Geochemical, Halos in the

Silver City Mining Region

and Adjacent Areas,
Grant County,
New Mexico
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 15.34
 ERRATA

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1534

Geochemical Halos in the Silver City

Mining Region and Adjacent Areas,
Grant County, New Mexico

The map on p. 56, now labeled figure 15, actually

shows the distribution of gold (nonmagnetic fraction)
not silver (magnetic fraction). The map on p. 58, now
labeled figure 16, actually shows the distribution of
silver (magnetic fraction) not gold (nonmagnetic frac-
tion). The figure captions, text references to the fig-
ures, and the table of contents are correct; only the
corresponding maps have been reversed.
Geochemical Halos in the
Silver City Mining Region
and Adjacent Areas,
Grant County,
New Mexico
By KENNETH C. WATTS, JERRY R. HASSEMER, and DAVID F. SIEMS

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1534

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1984

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dallas L. Peck, Director

Library of Congress cataloging in Publication Data

Watts, K. C.
Geochemical halos in the Silver City mining region and adjacent areas, Grant County, New Mexico.
(Geological Survey Bulletin 1534)
Bibliography: 85 p.
Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.3:1534
1. Geochemistry-New Mexico-Grant County. 2. Ore deposits-New Mexico-Grant County.
I. Hassemer, Jerry R. II. Siems, David F. III. Title. IV. Series.

QE75.B9 no. 1534 557.3s [553.4'09789'692] 81-607560

[QE515] ACR2

For sale by the Branch of Distribution, U.S. Geological Survey

604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304
 CONTENTS

Page
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Geologic setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Geochemical investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sample medium and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Analytical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Data reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Geochemical halos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Lead, copper, and zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bismuth and tungsten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Molybdenum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Silver and gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Barium and manganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Tin.......................................................... 21
Vanadium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Selection and description of window areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Comparison of heavy-mineral fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Comparison of geochemical halos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Relative exposure level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Conclusions.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
References cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

ILLUSTRATIONS

[Figures 3-22 follow text]

Page
FIGURE 1. Index map showing location of study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Generalized geologic map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3-22. Geochemical maps showing distribution of:
3. Lead, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4. Lead, magnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5. Copper, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6. Copper, magnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7. Zinc, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8. Zinc, magnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9. Bismuth, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10. Tungsten, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11. Tungsten, magnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

,III
IV CONTENTS

FIGURES 3-22. Geochemical maps showing distribution of: Page

12. Molybdenum, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
13. Molybdenum, magnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
14. Silver, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
15. Silver, magnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
16. Gold, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
17. Barium, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
18. Barium, magnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
19. Manganese, nonmagnetic fraction .. •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
20. Manganese, magnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
21. Tin, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
22. Vanadium, nonmagnetic fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

TABLES

[Tables follow text]

Page
TABLE 1. Location and description of window areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2. Ratio of fraction magnitudes for selected metals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3. Comparison of element magnitudes for selected metals . . . . . . . . 74
4. Additive ratios of element magnitudes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
GEOCHEMICAL HALOS IN THE SILVER CITY
MINING REGION AND ADJACENT AREAS,
GRANT COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

By KENNETH C. WATTS, jERRY R. HASSEMER, and DAVID F. SIEMS

ABSTRACT

An alluvial heavy-mineral survey of the Silver City mining region and adjacent
areas, Grant County, N. Mex., was completed in 1976. Geochemical data resulting
from this survey show areas of anomalous metals that conform to geologic control.
Anomaly patterns indicate that some of these areas may contain additional economic
mineral deposits; other areas probably constitute zones of subeconomic, dispersed
concentrations of metals that nevertheless record the regional pathways along which
mineralizing solutions were channeled and ore metals and gangue mineral products of
hostrock alteration were deposited.
The geochemical maps suggest some new exploration targets, one of the most pro·
mising of which is the area surrounding Fleming Camp, an old silver district of
modest production history. Geochemical evidence at Fleming Camp suggests the
presence of a buried intrusive cupola that has caused skarn development and perhaps
controlled associated metallization of which the silver deposits are a part. This in-
ference is based on comparison of the geochemical anomalies at Fleming Camp with
those in the Pinos Altos district where large tonnages of skarn-associated replace-
ment deposits are known. Similarities in metals present, in anomaly strength, and in
areal extent indicate that deposits of similar genetic origin to those at Pinos Altos
may exist at depth near Fleming Camp.
The geochermcal characteristics of 11 areas were compared using U.S. Geological
Survey STATPAC computer programs. The relative effects of weathering, and
amounts of pyrite as reflected by amounts of supergene dispersion, and the extent to
which the chalcophilic elements are fixed by secondary iron-manganese oxides were
compared between areas by using a ratio of fraction magnitude of the iron and
manganese oxide rich, heavy-mineral magnetic component to that of the iron and
manganese oxide poor nonmagnetic component, which is usually more rich in primary
and secondary ore minerals. The ratio provides an index that allows the areas to be
compared and ranked relative to the importance of supergene processes.
Possible levels of erosion relative to inner metal zones were assessed in several areas
by using an element magnitude (EM) measurement (element intensity x size halo
area), which provided an index of the importance of the supraore (usually peripheral
metals in a zonation sequence) in each area in relation to the importance of subore
(usually inner metal zone) metals based on the additive ratio of the EM values: (Pb +
Ag + Ba)/(Cu + Mo + Bi), in the mechanic-ally dispersed ore mineral (nonmagnetic)
fraction. The ranking derived from using these ratios placed the erosion levels of the
Georgetown and Fleming Camp districts above those of the inner, possibly main ore
zones, on the basis of the large supraore component, and placed the erosion levels at
the Fierro-Hanover district near the roots of the inner ore zone of its metal system, as
suggested by a dominant subore component (low ratio). All other windows were in se-
quence between these extremes.

1
2 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

INTRODUCTION

The numerous geochemical anomalies detected in the Silver City

mining region and adjacent areas, Grant County, N. Mex., are
discussed in this report, and the possible significance of the
anomalies is evaluated. The anomalies (also called "halos"; see
description following) were noted in 1976 during a geochemical study
in eight contiguous 7Y2-minute quadrangles near Silver City. A
statistical summary and listing of the analytical data from this
sampling program are contained in Open-File Report 78-801 by
Watts, Hassemer, Siems, and Nishi (1978b).
A halo is defined in this report as an anomalous geochemical pat-
tern of variable symmetry that relates to either an economic mineral
deposit or to epigenetically dispersed metals in subeconomic but
anomalous concentrations. Many of the halos discussed in this report
are asymmetrical or linear in shape because they often reflect metals
localized by linear, structural weaknesses in the rocks, such as faults,
dikes, and fractures. Sometimes the linearity and asymmetry are not
attributable to observable features on the surface, indicating the
presence of causative geologic features in the subsurface. Common
practice reserves the use of the word halo to those geochemical
anomalies associated with economic mineral deposits and has implied
that halos of this type are at least nearly symmetrically disposed
about the deposits. A metal dispersion halo according to common
usage can be of several types: It may be called ''primary,'' if it formed
at the time of hypogene metallization; "leakage," if it developed in
overlying rocks during or shortly after a mineral deposit is formed; or
"secondary," if it resulted from the supergene destruction of a
mineral deposit (Beus and Gregorian, 1977; Hawkes and Webb, 1962;
Levinson, 1974). All these types occur in the Silver City area, and
many of them probably conform and overlap with each other; but
because additional factors contribute to the formation of an economic
mineral deposit, beyond the introduction of metals by mineralizing
solutions, all halos need not be related to deposits of ore grade. The
halos described in this report show only that many metals were
epigenetically introduced over broad areas and were made available
for economic accumulation, whether or not favorable environments
were present.
The area of study, which is between lat 32°45'00" N. and 33°00'00"
N. and long 108 °00 '00 W. and 108 °30 '00 W. in Grant County, N.
II II

Mex. (fig. 1), is in general subdivisible into two geologic and

physiographic areas. Portions north of about lat 32 °52 '30 N., which
11

are relatively high in elevation, are underlain by middle Tertiary

volcanic rocks. Areas south of this latitude are referred to as the
 INTRODUCTION 3

-
10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

10 20 30 MILES

FIGURE I.-Index map showing location of study area.

Silver City mining region; here, erosion has removed the middle Ter-
tiary volcanic cover and has exposed rocks ranging in age from
Precambrian to early Tertiary. The Silver City mining region, which
is highly mineralized, contains several exposed, economically signifi-
4 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
cant metal-producing districts. They include (1) the disseminated and
replacement copper deposits at Santa Rita, (2) the iron-zinc skarn-
replacement deposits at and between Fierro and Hanover, (3) the vein
and vein-replacement zinc-lead-copper-silver deposits at Central, (4)
the vein-replacement silver deposits at Georgetown, (5) the gold-
silver vein and skarn-replacement zinc-copper-lead deposits of Pinos
Altos, (6) the vein-replacement silver deposits at Chloride Flat, (7) the
vein-replacement manganese-iron deposits at Boston Hill, and (8) the
vein-replacement silver deposits at Fleming Camp.
In the terrain north of the Silver City mining region, the middle
Tertiary volcanic cover obscures whatever Laramide mineral
deposits may exist in the older rocks below, though younger, mid-
Tertiary deposits may occur within or below the volcanic pile. It is
also possible that the imprints of waning stages of Laramide
metallization may be present.The volcanic terrane afforded an oppor-
tunity to test methods of exploring with geochemistry for covered
mineral deposits beneath and within a volcanic pile adjacent to a ma-
jor mineralized region of similar history but with a deeper exposure.
There may have been some success.
A particularly striking characteristic of the geochemical anomaly
patterns both within the mining region and the volcanic terrane is
their continuity, in the case of some metals, transecting all lithologic
boundaries, and the erosional boundary between the two contrasting
terranes. Geochemical patterns in the Silver City mining region sug-
gest that epigenetic metallization took place in a vast, interrelated
network controlled by zones of faults and perhaps closely spaced frac-
tures, the dominant trends of which are north, northeast, and north-
west. The fact that linear anomaly patterns are more numerous than
known faults, but similarly oriented, indicates that they may provide
a more complete representation of the hydrothermal conduit system
than does the mapped geology. Dispersed metallization is defined by
Beus and Grigorian (1978, p. 281) as noneconomic concentrations of
elements and minerals that are formed as a result of ore-fluid effects
on enclosing rocks. Many of the geochemical patterns in the study
area probably reflect dispersed metallization, but they nevertheless
appear to record solution pathways, which in itself can be a useful ex-
ploration tool. Where these dispersed metallizations encounter
favorable environments, however, economic concentrations can
develop. Empirical observations indicate that some of the most
favorable environments are found where the geochemical anomaly
patterns intersect, which in many cases also corresponds with areas
of known deposits. The intersections of geochemical patterns prob-
ably record zones within the network of conduits where regional dila-
tional forces allowed more efficient mineral deposition.
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 5

The variety of plutonic rocks, many with associated ore deposits,

and a rather well-defined structural pattern that seems to have con-
trolled ore deposition make the study region ideally suited for com-
paring selected areas on the basis of geochemical characteristics; the
purpose being that comparisons can be used to investigate methods
of assigning sequential exploration priorities to geochemical
anomalies, using as criteria types of deposits potentially present and
erosion levels that probably exist relative to inner or main ore zones.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several members of the U.S. Geological Survey contributed to this

study in both the field and the laboratory. In particular, the efforts of
James Nishi, who performed some of the spectrographic analyses,
Richard Babcock, and Dwight Rhiner, who assisted in laboratory and
field, are greatly appreciated. We also gratefully acknowledge the
friendly cooperation extended by numerous landowners in the area.
Special acknowledgment is made to D. H. Richter and G. B. Gott
whose very helpful comments and constructive criticism improved
this report considerably during the review process.

