~FOIU,:.,TIO;'!
?'or ~h~t area of the 5afford and Guthrie quadran~]e~ east of Saffo~d and southa~st of the Gila River. Compiled from field checks, courthouse records, core ]o.~ginE, and other sources durim£ 1972-1975 by David K. Brumm~%.
o n
Cla im D r i l l e d I i
by LOC .~T ION ~ no.
S28W, 1300' from ~ Cot Sec 18,
TTS-R28E •
~eolo~_Lc Kesult s DEPTH
150S Faulkner (1964)
780 Faulkner
3&79
3364
N25~ 2300' from ~ff Cor ~c 6, TTS-~E.
NA3E, 2268' from ~ Cot Sec 7, T 75-B28E. : '
l.~ew Deal I o r e - o r e rock at IC50', 20 ' no pyrite, s!ig~ZlY
a~%ered
*,:e~ De~I in r.re-ore rock a% ,CO' 8& only s]i~b.%l~" a3.tered
N~ Deal pyrite,alteratlon, frac 6 ured, intrusives, Cret-
,sediments, e t c .
N61E, 1C.20' from ~':Cor Sec ~, 1.!e~. Deal less altered than ~D3, TTS-R28~. " 7 ~ two sphalerlte veins
2C00" A~AX
2000+ ~MAX
2CC0. ~MAX
': ~29"~, 2500' from Eel Cor Sec 19, TTS-R28~.
NiE, 3600' from S:~ Cor Sec 19, TTS-R2SE. _ .
~20"~, 2600' from S~ Cot Sec 19,
TTS-R28K.
1800+ AMAX
3&~2 : AMAX-PD ' ]=~n% V=n%ur¢
3075 : AMAX-PD
M31"~, h 200~ from ~; C, or Sec 19, TTS-~28E.
Sol 121 r-um0red to have hit bornite at 8.00'.. ,.,, ' r~ .e:":~ ~_~ '~ . .~ ~- ~;~ 3 " ~ ' ' ' '
...... ~ .C-to ~ fz,~ Sol 127 ?
]
Sol 119 ? T$ o-~o
2200 +
N55~, 2518' from S~ Cot Sec 1% Sol 120
NS0 ° 52'W, /.~182' f r o m SW Cot Sol 116
Sec 19, T7S-R28E.
1800 +
Sol ]39 I~78°30"E, 903' from SE Cor Sec 19, TTS-R2~E.
2500+ . "
! T7S-R2.'/E. i. , t
N22~V, 57OO' from SR Cot Sec 19,
Nlg:~, 29~O ~ Prom ~; Cor Sec ~, i Sol 51
' TTS_~28E
ii00+ "
Sol 65
?
p.vri~ e minerallsat Ion encountered
, )
so~ er~ide cop?er at
II
12
15OO* "
19~9 + "
1 ~IE&, 2650' from SE Cot Sec 11, Sol 53A ; T7S-R27E°
1 I N&O~.", 7000' from Sg Cot Sec 19, Sol 57 ' TTS-R28E. i
I%AY., 5300' from S;d Cot See 19, Sol 71 i T 7S-R2~E. 1
i
or near TD.
?
;~D 3 3&79
ND & 336~ I
Sol I LK~O0* A~AX
2 (?) 2o00+ ,~ .x
1
3 (?) ~oco+ tmz ,
5
18004 AMAX
3&52 AE5%X-PD : 3 ~ i . l Vc.tv~
NA3E, 2268' from SW Cor ~ec 7, ,New Deal pyrite,alterat/on, zrac~ : TvS-P~SE. 6 ured, intrusives, Cret. ! , s.~m~nts, etc.
. . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
N61E, IC20' from S~" Cor Sec 7, l~ew Deal less altered th~n }a)~, TTS-R28E. 7 t w o . sFhalerite veins
~29,~, 2500' from SW Cor Sec 19, T7S-~28~.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NAE, 3600' from SN Cor Sec 19, TTS-R28E.
N20~, 2600' from S;I Cot Se¢ 19,
TTS-R28E.
N31W', A200' from S~ Cor Sec 19, TTS-PaSE.
Sol 121 r a m o r e d to h a v e hit bornite at 800'.
So1127
Sol 32A
Sol i19 ;
NppW, 2518' from SW Cor Sec 19, Sol 120 T 7S-P~SE •
?
. . . .
?
?
7
3075 ' A~AX-PD I
2200 ÷
~50°52'~, A182' from SW Cot Sec 19, T7_ S-R28E"
: NTS°3~'E, 903' from SE Cot See 1 19, T~S-R2~E.
Sol ll6
So;1 1 ~ 9
8 18OO~
9 2500+ ,
lO iiOO+
Ii 1500÷
12 19 ~3 +
1
13 21OO * t i
15 ! I
16
i T?S-~TE. , .
,, i N22W, 5700' from S~ Cor Sec 19, Sol 65 i ? TTS-R28E.
' NIAW, 2650' from SE Cor Sec II, Sol 53~ some oxide copper at t o r n e a r TD. i TTS-R27E. % ........
i NhG1",, 7000 ~ frcm ~ ~or ~c !9~ Sol 57 TTS-R28E.
N4~., 5300' frcm S?/ Cot Sec 19, Sol 71 ? '~ 73-RZSE • . . . . .
N6E, 15OO' from S;'/ Cor Sec 19, Sol 128 TTS-R2KE.
}129E, 17OO' from S:; Cot Sec 18, Sol 22 pyrite mlnerali~atlon T7S-P~28K. encc,~nt e r e d
2100+i ,, NITW~ 215~ f rom SE Cor Sec 13, S o l 15 p ~ l t e mineralization T 7S-i~7E • ~, ~ $ . . ~ . ~ & t • ~i t . . encountered
~5CO.I I " ~ilgW, hOOO' f rom Ea Cor £ec 19, So! 321- ?
T7S-K28E. ?
h
pyrite mlnerallzet t o n e n c o u n t e r e d
¢
/ DRILL HOLE iNFOR~.[%TION Pa~e 2
ss i
.......... • ..... 7 . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . .
2 600 "
Uole Dri[lled No. DEPTH by LOG AT ION -
i000 AMAX-PD in st.~te sec. 36, YTS-R27E,
3
V 2
SRI
SR 2
160
Vl
~20
ii00
1200 Phelps Dodge
i~0
ii00
848 Faul~mer TX-1
within I~0' of NE Cor.
in state sac. 32, T?S-R2~E, withln 200 f%.. of A~W Cor.
in N, Central Dart o f Sec, 36, T?S-~27~.
i~ s~ate sac. 16. T?S-R2~E, 80' from SW Cot.
in state sac. 16, T7S-P28E, 20C' from W~ cot marker
about 500' 3S of Nfl cc~ Sac 9, TSS-R28E.
about AO0' S'ly frmm N~ Cot Sac 2.1, TSS-R28E,
S61W, 3300' from ~ Cot Sac
on Clai~ Geolo@ic Result s
hit Tort, basalt at 650' all in post-ore r o c k
- insignificant depth
- insignificant depth
- hi% excess wz%er, c~sed per/orated to A20' ,~t- enhlal good ~ater moll.
~-t&ll in pest-ore basalt at TD (should be close t ]~e-ore. rock)
Verum , a l l p o s t e r e r o c k 20
Verum a l l post ore rock 5 e
28
EX2
33, TTS-RagE.
1800
236O
N&AE, 2000' from SW Cot Sac 27, TTS-R29E.
N22E, 1735' from SW Cor Sac 12, TSS-R2BE.
o p t
T r e n d e x X ~
Exxon aprox. SASE, 1200, from N~ EZ Cor Sac l~, T7S-~. 39
, T7S-R28E. (7)
a s a ~ c c ~
. " b . . . .
probsb2.w close tO pro-
entirely in post-ore ro mostly ~V basalts
entirelp in pest-ore basalt-same as croppin~ out a% drill site.
i i
Red i I000 / Inspir- ,~ ation
Red 2 i000 i " I
(?) in ~. central area of Sac. 20, TTS-R29E.
(?) probably in W central part of Sac 21, T7S-R~gK.
Red ?
I Red ?
probably a l l i n ~ - ~ z r o c k
prdoablv all in ¢~t-oz rock.
i), "J."7 ~n
A,'P _7
t 7 7 6
I~'4,0
,/'bo -
I Z~
'7 ~-~'" f , ~ , . . o o,.f~L
J&.,I O ~ "
".)-36<, --
.7-.5"30 ""
Z .5"6 <~ -
g_~ ( o- ~' ,.,
14 ? o -~-?,~o
~ 7 ¢ ~
)-7 y~,
f i-.,,,,
A,,,, Z-
~ ' - ~ " = " - % 1 '>" <>-'~-<'
l ,
~./i,/~...¢~fr. ,.Z,~. /b.,4.:l~<
~.7#t~ - s-C"
2.- 7 7 c -
.s,. r < ' / i~ ~ ,4~
P<'" f " " " < ' / ~ ~ s ), fT"' I ~-~.~c.Z
,
J .-txa -
, / 1 / l )
-4.--,t ,,.~,,2.1;, i
~~ ~ /,.-L
-T-a~ ( ¢ 7, .,,. I
PJ¢ ~,¢,.
S..¢,.~,_.~ @ ~- ~ C~_~ ~.,~ r×'b.'~=
4
.,Y' /~o ~- I r % j b,.~,...~ ~ % c o,.-tc..,., ~<7.,~...- ~f,~_t'.
F,:
1~"~° - T?~--_.O/.,,,,.,.,.,..~ .<<:5 ~"
d ~ . , <,/. <, ~.~ .. 7 % ) ~ ? ~ c < , _ . , - -D. ,,,
, , ~ 14-
/ /
~'iI'~<> .--
, _ tJ~,~,+p ~,~;~ , , , t t= i~. . y <./A.,,..
,, i / . <,,< ,, ,-.~..u ~ < o. L>..../~_4 ,<. ,~...