GEOLOGIC SETTING

The older rocks exposed south of lat 32°52 "30" N. consist of Pro-
terozoic Y granite, Paleozoic carbonate rocks and shale, and Mesozoic
shale, mudstone, and volcanic rocks (fig. 2). These rocks are exposed
on a broad northwest-trending syncline that is cut by numerous,
chiefly normal faults, and is intruded by a complex sequence of mafic-
felsic dikes, sills, and stocks of Cretaceous to middle Tertiary age.
The stocks are important loci for mineral deposits and include such
bodies as: (1) the Santa Rita granodiorite porphyry stock, (2) the
Fierro-Hanover granodiorite-quartz diorite pluton, (3) the Pinos
Altos quartz monzonite stock, and (4) the Silver City granodiorite
stock (Trauger, 1972; Cunningham, 1974; Jones and others, 1967;
Hernon and others, 1953; Jones and others, 1970).
The Tertiary volcanic rocks north of about lat 32 °52 '30 " N. are
composed mostly of ash-flow tuff units of Oligocene age (Finnell,
1976a, b; Trauger, 1972; Moore, 1953), which are intruded by dikes
and by shallow, irregular bodies of felsic composition. Normal
faulting cuts the volcanic units into a series of northwest-trending
horsts and grabens.
6 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 0 5 10 15 20 25 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 15 MILES

EXPLANATION

OTg GRAVEL, SAND, SILT, AND CLAY (QUATERNARY AND SEDIMENTARY AND VOLCANIC ROCKS (MESOZOIC)-
TERTIARY)- Mainly alluvium on stream terraces, fan aprons, Mainly shale, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate; includes
and pediments; colluvium on hill slopes; and lacustrine and some limestone and felsic to intermediate volcanic rocks.
eolian deposits in basins Mainly Bisbee Group to the southwest and Colorado Formation 0
EJ~v·. 'l CONGLOMERATE AND VOLCANIC ROCKS (TERTIARY)-
Mainly coarse conglomerate with intercalated mafic to interme-
to the northeast, both of Cretaceous age
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, UPPER PART (PERMIAN AND
trj

?5
::t:
trj
diate flows and tuff PENNSYLVANIAN)- Mainly limestone; includes some dolo-
INTERMEDIATE TO MAFIC VOLCANIC ROCKS (TERTIAR'!)- mite and sandstone. Chiefly Naco Group ~
.....
Mainly flows , scoria cones, domes, and small intrusions. ~ SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, LOWER PART (MISSISSIPPIAN n
Locally includes small units of felsic volcanic rocks and volcan- AND CAMBRIAN)-Mainly limestone, dolomite, shale, quartz-
>
t""

~
iclastic rocks ite, and sandstone; includes some conglomerate and arkose
I Tf FELSIC VOLCANIC ROCKS (TERTIARY)-Mainly flows, ['
,' Y'f' ~( '· ' "j INTRUSIVE
~.,'· ROCKS (PROTEROZOIC Y) -Granitic rocks, trj
domes, and pyroclastic deposits. Locally includes small units of commonly porphyritic or porphyroblastic, in plutons r:n
mafic volcanic rocks and volcaniclastic rocks t-3
METASEDIMENTARY AND METAIGNEOUS ROCKS
INTRUSIVE ROCKS (TERTIARY)-Includes granitic rocks in (PROTEROZOIC X)-lncludes Pinal Schist, gneisses 0
plutons and aphanitic and porphyritic rocks in plugs and dikes ~
INTRUSIVE ROCKS (TERTIARY AND CRETACEOUS)- 0
Includes granitic rocks (commonly porphyritic) in plutons and
z
r:n
porphyritic rocks and breccias in dikes, plugs, and small stocks CONTACT
ANDESmC ROCKS (TERTIARY AND CRETACEOUS)- NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed
Fiows and small intrusions. Locally includes beds of sedimen- DIKE (TERTIARY AND CRETACEOUS)-Mafic porphyry,
tary rocks dominantly quartz diorite

FIGURE 2.-Generalized geologic map of the Silver City mining region and adjacent areas, Grarft County, N. M. Modified from
map compiled by Silver City 1 o x 2° quadrangle, conterminous United States Mineral Appraisal Program team, unpublished
mapping 1980.
-.l
8 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS
SAMPLE MEDIUM AND METHODS

This study used panned heavy minerals derived from active

alluvium as the basic sample medium. The alluvium was derived
nearly exclusively from unbranched stream tributaries within areas
of bedrock outcrop. This sampling approach has been somewhat ef-
fective in other parts of the southwestern United States for both
regional and relatively detailed district studies. Two factors are
responsible for the effectiveness of the geochemical sample medium:
First, the metals released during destruction of the mineral deposits
are more commonly dispersed mechanically than chemically in the
semiarid environment; and second, most mechanically dispersed, ore-
related metals occur in minerals and limonitic aggregates of specific
gravity greater than 2.8, which makes them amenable to collection
into a heavy-mineral concentrate.
The samples were collected from 921 localities, from ephemeral
streams that were short in length and small in drainage area (often <3
km 2 ). Small drainage basins were selected because mechanical-
dispersion trains rarely exceed 2.5 km in arid or semiarid regions
(Beus and Grigorian, 1977, p. 198), because contamination from min-
ing and milling, which is cumulative in drainage systems, is more
likely to be a problem in large drainage basins, and because the
details of the metal dispersion can be gained by the relatively detailed
sampling small drainages offer.
Each sample was collected at oblique angles to the active drainage
channel and as near to underlying bedrock as possible. Composite
samples were collected randomly across the full width of wide active
channels where such channels were present. Occasionally, extensive
boulder and cobble rubble required compositing of sediment from
various accumulations behind rocks and in potholes. ·rhese bulk
samples, which weighed from 4 to 5 kg, were then gold panned on
site if water was available, or otherwise they were carried away from
the site to be panned later. Panning was done to the point where the
sample reduced to heavy minerals and to a light-mineral diluent con-
tent of about 30 percent; the size of the heavy-mineral sample after
removal of diluent-when uniform amounts of sediment are initially
collected-is determined mostly by the geology of the basin area and
therefore is highly variable. Samples from Fort Bayard quadrangle
were consistently larger than average because of the abundant,
clastic ferromagnesium minerals derived from the numerous mafic
dikes in the area.
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 9

Further processing of the sample after panning consisted of drying,

magnetite removal, bromoform separation to remove the light-
mineral diluent, magnetic separation at 1.0 A (25 degree forward, 15
degree side-slope, using a Frantz Isodynamic Separator1) into two
fractions, and then pulverization to a fine powder. These methods
have been described in more detail by Watts, Hassemer, Siems, and
Nishi (1978b).
Magnetic separation of the heavy minerals provides interpreta-
tional advantages. The magnetic field intensities and slope settings
nearly separate the sample into components of light- and dark-
colored minerals. The nonmagnetic (at 1.0 A) component contains
light-colored rock-accessory minerals and most ore-related primary
and secondary minerals; whereas, the magnetic (at 1.0 A) component
contains chiefly mafic rock-forming minerals and several types of
secondary iron and manganese oxide minerals and amorphous mix-
tures, often referred to by the field term 'limonite." Differences in
analytical values between the two fractions are mostly due to the
mineralogical differences between them-though in some cases,
minerals and metal values span the two fractions. Geochemical
anomalies usually contain metal concentrations that result from both
primary and secondary processes; these two fractions are valuable to
understanding the contribution of each dispersion process. The
primary ore-metal suite is usually represented in the nonmagnetic
fraction because in metallized areas this fraction frequently contains
heavy primary- and secondary-ore minerals. On the other hand, where
there are deeply weathered, relict-hypogene (gossan) situations or
where secondary metal dispersion has resulted in metal fixation by
hydrous iron oxides (limonite) and manganese oxides of various types
and origins, the metal suite deposited by or interacting with oxidiz-
ing solutions are selectively, though not exclusively, concentrated in
the magnetic fraction.

ANALYTICAL METHODS

The prepared samples were analyzed by semiquantitative emission

spectrography for 30 elements (Grimes and Marranzino, 1968). These
spectrographic data are reported in parts per million on a scale with
approximate geometric midpoints, such as 1,000, 700, 500, 300, 200,
150, and 100. The precision of these data is within one adjoining

'Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological
Survey.
10 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

reporting interval 83 percent of the time and within two adjoining

reporting intervals 96 percent of the time for all elements sought and
for all materials tested (Motooka and Grimes, 1976). Only selected
metals among the 30 scanned are discussed in this report. Some of
the elements have low variation, were seldom detected, or have no ob-
vious bearing on studies of metal deposits in the region, and therefore
are not treated here. Analytical and statistical analyses for all of the
elements have been reported earlier (Watts and others, 1978b).

DATA REDUCTION

All data were entered into the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) com-
puter data storage system entitled RASS (Rock Analysis Storage
System). The data were then retrieved and analyzed statistically us-
ing USGS STATPAC programs (VanTrump and Miesch, 1977;
Alminas and VanTrump, 1978; VanTrump and Alminas, 1978). Sum-
mary statistics derived from graphical analyses of log-transformed
data were reported by Watts, Hassemer, Siems, and Nishi (1978b).
Programs used here for data reduction and analysis include computer
contouring (STPMAP), relative element magnitude (REM), and
relative fraction magnitude (RFM).
The geochemical maps for each metal of interest (figs. 3-22) were
computer plotted using the contour program STPMAP (VanTrump
and Miesch, 1977). This program generated cell-averaged maps with
intervals chosen within the anomalous population, thereby excluding
areas considered background from within the contours. The contour-
ing was based on a square grid 1.1 km on a side which required 42
cells in the east-west direction and 25 cells north-south in order to fit
the unequal dimensions of the map area. With the dense sample-site
distribution, the cell dimensions resulted in relatively unsmoothed
contours, often with rather sharp curvatures that closely resemble
contours based on the raw data.
After the cell size was established by computation, a circle of an ap-
propriate search radius (1. 7 km) calculated by the program was
centered at each grid intersection. Then, the metal values within each
circle were averaged and posted at the intersection. In order to
achieve continuity of contour lines empty cells within sampled areas
were assigned a default value. Finally, the parameters for these con-
tour values were written on a plotting tape, which was used to
generate mylar contour maps at a scale of 1:250,000 using a flatbed
plotter. Large areas where no sampling was done were not contoured
though inherent weaknesses in the gridding program have caused a
slight shifting of contours into these areas.
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 11
GEOCHEMICAL HALOS

The most defined geochemical anomalies, both areally and in terms

of anomaly to background contrast, are associated with eight general
areas: Central mining district, Fierro-Hanover districts, Georgetown
district, Pinos Altos district, Fleming Camp area, Chloride
Flat-Boston Hill district, Juniper Hill area, and the adjacent
vicinities to the north within Turkey Creek Canyon, Sycamore Creek,
and Bear Creek. Of these eight areas, seven contain known mineral
deposits, but the geochemical anomalies are not exclusively at-
tributable to these sources. The Circle Mesa area may become a site
of new mineral discoveries as with the other areas, but no deposits
are presently known as opposed to the other areas.
There are other geochemically anomalous parts of the study area,
but the anomalies are not as specifically localized nor in most cases,
as intense; rather, they are generally pervasive occurrences of such
lithophilic2 elements as barium, manganese, and zinc (zinc is both
lithophilic and chalcophilic), or scattered occurrences of such
chalcophilic3 metals as silver, copper, and lead. The anomalies north
of lat 32°52'30"N and west of long 108°16'00"W in the volcanic ter-
rane are of particular interest in this respect. The broadly blanketed
enrichments of lithophilic elements are presumably fixed within the
various amorphous and crystalline oxides of manganese and iron
(magnetic fraction).
In order to account for this widespread enrichment of these
elements, causative factors common to all the areas must be invoked.
All the elements comprising this anomalous suite (chiefly Mn, Ph, Zn,
and Ba) are readily available within the feldspars and mafic rock-
forming minerals present in igneous host rocks. Because volcanism is
a common denominator, it is here proposed as the dominant factor.
The metals have probably been extracted from rock-forming minerals
by alteration. Heated meteoric water of slightly acidic composition
either convecting within a water-saturated volcanic pile or associated
with plumes above subvolcanic intrusions could provide the
mechanism of transportation; one which could be expected to be a
common, if not a prevalent, characteristic of the volcanism. The solu-
tions moreover would be oxidizing and would be capable of providing
pervasive invasion of volcanic caprock and deposition of metals
within oxide phases.

'Lithophilic elements form in the lithosphere or upper Earth's crust where they enter the lattice of silicate
minerals.
•Chalcophilic elements have a strong affinity for sulfur and include a large number of the metals that form
metallic ore deposits.
12 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO

Where the chalcophilic elements are geochemically enriched within

the volcanic terrane, mobilization and redistribution of metals from
sulfide protore or Laramide ore deposits may have occurred. Metals
may have also been introduced from magmatic emanations
associated with subvolcanic intrusives. Anomalies of both
chalcophilic and lithophilic elements of the felsic rock suite (Sn, Be,
Nb, and Mo) could have these origins. Subvolcanic intrusives may
also have caused local metal depletions as well as introductions,
resulting in some of the geochemical lows seen on the maps.
Faults either provided conduits or exerted a control over the
emplacement of intrusives in the volcanic terrane because there are
close spatial associations between many of the geochemical trends
and mapped faults (Finnell, 1976a, b; Moore, 1953).
The metal groupings used in the following discussion are based on
geochemical similarities and on coextensive areal distributions as
shown on the geochemical maps (figs. 3-22).

LEAD, COPPER, AND ZINC

Lead shows the broadest and best defined anomaly patterns (fig. 3).
The anomalies are limited for the most part to the southern half of
the study area where erosion reaches deeper stratigraphic levels. The
nonmagnetic lead anomalies, being largely due to detrital ore
minerals, indicate areas where primary mineral deposits are near the
surface but may have undergone lateral mechanical transport for
short distances. Because of the surface stability of most ore minerals
of lead, the lead anomaly trends probably conform closely to
pathways followed by primary, metalliferous solutions as viewed on
the regional or district scale. The trends are rectilinear with
dominantly northwest and northeast orientations. Known mineral
deposits are at the intersections of several of these linear patterns; in
such areas, the intersections are characterized by a broadening and
intensification of the anomaly.
The areal distributions of lead associated with iron and manganese
oxide phases (fig. 4) are less widespread than those related to the ore
minerals (nonmagnetic fraction) because conditions favorable to
these accumulations are more restricted. Controlling factors to the
development of strong anomalies in the magnetic fraction include (1)
high permeability of host rock to descending, oxidizing meteoric solu-
tions, (2) chemical reactivity of host rock, and (3) abundance of pyrite.
The conditions favorable to oxide-related lead anomalies prevail near
the Mimbres and Barringer faults, and within the Groundhog fault
trend, within areas parallel to the Silver City fault and near the north-
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 13
trending range front fault west of Juniper Hill. (See fig. 2.)
Copper is distributed over a much smaller area than is lead (fig. 5).
The copper-dispersion patterns are similar in areal distribution to
each other in both fractions, although they are somewhat displaced
from each other locally (fig. 6). The nonmagnetic fraction contains
most of the copper-ore minerals, where present, but certain copper-
ore minerals are magnetic at 1.0 A; therefore, ore minerals can ac-
cumulate in either component. The Central and Pinos Altos districts
contain most significant copper enrichments. The anomaly patterns
in the Central district conform to the geologic structure and the
trends of the known veins; whereas, those at Pinos Altos broadly
replicate the shape of the intrusive stock. The anomaly patterns on
the northwest side of the Fierro-Hanover stock show the influence of
the Barringer fault-whether as a localizer or displacer of mineral
deposits cannot be determined from the geochemical pattern con-
clusively. In the Georgetown silver district, copper and molybdenum
(figs. 12, 13) are sufficiently enriched to suggest that economic con-
centrations of these metals may occur at depth below the silver
zones. On the basis of the geochemistry, the Fleming Camp area
would appear to have little copper at the surface. This may, however,
be an effect of metal zonation in the vertical plane of the type shown
at Pinos Altos (Hernon, 1953) rather than a measure of the amount
introduced by metallization or removed by leaching. If base metal
orebodies exist at depth as geochemical evidence suggests, copper
content may increase with depth as it does at Pinos Altos (Hernon,
1953).
Zinc-producing districts are well outlined by the zinc geochemical
patterns (fig. 7). The zinc-lead replacement deposits at Shingle
Canyon are shown by the geochemical map to occur at the intersec-
tion of linear-shaped zinc contours that parallel the Mimbres and Bar-
ringer faults. In a similar manner, zinc geochemical patterns coincide
with the Groundhog zone of faults, dikes, and zinc-producing mines.
A well-developed northwest-trending zinc halo extends through the
northern parts of the Pinos Altos stock and connects with an altered
zone north -of Juniper Hill and may well reflect a cogenetic relation-
ship between the two areas. The zinc halo at Pinos Altos is similar in
shape to the outcrop pattern of the stock, as it is with several other
metals. This close spatial relationship indicates the closeness of
genetic ties.
Zinc associated with oxides of manganese and iron and probably
some marmatite (Fe-Mn-rich sphalerite) (fig. 8) is similar in
geographic distribution to the nonmagnetic fraction within the
mineral districts. Beyond the mining districts, though, similarities
end. Areal distribution of magnetic-fraction anomalies is far more ex-
14 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
tensive. The anomalies continue beyond the perimeters of known
deposits, particularly northward into the volcanic terrane. There is
little disruption of these geochemical patterns even though they
transect varying rock types and levels of stratigraphic exposure. One
of the more prominent contour patterns broadly parallels the
northwest-trending Mimbres fault, which past studies (Watts and
others, 1978a) have shown is paralleled by coextensive anomalies of
both zinc and manganese for a distance of about 29 km to the
southeast from near Shingle Canyon. Apparently, zinc-manganese
anomalies along significant structures peripheral to mining districts
are common. Olade and Fletcher (1976) noted similar zinc-manganese
concentrations within a fault zone adjacent to a major metal-
producing district in British Columbia. The zinc-manganese
enrichments were found in that case to be localized within the fault
zone itself. They considered these metal concentrations to be mobiliz-
ed and peripherally redistributed products of hydrothermally leached
mafic minerals from within zones of intense alteration in the main
mining district. Anomalies of zinc and manganese (figs. 8, 20) in the
volcanics may be related to and mark the positioning of rock alteration
and leaching at depth, or perhaps even the remobilization of deep-
seated protore. If so, they are clues to deep exploration targets. The
low area in the north-central part of the map area of figure 8 (shown
by hachure) may be an area of zinc depletion, as it apparently is
of manganese depletion also (fig. 20). This zone may indicate the posi-
tion of a large, centered high-heat source--perhaps a buried intrusive
body that has been instrumental in the mobilization and removal of
metals. Another, less auspicious interpretation may be that the ash-
flow tuff in the area has covered the zinc-manganese enriched zones
subsequent to their deposition. These postulates require further in-
vestigation.

BISMUTH AND TUNGSTEN

Bismuth probably associated with bismuth sulphosalts and

tungsten related to scheelite (figs. 9, 10) prominently characterize the
areas of. Pinos Altos and Fleming Camp. There is also bismuth at
similar levels of concentration near the Barringer fault and on the
contact-metamorphic margins of the Fierro-Hanover stock. The
distribution of zinc in these same areas indicates that it may belong
to, but is not restricted to this metal suite. The association bismuth-
tungsten-zinc from empirical observations can be a guide to skarn-
replacement mineralization in the Silver City region. At Pinos Altos,
large tonnages of skarn-replacement zinc-copper-lead ore are present
in the host rocks surrounding the Pinos Altos quartz monzonite
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 15
stock (McKnight and Fellows, 1978). At Fleming Camp, intrusive
rock has not been mapped, yet the bismuth-tungsten-zinc anomalies
are similar in intensity and in areal extent to those at Pinos Altos.
The levels of concentration of the metals tungsten and bismuth in-
dicate that they are dominant constituents of discrete mineral
phases. Nonmagnetic, anomalous tungsten can be attributed to
scheelite, which was identified in samples from both Fleming Camp
and Pinos Altos. The minerals bismuthinite (Bi2S3), matildite
(AgBiS2), cosalite (Pb2Bi2Ss), and emplectite (CuBiS2) were identified
in veins at Pinos Altos (McKnight and Fellows, 1978). These minerals
are typical of skarns and of high-temperature veins (Palache and
others, 1952). Though these minerals were not observed in samples,
either these or similar heavy minerals are believed to be present in
alluvium derived from the Pinos Altos, Fleming Camp, and Fierro-
Hanover districts.
Tungsten, as opposed to bismuth in any significant amounts, also
occurs in the magnetic fraction. Although this component can con-
tain wolframite-series minerals, they were not noted in the
mineralogic scans; whereas, abundant limonite and hydrous
manganese oxides were noted. Nearly all tungsten anomalies in the
magnetic fraction occur at Fleming Camp and near Circle Mesa (fig.
11), which, perhaps of genetic significance, are also the only two areas
where more than sparse amounts of detrital fluorite have been iden-
tified (Watts and Hassemer, 1980). The anomaly at Circle Mesa
(northwest anomaly), which occurs in volcanic host rock, is
associated with a zone of felsite intrusives, and minor base-metal
anomalies, as well as the fluorite. The tungsten is thought to reside in
manganese oxide minerals (possibly psilomelane), which are abun-
dant in the area. (See fig. 20.) Tungsten is known to associate with
certain types of manganiferous hot-spring deposits, such as those at
Golconda, Nev. (Kerr, 1940). Kerr concluded that veins of hypogene
tungsten minerals (presumably scheelite or wolframite-series
minerals) are present in the subsurface somewhere along the circula-
tion pathways followed by the heated meteoric water, and he conclud-
ed that tungsten was solubilized and extracted from these veins,
transported upward, and coprecipitated with the oxide phases of
manganese.
Scheelite is known to occur at Fleming Camp but not Circle Mesa.
Some of the scheelite at Fleming Camp may be secondary in origin
because, according to Rankama and Sahama (1950, p. 629), hydrated
tungstic oxide is the usual stable phase in the weathering zone above
primary tungsten ores, but if carbonate rocks are present, and
calcium is available, tungstic oxide may go into solution as an alkalic
tungstate and precipitate as secondary scheelite. The apparent
16 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
absence of scheelite at Circle Mesa may be related to the availability
of calcium. Where calcium is unavailable to form scheelite during
primary metallization, tungstic oxide may be fixed in hypogene
manganese oxide minerals (Hewett and Fleischer, 1960, p. 25-28),
which could be the origin of the anomalies at Circle Mesa. This does
not rule out the possibility that scheelite may be encountered at
depth at Circle Mesa.
Thus, tungsten occurrences at Circle Mesa and at Fleming Camp,
in the magnetic fraction, can be attributed to a number of controlling
factors. Weathering is probably a more significant contributor to the
origin of the anomalies at Fleming Camp than at Circle Mesa, if the
manganese oxides at Circle Mesa are hypogene in origin.

MOLYBDENUM

Molybdenum (fig. 12) is associated with lead, zinc, and copper and
is most prominent at Fleming Camp, in the Central district, and at
Georgetown. Strong molybdenum signatures occur where secondary
base-metal-molybdenum deposits are present, because the
associated minerals in these deposits are both heavy and surface
stable. A large variety of vanadate, molybdate, and arsenate
minerals can be expected in heavy-mineral samples within the mining
region. Secondary, detrital ore minerals, such as wulfenite, account
for most molybdenum anomalies with the highest anomaly to
background contrast, which is for the most part an indication that
the source deposits are highly oxidized, likely small, and near surface.
The strong geochemical contrast shown by molybdenum and its ex-
cellent correlation with equally strong lead values near the southwest
end of the Groundhog trend of faults, dikes, and mines in the Central
district is probably related to the presence of wulfenite (PbMo04),
which has been reported there by Lasky (1936, p. 78-79).
Molybdenum-lead correlations elsewhere in the Silver City region
indicate similar occurrences. The Georgetown district and areas
southward along the Mimbres fault, and an area on the east-central
margin of the map (east of Santa Rita copper deposit), are other ex-
amples.
In an oxidizing environment, molybdenum is mobilized as several
molybdenum species in the acidic ore zone and then can be fixed in
alkaline soil in the presence of coprecipitating iron hydroxides
(Titley, 1964). Molybdenum concentrations in the magnetic fraction
at Boston Hill probably result from the fixation of molybdenum in
secondary iron-manganese oxide materials which in that area occur in
abundance (fig. 13). Molybdenum fixed in this manner, in significant-
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 17
ly high concentrations, has not been encountered extensively in the
study area as a whole, though the Tertiary volcanic rocks contain
lesser, marginally anomalous amounts in places (particularly north of
Pinos Altos). Molybdenum at these levels of concentration was
eliminated by the computer averaging technique used in this study.
The marginally anomalous data can be found in Watts, Hassemer,
Siems, and Nishi (1978b).