~--<- . - <.., / Z <, i , ; ~,~
" - - ~ ~ ' ~ i ~ . ( - - j " " ~ - " ~ # - l l = i ~ . ~ ~ 4 . ) ~ 3 t l '~ o~",~ --~ -
A~i~l , i
032 AZ-GiI~
PA_NGEA R E S O U R C E S . II~C. E X P L O R A T I O N M A N A G E R S , G E O L O G I C & M I N I N G C:ONSULT,~NTS
~2 ~. Km~m B LVO. Su.E t01
tuft;. AR,ZONA ~
December 31, 1975
MEMO TO: Files
FROM: John E.
SUBJECT: Notes: M~ng
Kinnison~
Sol-New ~al District
Claims Area, SE of Sanches, Safford
Gila County, AZ
Land status.--Since initiating the Safford district study, we have at various times attempted to discuss terms on the New Deal property, culminating with an interview at Tucson with Riebold who at that time held an option in the Faulkner New Deal group. This meeting, in December, 1974, resulted only in stalemate over the terms. Riebold did, however, make available core for inspection from New Deal drill holes 3 and 4, on which I reported I-6-75.
According to the Riebold contract, his option expired in July of chls year. Faulkner now presumably has legal grounds for clear title, in so far as the Riebold interest clouded it, but Riebold has a quitclaim deed for I/2 interest in the ground and it may be necessary for Faulkner to go to court to obtain a release from this conveyance.
Ted Faulkner is the principal holder of the New Deal claims, and apparently connrols terms for the property. He has, however, conveyed unspecified interests to relatives and friends to raise cash, and a title search will be necessary to determine these conveyances. Faulkner now resides at the Buena Vista Hotel in Safford.
Claim maps prepared for Faulkner by Dave Brummett are placed in our map file. These maps appear to accurately depict the rather large area of claims activity SE of Sanchez.
The Sol group adjoins the New Deal on the west, and is held by ~max. A number of drill holes have been put down by Amax, and by Amax in joint venture with Phelps Dodge, and with ~uintana. Claims held pri- vately by a Mr. Whitmore, including ~he CO, ND 19-28, and Tiffany, adjoin the ~ew Deal on the east. Exxon at one time had an option on =his group and drilled at least two holes. To the south and southeast of the New Deal, are the Verum and OPT claims held by Phelps Dodge. Faulkner's Trendex group adjoins the OPT claims on their south side.
Files -2- December 31, 1975 I
During this past fall, I have met with Faulkner on three different occasions to discuss terms for the New Deal group. Faulkner has not been willing to propose any deal in concise terms but has indicated he will not accept a standard mining option with a nominal front-end payment and a nominal purchase price. I do not think we should com- pletely despair of obtaining some type of agreement with him, but there is little doubt that it would be costly--even in comparison with other Safford district options which have been among the most costly in Arizona.
Faulkner may be regarded as a friendly contact in the district who is well informed on general district activity. He has of£ered to make the New Deal core available for inspection at any time and I would recommend continued contact with him, and a final effort to reach a specific set of terms. It may also be appropriate at this time to contact Whitmore regarding the CO et al. groups.
Geology.--The rocks which crop out in the Sol, New Deal, and CO area consist of flat-lying basalts of the upper sequence, overlain by Gila conglomerate. According to Dave Br~m~ett's log of the rotary section of New Deal holes 3 and 4, a conglomerate underlies this basalt. This is probably the case, for I have found a volcanic pebble conglomerate beneath the basalt in an erosionalbank in the Gila River below Earvan flat, 1.5 miles east of Sanchez. A preliminary map in our map file shows the distribution of basalt, and erosional remnants of dissected Gila conglomerate, based on reconnaissance during October and November, 1975.
The drill hole pattern on the Sol group is sufficiently ulose-spaced to indicate that Amaxwas obtaining quite a bit of encouragement, but no reference to actual ore intercepts of significance have appeared in rumors around the Safford area. Dave Brummett has complies a list of these holes, probable depths, and rumors of weak mineralization en- countered, which has been placed in our Safford files.
I have scouted the New Deal and Whitmore ground for evidence of holes other than those shown by Faulkner , a~d have found only one--on the CO group on the common endcenter between CO 14 and 15. The drill sumps and sites have been bulldozed over, and I found only a few very small fragments of epidotized porphyry which may have been derived from this hole. At the site of Exxon 2, in section 9, only basalt cuttings were evident. At the site of New Deal 2, I found a single large piece of core consisting of a porphyry with weak epidote and chlorite, similar to the fragments at the site on CO I~-15.
The site of New Deal 4 is bulldozed over. At New Deal 3, I was able to oL ~iamond drill sludge, and from this panned rather abundant pyrit reby confirming that pyritic mineralization was encountered
in this no~e.
The principal exploration objective to date recognized, consists of a re-occurrence of mineralization along the SE projection of the Sanchez
the New Deal and part of the fault zone, which appears to pass Through CO groups. The pyritic mineralization in the Cretaceous Pinkard forma-
Files 8
-3- December 31, 1975
tion, and partly in porphyry, offers a direct lead to exploration on the New Deal group. New Deal 2 and the site at CO 14-15, however, are but weakly mineralized. The spacing of these holes is.sufficiently wide to allow room for a Safford-type ore deposit to occur between them. In addition, we may speculate that the Paleozoic section, which could be favorable for replacement or tactite deposits, lles beneath the Pinkard formation at a depth greater than 3,500 feet.
JEK
JEK/n~ Attachments (2)
J
• - t •
i
JEe, m e c o t t " ' Division • • r . x p . l o r a t i o n , llc. Geophysics
Exploration Sennces Depar tment , Opera tmn.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
/ G. D. Van V o o r h i s R . C. B a b c o c k , J r . H~ W. F l e m i n g
P h i l l i p M. %%fright
J. Ashley MAY ~1[ t9T5 R. W. SLevenson
B. C. M: C . T U C S O N
SUBJECT: The .So ! (Arnax), Sulfide. .S~rstem, G r a h a m C_ounty, A r i z o n a - - Report on r i p Work'
The attached report by Roger Andre~vs presents an analysis of one ~/II ~ line which %re surveyed over the Sol sulfide system, discovered near Safford by Amax. The sulfide system is completely buried beneath 500 to I, 500+ feet of Tertiary lake-bed sediments and volcanic rocks. The discovery was apparently made by II 3 surveying of a positive gravity anomaly (indicating shallow cover) ~vhich runs as a gravity ridge so,,th from the Sa/ford district. Since the discovery, Arnax has invited a nun~ber of groups to survey ~ specific line with their equipment. This represented one .of the few opportunities %ve have to conlpare our equipment with that of
o t h e r s .
A number of points brought up in Roger's report merit further discusz-;.on. In 197Z we covered the area surrounding Sol with RIP without detecting an anomaly. At that time it ~vas not possible to place electrodes in the heart of the s'ystem because Amax held the ground and was actively exploring, We d~d, however; have two receiver sites over what is now believed ~o be portions of the mineralized area (our sketchy knowledge o[ the size and location of the mineralized area is only by inference from our VIP data and from discussions v~ith Amax geologists during which Amax was q[dte secretive). There has been much controversial discussion regarding why our RIP did not detect Sol, and the data presented in this report sheds n~uch
light on the question.
A glance at Andrews' Figure 6, reproduced here asFigure A, shows that receiver site 33 %V from transmitter T 33 can be projected north%yard to fall bet~veen DH 4 and DH I, which are on our VIP line. LOoking at rny Figure B we see that the RIP site projects at 15 ~ of the l{ne. lqow <vlth a transmitter site to the east, the RIP value expected from a receiver site in this location would be given roug}Lly by the £ourth separation reading of the diagonal on the VIP line which trends down and east from the 5 %V - 5 E interval, i.e., a value of 9 mils, as circled. ~%[e actually observed
. . , r
, ' e
t
-2- ~" May i~, 1975
4 mils on the ,RIP survey. In similar fashion, RIP receiver site 34 S~. projects ~vest of D/-/ 6 on the VIP line., and the expected reading from such a site would be given roughly by the fourth separation value on the west trending diagonal from the 35 V~ - 45 V~ interval as circled. This value was not read,, but surrounding values make a 10-14 rail reading likely. A 9 was actually observed on the RIP survey. My check of RIP data quality sho~vs +-3-4 mils to represent hhe expected measurement noise level. In addition the dipole-dipole VIP measurements are expected to be about Z0 percent higher Lhan the RIP measurements because the VIP data were taken with Mark IV receivers which read higher values than the Mark ILl receivers used for the RiP work.
Furthermore, Figure C of this cover memo provides a case for comparison with the RIP data. The numbers given are the percentage of intrinsic source response which would be observed from receiver sites situated around transmitters as indicated and for a source body 5,000' x 5, 000' in plan, 4, 000' thick, and buried I, 000' (top figure) and Z, 000' (bottom figure). Because the intrinslc:~esponse of So] is estimated by Andrews to be about 100 mils, the numbers on Figure i can be read as mils of predicted RIP response: These computer models show that it is not s~ufficient simply to have a receiver site sorr~ewliere on the body-- the responsive body must comprise a considerable proportion o£ the volume between transmitter and receiver,' and high amplification in response occurs only w~en both trans- mitter and receiver are over the body. This is especially true for deeper bodies, but would not be true for outcropping ]bodies where either trans- mitter or receiver in the bodyis sufficient for detection. - . .
My Conclus[o'n from the above analysis is that given the sulfide system as presently known, one would not expect to detect it with the 1972 RIP Cover- age configuration we were • able to obtain at Sol, In fact our "thoroughness of search" study, presented and discussed in Tucson in August 1974, shows that only in the area shaded in Blue on Andrews' Figure 6 would we expect to detect the one cubic mile of 50-ell response, which the RIP program sought, for a sulfide system buried between 500 and I, 000 feet to top, as Sol is. Increasing the size of the sulfide system to Sol proportions and intrlnsic response aids (]erection, of course,• bu.t does not materially "
change my conclusion. In this regard, I must disagree with Roger's comment on page 6 that "we do not normally countenance the possibility that ~vo- square mile 50-I00 ell sulfide systems can lurk undetected" in holes in our
data. We geophysicists do ,recognize this possibility, and it should also be. recognized by others. .- " . "
- .. .~ • . .