SILVER AND GOLD

Silver and gold are somewhat similar in distribution on the anoma-

ly maps (figs. 14, 15, 16), though silver is by far the most widespread,
often occurring in association with such metals as lead and
molybdenum, to the exclusion of gold. However, because of
geochemical similarities between the metals, they are discussed
together.
Surface-stable silver-bearing minerals of chiefly secondary origin
account for most occurrences of anomalous silver in the nonmagnetic
fraction. These heavy minerals are relatively immobile chemically in
the near-surface environment, and they constitute the chief source of
silver production (Hernon, 1953). Where these minerals are encrusted
by transported limonite or are contained in the hydrous iron-
manganese oxides within the weathered zone, lesser amounts of
anomalous silver may be found in the magnetic fraction, which ac-
counts for the similarities in geographic distributions of silver in the
two fractions and for the far more limited extent of magnetic silver
(fig. 15). The magnetic silver may be more concentrated in zones
where associated primary minerals have a high iron content or in
areas of high permeability, as may occur along the fault zones (for ex-
ample, the Mimbres fault) because of more efficient weathering and
oxidation.
Not unexpectedly, the principal areas outlined by gold contours are
in the Pinos Altos district and at the known gold placer deposits near
Bayard, N. Mex., in the Central mining district (Lasky, 1936). The
Pinos Altos district contains the most prominent dispersion halo of
gold, mostly within drainage areas within the stock itself. This gold
is in the native state as detrital grains in the alluvium derived from
the Pinos Altos stock.
The gold anomalies indicate the amount of gold detected by emis-
sion spectrography, which is an imprecise method for analyzing gold.
In some cases, the analyses do not show areas where gold was visual-
ly identified in concentrated sediments. The anomalies reflect the
amount of gold detected where 4-5 kg of bulk samples were reduced
18 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

by panning and other processing to nearly one-thousandth of its

original size. Because this gold is both particulate and malleable, it
was sometimes missed by the analyses. Therefore, when coherent
anomaly patterns can be produced from the analyses, gold must be
very abundant in the associated drainage basins, because sparse,
scattered detrital grains would produce scattered, erratic
geochemical anomalies.
In addition, the geochemical method cannot be used to evaluate
grade and tonnage of particulate gold; this evaluation requires
special techniques of placer study in which the volume of alluvial
material containing a given quantity of gold is estimated. The
geochemical method only locates the gold occurrences and identifies
areas where gold is most abundant.
Gold may also be used as a pathfinder to other types of deposits.
Gold is a characteristic metal of the mineralization at Pinos Altos
(fig. 16). Because of geochemical similarities between Pinos Altos and
Fleming Camp, it was earlier postulated that copper content at Flem-
ing Camp may increase with depth as it does at Pinos Altos (Hernon,
1953); as a corollary, gold content may also increase with depth.

BARIUM AND MANGANESE

Neuerburg, Barton, Watterson, and Welsch (1978) have observed

that the lithophilic elements barium and manganese, in addition to
iron, silica, and zinc, are redistributed during the alteration of rocks
and are ultimately deposited in the gangue minerals and on the
periphery of metalliferous deposits. Olade and Fletcher (1976) have
made similar observations, which they attributed to acid-
hydrothermalleaching along an advancing replacement front as envi-
sioned by Korzhinskii (1968). These observations suggest that
manganese and barium can provide important clues to patterns of
alteration brought about during regional metallization. The similari-
ty of zinc contours to those of manganese has been discussed; the
geochemical maps show that these distributions are similar for
barium as well.
The barium map of the nonmagnetic fraction (fig. 17) is also a
barite map because, at high concentrations, the metal content is due
to the presence of that mineral. Barite is the most common mineral of
barium; it is a gangue mineral in metal deposits and an additive
alteration product, and it is the least soluble and most common
alkaline-earth sulfate associated with hydrothermal systems (Neuer-
burg and others, 1978; Holland and Malinin, 1979, p. 495). During
hydrothermal leaching, barium can be derived from potassium-
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 19
feldspar within the host rocks. Because of the prograde
characteristics of barium in solution, Holland and Malinin (1979, p.
498, 499) believed that simple cooling is sufficient to account for the
precipitation of barite from solution, although other factors must
still be considered. These conditions presumably can exist in highly
fractured areas and near the surface. Because barite forms around
and above metal deposits, knowledge of the positioning of these
barite halos can be useful in locating covered deposits. The north-
northeast-trending contours indicate barite-enrichment zones that
may be either peripheral to or coextensive with the surface trace of
ore-solution conduits. Interpretations of the significance of the barite
halos can be complicated by considerations of the erosion level. For
example, the continuous, north-northeast-trending contour patterns
link some of the mineral districts to e~ch other, and because erosion
is rather deep within the mining districts (south of lat 32 °52 '30" N .),
these barite halos may be on the lateral periphery of potential zones
of mineral deposition or of alteration because preexisting overlying
halos may be eroded away. In volcanic terrane north of lat 32°52 '30"
N., however, the halos may be vertically above altered zones or solu-
tion conduits on account of erosional stripping being much less.
Most barium in the magnetic component (fig. 18) is probably
associated with several types of hydrous manganese oxides in which
barium is held as a coprecipitated or adsorbed constituent (Levinson,
197 4); or in the case of crystalline minerals, it is part of the structure
(for example, the case of the mineral hollandite). This association is
well documented in the literature and can be seen here by comparing
the manganese and barium geochemical maps (figs. 18, 20). The
usefulness of barium-rich, secondary manganese oxides in explora-
tion is yet to be determined, but hydrothermal alteration and
mineralization may cause these concentrations of barium in associa-
tion with hydrous manganese oxides at the lateral or vertical
periphery of metal deposits. Surface weathering of preexisting rock-
forming minerals can also cause these concentrations as well, which
suggests that any interpretations of manganese-barium anomalies
should also consider the intensity of the weathering environment.
The manganese distribution in figure 19 shows where nonmagnetic,
generally primary manganese minerals, such as manganiferous car-
bonates, are most concentrated. Because most primary gangue
minerals are deposited in veins during the metallization events,
though mostly on the vertical or lateral periphery of the main
chalcophilic orebodies, the distribution of minerals of this kind can be
of interest in exploration. Where weathered, most of these minerals
convert to secondary hydrous manganese oxides, which are ultimate-
ly surface stable; in the Chloride Flat-Boston Hill district
20 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

manganiferous mesitite (FeMgC03) was considered to be the primary

progenitor of the secondary manganiferous iron-ore deposits (En-
twhistle, 1944). Figure 20 shows extensive areas within the mineraliz-
ed districts where minerals of this type are presumably in abundance.
Outside the known metallized areas, as for example, near Circle Mesa
and several kilometers north of Fierro near Skate Canyon (both
within volcanic terrane), extensive areas with anomalous non-
magnetic manganese have been detected in the sampling.
Presumably, these zones reflect the presence of primary, non-
magnetic vein minerals of manganese (probably carbonates). These
occurrences may indicate the replacement and mobilization of car-
bonate from Paleozoic rocks beneath the volcanics. Replacement of
the Paleozoic rocks may have also involved metallization.
Manganese displays pervasive and complex patterns of distribu-
tion in the magnetic component. These patterns are not unexpected
because figure 20 depicts the distribution of hydrous manganese ox-
ides, which are exceedingly widespread and may have several origins,
and are selectively fractionated into the magnetic heavy-mineral
component. The oxides of manganese present within the mineral
districts are probably derived from the supergene weathering of
preexisting primary manganiferous minerals, particularly vein and
replacement deposits of manganiferous carbonate. Two prominent
areas where this may be the case are at Boston Hill where
manganese-iron deposits are now being mined, and along the Bar-
ringer fault where, as reported by Hernon, Jones, and Moore (1953),
manganese replacement deposits are found in adjacent wallrock.
The apparently pervasive distribution of manganese oxides within
the areas covered by middle Tertiary volcanics suggests that
volcanism may have contributed to these concentrations. Heated
meteoric water within a water-saturated, tuffaceous volcanic pile
could have provided the mechanism that allowed manganese to be
leached from the host rocks within the pile at depth and to be
transported upward to sites of deposition. In fact, hot-spring and
apron deposits of primary manganese oxide minerals are rather com-
mon occurrences in volcanic areas (Hewett and Fleischer, 1960).
Because the anomaly trends of manganese and the geologic trends
coincide somewhat and because the anomaly patterns transect the
minor climatic differences that exist between the northern and
southern parts of the area (Trauger, 1972), weathering alone probably
is not the most significant determining factor leading to enrichment
in the bedrock of these manganese oxides. On the other hand, when
the manganese anomaly map and the geology are compared, faults
appear to be a controlling influence on the concentrations-either in
the localization of the primary minerals during deposition or in the
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 21
promotion of their later oxidation, and thus strong residual concen-
tration, or both.

TIN

Tin (fig. 21) appears to have been introduced during metallization

in the Silver City mining region. Anomalies of nonmagnetic tin occur
at Fleming Camp, Pinos Altos, Central district, Georgetown, Circle
Mesa, and near the Silver City stock. Heretofore, tin has not been
recognized as a metal component of these ores; although present, it is
unlikely to be in economic amounts. The mineralogic source of the tin
has not been determined, though elsewhere in the region anomalies of
about 700 parts per million or more can be attributed to the presence
of cassiterite (Sn02).

VANADIUM

Vanadium values in the nonmagnetic component at high levels of

concentration are a result of discrete, vanadium-bearing ore minerals,
chiefly secondary in origin, that occur in the supergene zone of oxidiz-
ing lead-zinc vein deposits. Vanadinite (lead vanadate) is the most
common mineral of this type. Figure 22 shows the distribution of
these secondary vanadium-bearing ore minerals. Vanadinite has been
identified at Georgetown (Lasky and Wooten, 1933, p. 57), and an
arsenic-rich variety of similar appearance, endlichite Pb5(V,As04hCl
in association with cuprodescloizite (mottramite)
((Pb,Zn,Cu) 3 (V0 4) 2 •(Pb,Zn,Cu)(OHh), was identified at the Lucky Bill
mine in the Central district (Lasky, 1936, p. 84). Areas where the
geochemical maps suggest the presence of these minerals are (I)
about 4-5 km east of Santa Rita porphyry copper deposit, (2) near the
Mimbres fault and at Georgetown, (3) west of Pinos Altos, and (4) the
Central district.

INTERPRETATION
SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF WINDOW AREAS

The characteristics of the geochemical anomalies were compared

quantitatively between several geographic areas that were selected
on the basis of anomaly clustering (figs. 3-22). The boundaries of each
anomaly cluster were blocked off geographically on the basis of max-
imum spread of a discrete cluster of anomalous values, though
22 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

somewhat arbitrarily, and held constant. The anomaly

characteristics were calculated on metal values in the anomalous
range, and the assumed threshold values remained the same for both
fractions and in all window areas. Locations and descriptions of the
selected window areas are shown in table 1.

COMPARISON OF HEAVY-MINERAL FRACTIONS

The U.S. Geological Survey STATPAC program relative fraction

magnitude (RFM) (Alminas and VanTrump, 1978) was used to com-
pare anomalous metal contents between heavy-mineral fractions in
each of the areas. The fractions are compared on the basis of two fac-
tors: halo intensity and halo size. The product of these two factors is
the fraction magnitude (FM), which is calculated for each of the
selected metals separately within each window area. The information
from these comparisons can be used to assess the relative influence of
weathering, and perhaps resultant supergene dispersion in each area
on any selected metal, .but it mainly applies to those metals con-
sidered to be chalcophilic. This is a method of determining the degree
to which the chalcophilic elements are retained by fixation within
hydrous iron-manganese oxides through such mechanisms as adsorp-
tion and coprecipitation. The ratio FM (magnetic)IFM (nonmagnetic)
provides an index that can be used for this purpose. Values for this
ratio within each of the window areas are shown in table 2.
Table 2 shows that the degree to which the chalcophilic elements
are associated with secondary iron-manganese oxides is in the
decreasing sequence Zn-Cu-Pb-Bi-Mo-Ag. This sequence is obtained
by summing the ratios shown in table 2 for each chalcophilic element;
the lowest ratio sums occur for those elements on the right side of the
sequence. This is also the sequence, excluding a close but reverse
positioning of bismuth-molybdenum, of decreasing crustal abun-
~ance-zinc is the most abundant metal of the group in the crust, and
silver is the least abundant (Krauskopf, 1967, p. 639-640). However,
as stated by Rankama and Sahama (1950, p. 13), the nature of the
products formed in hypogene and supergene reactions is dependent
upon elemental abundance and is ultimately controlled by the law of
mass action, which is also dependent on rate of dissolution.
Therefore, concentrations of metal available and rate of dissolution of
primary mineral species may account for the sequence. The sequence
that developed from the ratios can be interpreted in the following
manner: Elements such as bismuth and silver, which appear on the
right or decreasing end of the sequence, occur in the most surface-
stable, secondary- or primary-ore minerals and are weakly mobile in
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 23

supergene solutions-assuming iron and manganese are present and

secondary iron or manganese minerals or amorphous aggregates are
allowed to form. Where only a nonmagnetic component appears, the
primary progenitors may have been iron-free sulfides and sulfosalts.
The sums of FM ratios for the chalcophilic elements silver,
bismuth, copper, molybdenum+, lead, and zinc were compared bet-
ween window areas, and a sequence of the areas was derived. This se-
quence indicates a decreasing association of the selected metals with
the secondary iron and manganese oxides, and, indirectly perhaps,
with oxidizing, primary or secondary solutions. The sequence is (1)
Skate Canyon (Sheep Corral Canyon), (2) Circle Mesa, (3) Chloride
Flat-Boston Hill district, (4) Fleming Camp area, (5) Pinos Altos
district, (6) Shingle Canyon district, (7) Fierro-Hanover district, (8)
Juniper Hill district, (9) Georgetown district, and (10) Central
district. Interpretations of this sequence are complicated by the fact
that Skate Canyon, Sheep Corral Canyon, and Circle Mesa may con-
tain anomalies derived from ascending, heated, oxidizing meteoric
waters; whereas, the others may result from cooled, descending
(supergene) waters. Given the type of data used in this report, a
definite distinction is not possible.