A second point for discussion is Roger's words o . n "residual coupling errors" in our data. That our EM coupling removal •procedures do not always re- move all of the EM effect is well documented by Gerry Hohrnann. In areas • where resistlvity is verst low, llke at Sol, £otal EI~ coupling is usually very high. In these cases our reduced • data may retain some coupling. This
-3- May 16, 1975
L
residual coupling may be reduced by I) using more frequencies to obtain
a better coupling extrapolation, Z) using lower frequencies, or 3) usii~g a different array. Both (I) and (Z) were tried at Sol. We attempted to read
0.06Z5 Hz data , one. frequency step loxver than our usual 0. IZ5 Hz low frequency, but were not able to obtain useful data because of high tel]~rlc current noise. We %vote not able to try (3) because Amax restricted o~r
%york to a dipole-dipole survey of the one line.
That the I%4GS IP survey was able to detect the Sol sulfide system in spite
of severe coupling is dLte to the high intrinsic response of the systei n~-,
which added onto the coupling. ]~GS may or nla~ not have applied a simple couplin'g correction such as subtracting theoretical coupling from their
data, but it is reasonable to assume that they tried this, for what else -. could, t h e y do wi th s u c h d a t a ? A n d r e w s s h o w s tha t th i s c o u p l i n g r e m o v a l p r o c e d u r e is r e a s o n a b l y good at Sol , e l . though i t does not w o r k w e l l in g e n e r a l . Had t /my done th i s they would h a v e o b t a i n e d a p r o f i l e w h i c h resembles Figure D of this cover memo. "Figure D shows a residual anomaly which ~s dissimilar to our Own only on thewest end, where Coupling becomes large. It is not surprising that such a residual iP indication in the S;tfford .
d i s t r i c t , however shaky the theoretical grounds for i t s constructiQn, would
1}e drill tested.
I d r a w the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m the p r e s e n t da ta at Sol:
1. The. d e p o s i t is d e t e c t a b l e w i th c o m p e t i t o r ' s IP g e a r b e c a u s e i t s h i g h - intrinsic response adds sufficiently to the severe coupling that it
can still be seen; . ,
Z. T h e f a c t tha t our RIP s u r v e y did not d e t e c t the d e p o s i t i s c o n s i s t e n t with known characteristics of the lip technique, and
3. Our VIP anomaly shows t.he best relation to known sulfide distribution
of t h e f ive s e t s of IP da t a to w h i c h we h a v e a c c e s s . R o g e r ' s p r e -
s e n t a t i o n of t h e s e o t h e r da ta e a s i l y b e a r s th i s out . 7.~.
T h e l a s t po in t I wou ld l ike to m a k e i s t h a t d i s c u s s i o n of d i f f e r i n g v i e~ rpo in t s ~s e x p r e s s e d in th is and the c o m p a n f o n m e m o i s a n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f e x p l o r a t i o n and w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t a t i o n of th i s is a h e a l t h y bu t i n f r e q u e n t
occurrence.
PIvi~-F: s s E n c l o s u r e s
• / / i .t.. P h i l l i p S ' . W r i g h t
cc: I-I. L. B a u e r , J r . R, K. A n d r e w s
" ° I
~ ' - .. " . . . + : . . ' . . . . , . + . • ~ - . . ? .
- ,1 . . . . " . -
, .." +.. . .
: ". • . ,~ :
._ ... ....:., • : "'.';. " .' ;..
• , . . .
/ -
i
I
' . 2-.0? l i b "
~r~ ~ ~ . /
~__~!~' . : , :~ f - - - - __~ ~ _ _ ~
Z /
11 -. ° ..
/ ~ ~ 1 , ~
I. . ~~.~.~
~ p ~ ~ .
J
llol~o I \ 7 .__ -- --
o I
.... / ~
.~ J
+
\ .k
I
/ /
i
. . . ,
' I
T 3 3
\<
. . ,-.
• - j ~ t P O V E , ~ L / L ' /
F i g u r e A
5 -~ 3 'Z t
~ - . _ ~ ; . . . . - . . . . . . ;. ..,, .. ;"~w G :~ '.,~ £~3W 4 5 W ~ 5 ; Y -'-'5 :',
• X
~ ~ L .~/.- .,'~/'~ ~
a ~
G "5 4 ~J 2 I . . . . . . ,' ; . i -~ " :
75"~ 6:~W 5~W 45W 3~%¥ 2~'W
O I 2 :5 4 ~"
, , , .I. ..... ._ : ....
.g . o /
21
X ~K z Z K
6
r ,
ig
1¢
o ) 2 5 ~ 5 $
iS~-~ 5 W 5 E 1 5 E P.~)~ Z. f ) E *;-.~ .E
X Z 7 . X X . x ~. " t X, " ~ - ' ~ ¢
A~E.4 SO L &T~%~ A~HZONA LIaE ,~0~,, ! . DATA UY KES
T I~' , % ~ I ; T ~ ? . - . - - - - , - ~ - . . _ _ R ' , . ' - Iv 'ER
X
D;~T- = Z~z...~ / 7._/__5
D ~ P O L E - DJPOLE A R R A Y
7 5 W B"JW 5 5 W ' 4 5 W 5 5 W - 2 5 V t 1 5 W 5 W 0 5 E 15:__ Z S ~ - 7.),5E
OH ~ Dht 6 DH 4. DH I ! ~ :_ ) t % . ! ,,I ) ~ t , ~ , , I - * 0
' Ts " ) ' Ts ~ Tv
_ , o o o .
. . . . . . - . . - - • -. - / . - . - I ~ ~ . " - . . : ~ : ' . . . ) o . . • . o . . ~ . ..% .L- • .~..% a - " • 4" • ~ [ - - o - ' " ° , . - ; - , . , . - ~ d "
• - " - - • - " - . - . . i . . . _L- - - : ~ . ~ . : . ~ . . - . : : : ~ . . - " " " " ' . " " " , - ' " - ' " " " " " . . ' I . " : " " - ". ". " . ' \ . ; - ' : ' : " L ; - , - - ~ _ o o o "
" . " " . - - . . _ _ • , ' . . " L " t ~ . . , . , i . . - . ' . , = . " " ' . . ' . - " • " " " . " . . . " " ' " ' ; . ' " . L ?
%' " " " i " " " ' ' - ' ' : . ; " : : ' : i _ 2 0 0 0 ~
s c A L E •
. . . .
2 0 O O" 0
Y7 . . . . . . *uR
Figure B
SOL GRAffA;~. CDU; 'JTY, . ~ R I Z G ) N A
V . I . P . S E C T I [ I N
T I
0 3
i
T '",.I/9 __ .
2 7.=---- P_?_ • 9 L ~ "
1
,i !
I
I
W = L = 5,000' DE = 4, 00O'
T '~"'. o /'D~pt"~ = z 0 e
¢,-----o- "~J// 6 I" i "(~
/ i I
. ~.
Z, 000' x~,
V¢ =_x'- 5,000' DE = 4 , 0 0 0 '
/
?
/ i 5
5 !0 (~) '~
t
F i g u r e C
| -
I(F-b| I I Z C O T T
i,~IDUC~-O P O L J . f i I Z , C ' i ' I U ; I F ~ O F I L Z ~ O I K B I - I E ~ T
- I . . . . . . . . i i _ . . . . . . . | I i . . . . l • l - . . . . . ! - + - - - - - - - - t
. ] l
x
X x x x x
X X X X '
II X X X :i
X X X X X
X X X X X
x x x ' x' X
tl X X Z X I~ X #.
x x X X X X X X
X ~ X X X x x pc:-
x ~ I I x x .'( M .~
x x x H X x X
x x x x x x ' ~
' ? s ' ~
p f X
g
• - _ ; , , !
7 7 x - ~ x
2 R X X
X X X X
X X ~(
# 3 t Z f M ~, X II
~ x x
! -- I L_ _ I IBI
" .rJ~C.c.,:~_~ E:., c l ' ; ' " " .... t
. . . . I . . . . . :. _ ,
.. • ,.~ . , . ) . • " ~ ' t ' . ' ,~, , . r , ' . ' . . ' . _.T" I J . , . # , ~ ' ( "7-l l v/ ...... ~.. ~ ......
• z:/~: ~ ~,;~T " - # D ~ . . . . . . . . ~..~.'--
| " I -
x ~ f " x x x x "~ x
/ !
X - / ,,'""'X~ "-.,.,~ X . -~.. X ~ l tX
\
i / t / \ . ",, ",,,
.~< / / t ~ X '
\ - X • x \ 1I tl 'X \X
x
7 X
t @
1"I . t i
,S"-"
/ ,3 ~ ~ , ~ ~ . , -
X I X
• # ,b
" ~. ~,
.,¢--
. . | .,,I
.... D A T E . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . .
/,,'?r :;'' ~ . . . . . . . .
THE SOL (A_kIAX) SULFIDE SYSTEh4, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA
REPORT ON VIP WORK
by R. K. Andrews
May 1975
TABLE OF CONTEiqTS
SUMMARY AND R/E~COIkIMENDATIONS ...............
INT I{OD UC TION ..............................
GEOLOGY ......... . ................. .......
THE VIP LINE ...................... ..........
PREVIOUS RIP WORK ..........................
COR~PARISON WITH OTHER IP SYSTEMS .............
REl~ERENCES ...............................
I
B
3
4
5
6
7
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
F i g u r e B
Figure 9
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Index Map, Tucson Office
Sol, Graham County, Ar izona , Location of Sec t ion
Sol, Graham County, Arizona, Geologic Section
Sol, Graham County. Arizona, VlP s~ct ion
Sol, Theoretical Versus Observed Coupling
Sol, GraaAaxn County, Arizona, RIP Overlay
Sol, GrahamCounty, Arizona, MGS Tin~e-Domain
versus VIP Data
Sol, Graham County, Arizona: P.D. 'Decoupled* versus
VIP Data
Sol, Graham County, Arizona, McPhar 'Multimode' versus
VIP Data
Figure i0 Sol, Graham County, Arizona, Zero 'CR' versus VLP D~ta
THE SOL (A/MAX) SULFIDE SYSTEM, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA
REPORT ON VIP WORE
by R. K. A n d r e w s
M a y 1975
SUMM_AIIY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/ k r r a n g e m e n t s w e r e m a d e w i t h A m a x to r u n a VIP l ine o v e r t h e i r Sol st~t- f i d e s y s t e m in F e b r u a r y of 1975. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e p e a t e d a l~ne t h a t h a d previously been run by several other mining or contracting companies, using a variety of different IP systems. Amax were interested in comparing our results vv'it~ those obtained by the ohher IP systems. %¥e were interested in obtaining data over the Sol system, speci~Ical!y to as'sist with o~r inter- pretation of ll ° data from the Goat T#/e~l area, located immediately zouth of Sol, and, nxore generally, to increase our knowledge of the electrical
characteristics of covered sulfide systems.
The Sol salfide system is located ten miles east of the town of Safford, The system is developed in Cretaceous andesites that are totally covered by 500 to i, 500 feet of Tertiary gravels and volcanics, with the nearest ex- posed premineral bedrock located about five miles north. Amax discovered the system in 1972 by running conventional time-domain IF over the northern irar~ of a gravity high that extends south from the Safford district. It appears that S01 is one of the few unquestionable IP d{Lscoveries in the SoulJx~.vest, .and p o s s i b l y t he on ly t o t a l l y ~ o v e r e d suLt-~de -~ystem, wi~h no ind ica '~ ions in a d - j a c e n t b e d r o c k , k n o w n to o c c u r hx A r i z o n a .
The M a r k IV TIP system showed a strong, cohercr~t dipole-dipole response upto Z0 mils above background despite the existence of highly conductive (5 ohrn-meter) cover, Drilling shows that the sulfide syste m is a£ minimum 6,000 feet east-west along the IP line. IP indicates that its total east-west extent may exceed two nliles. Arnax has indicated that the nor~h-souh]a ex- tent of the system is at least one mile. IViineralization apparently does not cut off with depth. Sulfide content %vithin the system is reportedly between Z sxld i0 percent by volume. ~e know little about copper content.
The land situation over the ten square-mile covered area between Sol and Sanchez is presently being compiled. IP is recommended if sufficient open
land exists.
INT ROD UCT ION
T h e Sol su l f i de s y s t e m was d i s c o v e r e d in I97Z w h e n A m a x c o n t r a c t e d i%{ining Geophysical Surveys iMGS) of Tucson, to run an IP survey over a pronounced, covered gravity high situated east of Safford, and south of Inspira~ion's Sanchez property. Some 27 line-miles of in-line e]Jpole- dipole IP was run using Newrnont-type thne domain equipment. Following discovery of an lP anomaly, Amax staked land, drilled several }1oles and discovered sulfides at depths between 485 and I, 443 f'eet. At this point, they joint ventured the property v~th Phelps Dodge, and several more holes were drilled. At the time of this writing, ten to fifteen holes have been drilled to an average depth of 2, 000 feet. Phelps Dodge have now ter- nu~_nated their joint-venture agree~nen~ xv[th Amax.
S i n c e the IP a n o m a l y at Sol was d i s c o v e r e d in 197Z by 1MGS, M c P h a r : Phelps Dodge and Zonge Engineering and Research Organization (ZERO) have run//~ over the system. All surveys were carried out along the same line at the request of Amax. In November of 1974, Frank Fritz, the Amax geophysicist in Tucson, presented the results of these surveys at ~he Society of Exploration Geophysicists convention in Dallas, Texas. According to Fritz, although the different systems ga.ve results that vsLried s~n~fic~ntly in detail, they all effectively defined the same anomaly. Fritz reiterated Amax's invltation to other companies to run over Sol with their IP systems. ~%re felt that we would gain valuable information by so doing, and accordingly a VIP seven-spread was run on February 19th and Z0th, 1975. The results of this seven-spread~ ~zhich fornl hhe main subject of this report, were g~ven- to Annex, who have indicated their intention tO p~ubl%sh a paper that includes our data at some sta~e in the future. : -'-
GEOLOGY
The geology of thi Sol system is shown on a section along the IP line pro- vided to us by Amax (Fig. 5, With location map, Fig. Z). This section
shows:
i) Cretaceous andesites intruded by a Laramide stock with Z-5 volume percent, sulfides within the stock and andesites ~nd a zone of higher sulfides (5-10 percent) in the andesites east of the stock;
iii)
Up to 600 feet of oxidation in and around the stockin the eastern part of the system with no oxidation in the andesites in the western
part of the system;
The system is totally covered by 500 and I, 500 feet Of Tertiary lake bed sediments. At location 0 on the section, these sediments are cut off agahast Tertiary volcanics by ~ fault that displaces the andesites only about I00 feet. .&max is mystified by this fault.
?
-S-
Drilling has apparently established no cutoffs to nuineralization, eithe,'" to t}~e north, south, east or %vest, or with depth, l~easonable horizontal di-. mansions for the system %vould be about two miles eas[-wes~ by at le~.st one mile north-south. The section sho%vn is located in an area where, accordh~g to Amax, the system is "effectively two-dimensional" in t]~e IP
sense.
THE V i P LINE
The results of our ~/IP line are shown in Figure 4. This llne is plot~ed in relation to the geologic section first presented in Figure Z. Extrapolated phases are calculated using the least-squares polynominal fit for f = l o 0,
0o5, 0. Z5 and 0.]25.
T h e T e r t i a r y l a k e bed s e d i m e n t s t h a t c o v e r the s y s t e m w e s t of 0 h a v e resistivity of only about 6 ohm-meters. The decrease in apparent re- s i s t i v ~ t i e s to m e w e s t r e f l e c t s me th icke ,~ing of this u~i~- in t, his' dir~.ctiOno
' l~ '~:ertiar7 ~rolcad ' ics~exp0sed e a s t of 0 h a v e r h ~ i s e v ~ t i e s 'hfthe~0"5~ol~m- met~--'--er r a n g e . A h i g h e r l r e s i s t i v i t Y " I a y e r , - e i p p l * i g w e s t k r o m ' t h e volcg~;xic- s e d i m e n t c o n t a c t , i s a p p a r e n t in tl ie da ta , and th i s i s b ~ l i e v e d to be t h e h i g h t r - r e a [ s t i v i t y bed rock .
A coherent YP anomaly of up to Z7 mils apparent response in a background of about 6 n dls is obvious on the II D section. We would qual~tatively in- terpret this anomaly as representhlg a strongly responsive source, ex- tending westward beyond our data ~rom about 5 ~[~, and shallowest (around I, 000' deep) at about Z0 W. This interpretation correlates reasonably
closely with the Arnax drilling data.
The IP source obviously has some topography on its top surface, and is probably associated with a qoncealed zone of higher resistivities. Neither
of these features are commonly associated wlth the gravel responses %re know about in Arizona. Furthermore, n~ither the gravels nor volcanics in the area are responsive in outcrop. Finally, the anomaly is associated with a strong gravity high. There is little doubt that we would have identified this anomaly as shown on this one VIP line as a concealed sulfide system.
However, certain problems are inherent in the interpretation o[ Mark IV II m data in areas Of very low resist~vities. Chie£ among these is the fact that the strong electromagnetic coupling effects generated by ~he conductive ground do not extrapolate to background IP values in the absence of an anomaly using our usual reading frequencies and extrapolation techniques. These residual coupling errors have been investigated by Hohmann (1974).
The calculated residual coupling errors after our usual coupling removal at n = 6 vary from Zmils on the east end of the Sol line to 9 mils on the
/ -! i
]
- 4 -
west end. Theoretically, this residual coupling should be subtracte~l from the observed data in order to obtain a coupling-free response. l'lo%vever, these residu~l coupling errors here are not large enough materially to alter the shape or amp!itude of the response.
The correlation between.theoretically predicted total coupling and ob-
served coupling at Sol is very close (Fig. 5). Consequently, we are con-
fident that our estimates of coupling errors are fairly accurate.
In an effort £o overcome residual coupling errors, measurements were taken at 0.06Z5 Hr. ~t Sol. Extrapolations using this low a frequency sllould be virtually error-free for the Sol resistivity conditions. Un- fortunately, no~se levels below O. I Hr. were very high at the tithe, and the extrapolated phase values using 0.06?-5 exhibit a great deal of scatter.
T h e A m p l i t u d e of t h e r e c o r d e d a n o m a l y a t S o l i s s o m e w h a t l a r g e r t h a n might be expected in view of the fact that the system is •covered by very low resistivity gravels. This indicates that the intrinsic response of the system must be very high. A layered-earth interpretation of the IP line west o£ 35 W gives a l~yer of 5 mils and 6 ohm-meters ove%'lying a layer of 80 mils ancl 60 olhm-rneters, at a dep~ of I, 300 fee£o Residual coupling errors were subtracted from the data before this interpretation was carried out. Layered-earth interpretations normally ascribe minimum intrinsic responses to buried sources, since the sources are never in[inite in the horizontal dimension. Consequently, the intrinsic response of Sol might be as high as 100 mils. Some detailed computer modeling of the system would greatly improve our estimates of intrinsic response.
Owing to the resistivity contrast between the cover and the IP source, we are only seeing about 10 percent of the intrinsic I1 ° response of the source at n = 6 on the west end of the line. Were the sulfides weaker or more deeply buried, it is unlikely that hhey would be Y/P-detectable in this area.
PREVIOUS RIP WORK
T h r e e RLP s i t e s w e r e r e a d a r o u n d t h e S o l s y s t e m in I 9 7 2 , u s l n o t h e IV[ark " . I I I r e c e i v e r ( M a c k ~ i p r a n g , 197Z) . T h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s w o r k a r e s h o w n i n . Figure 6. Because the land was held By Amax, it was impossible to work
"directly over the Sol system.