COMPARISON OF GEOCHEMICAL HALOS

The computer program element magnitude (EM) (VanTrump and

Alminas, 1978) was used to compare halo characteristics between the
anomalous areas (table 3). The values calculated by this program are
similar in most respects to the linear productivity measurement
(Beus and Grigorian, 1977, p. 94). The linear productivity is a
measure of the size and intensity of the primary metal halo surroun-
ding an orebody at a given vertical level. This measurement, which is
expressed in meter-percent, is the product of the average anomalous
value and the maximum lateral distance from the orebody. Compared
at different vertical levels, the measurement provides both an index
of metal zonation in the vertical plane and a quantitative method of
comparing different metal deposits as to type and relative relation-
ship to the surface on the basis of vertical metal zoning. The non-
magnetic heavy-mineral fraction contains the ore minerals that

•Molybdenum is considered lithophilic in the upper lithosphere, but it also has a strong affinity for sulfur
(Rankama and Sahama, 1950, p. 626-627). It is here considered with the chalcophilic elements because it forms the
sulfide very readily.
24 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

characterize the metallization at or near the level of erosion

represented by the present land surface. This sample medium differs
from metal values obtained through partial (enhanced) metal extrac-
tions from rock samples derived from surface· outcrops, which is the
more common method of studying metal halos around mineral
deposits (Beus and Grigorian, 1977, p. 78-90), only in that the ore-
related metals contained in an alluvial heavy-mineral concentrate
have been transported short distances as part of the mechanical
stream-sediment load. This potential shortcoming in the method is
mitigated somewhat by the fact that in most areas, particularly
where known deposits or alteration exists, small drainage systems
were sampled and the distances from the source outcrop are short.
The heavy-mineral technique employed in this report should work
well as a sensitive indicator of metal zonation because the enhance-
ment of the ratio of anomaly to background contrast, as achieved by
the heavy-mineral method, can increase the depth range to which
covered mineral deposits can be detected by as much as 1.5 times
(Beus and Grigorian, 1977, p. 154), in addition to broadening the
target area. This increased sensitivity to metalized areas makes it
possible to investigate subtleties of metal dispersion and in some
cases to study metals that due to low analytical sensitivity would be
inaccessible to studies of metal zoning.
The EM measurement is a product of the element intensity, which
is the ratio of anomaly mean to threshold and the areal size of the
anomaly at constant threshold or lower limit of anomalous values.
The theory and use of the method are further described in VanTrump
and Alminas (1978). The method was conceived by H. V. Alminas of
the U.S. Geological Survey. The EM measurement involves an areal
measurement rather than a linear one, which is an advantage when
ore-deposit centers are not known and drill data are not available.
The area (shown in table 3) is a percentage value, proportional to the
number of anomalous samples relative to those that are in
background concentrations within the blocked-out window. Assum-
ing a relatively uniform sample density, areal size (in m2 or km2 ) can
be estimated by the product of sample density (m2 or km2 /sample) and
percentage value in table 3. Because sample density was not
everywhere uniform, the areal size would not be realistic in the pre-
sent study. The percentage value allows relative comparisons be-
tween areas without regard to sample density, assuming it is suffi-
cient to characterize each area.
Table 3 shows the EM values for the windows, which are ranked in
a decreasing sequence based on the product areal size and anomaly to
background contrast (intensity).
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 25
RELATIVE EXPOSURE LEVEL

In areas of variable erosion, mineralized zones may be exposed

through a wide vertical range. Within the Silver City mining region
there are probably some metal deposits which are exposed near their
roots that consist of minable deposits that crop out but do not con-
tinue at depth; other deposits may be exposed near the midpoint of
the productive ore zone and consist of minable deposits that may ex-
tend to moderate depth. Still other deposits may be only peripherally
exposed and will be characterized by metal anomalies of the supraore
(peripheral) metal suite which in some cases may even be related to
small ore deposits of these metals. The peripheral metal suite would
include such metals as lead, silver, barium, antimony, and others. In
extreme instances, metal deposits may be buried to such a great
depth that they are beyond the depth range or distal detection limit
of the geochemical method. We attempted to assess these erosional
factors within the study area.
The comparisons made here are based on a simple model of metal
zonation, which based on characteristics of the known mines, the
geology and distribution patterns of the geochemical anomalies,
seems to fit the Silver City mining region. In most metalliferous
deposits that contain the metals lead, barium, and silver within a
primary halo, dispersion patterns characteristically expand laterally
and rise vertically above main orebody level; whereas, the primary
dispersion patterns for the metals copper, molybdenum, and bismuth
expand laterally at and below vertical level of the orebody until the
roots are reached, at which point all metals wedge out. The metal
suites characterizing these positions in the vertical zoning of metal
dispersion are termed supraore and subore, respectively, in the usage
of Beus and Grigorian (1977). Where the dispersed metals are also the
ore metals sought, maximum halo size (lateral distance) and greatest
metal enrichment are usually at the orebody level (Beus and
Grigorian, 1977, p. 155). For example, at several stockwork
molybdenum deposits, certain metals form typical enveloping halos,
and the metal dispersion is zoned about the main ore zones (Wallace
and others, 1978; Sharp, 1978). Sharp (1978, p. 373-376) showed drilled
cross sections at a breccia pipe complex in Redwell Basin, Colo., in
which a broad, primary lead halo at the surface wedges out 300-500 m
above the main molybdenum orebody; a broad, primary zinc aureole
occurs at the surface and terminates above the molybdenum orebody,
and a tungsten halo occurs immediately above and overlaps the
molybdenum orebody where maximum molybdenum dispersion oc-
curs. Metal zonation is a common feature of most economic mineral
26 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

deposits; it is not characteristic of dispersed subeconomic metal

anomalies (Beus and Grigorian, 1977, p. 134-147).
The amount of erosional exposure relative to several known or
potential inner ore zones was assessed using element magnitude (EM)
calculations for selected metals within the window areas. Calcula-
tions are based on the assumption that those halos dominated by the
supraore metal suite are peripheral to or above the center of the metal
zonation sequence; whereas, the subore suite is closer to the center of
the metal system. The metal system model is simple and general but
should embrace a variety of large deposit types, mostly related to ig-
neous activity. The metals assumed to be peripherally dispersed
(supraore) are lead, silver, and barium, and those assumed to be near
to or within the inner metal zone are copper, molybdenum, and
bismuth. The selection of metals was based on descriptions of the
known deposits in the region and the documented behavior of these
metals in an environment of hydrothermal mineralization and altera-
tion elsewhere in the world. (See for example Beus and Grigorian,
1977.) The additive element magnitudes (EM) of the peripherally
dispersed metals (supraore) were then ratioed to the subore suite as
shown in table 4.
Table 4 shows a sequence whereby the window areas are ranked in
order of decreasing ratio sum, which is believed to indicate an order
of increasing depth of surface exposure due to erosion of the known or
postulated inner metal zone (center of the metal system) within each
of the areas. From the table, the least exposed deposits are in the
Georgetown district and at Fleming Camp, which suggests that ore
of the subore suite may be discovered at depth in these areas and that
the silver produced in these two districts is supraore or peripheral.
The calculations indicate also that the Fierro-Hanover district is
eroded to a level of exposure that may be close to the roots of the
main, inner metal zone, but the erosional level is not as deep in a
southwestward direction toward the Central district, possibly
because of a southwestward plunge of the ore zones. To check the
validity of these experimental conclusions requires further assess-
ment through more detailed investigations, including physical ex-
ploration, particularly at depth within the areas indicated to have
high ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

The geochemical maps show that several relatively unexplored

targets still exist within the Silver City mining region. Possibly
foremost among these targets is that near Fleming Camp. Because
 GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATIONS 27
the geochemical signature at Fleming Camp is similar to that of the
skarn metalization at Pinos Altos, an intrusive body or cupola may
be beneath the area at shallow depth.
Other targets of interest include the following: (1) The Georgetown
district, where molybdenum and copper halos are strong enough to
suggest the presence of these metals at depth, especially because
these subore metals, though enriched at surface level, are subor-
dinate in enrichment to metals of the supraore suite. (2) The Pinos
Altos district, where the surrounding metalized zone appears more
extensive than was previously realized. Additional deposits may ex-
ist at a greater distance from the contact zone, particularly to the
northwest and southeast. (3) The vicinity of Circle Mesa, where a
deep exploration target, similar perhaps to the one at Fleming Camp,
may exist. The presence of tungsten ~uggests that intrusive-related
skarn or stockwork deposits may be present at depth. Intrusive
bodies occur within the volcanic tuff units of this area, possibly these
are cupolas of a larger intrusive body at depth. The geochemical
signature suggests that heated meteoric water may have caused the
anomalies. (4) Along both the Barringer and Mimbres fault zones,
where metalization appears extensive and suggests the possibility of
deposits at depth in association with these loci. (5) The Juniper Hill
area, which contains geochemical anomalies of unknown significance.
The lead and zinc distributions indicate that metallization may be
closely related to the mineralized areas at Pinos Altos and may in
fact be a weakly mineralized extension. If mineral deposits do exist,
the exposure-level calculations indicate that erosion has not reached
root levels. The altered sills in the area may have entrapped ore
beneath them. (6) The Sheep Corral Canyon anomaly, the significance
of which is unknown. The presence of sparse amounts of bismuth and
other metals is encouraging, but more data are required to prove this
area to be a deep exploration target. A large quartz vein was noted
near the head of a drainage within the center of the area. This quartz
vein may be the result of the remobilization of silica from depth as a
consequence of host-rock alteration or replacement. (7) Skate Canyon,
where the geochemical anomalies suggest past hot-spring activity
and mobilization of carbonate from depth, possibly as a result of
host-rock replacement. Though not shown on a map, but indicated in
table 3, the area contains strong magnesium anomalies as well, which
strengthens the case for replacement of Paleozoic rocks at depth, par-
ticularly if they happen to be dolomitic.
The regional distribution of barium, zinc, and manganese
presumably as hydrothermal halos is of particular interest because of
the peripheral positioning of these metals to mineral districts and the
possible usefulness of this relationship in exploration. The pro-
28 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

minence of these halos in the volcanic terrane suggests a genetic rela-

tionship to the volcanism. The distribution of barium (barite) in the
nonmagnetic fraction may indicate the lateral periphery of metallized
zones and ore-solution conduits in the more eroded terrane of the
Silver City region and the top of the vertical metal zonation in the
middle Tertiary volcanic terrane. The area north of Fierro and
Georgetown contains a barium (barite) halo interpreted to be a pro-
duct of mobilization and redeposition from hydrothermal alteration
at depth.
The erosion-level interpretations are experimental and are subject
to numerous unseen factors that could affect conclusions. Although
the results compare favorably with known geologic relationships, the
actual metal concentrations and zonal relationships at depth are ob-
viously unknown. Comparison of metal zonation between different
areas may be a method whereby the most promising targets in a
group of several regional- or district-scale geochemical anomalies can
be selected for further investigation, according to sequential
priorities. Some asf:lumptions may not be valid for all deposits in the
region and there have out of necessity been simplifications, but the
purpose is to glean the maximum information from geochemical data
where there is no knowledge of the subsurface or where a geochemical
anomaly does in fact indicate a buried deposit. Analogy is one way of
approaching the interpretation.