There is no doubt that a RIP transmitter locatecl near the center Of the
• vIP line would have recorded an anomaly on most, if not all, receiver legs. •However, transmitter sites located around the edge of the Sol • sys- tem, with receiver sites located within t h e system, failed to record a response. This is theoretically conceivable in tl~e light of RIP computer modeling. However, comparatively srn~ll 'holes' in our RIP coverage,
--5--
li1~e the one at Sol, are frequently unavoidable Oxving to culture or access problems, and we do not normally countenance the possibility that two- square mile 5(]-100 rail sulfide systen%s c~n ll~rk undetected in these holes. It is also interesting to speculate on whether we %vould have follovted up z noisy RIP anomaly ~)f Z5 ~nils and 15 ohnl-met~rs in this area. Othc.r sin%ilar responses ii% the general area have apparently generated no interest.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER IP SYSTEMS
Figures 7 to I0 show our VIP date plotted agains~ the MGS time-domain data, the P.D. "decoupled" frequency domain data', ~he McPhar multirnode dat~ end the ZERO CR data, respectively. All lines were r~ with I, 000-
foot dipole spacing.
In general, the Mark IV anoznaly is significantly more coherent, and more representative of known sulfide distribution at depth, than any other anomaly.- Resistivity data for all systems compare'very closely, and consequently are
not reproduced here.
A brief commentary on the other sets of ~P data is apprDprlateo
1. The., MGS D~ta (Fig. 7)
This was recorded with conventional Newmont-type t{nle do n~ain equip;nent, with the anon%aly contoured in milliseconds (I millisecond = about . 7 n~.illi- radish). Of all the IP sections, the MGS sectlon probably correlates ~est with ours. This, hovrever, is son~owhat surprising. Theoretical coupling for the Newmont system approaches 30 milliseconds at n = 6 at Sol, and this is close £o the amplitude of the MGS response at that level° My evalua~on of the MGS data v¢ould prdb&bly be that the response was largely caused by electroiTlagnetic coupling. There can be little doubt, however, that MGS and Amax interpreted the data otherwise, since a hole was drilled into the
anomaly near 5 W,
Z. The P.D. 'Decoupled f D a t a
Phelps Dodge record IP in the frequenc F domain with a conventional pre- tending receiver at f = 3-0 and 0. I Hz. In conductive areas like Sol, the electromagnetic coupling in the results can be huge (up to 50 pfe). P.D. overcame this problem by subtracting theoretically predicted coupling from the observed data. The results shown in Figure 8 have been thus manipul~ted. The section sho~vs an anomaly, but one can question the ob- jectivity of the coupling-removal procedure in a case where covered sul-
fides are known to exist,
-6 -
3. The M c P h ~ r .M_ultir',,,.ode Sy.stcm
McPhar and Amax selected Sol ~s an excellent area for a test of the ne.x; 'multimode' system. This system is a phase-reading system that removes coupling by extrapolation, %vhich records in milliradians, and which in theory is very similar to our IV[ark III VIP gear . The multimode resu[ts, however, (Figo 9) show that McP]%ar, at the time, had some bugs remaining in hhe sys~en~. The scatter in the data is very bad, and this system was rated least coherent of all models tested. Although McPhar defined an anornaly in about the right place, additional A~clDhar lines in t~.e Goat ~Vell area to the south defined similar responses in areas where we fo~Ind no
&nomalies whatsoever.
4, The ZEI<O Complex Resistivity Sys tem
Ken Zonge's results at Sol are shovcn on Figure I0. The ZEI~O CI~ system is a phase-readlng system that records Phase shift over a very wide range of frequencies. Coupling is removed individually, at each frequency, by means of an undisclosed technique. The results, as shown here, appear to be coupling-free phase values, in milliradians, comparable to our extrapolated phases. Although an anomaly was recorded, i t does net correlate very well with knovJn sulfide distribution. The shape of the re- sponse indicates that sulfides ought to be about Z, 000 feet deep. ZERO were reported to have had trouble reading at Sol, owing to high noia~ levels. Presumably this is a result of their low transIrlitter output (Z cops.).
• REFERENCES
I-Io~nann, G. W. ~ 1974, Phase extrapolation for Mark IV Vector IP Data:
E.IEI-GDII~D report, May.
Mackelprang, C. E., 1973, Safford area, Graham County, Arizona--
RIP report: I~S-GDO report, March.
:,. X
-7-
' , -'~ i / " ` % . . . . f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ~
oK/#g/n~n
p, o P,"~scot~ Z
k i i oso.f:#t ' m
1 i
' " l
105 o
¢
I
I ] n
i o,, .°, . ,o t
L ",c o. i
i i IC'O o
KANt,. - . . . . z
~',,.
, , , . , . . ,
0
' Z
I1~ ~
CALIF. r YUmf f
¢>P,~oent'x
0 N A i N E W 1
1 I
o~IO*o !I cio,/ • o 42° ~Ot . i %
, o f u c . r a , ? oLO/'dstJu,,'g ~oLO s • " ' ~ ' "~ . j ~ Cruces
""- t ~,o~'rpo,o " "~" o Nogole~ m ~ . . . . . . . ,
b " ' - . . . . . . . . . . . J . . . . . : "--,,
M E ×
M E X ~
\
ht,~ D E× I dAP
-.~-\ " ' - " " " r " X /
3 0 o ~
TUCSON OFFICE: 0 5Q loo ~c'O. Mi',
9¢ALE t "T, 500,000
IlO c' / tO5 ° I00o"
, , . . . '. - = . - . - i
t.~:', . , : ; . . . . . . .
t2 . ~ . ~ . ~ k .
2
t , . : . " / " : ' "
V ; : ": '% "I . ' "; m
. . . . " 7 ! . . 2::--- .., . . . . .
- ?
{ - - . _ /
'" " " " :;I " . . . . . " - " - , - - ' " ~ " - " - - ? ~ : ~ ' ~ " "" -" : ' ~ % ' 2 - 2 : ' - - ; "
, : . : ~ - . - " ' - . . . . - - J : - : . ! . . . . • _ ~ . . - . . ~ .. ~. : . , . - - - . . . . . , .. - - . . - ' , " , . . , : . , ,
f _ . . . . . . ~ " ' " , , . ~ , : "" ~ , , . . x - ,,. - . - : .-
' : ' " ' - - . ' i " , - , • " % < . > ~ ' " " " - "< ! " , 2 " " - . • "~ - • i . " %
.[ " > ? . . . " . ' : ' - , . . . . - : - ~ . . . .
" ' " ' ' ',-L': s' ~ i - " ' , " . , " ! . 1 " ~ . . . . . " , ( ." : . . ~ " - % 1 . . . : . ~ " , , , , . | . _ ."
!
: ~ . . _ . - - < . . . . - ~ . ..~ ~, . , . - - ¢ ~ : ~ . ,,, . . .
• , ' _ i " " i ' , . ~ { , . . ' L_ - - - __ ~' " " - ' "
• [ " " \ . • , . , - ' - - . : . ; . - . - , -
; ' ; ~ - . . ~ ..... ~ . . . / " . ,
. ~:~.. ~ . , " 7 " - ' : •
'. " . - ' , - i . / %" " -"-~" . . , : . - t - : ~ ' _ - . - - 4 . , . : .
• . . : . - - ~ , , ~ . _ : - . . . . . - , 1 j : ' . . - .
i ..I "~'
" ', _ j _ " ." ~ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~r - " : - - - ' : - - "~ . . . . . . . . . ~ - , .~T, . . . . . . . . . . : ~ - ' : : - ' ~ " " ~ " . . . . . . . ~ "" ".~ . . . . .
" ~ . C ." , • i ~, - " . . . . "- - ' " ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ . . . • " t - . i " " " . - - , • . . . . . . < . ' ; - " " ~ ' ~ : . . ' " ' " " " " : ' ' " " : - ' ~ " " " l
-:,. ' ~ • _ / , . . - - - ~ - - - " ~ ' " _ . _ . - ' - . . ~ . . . . . . . " , - . - - = :_ . - - ' : "< - . " - - . . . 2 ~ - . , . . . - . : _ . , . - ~ .
, . ' • : . . . . - - . - . . - - ~ . - " • " " . - . - ~ , - - - - ; : ' .~' ~ . * _ - r - , , . ~ " ' - ' - - - 2 , - - - , . ' - , , . . ' . ' : ' ~ . . . . ~ - , " : ~
• q " , : " • - " " " - - : : 3 : : ~ . ~ ~ - ' - ' " " " ' " ' : - ~ - . . . . . . . . . . , - " " - . " - : . - . ' . ~ - • , a " • ' - ' , " . ~ p , . ' " . ~ . - - . c - 2 .
~. ' ' - , . . " . , . , . " - / " - - - - " . . " . , " • " - . : " " ' , - - . : : ' " "." . - :: . . : ' - 2 . " . - " ' .OZ ' : - " " " ~ , .
- . . " - . - - - - . , , , . . . ' , . . • / . , , - . . . , , , , . • ) . ~ ' - . . ~ ' . ~ . . . . . .
i"-! .-..." . . . . :%< 18 " - - , . ' " r : , - = . , =
" . . , . , . . - " - ! : - " - . . . ~ " , . ' • . . . . . " - ' . : ~ - . , : , . . . - . . . . - . - [ - - , '~ .
/ . .... " - " ' - - ' . . . . ~" . . . . . . . ' , , ~ ' / > : . - % ' : 5 ; ' : : : . ' - "
..... ", ' ~ - ~ . - ~ 7 . ~ = ' - 7 - " " : - " - : - - : " - " . " " ' " . ."-. ':" " ; q ..... " - ' , • " • ~ .- . i , -, . ._- ; ,. _ . . . . . . . . ' - " ; . x _ . . -. , . . . : 7 , . . . . . 2 " - "
• "" " • . . - - , , " . . . . . . .-,r".., "'- " ' - -' " " -"- ' " - ' " - ' ' ' - ' - i " : ¢ ' - = a ~"
. . . ..... . - . - . . __ . _ : ' . < ' - ' < , . .:.-:.. .- . _.,. . . . . . . : , . L . . ~ . " - ! : . . \ - , ".~. . . . . :" -.-:-':'=--- . . . , - - " • " _ . . "- • " - : . - . 2 . , - . _ ' " " ", .. "~---. "- "" -> • .- - . .. . ~ . . : " . . ": . ".~, , "--"...~- -, . . . ~" --~, ...
. . . . 2 - . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . 2 - . : - . : ~ . . . . . . . . . -" .. - - = : . - - . " ; ' '~ . . . . . . . . . . . - : ~ - - - - ~ ' / - : . . . . . " ~ ' ~ - " ~ " ~ - ' ? . . . . . . . - ' ~ " - g ~ - " : - - - " : . . . . .
. . " . " • • . ~ , . . . . . , " ,R - , _ "L 'T '~ , , ~ . ~ - - . . . , - : . ~ , " - , . . . , , . - . . . .
• " " "~ ". " ' : ' - - " " .... " ~ ' . ' I . . . . ~ 1"" . I .-'.-5<:'. " .. - - . ' . - . - '" " . . . . . _ . , . - . - . . . . . . . . = . . ~ . . ,, .... ~ - . " ' ." ; . ., , . ~ " " " ' k " , . . , -. " ' ,, . . . . . •
, . ' - . . ; . , ~ , . - , . . . . _ _ ' - _ ~ . . * ~ , - . , , .-" , - " ->" , ' ~ . . . . . . . . - , , .
' • ~,-r ._ . - : ~ . : . . ~ : ~ " . . L . . t . . . . . , ' . . ; "- " " . . . . . " ! -" ~ _ L . . - " ' ~ - ' ~ " ~ ? . . . . . . . . ;
' "" ' ' ' - . 7 - L : '~ / " "" ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---:--=--, I " ' '" L:. . . . . . . .
• " * ¢ ~ " - J " t ~ " ~ " k " ~ " ~ " ' ~ " ! . :"
w , . :
' ' - 2 . ~ . m . .~ : . . . . . , . • - . , , . . . ~ ,.~--
• " " ' ~ " - - . ~ " ~ ; " " " " - 0 " - " - ; ' " ' ' " - - - ' " " - - ~ ' • .~ - " i / " ~ " . . : ~ - : " . . . . . ~ : ~ - ~ t , i , , / : ' , : ~ - ~ . / o n ' : , / " . . - ~ ~ - 0 o i - ~ , • : . - - . • - ~ - . .~ / "
• . " - . . . , " - : , ~ | ~ t ~ l i " ~ ' ~ 1 ~ 0 0 / I ~ . - " - ' - : . . . - - ~ ¢ * ~ , i I " • ~ " , " " " - " " ' " ," " W * ' [ ' ~ , . - . " ' " - " . 4 : ~ - " . . . . . ~ . " - - - . . ' " : . . . . . . " " . . " , " m . , ' a . : ' ." _ . . 2 ~ . . . . ~ \ . . . ? , " .~ ~ . , . -
~ " ' ~ - , - - ' , ~ "-. " " " - - . ~ " . , - - . . ~ : - . . . . i i ~ ', ' ~' . : ' . " , . , • ~r. ~ _ i • "
. ~ , , j - . _ . . / - - . . - ~ - - ~ - , , . ~ . ' . . . . . - ~ .-:/<.._ - , : v . - , , - ~ - , _ _ ~ , . . .
~ - x ~ . ' - - . . ~ . , ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . • • - . * ' / ~ . ~ ' : j l !
' " " : ~ - ' " ' - " - - - ~ " - \ / - ~ " " " ' " . . . . . . ~ " J - ~ - " " . . . . " : " ~ • ~ ; - " . C ~ - L - ~
~ - " " " " " . . . . . ~ 2 - . % . . " - " D,,~-- . , . ' - , - - " = " • " . k . . . . ' ~ / J ~ •
• - . , ~ . " . " ' . . . ; " ~ : . - ' ~ r , . . . . . x ~ . . ' - - ~ . - ' ~ ' . P " "* " ' ~ : " " . ' ~ • " " " " . . . " . " " I I - ' - • "-. ~ " ~ . . ' ~ " ":" ' " ," " ~" " ~ . . - . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . - ' - - - " - - 2 " ~ x , . :" . • - " . , . " ~
. " . - : . " . : 7 . . . . . -,, - . v :- . . . . . . ' . : : . . . . . . _ , . _ . - T I ; < . - " :
' ( t . _ " : C . ~ " i " " : : < L O C . A T i o i ' { O F ~ p _ . . c T l o 2 L- ~ " - • . - . . " ' : . . - . ~ ', | : . - T . " : ' - ' . . _ _ . : ~ . ~ m
' "- ,_ " ..-... . . . ~ < ':; • - . . . . . . -:__ . _ : . . - . - . . . c S O , L ~ i : 2 t ~ , O 0 0 F I C - ~ , ~ 2 , .
0 ; , . _ ~ z _ _ _
TS IO00 t -
: ~ ~ ' ~ ' i * ' % "~ . . - . : :;...- :;....~
.'.. .--: -'~'o:':.'" : ". ~ ~ '":':" o ' " * "T,~- t
o
._ J . . . - J
"Tv
'.:..-.
I000"
4
E,c)L. G-P~A. ~ A N't
C,~EC)LO G,- i c
C O U N T " /
S E C T l oH' .
~'LC-~,~-E 3 .
. , , . : - . .f. , . . . . , ,
• 4 ,
• ] F t ~ _ n m ~ , v ~ l t l Fznlnration Services
F w L . |
7,,~ 'N
u
x
5 4 3 2 ~ 0 I 4
2 ~ E
Z 3
,5 E 15~ 0
2"
i y ', ~=$ / , k ° x
~k ~ Z.
$ 6
I ~ E
3 5 F 4 ~ E
~t
I= "
X
6 5 W f.--- }
7 5 w 6 5 w
4 3 £ ! | ~ ,
55W 45 W ~;5 w
! 0 I ~ 3 ' q: 5 8 I ' ; t ~ r . t , . . : ; [
r * 5 ; v z s w 5 w 5 E t S E 2 5 E 3 5 E 4 5 E
. " . ,11 ~ ~ X Z ~ *r I . , I
~. = ; ; ~, 7 f ? - - - - - , = . _ _ ~ . ~ . ~ ~o. e . . , o x x-- . . . , z
~=° - , - . ~ * \ .= \ ~ . ~ = . = ,
. , RECEIvER,
_Lake NO, I DATA BY K E 5 _DATE_ Z/ '~ - I IT , .5 ._
D i P O L E - D I P O L E A R R A Y - , z = ~ FEL~,T
7 5 W
i
0 ~ m
Q t
S
65W 5 5 W 4 5 W 3 5 W 2 5 W 15W" 5 W 0 5 E 15E 2 5 £ 3 5 E O~l. 8 D H 6 O'4 # ~ H
L ' , I ' 1 I ! f t , . I ~ ,, _~ 0
. ~ .,". - . .
" ~ ' " "" : " " " " ' " " " ~'~'":" - _ . . " . . . . ' " ' " " : = i ~ . : : . . . . . . . . ,,, . - . - .
o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , a . o o 0 , ~ • - ' . - ' . - : - . ' .T~.
_ : Z O O 0 ~
S 1~4/..E
I
~.00 o "
- 0
0 .
SOL ;RAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA
V , I . P . SECTION
+ o o
~ o o
i O 0
&
! ." [
JEemmecoJPI F~r~lnrat;~m ~,t~rvlel.;
"t'H~-O ~ tF-. "PI C.~ L
C.c~r I P L I H ~ ,
4"
i I
,s ~.o ~-
o ' ~ 'I . , , . tP..IE . T~, ,~:+e~"L" 'X,C-~, , , , . ,
F,kv. .~ +-. 6".
. r , - - V
• . _ . ; , " • . . %
- . . • ~ : . . : ~ . "
:,-<>>- i'~-
t ~ O ~ A S L E ~- XTEHT
I , -
---.... _.. . J
/ /
_
I .., \
\
/ /
W
• . : ! ' . . • . . . " - " ,
• " , . . . , . . - . . : ~ - . , . ' . ,
tg/~_t
| < i , , , C l l
~--o
• . . - . " .
, I /
- - /
.k
I /
/ / l
_ . . - . . -
. ~
~ 3
I l,r_i.
.~oL. ~
I i " -
~ A i - I A i " ! C OCS~T"/, A~7_o I~c~ 0V E,~ L.A",'
Figure
.,~_..AL~ ~ : ";i.b,-.OC, O
I o I 2 ~, ~ 5 $
' . . . . . . . . ! '. .I E I . . . . . . . . : - • : ' : W | i ' ' * " ; " " • , i . . . . . . . . . . 1
7 5 ~ 6 5 w 5 5 w 4 5 ~v BSI W 2 5 . # ~ ~ W 5 W 5 E 15E 251E ~ : E 451i
¢,~ ~ ~ ~ ~o m| " ~ ' r 13 I~- . l ~ ;~- ~. '~ "
¢ w ~ I t . t ~ " 7 " } , 0
5 4 "3 2 i o t Z 3 4 5 s
l ' 3 w 6 5 w ~ s w 4 5 w ~ s w Z s w 15w 5 w 5 E 15=. . ~ E ~ E ~ -
1'.~ GS
7 'P .~" 4= ~=' ~ 7 7 ~ x i Z x x !' ~= ~t X
,"v'
= VlP
75W 55W 55W 4 5 W =3~'W ~SW ]~"~
0H 8 DH 6 D H 4 D ~ I- t . . . . ~ v 1 . ~ m ~ : . t - : 1 , I , ] | ,
• i s , . ~ ,-- ~.:-.,
~ ,,..'~ -~..~.
" " , ' . - " . " " ." • - ' . • - - t . * . n c a - ° ' . ' . . - V " " - "
? . . . . . - . . , - . . . . . C . . o . . , - - . :
5W 0 5 E 15E
I . . . I
Tv
- ?
2 5 E 5 5 E
I ' 0
I O 0 0 ¢
_ _ 2 0 D O t '
. |
20(~0"
2000
0
0 SOL GRA~iATt COUNTY, ARi ZONA
MGS TIME-DOMAIN v s V I . P . DATA 7
I , , . l i ' l ~ . O l u L ~ r o ~ 4. V
31
• I t
v
X
3
W ! ?.Ow
5 4- 3 z 1 O !