REFERENCES CITED

Alminas, H. V., and VanTrump, George, Jr., 1978, Relative fraction magnitude pro·
gram explanation and computer program listing: U.S. Geological Survey Open·
File Report 78-1013, 23 p.
Beus, A. A., and Grigorian, S. V., 1977, Geochemical exploration methods for mineral
deposits: Willmette, Ill., Applied Publishing Ltd., 287 p.
Cunningham, J. E., 1974, Geologic map and sections of the Silver City quadrangle,
New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Geologic Map
30, scale 1:24,000.
Entwhistle, L. P., 1944, Manganiferous iron-ore deposits near Silver City, New Mex-
ico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin 19, 72 p.
Finnell, T. L., 1976a, Geologic map of the Twin Sisters quadrangle, Grant County,
New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-779,
scale 1:24,000.
_ _1976b, Geologic map of the Reading Mountain quadrangle, Grant County,
New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-800,
scale 1:24,000.
Grimes, D. J., and Marranzino, A. P., 1968, Direct-current arc and alternating-current
spark emission spectrographic field methods for the semiquantitative analysis of
geologic materials: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 591, 6 p.
 REFERENCES CITED 29

Hawkes, H. E., and Webb, J. S., 1962, Geochemistry in mineral exploration: New
York, Harper and Row, 415 p.
Hernon, R. M., 1953, Summary of smaller mining districts in the Silver City region,
New Mexico, in New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 4th Field Conference,
Southwestern New Mexico, p. 138-140.
Hernon, R. M., Jones, W. R., and Moore, S. L., 1953, Some geological features of the
Santa Rita quadrangle, New Mexico, in New Mexico Geological Society
Guidebook, 4th Field Conference, Southwestern New Mexico, p. 117-130.
Hewett, D. F., and Fleischer, Michael, 1960, Deposits of the manganese oxides:
Economic Geology, v. 55, no. 1, 55 p.
Holland, Heinrich D., and Malinin, Sergey D., 1979, The solubility and occurrence of
non-ore minerals, in H. L. Barnes, ed., Geochemistry of hydrothermal ore deposits
[2d ed.]: New York, John Wiley and Sons, p. 495-500.
Jones, W. R., and Hernon, R. M., 1973, Ore deposits and rock alteration of the Santa
Rita quadrangle, Grant County, New Mexico: National Technical Information
Service Report PB-214-371, 102 p.
Jones, W. R., Hernon, R. M., and Moore, S. L., 1967, General geology of the Santa
Rita quadrangle, Grant County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper 555, 144 p.
Jones, W. R., Hernon, R. M., and Pratt, W. P., 1961, Geologic events culminating in
primary metallization in the Central mining district, Grant County, New Mexico:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 424-C, p. 11-16.
Jones, W. R., Moore, S. L., and Pratt, W. P., 1970, Geologic map of the Fort Bayard
quadrangle, Grant County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic
Quadrangle Map 865, scale 1:24,000.
Kelly, W. C., 1958, Topical study of lead-zinc gossans: New Mexico Bureau of Mines
and Mineral Resources Bulletin 46, 80 p.
Kerr, P. F., 1940, Tungsten-bearing manganese deposit at Golconda, Nevada:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 51, p. 1359-1389.
Korzhinskii, D. S., 1968, The theory of metasomatic zoning: Mineralium Deposita, v.
3, p. 222-231.
Krauskopf, Konrad B., 1967, Introduction to geochemistry: New York, McGraw-Hill,
721 p.
Lasky, S. G., and Wooten, T. P., 1933, The metal resources of New Mexico and their
economic features: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin
7,178p.
Lasky, S. G., 1936, Geology and ore deposits of the Bayard area, Central mining
district, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 870, 144 p.
Levinson, A. A., 1974, Introduction to exploration geochemistry: Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, Applied Publishing Company, Ltd., 612 p.
McKnight, J. F., and Fellows, M. L., 1978, Silicate mineral assemblage and their rela-
tionship to sulfide mineralization, Pinos Altos mineral deposit, New Mexico:
Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. 1, p. 1-8.
Moore, S. L., 1953, Preliminary geologic map of the Allie Canyon quadrangle, Grant
County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 2 sheets, scale
1:24,000.
Motooka, J. M., and Grimes, D. J., 1976, Analytical precision of one-sixth order
semiquantitative spectrographic analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 738,
25 p.
Neuerburg, G. J., Barton, H. N., Watterson, J. R., and Welsch, E. P., 1978, A com-
parison of rock and soil samples for geochemical mapping of two porphyry metal
systems in Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-383, 26 p.
30 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO

Olade, M.A., and Fletcher, W. K., 1976, Trace-element geochemistry of the Highland
Valley and Guichon Creek batholith in relation to porphyry copper mineraliza-
tion: Economic Geology, v. 71, no. 4, p. 733-748.
Paige, Sidney, 1916, Description of the Silver City quadrangle, New Mexico: U.S.
Geological Survey Atlas, Folio 199, 19 p.
Palache, Charles, Bermon, Harry, and Frondel, Clifford, 1952, Dana's system of
mineralogy [7th ed.]: New York, John Wiley and Sons, p. 275, 429-445.
Rankama, Kalervo, and Sahama, T. G., 1950, Geochemistry [1st ed.]: Chicago and
London, University of Chicago Press, p. 13, 68, 626, 627, 629.
Schmitt, H. A., 1939, The Pewabic Mine: Geological Society of America Bulletin v. 50,
no. 5, p. 777-818.
Sharp, J. E., 1978, A molybdenum mineralized breccia pipe complex, Redwell Basin,
Colorado: Economic Geology, v. 73, no. 3, p. 373-376.
Titley, S. R., 1964, Some behavioral aspects of molybdenum in the supergene environ·
ment: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Petroleum Engineers
Transactions, v. 299, p. 199-204.
Trauger, F. D., 1972, Water resources and general geology of Grant County, New
Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Hydrologic Report
2, 211 p.
VanTrump, George, Jr., and Alminas, H. V., 1978, Relative Element Magnitude pro-
gram explanation and computer program listing: U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 78-1014, 23 p.
VanTrump, George, Jr., and Miesch, A. T., 1977, The U.S. Geological Survey RASS-
STATPAC system for management and statistical reduction of geochemical data,
in Computers in Geoscience, v. 3: Oxford, Pergamon Press, p. 475-488.
Wallace, S. R., Mackenzie, W. B., Blair, R. G., and Muncaster, N. K., 1978, Geology of
the Urad and Henderson molybdenite deposits, Clear Creek County, Colorado,
with a section on a comparison of these deposits with those of Climax, Colorado:
Economic Geology, v. 73, no. 3, p. 325-367.
Watts, K. C., and Hassemer, J. R., 1980, Distribution and abundance of fluorite in
stream-sediment concentrates, Silver City 1 ° x 2 ° quadrangle, New Mexico and
Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1183C,
scale 1:250,000.
Watts, K. C., Hassemer, J. R., and Nishi, J. M., 1978a, Eastern Santa Rita
quadrangle and western margin of Mimbres Valley, New Mexico: Journal of
Geochemical Exploration, v. 9, no. 2/3, p. 175-186.
Watts, K. C., Hassemer, J. R., Siems, D. F., and Nishi, J. M., 1978b, A statistical sum·
mary and listing of the spectrographic analyses of heavy-mineral concentrates
and conventional, sieved stream-sediment samples, Silver City area, New Mexico:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-801, 247 p.
FIGURES 3-22,
TABLES 1-4
32 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

t. >·: I QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY-CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVF-5 ~
~

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0

Precambrian rocks
c:
CONTACT
~
00
~
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed r::.,
J~
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
ttl
1. Shingle Canyon district ~
2. Georgetown district t_xj
00
3. Fierro-Hanover district FIGURE 3.-Distribution of lead in the non- 1--'
4. Skate Canyon area J,..
magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 1,000,
5. Central district
2,000, 5,000, 7,000, and 10,000 parts per
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
million; hachures indicate closed areas of
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
8. Fleming Camp area
lower values. In some places, contours are
9. Pinos Altos district shifted as much as 1.1 km (one grid cell) from
10. Juniper Hill area sample localities due to computer averaging
11. Circle Mesa area technique.

C\j
C\j
34 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

[<u I QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID -TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID-TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
Jo%j
TERTIARY-CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES
0
MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of c
Precambrian rocks ~
rn
CONTACT
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed ""~
~t:-.:)
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
t:x:l
1. Shingle Canyon district
~
2. Georgetown district rn
3. Fierro-Hanover district ......
~
4. Skate Canyon area
5. Central district FIGURE 4.-Distribution of lead in the magnetic
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area fraction. Contours drawn at 500, 1,000, 2,000,
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts 5,000, 7,000, and 10,000 parts per million. In
8. Fleming Camp area
some places, contours are shifted as much as
9. Pinos Altos district
10. Juniper Hill area
1.1 km (one grid cell) from sample localities
11 . Circle Mesa area due to computer averaging technique.

Clj
01
36 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

1: i·:.. J QUATERNARY -TERTIARY BASIN -FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID-TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY-CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES l'%j
1-4
MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0
c::
~
Precambrian rocks
CONTACT 00
co
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed ...::,
~~
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMAUES ~
trl
1. Shingle Canyon district
2 Georgetown district ~
00
3. Fierro-Hanover district FIGURE 5.-Distribution of copper in the non- ......
4. Skate Canyon area magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 100,
;...
5. Central district 200, 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000 parts per
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
million; hachures indicate closed areas of
7. .Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
8. Fleming Camp area
lower values. In some places contours are
9. Pinos Altos district shifted as much as 1.1 km (one grid cell) from
10. Juniper Hill area sample localities due to computer averaging
11 . Circle Mesa area technique.

CAj
-4
38 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

I<_ ... :: \ I QUATERNARY -TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
1-.rj
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES
MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0
c
Precambrian rocks ~
t:r.:l
CONTACT C/1
C.:>
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed ~
J~
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMAUES ~
txl
1. Shingle Canyon district
2. Georgetown district ~
C/1
3. Fierro-Hanover district FIGURE 6.-Distribution of copper in the magnetic .......
4. Skate Canyon area J:,..
fraction. Contours drawn at 100, 200, 500,
5. Central district
1,000, 2,000, and 5,000 parts per million;
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
7. Chloride Flat- Boston Hill districts
hachures indicate closed areas of lower
8. Fleming Camp area values. In some places, contours are shifted
9. Pinos Altos district as much as 1.1 km (one grid cell) from sample
10. Juniper Hill area localities due to computer averaging tech-
11 . Circle Mesa area nique.

00
co
40 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

!<<.. :·.:.. ~ QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TER~Y VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY-CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES "'%j
MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0
c:
Precambrian rocks
CONTACT ~
r:n
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed OJ
~
SAMPLE SITE .t-.:~

3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES

~
ttl
1. Shingle Canyon district
2 . Georgetown district ~
3 . Fierro-Hanover district r:n
FIGURE 7.-Distribution of zinc in the non- 1-'
4. Skate Canyon area
magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 700, .;,..
5. Central district
6 . Sheep Corral Canyon area
1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and 10,000 parts per
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts million; hachures indicate closed areas of
8. Fleming Camp area lower values. In some places, contours are
9. Pinos Altos district shifted as much as 1.1 km (one grid cell) from
10. Juniper Hill area sample localities due to computer averaging
11 . Circle Mesa area technique.

~
~
42 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

t . .> j QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES ~

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0c:::

Precambrian rocks ~
trl
CONTACT rn
C.:l
NORMAL FAULT -Dotted where concealed ~
SAMPLE SITE J-:l
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
ttl
1. Shingle Canyon district
2. Georgetown district ~
rn
3. Fierro-Hanover district
FIGURE B.-Distribution of zinc in the magnetic .....
4. Skate Canyon area J,.
5. Central district
fraction. Contours drawn at 700, 1,000, 2,000
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
and 5,000 parts per million; hachures indicate
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts closed areas of lower values; query within
8. Fleming Camp area hachure indicates area of inadequate data. In
9. Pinos Altos district some places, contours are shifted as much as
10. Juniper Hill area 1.1 km (one grid cell) from sample localities
11 . Circle Mesa area due to computer averaging technique.