= , - -t---__ I ;~ I . . . . . . . .-' ..... ~ ' " i G,~ ~-.'f .~SVl 41:;W ~ W ¢ '5W 1 5 ~ ~-tl,
't. ; - : l~ E 15E
~i 5 S
! , : • ', E . Z ~ E 3 5 E - i ' 3 E
• • I I l i X 1¢ X ] l Jr i i I t
• " " X X i l , l [ l l i l " ~ ' 1 ~ " i t X
o.,-:,.o,; .-"-.. , / ' 7 . "_-_.L_---~'---" '~ "__\\* '
6. S .=i 3 2 I 0 i 2 W ~ ' : . . . . . I : = ~ ; . . . . ~ "1,
T S ~ 65W 5 5 W 4 5 W 3 5 W '~',~ ~ 15W 5 W 5 E
X
I I ,,I¢
I I
I t " X
I I
if. X
4 5
II
X
I t
l l
11
I I
6
1 5 E 21iE 31~11 ' t~E
7' ? 5' ~ t, G 7 7 . !¢ X ' "x l l It, X l i I I E I I x .
5" 6 7 ~ . ~ I~ " - - ' " 12,. " - ~ aj • t o - I I Io "
' : l . O i .5).- t :~ , - I~- 5 } x "P i f I L , , , / / I ~ ~.--.-- ix° Ix"P ~" 2x~ ~ " ~ " ~ I { x. x
, , = - % 7 S _ : = - - Y : ~ :~./-'--:,. ~: . % ~-:o _
,, ~ { === ( , ~ . 2 ~ , \ % ~ ' Z ' . . . , _ . • = • ~ ~.,. % • .
i l
l l
" l
i l
l i
. X
PD
V t P
V
7 5 W r~s i t
ot t it
5 ,~W l i S W 3 5 W 2511t 15W O H 15 O H 4 O i ' i 1I
[ i
Ts
. ::::i'.-!
, • - ; . . . .
? ?
i . I , _ 1, , I .... I
. ~ . "i'll
" _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ . . -
• li ' " " - i : " . ; : " : • . : ;-...~'. . . • t
5 'H 0 5 E 1 5 E
f ,,, t , , ! ~ t _
"Iv
?
. P ' O O O "
2 5 £ 3 5 E
| 0 0 0 "
~ 2 0 0 0 G
~ L . E
i ~ O 0 0 "
0
0 SOL GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZOHA
• " . TKg • •
P.D. 'DECOUPLED' vs, V.I .P, DATA
6
w F - - T S W
] !
2 # - )&
6 W I
75 ' , ' /
i t x
- 3
L | R E NUMBER I
5 ,4 5 2 I 0 l 2 3 " 4 5
' ~ i - ~ _ .,, ! . . . . : I • I . . . . ~ . . | : - - - J E
X
,0 , . 5, .25 ,.t251
- I . ~ B
~1 - I - - t ~ - - 3 *!
- g 3" E ~, X ~. • &
z x • /"
W%. x
~'~ 2 0 24,
4 3 P I
8 5 w 5 5 w ,~5'# ~ , ~ w z ~ w
5- 7 - x Z IL
,e , ~ x • --..* .
x
o I
15W ~ ' w
,¢ .~ e - ~- • X 3¢
I .z f, ~ x
(~ ~ ~' , ~ .
L~ ~'-" /X ;~ '" ~ . ] ¢ I~
2 ~ . 4" 5 6
: . . . . . . ; . . . . : " E
~|cpH AR
x x x ' l • x • ' l I X X
o > 1 / ~ VIP
. O
7 5 ~ 6 ~ 5 .~ '~ 4 .59 / 3 3 W .~SW 15W 5 W O 5 E
DN 8 DP I ,~ DH . 4 DH |
I t~ ! ! ~ _ . . - - t ~ . . . . - ~. - " - . - : .
I ~ _ . < . . - , . - - ~ ~ ~ - . . ' . . - ~ . i ~! K~ • , ° , - . - - . . , . , # . . p . : :
" • * * * " ~ " * " * ° " . o " ~ • J.1..'~
: ' . - . . . . . " . . . : . ; - . . . . - . . . . . - . . ' . ~ . ' - 7 ,
. 2000
1 5 E 2 5 E 5 5 E
; . _ l J 0
I O 0 0 t
~ 2 0 0 0 "
2 0 0 0 o SOL GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA
McpHAR '~}ULTIMODE' vs. V:I .P. DATA-
S 5 4 3 2 I o I 2 .3 4
t r - i 7 5 w 65~# 55w 4'3W 33 '# 25",'1 tS"~ 5~1" 5 ~ t~E ~ =
1 I I 1 1~ I I 1
&
.. ,o _._, . i • • Z" ~ " . , .
• ~ ~. x x ~. x x z z I x ~ "'~0 z s
O 5 4 3 2 ! 0 I 2 . 3 4" - - . * , |
w I ~ . . . . I ..l I " ~ ! . ; i . . . . . . 1... : , i S W 65W 55'# ~ W .,35W 25W 15W .' 5W SE 1 5 E 2 5 E
5 6
• i E ,,, ~ •
3,S=¢ .'I,~, ~.
" l i
I
: l
, CR
5 6
3 ~ E 4 5 F -
' - - ~ i = / z6 . f ~ . - . . _ i~ '~_ t,l \ B 9 t~o "
II t { m i l i t i x = / " " " " / f" ~ ~ _ X" I' .
=Lo,-s, lzs,.~zs! ,° ~ , I - / ' I _.--.-~? 2,~ " - ~ " - - .7 ~ "~. t I t" : ~ .,.h ~ - /-~=, "~.~. "-... ~ .Jo
• ,~ ~.,. ~,,
1¢
r ip I c
7 5 W 6 5 W 5 6 W 4 5 W ~ 5 . ~ ~.5W 1 5 W 5 W O 5 E i S E
• Dtt B OH 6 O H 4 DH ! _ _ _ . . | l
" ! . . t , l . | 1, . . ~ I , , r ; 1 _ _ ~
, . ~ j . - - - ~ . . . - ~ _ . i ~ _~_ :~';:'E_'- ?
. . - . • " . . . . " - - . L . • , ~ . . [ . . . . ..?
• " - ~ " " " " " " " " " " " - ' " " " " " ' " " " ' ' ' " i ~ " .
• " . " , - ' . , ' - " " . ' , . . . . • - ' - , - - : , ' - i , ~ . ~ - ? " , , . . . . . . ? . ' . . . . | .
~ o o ~
• - S C A L E r
• 200111" 0
0
2 6 E ~ E
_ _ | J 0
| 0 0 0 #
~ P ~ O O 0 °
SOL GI1AHAI'~ COUNTY, ARIZONA
ZERO 'OR' vs. V . I . P . DATA
i. Jar... 75 "-'Iq?~NGCOTT E X P L O R A T I O N , IN r~, GE( . .~SiCS DIVISION - U . S . O P E I ~ :ONS
SURVEY STATISTICS AND COST ESTIMATE (INCLUDING OVERI~fEAD.)
Tinge Interval From:
Sol (Amax) Sulfide S y s t e m (Project Name and District)
Code No. 04ZIYZI0
February 19, 1975 To: February Z0, 1975
Lapsed Days Z Field Days 2 l~4ob./Demob. Trave[ Days 0 ExpiDays(l}
L~ne M H e s ,or No. of
_ 0 e 0 p b y s i c a k _ M e t h 0 d _[ S t a t i o n s ..
-VIP 3 line-mi.
-., . i
Perc (:nt of Expl, T i m e
~oo%
C o s t
$1zz6
Cost per Type of E:qu[p. Line Mile Used {Mo, ~1 (S ta t ion) . No. 's, e )_.
$ 4 0 5 / l i - m i . M k IV R h v r .
FT-20 X ~t~ro
P e r s o n n e ~ I n v o l v e d
K e t c h u m , K. Jones, R. Payne, A.
....... Sanchez. G . . . .
~umber of Personnel Involvcd Num~ o Ex~l, D.ays
Z 2 Z
Name Andrews, R.
Expl. D a y s Z
E s t i m a t e d C o s t s D i r e C t . C o s t s I n c u r r e d by. GDO Z 8 2 8 Z
TMED (Z} Wages (~ $55 NTMED Wagcs ~ $30 T M E D Expenses (~ $35 N T M E D Expense~ (~ $25 Expl. Days Supplies Freight ~. {3) $70 or $15
Total Estimated Direct Costs
II0 240 70
ZOO ,140..
760
lZI6
608
I n d i r e C t Co.s.t.s I n c u r r e d by GD 0 Data Ana]ysis, Supervision and Overhead Z Expl. Days@ $180 360
or $110 (4) D e p r e c i a t i o n o n Equipment
trucks @,, $12/4ay each 72 IP gear @ $1,O/day ZO r a d i q s .@ $Z].day e~ch 4 . .
Total Estimated Costs
Cost Per Exploration Day
Other (Computer, Etc. )
Total Estimated Indirect Costs 456
Notes: (i) EXpl. Days = Field Days + k.lob. /Demob. Travel Days (Z) T~IED - Technical man exploration days, NTI%LED - Non-technical man exploration (3) $70/day for an IP crew and $15/da 7 for gravity/n~agnetic/EIVi crew (4) $180/day for an IP crew and $1ID/day for gr-~vity/n~netKc/Ek4 crecy
Remarks:
Si~ned:
Bear Creek Mining Company ".. ~ / F . . ~ . ~ sul~ia~ ot Ke~ae~te Copper Cerporati~ - me~ mie~,,g ~ r~ i~
February 16, 1978
TUCSON
O f f i c e
M r . Charles Mil|er AMAX Explorations Inc. 130 South Scott Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701
Dear Charles:
Subject: |P Wo~ at Sol Prospectt Ar|zona
Bear Creek Mining Company conducted three (3) fine mEles of IP survey at the subiect prospect during January 26 through 31, 1978. A five man crew made the survey and the cost of the survey is $Ie800.00.
i am enclos;ng a sketch map showlng the IP fine and a copy of the IP data.
We apprec;ate the opportunity to test our equTpment on the subject prospect.
Sincere1},,
FBG:ivb
Enclosures
cc: CIaron E. Macke|prang
F. f3Fa|ne Greenhalgh Landman
• n ~ ~
~: . .,!.
• "i"':= I # m ~ ° ~ j
~ ' - g ,
(u :13.
Z - 7 ~ m = , o
f , . . . ' , , '
! "l
i ~
, ~ P " .
i i !