.,j::l..
Cr.:)
44 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

!<.:.-;::·:.. ] QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES "'%j

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0

Precambrian rocks
c
CONTACT
~
en
~
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed ~
SAMPLE SITE .!'=>
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
ttl
1. Shingle Canyon district
2. Georgetown district ~
3. Fierro-Hanover district
en
t-'
4. Skate Canyon area ~
5. Central district
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area FIGURE 9.-Distribution of bismuth in the non-
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 50, 100,
8. Fleming Camp area 200, 500, and 700 parts per million. In some
9. Pinos Altos district places, contours are shifted as much as 1.1 km
10. Juniper Hill area (one grid cell) from sample localities due to
11. Circle Mesa area
computer averaging technique.

~
Ol
46 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

I: .• ' I QUATERNARY -TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES "%j

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of C5

Precambrian rocks
c:::
~
CONTACT trl
en
~
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed .;,
~t-.:)
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
1. Shingle Canyon district t:D
2. Georgetown district ~
3. Fierro-Hanover district
en
~

4 . Skate Canyon area ~

5 . Central district
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
FIGURE 10.-Distribution of tungsten in the non-
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 150,
8. Fleming Camp area 200, 500, 1,000 and 2,000 parts per million. In
9 . Pinos Altos district some places, contours are shifted as much as
10. Juniper Hill area 1.1 km (one grid cell) from sample localities
11. Circle Mesa area due to computer averaging technique.

~
-.l
48 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

t : .. ~ QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY-CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES ~
MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of
Precambrian rocks
sc::
CONTACT ~
r::n
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed C.:>
~
SAMPLE SITE J~

3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMAUES

~
t:C
1. Shingle Canyon district
2. Georgetown district ~
r::n
3. Fierro-Hanover district
......
4. Skate Canyon area ~
5. Central district
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
FIGURE H.-Distribution of tungsten in the
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 150,
8. Fleming Camp area 200, and 500 parts per million. In some places,
9. Pinos Altos district contours are shifted as much as 1.1 kni lone
10. Juniper Hill area grid cell) from sample localities due to com-
11. Circle Mesa area puter averaging technique.

~
co
50 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

..:, -~ ~
t :~ QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND
PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES "%j

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 8

Precambrian rocks
c:
CONTACT ~
00
(J.J
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed
~
SAMPLE SITE .t-:>

3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~

1. Shingle Canyon district t::C
2. Georgetown district ~
3. Fierro-Hanover district 00
~

4. Skate Canyon area ~

5. Central district
FIGURE 12.-Distribution of molybdenum in the
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
non-magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 50,
8. Fleming Camp area 100, 200, 500, and 700 parts per million. In
9. Pinos Altos district some places, contours are shifted as much as
10. Juniper Hill area 1.1 km (one grid cell) from sample localities
11. Circle Mesa area due to computer averaging technique.

01
1--'
52 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

t >.:·: ~ QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID-TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES ~

MESOZOIC -PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 8

c:::
Precambrian rocks ~
t.:rj
CONTACT en
C;;)
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed ~
SAMPLE SITE J-:l
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
ttl
1. Shingle Canyon district
2. Georgetown district ~
en
3. Fierro-Hanover district ~

4. Skate Canyon area J..

5. Central district
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
FIGURE 13.-Distribution of molybdenum in the
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 50 and
8. Fleming Camp area 100 parts per million. In some places, con-
9. Pinos Altos district tours are shifted as much as 1.1 km (one grid
10. Juniper Hill area cell) from sample localities due to computer
11 . Circle Mesa area averaging technique.

c:.n
c.o
54 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

!: ..(:..I QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID-TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES '":rj

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of a

c
Precambrian rocks
CONTACT
~
r:n
C;.:l
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed .;.,
SAMPLE SITE J':>
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
t::lj
1. Shingle Canyon district
2. Georgetown district ~
3. Fierro-Hanover district
r:n
.......
4 . Skate Canyon area J..
5 . Central district
FIGURE 14.-Distribution of silver in the non-
6 . Sheep Corral Canyon area
magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 5, 15,
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
8. Fleming Camp area
50, 150, 500, and 1,500 parts per million. In
9. Pinos Altos district some places, contours are shifted as much as
10. Juniper Hill area 1.1 km (one grid cell) from sample localities
11. Circle Mesa area due to computer averaging technique.

01
01
56 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

1-<·:_:.,j QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN -FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES "%j

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0

c:::
~
Precambrian rocks
CONTACT 00
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed ""~
~1:-:1
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
t::Jj
1. Shingle Canyon district t""
trj
2. Georgetown district
00
3. Fierro-Hanover district 1-'

4. Skate Canyon area J,.

5. Central district
FIGURE 15.-Distribution of silver in the magnetic
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
fraction. Contours drawn at 5, 15, and 50
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
8. Fleming Camp area
parts per million. In some places, contours are
9. Pinos Altos district shifted as much as 1.1 km (one grid cell) from
10. Juniper Hill area sample localities due to computer averaging
11. Circle Mesa area technique.

01
-;J
58 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

t .. <:· J QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES "'%j
1-4
MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0
Precambrian rocks
e
~
tr_j
CONTACT rn
CoAj
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed .;,
SAMPLE SITE J...:l
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
ttl
1. Shingle Canyon district
2 . Georgetown district ~
3 . Fierro-Hanover district
rn
~

4 . Skate Canyon area ~

5 . Central district
6 . Sheep Corral Canyon area FIGURE 16.-Distribution of gold in the non-
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 30, 50,
8 . Fleming Camp area and 70 parts per million. In some places, con-
9. Pinos Altos district tours are shifted as much as 1.1 km (one grid
10. Juniper Hill area cell) from sample localities due to computer
11 . Orcle Mesa area
averaging technique.

01
~
60 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

t .: ._:j QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY-CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES "'%j

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0

Precambrian rocks
c::~
CONTACT
tr:l
00
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed
"'~
J'.:l
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
1. Shingle Canyon district to
2. Georgetown district ~
00
3. Fierro-Hanover district ~

4. Skate Canyon area ~

5. Central district
FIGURE 17.-Distribution of barium in the non-
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 2,000,
8. Fleming Camp area 3,000, 5,000 and 7,000 parts per million. In
9. Pinos Altos district some places, contours are shifted as.much as
10. Juniper Hill area 1.1 km (one grid cell) from sample localities
11. Circle Mesa area due to computer averaging technique.

m
.......
62 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REG ION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

I u I QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID -TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES l'%j

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 8c

Precambrian rocks
~
en
CONTACT
c.:>
NORMAL FAULT - Dotted where concealed ~
J-.:>
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
tc
1. Shingle Canyon district
2 . Georgetown district ~
en
3 . Fierro-Hanover district ~

4 . Skate Canyon area

J,..
5, Central district
FIGURE lB.-Distribution of barium in the
6 . Sheep Corral Canyon area
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 2,000,
8 . Fleming Camp area 3,000, and 5,000 parts per million. In some
9. Pinos Altos district places, contours are shifted as much as 1.1 km
10. Juniper Hill area (one grid cell) from sample localities due to
11 . Circle Mesa area computer averaging technique.

m
~
64 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

t . .J QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES lo%j

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0

Precambrian rocks
c:::
~
trl
CONTACT UJ
C&j
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed
~
~~'.:)
SAMPLE SITE
3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~
L Shingle Canyon district ttl
2. Georgetown district ~
UJ
3. Fierro-Hanover district FIGURE 19.-Distribution of manganese in the ......
4 . Skate Canyon area ~
nonmagnetic fraction. Contours drawn at
5. Central district
1,000, 1,500, 2,000, and 3,000 parts per
6 . Sheep Corral Canyon area
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
million; hachures indicate closed areas of
8. Fleming Camp area lower values. In some places, contours are
9. Pinos Altos district shifted as much as 1.1 km (one grid cell) from
10. Juniper Hill area sample localities due to computer averaging
11 . Circle Mesa area technique.

m
01
66 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

I: :>: I QUATERNARY -TERTIARY BASIN -FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSIVES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSIVES ~
MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 0
Precambrian rocks c::
~
CONTACT trJ
r::n
CJ.:)
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed
~
SAMPLE SITE J~..:>

3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES

~
ttl
1. Shingle Canyon district
~
2. Georgetown district trJ
3. Fierro-Hanover district r::n
FIGURE 20.-Distribution of manganese in the 1-'
4. Skate Canyon area ~
magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 5,000
5. Central district
and 7,000 parts per million; hachures indicate
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districtc;
areas of lower values; query within hachure in-
8. Fleming Camp area dicates area of inadequate data. In some
9. Pinos Altos district places, contours are shifted as much as 1.1 km
10. Juniper Hill area (one grid cell) from sample localities due to
11 . Circle Mesa area computer averaging technique.

~
-.l
68 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPLANATION

!d. I QUATERNARY-TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID -TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY-CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES l'%j

MESOZOIC -PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 8

Precambrian rocks
c
CONTACT
~
rn
<:.¢
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed
~
SAMPLE SITE ~t-:>

3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~

ttl
1. Shingle Canyon district
2 . Georgetown district ~
3 . Fierro-Hanover district
rn
~

4. Skate Canyon area ~

5 . Central district
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area FIGURE 21.-Distribution of tin in the non-
7. Chloride Flat- Boston Hill districts magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 100,
8 . Fleming Camp area 200, 500, and 1,000 parts per million. In some
9. Pinos Altos district places, contours are shifted as much as 1.1 km
10. Juniper Hill area (one grid cell) from sample localities due to
11 . Circle Mesa area computer averaging technique.

m
~
70 GEOCHEMICAL HALOS, SILVER CITY MINING REGION, NEW MEXICO
 EXPlANATION

[>. >. I QUATERNARY- TERTIARY BASIN-FILL SEDIMENTS AND

PEDIMENT GRAVELS
MID- TERTIARY VOLCANICS
MID- TERTIARY INTRUSNES
TERTIARY -CRETACEOUS INTRUSNES "rj

MESOZOIC-PALEOZOIC ROCKS-Includes small areas of 8

Precambrian rocks
c~
tlj
CONTACT r.n
~
NORMAL FAULT- Dotted where concealed ~
SAMPLE SITE J•.:>

3 MINING DISTRICTS AND OTHER GEOCHEMICAL ANOMALIES ~

t:C
1. Shingle Canyon district
2. Georgetown district ~
3. Fierro-Hanover district
r.n
~

4. Skate Canyon area ~

5. Central district
FIGURE 22.-Distribution of vanadium in the non- ,
6. Sheep Corral Canyon area
magnetic fraction. Contours drawn at 500,
7. Chloride Flat-Boston Hill districts
8. Fleming Camp area 1,000, and 2,000 parts per million. In some
9. Pinos Altos district places contours are shifted as much as 1.1 km
10. Juniper Hill area (one grid cell) from sample localities due to
11. Circle Mesa area computer averaging technique.

-::J
........
 TABLE !.-Location and description of window areas

Window area Geographic boundaries Geo loa ic env i ronment Oepos it tyoe Re f erences -:J
aeq mln s aea mln s ~

0
t_:l:j
Sh in gle Canyon district-- ----- - 32 52 00 32 54 00 Ore localized in Pennsylvanian limestone Replacement Zn-Pb---- --------- Ke ll y, lQSfl, p. 33 - 3fi;
108 03 00 108 04 30 beneath Perman and Pennsylvanian shales.
Localized at intersection of Barrinqer
Jones and others, 1967. ?5
::X::
and Mimbres faults. t_:l:j
Georgetown district-- ---- ------ 32 49 00 32 52 00 Ore localized in Silurian Fusselman Fissure vei ns and Lasky and Woote n, 1933, p. 5fi-57; ~
~
108 00 00 108 03 00 Dolomite beneath Devonian Percha Shale. replacement Aq-Pb lodes. Hernon, 1953, p. l3R - 140; 0
Near intersect ion Mi mbres fault and
northeast dike and fault trend extending
Restricted to oxide zone. Jones and others, 1% 1, l%7;
Jones anrl Hernon, 1973. >
t"'l
outward from Santa Rita (Chino).
::X::
Fi erro -Hanover district-------- 32 49 00
108 04 00
32 51 00
108 07 30
Ore localized chiefly wi thin contact
metamorphic zone (skarn) surroundina
Contact metamorphic
Fe-Zn anrl skarn
Lasky and Wooten, 1933, p . 52-53;
Schmitt, 1Q39; ~
Laramide quartz d i or i te-qranod i or ite
stock.
replacement Zn-Cu- Ph. Hernon anrl others, 1953;
Jones anrl Hernon, 197 3 . sn0
00
32 56 on
~
Skate Canyon -- ------- ---- ------ 32 58 00 Tertiary None known ----- ----- -------- -- Moore, 1953.
108 06 00 108 09 30
t_:l:j
Central district-------------- - 32 45 00 32 llQ 00 Ore localized hy faults dikes anrl Vein deposits of Zn - Lasky and Wooten, 1Q .1 3, o. 51-5?;
fissures in Paleozoic carbonate Cu-Pb-Aq and minor Au Lasky, 193fi;
:;:tJ
108 05 00 108 11 00
rocks and shales. Trend of faults placers. Jones anrl others, 19fi1, 19fi7; 0

~
mainly northeast referred to as Jo nes and Hernon, 1Q73.
Groundhog Trend.