=-,.~:' i
. ~ O L ~ ',...t=,.J
- . ; *
,;~ T"
f
/
t !- 1-
• .'...
i , -L
!
KENNECOTT EXPLORATION INC.-GEOPHYSICS DIVISION OPERATIONS VECTOR IP PROFILE WORKS HEET
,, ..., . , - , - . ., . . . . . . . -.... ~;, ...... . .
a~ . ¢ , d .
. t. z .~ ~ ~ -~ 6 ~ .
~ R ~ _ , , , ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STAT~ . . . . U , ~ NO,__J . .__~ DATA . Y _ Z ~ Z L _ ~ T ~
k~r'dtl~ ~ of X ~ t t Cem~r C ~ - J e e ~ t A ~ i ~ m ~ i m
M E M O R A N D U M
TUCSOn Office
TO: Files DATE: May 4, 1978
FROM: C. E. Mackelprang
SUBJECT: TEST OF MARK 1V SQUARE WAVE RECEIVER OVER THE SOL SULFIDE SYSTEM, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA
Because poor comparison of phase data was obtained on Phe Saffard NorPhwest prospect between Mark IV sine wave and square wave detectlan receivers, it was necessary to compare results aver known su|ffde systems. AMAX's Sol sulfide system was a logical choice Tn that its phase anomaly was associated with low background apparent reslstlvities.
Two lines were repeated, Line IA north-south outside the AMAX claim block and Line 1 east-west across the sulfide system for which permission was obtained from AMAX. Apparent reslsfivifies are comparable on both Iines in data taken with the two receivers. Phase data are nat as good. The north end of Line 1A had a deep response upwards of 70 mils using the sine wave detection. This
response disappeared when the line was mad using a receiver with square wave detection. Only a deep, weak response which appears valid remalned beneath Stations 3-4 south.
Line | , trend|ng east-west, has several drill holes along it with su|ffde |nter- cepts recorded. Phase data with both sine and square wave receivers dis play a coherent anomaly. The square wave dataf however, apparently have less inherent noise with increasing n-separatlon. These data also have a magnitude roughly 80 percent that from the sine wave receiver.
The results obtaFned with the square wave detecHon receivers appear much more p|c~Jslble. Furthermore, the sine wave receivers appear capable of generating "ghost" anomalies° Such certainly has been the case of VIP Line 1A at Sol.
cc: R. K. Andrews
C" E. Mackeiprang
, /
-/,..::.~
L.-., j
j °
A~ / i
' t/7
r
f ~d'
r ~',,
I~//,/
! i
• \
I \ C'-
18';
>'.
I .....
\ ,
~ .'~..'7)
r.x
. I ~ 7'30"
K [ f l N E O O T T E X P L O R A T I O N I N C . - - 6 [ O P H Y S I ¢ $ D I V I S I O N O P E R A T I O N S
V E C T O R I P P R O F I L E , W O R K S H [ E T
Jq7 I ~
X • - ~ . . . . . . . . . - - . . ~ . ; , - ~ , - r ~ - - . - : - - i . . . . . . . 1-~ --: . . . . - - - : - . - - - - - . . . . .
, . * ~ 1~, "~ I~ "1 . . . ~ .
. 14 K * * . .
Klmt * - x x * , . . . . x *
. . , . q , . .
. . . , . . I ~ . . . . I.~. , , . . .
* * X . . . R X * ~, * * * * * * X
• ' • . . . . : . . . . : . . . . . . " l " ~ ,~ . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . : . . . . . . . . ' I - - I i i I i • i - _ 1 - Z ! - i - _ _ i
11 l t ~ ~ ) I } . .
XK x . K " ~ x * x
. . . , / "1' / _>..~,. ~ 16, I_~ I~,1~,._.. - '~,. . . , . 1~ • I~ / X ~" .. , . Ik X " ~ / * * ,,.. ) t X . Sf
/ ' 2 ~ ..- ,-4-6 .L ~...~... - "3 .~ . ~,,+". ~ t ~ , . , . .
/ "73 i ! ~ ~ & ,~,0-- t~ 31 .. • I I . . * i t ~1( 1( . . lY N 11( . ~ .
" "
• * * . INI l ( I I * . . l ( " * * * K
. . . J I I i i I , i . i - . . . . . . . . i - -
VECTOR I P P R O F I L E W O R K S H E E T
. ~ ~, 6" ¢ a. .2. / e < ~ ~ ~ . o - ~o w.._ ....... ,
! 0 ~
l
x x x . i ~ I~ /IX I ~ x ' I , ~ r x _ } ' ~ .I'1\.- r,~7
• 17. I , ~ ~,t I~ . I ' L 11 ' " ~ . x x x , x , "V, " ~ : ~ , x ,e ~ , ,~ x. x
t l X X l ( Irl . X ~( X X X X 1( ~: X A~ X
I t "tl X ' K X ~ K . K Ire 'X K Ill " X X K !1 I I
L _ _ , - - - ~ "" J - I .. . ~ , J " . . ~ , £ . _ . t ~ . . . . ~ . . ~ ~ _ b ~ ~ J - • - - i _ _ _ l l
"x t l ~ x rf~ X " X X X
K K, X / , . . x x x l, _K. ~ x x x p - . . ~ x x x x x
"-~ x x x ~ x x ] x I x x x x x
x * x x / ' 7x' * x / x x ~r ~t' ~ t r" x x x x x
x x ~ x x x x . x x i 0 x x , , x x
X 16 X X X X K I¢ K "X ) l X 9L N .~ X X
A , ~ E , ~ _ C ~ . . . . . . ~ _ - - ..... _. - , , , ' r A T E A ~ I ~ . ,
~ ~"/'q/
/ 9 8 / / cot e....f • ~"
GEOLOGY, GEOCHEMISTRY, ALTERATION~ AND MASS TRANSFER /
IN THE SOL PROSPECT, A SUB-ECONOMIC PORFHYEY
COFPER-MOLYBDENEM DEPOSIT, SAFFOED DISTRICT,
GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA
by
Wil l iam Vernon Yarter
i •
A T h e s i s Submitted to t h e Yacul ty o f the
DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES
In Partial Fulfillment of the Reqttlrements For the Degree of
MASTEE OF SCIENCE WITH A MA~OR IN GEO$CIENCES
In the Graduate Collese
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1981
ABSTRACT
Element and mineral Ealns and losses resultin E from alteration
in the Sol porphyry copper deposit were studied to determine character-
istics that distinEulsh this subeconomlc occurrence from productive, or
potentially productive, porphyry copper systems. Time-integrated fluxes
of Components were analyzed alone with fracture abundances, paragenetlc
relationships, and calculated mineral stabilities to determine the most
favorable parrs of the system for copper-molybdenum m~neralization, and
to evaluate the efficiency of transport and depositionai mechar~sms
across the system.
Laramide hornblende quartz monzonite porphyry innruded the
sedimennary-volcanic pile at Sol but resulted in no significant copper
mlneralization. A younger hornblende-biotite diorite porphyry intruded
the quartz monzonite and volcanic pile under a modified stress field
and resulted in significant copper-molybdenum minerallzation. ~ ~
copper val~es were"-deposiEed in quartz monzonite and volcanic sediments
adjacent to the ~orite porphyry. No high copper values were dep.gsited
in._the....~orite porphyry._because the. acti_v~..ty., of .F~_..an._d__f_(0.2.)_.w.e.. re
kept high by the presence of magnetite. Low fracture abundance in the
diorite did not provide the permeability necessary for cirs_ul_~ting t
hydrothermal flu/ds t__qo i_ each and redistri~__t__hL_0~~PP_P~er
values present in the upper portions of the stock. Silica, potassium,
sulfur, and molybdenum were added to zones of highest estimated permea-
I
,7 , '~_ ~ ~ " ~' , ' " -C " " : ' - ".,. j r i . 7 , - , , ,-.," , - . - , , ,
. . . . . , ,q~ - - 'p
4(Ab I
Ip i , & ' i , t" i l q l f l
°. Figure I. Loc~ciou of gr, o~a Porphyry Copper Deposits and Premineral
Outcrop in the Safford District. - - Geology a d a p t : ~ d from Dunn, 1978.
4 lb 7 j' ~ ' 7 ' A ~ I I q I... i ' "i i , q dg I" - 4 ,
/ a I 4 " q 4 ' 4 I"~U 4 dh44, '
\ ~ *,,IL u ~ .i.p ,
: ~ ......... VOL CA N ICeo \
" ~ ~ ~ A L VOL¢&N lC3
\ \
• S C A L £ \
, \ 0 I 2 to i le t
. . . . X ( 2 0 0 0 ' ~ v £ L
X " I ) ,i,,I- : ~ ' ) i
' t / / # . , ,~ .~, ~ t t O I ~ T X i M O R E N C I \ . . ; ' : u I
X ] I l l l . . . . . . . . . I IIII I I I
Page 2
. .3 ) ...... ' /+: ':"-t~ I
Page 3
I I
4
DurlnE the logging procedure~ all core not siEniflcantly
affected by superEene alteration was examined by the author. Meso-
scoplc study of the core consisted of routine recording of the~
following data;, rock type~ volumes of primary and alteration
minerals in each ten-foot interval| veinlet paragenesis and paragenetic
sequence; the number of mineralized fractures per foot of core~ and
the dips of any contacts~ schlieren, or ali~ments of phenocrysts in
chill zones of the intrusive rocks. Thirty samples of the intrusive
rocks were chosen to characterize fresh rock composition and the
composition of various alteration assemblages in the intrusive rocks~
and to check previous chemical analyses. Bulk and 8rain density
measurements were also carried out on these representative samples,
and approximately ii0 thin sections were examined to determine the
mineralogies of the alteration assemblages, to estimate mineral
percentages, and to choose representative mineral samples for analysis
with the microprobe. l
Chemical, mineralogic, and density data were used to calculate
mineral and element-gains and losses and porosity in the above-
mentioned 30 samples, using the Fortran IV program QUANMIN developed hy
Norton and Koolvard as described in Villas and Norton (1977) and
Villas (1975), Mineral and element gains and losses were also calcu-
lated for an additional 18 50-foot composite samples which were
relatively free of supergene alteration. The mass abundances of