Sheep Corral Canyon------------ 32 56 30 33 00 00 Tert i ary volcanics cut by northwest- None known-- -------- ------ ---- Finnell, 197fia. ~
108 10 00 108 16 00 trendina block faults, intruded by
z
Chloride Flat and Boston Hill 32 45 00 32 48 00
rhyolite dikes and irreqular bodies.

Ore localized by faults and fissures Weathered and leached Mn-Fe Lasky and Wooten, 1933, o. 5?, 65 -fi 6;
z
0
districts. 108 15 00 108 18 00 in Paleozo i c shales and carbonate deposits at Boston Hill. Aq Entwhistle, 1944;
rocks. Aq veins localized in
Silurian Fusselman Dolomite beneath
halide vein and replacement bodies
at Chlor i de Flat. Restricted
Hernon, 1953;
Cunninqham, 1974. ~
Devonian Percha shale. to ox i de zone. 0
~

Fl eminq Camp-- ---- -------- - ------ 32 46 00 32 51 00 Ore localized as pods in Cretaceous Aq halide replacement deposits. Lasky and Wooten, 1933, p . 56;
0
108 19 00 lOR 25 00 Beartooth Quartz it e . Restr i cted to oxide zone. Hernon, 1953, p. 138. ~
Pinos Altos district -- ------- ---- 32 47 30 32 54 00 Ore localized within Laramide quartz Vein deposits Au-Aa-Cu-Pb-Zn Pa ia e, l91fi; Lasky and Wooten,
zt_:l:j
lOR 10 00 108 17 30 monzonite stock and within skarns
deve l oped in Paleozoic carbonate s
within stock. Skarn-replacement
Zn-Cu-Pb-Aa in surroundinq host
1933, p. 58-59; Hernon, 1951,
p. 140; McKniqht anrl ~
and shales and Cretaceous rocks amd qold olacers. Fellows, 1Q7fl. ~
sandstones, shales, and andesite. t_:l:j
~
Prospects on faults and fractures --- None known- -------- ----- ------ None available. ~
Juniper Hill district----- ----- -- 32 52 00 32 56 00
108 17 30 108 22 30 0
0
Circle Mesa --------------------- 32 50 00 32 53 00 Tertiary tuffs and flows intrud ed by None known-------------------- Trauqer, 1972.
108 26 30 108 29 00 felsic plugs and dikes.
 TABLE 2.-Ratio of fraction magnitudes for selected metals within the window areas
[FM ratio= Anomaly intensity X area {M-lamp fraction) where Intensity= Anomaly mean; for the chalcophilic elements Aq, Bi, Cu, Mo, Pb, and Zn, this ratio may indicate,
Anomaly 1ntens1ty X area (NM-iamp fract1on) lhreshold
particularly in the mininq districts, the deqree to which sulfides and other ore minerals are weathered, sometimes redistributed and then fixed in the seconday oxirles of
iron and manganese within the superqene zone. Hiqh ratios indicate a larqe factor for seconrlary processes; low ratio indicates a laroe factor for epiqenetic ore-
minerals and their secondary ore-mineral products; for 11 ithophile elements Mn, Ba, Be, Sn, and W, ratio is hiqh where element is predominately associated with various
oxides of manganese and iron or magnetic primary minerals and low where discrete nonmaqnetic primary minerals of that metal are present in abundance. Threshold values
are as in table 3. NM, indicates anomalous in nonmaqnetic fraction only and therefore may be equated with a value of 0; M, anomalous in maqnetic fraction only and
therefore may be equated to an infinitely large number. ---,no anomaly; >, qreater than value shown]

Window area Element Ratio sum 1

'"%j
Mn Aq Ba Be Bi Cu Mo Pb Sn w Zn ~

0
NM --- 1.09 NM N"'1 --- 35 .Rn ~fi .R9
c
~
Skate Can von----------------------------- 4.03 27 .no

Circle Mesa------------------------------ 8.50 1. 98 1.33 --- 5.34 NM NM M 29.Sl s .sn 10.84 00

o:J
Chloride Flat-Boston Hill district------- 2.26 0.25 1.20 3. 78 0.32 2.50 n.4R 0.3S M M ? .'i4 fi ,411 ~
~t-:l
Fleming Camp area------------------------ 13.57 0.005 0.67 0.47 n.o1 l.R3 0.1 g 0.77 n.3R 0.32 l.'iR 4.38 ~

Pinos Altos district--------------------- 6 .2fi 0.23 0.21 NM 0.18 1.77 n.ns 0.11 n .n3 n.n1 1. 22 3.5fi >
t:C
t'"'
Shingle Canyon district------------------ 2.86 NM NM NM 0.50 0.59 0.04 0.10 NM --- 2.22 3.45 t_::l:j
00
Fierro-Hanover district·----------------- 8.00 NM NM NM l.RO n.o1 n.n11 NM n. 7'> 1.15 3 .on 1-'
J,..
Sheep Corral Canyon---------------------- 24.19 0.14 NM NM 2. 75 NM NM NM --- M >2. 75

Juniper Hill 13.49 0.02 0.67 4.22 NM 0.97 0.22 0.;>2 NM 1.9'i 1.19 ? .fi2

Georgetown district---------------------- 14.14 0.01 NM M NM 0.31 0.17 0. 39 0.40 --- 1.62 2.50

Central district------------------------- 5.91 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.28 0.31 0.02 0.16 NM NM 0.77 1.57

Ratio s umL---------- --------------------- 103.21 0.54 31.99 >9 .90 1.29 1 9.2fi 1.18 2.14 >0 .81 >3~. 54 >53.S9 256.54

1 chalcophil ic elements only; sinqle area.

2sinqle element; all areas. -.:J

CA:l
 TABLE 3.-Comparison of magnitudes for selected metals -l
~

0
Concentrate Threshold Number of Number of Sum of Mean Intensity Area Maqnitude (EM) REM tr::l
Element fraction value samples anoma 1ous anomalous anomalous (mean/ (percent (Intensity (cumulative
0
0
samples values value threshold) anomalous) X Area) percent ::I:

-
maqnitude) tr::l
a::
0
Georgetown district
>
t:-t
::I:

ssn>
Ag- ------ NM 5.0 35 21 24,015 1,144 228.71 60.00 13 '722 79
Cu------- NM 100 35 26 25,100 965 9.65 74.29 717 4.1
Pb------- NM 500 35 15 95,000 6,333 12.67 42.86 543 3.1
Zn-------
Zn-------

Co-------
IV!o-------
M
NM

M
NM
500
500

30
50
35
35

35
35
31
13

32
7
85,600
52,800

2,700
4,020
2,761
4,062

84
574
5.52
8.12

2.81
11.49
88.57
37.14

91.43
20.00
489
302

257
230
2.8
1.7

1.5
1.3
-
en
t:-t
<
tr::l
Cu-------
V--------
Pb-------
M
NM
M
100
500
500
35
35
35
26
18
14
7,700
37,000
36,700
296
2,056
2,621
2.96
4.11
5.24
74.29
51.43
40.00
220
211
210
1.3
1.2
1.2 -
~
0

~
Mn-------
Ag-------
N--------
Mo-------
M

M
M

M
2,000
5.0
500
50
35
35
35
35
21
9
20
9
99,000
242
12,100
690
4, 714
27
605
76
2.36
5.38
1.21
1.53
60.00
25.71
'17.14
25.71
141
138
69
39
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
--
a::
z
z
0
Sn------- NM 100 35 7 1,250 179 1. 79 20.00 36 0.2
~
tr::l
Ba-------
Bi-------
Sn-------
Co-------
NM
NM
M
NM
2,000
50
100
30
35
35
35
35
4
3
1
4
20,000
350
500
140
5,000
117
500
35
2.50
2.33
5 .on
1.17
11.43
8.57
2.86
11.43
29
20
14
13
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
0
0
~z
Mg------- M 1.5 35 4 6.5 1.6 1.08 11.43 12 0.1 ztr::l
Mq------- NM 1.5 35 3 6.5 2.2 1.44 8.57 12 () .1 ~
Mn------- MN 2,000 35 2 7,000 3500 1. 75 5. 71 10 0.1 a::
Be------- NM 15 35 1 15 15 1,000.0 2.86 3

Total Magnitude (EM)_ __________________ 17,438

0.0

-tr::l
><
0
0
 Fleminq Camp area

Ag------- NM 5 83 18 19,292 1,072 214.36 21.69 4649 52

Pb------- NM 500 83 38 277,200 7,295 14.59 45.78 fi!i8 7.4
W-------- NM 100 83 30 43,700 1,457 14.57 36.14 527 5. 9
Pb------- M 500 83 39 213,700 5,479 10.96 4fi.99 515 5.7
Mo------- NM 50 83 25 15,990 640 12.79 30.12 385 4.3

Bi------- NM 50 83 24 11,820 492 9.85 28.92 285 3.2

Co------- M 30 83 79 6,830 86 2.88 95.18 274 1.1
Mn------- M 2,000 83 66 380,000 5,758 2.88 79.52 229 2 .fi
Zn------- M 500 83 52 77,000 1,481 2.96 62.65 186 2.1
W-------- M 100 83 29 14,200 490 4.90 34.94 171 1.9
~
~

Mg- ------ MN 1.5 83 40 198 4.96 3.31 48.19 159 1.8 0

Mg------- M 1.5 83 43 163 3. 79 2.53 51.81 131 1.5 ~
Zn------- NM 500 83 26 48,600 1,869 3.74 31.33 117 1.3 ~
t_::rj
V-------- M 500 83 48 35,500 740 1.48 57.83 86 1.0 rn
Ba------- NM 2,000 83 24 132,000 5,500 2.75 28.92 80 0.9 C.:l
~
M 50 83 29 2,980 103 2.06 34.94 72 0.8 _t-:1
Mo-------
42.17 65 0.7
~
Cu------- M 100 83 35 5,400 154 1.54
Be------- NM 15 83 22 770 35 2.33 21.51 fi2 0. 7
Sn------- NM 100 83 15 5,000 333 3.33 18.07 60 0. 7 tJ:I
t'-4
Ba- ------ M 2,000 83 21 88,000 4,190 2.10 25.30 53 O.fi t_::rj
rn
V-------- NM 500 83 13 15,900 1,223 2.45 15.66 38 0.4 ~

Cu------- NM 100 83 15 2,950 197 1.97 18.07 36 0.4 ~

Be------- M 15 83 17 365 21 1.43 20.48 29 0.3
Ag------- M 5 83 6 104 17 3.47 7.23 25 0.3
Au------- NM 20 83 7 390 S6 2. 79 8.43 23 0.3
Sn------- M 100 83 4 1,900 475 4. 75 4.82 23 0.3
Mn------- NM 2,000 83 11 28,110 2,545 1. 27 13.25 17 0.2
Bi------- M 50 83 1 150 150 3.00 1.20 3.6 o.o
Co------- NM 30 73 3 90 30 1.00 . 3.61 3.6 0.0

Total Maqnitude (EM) __________________ 8,972

-.;J
01
 TABLE 3.-Comparison of magnitudes for selected metals-Continued

Concentrate Threshold Number of Number of Sum of Mean Intensity Area Maqn it ude (EM) REM -l
Element fraction value samples anomalous anomalous anomalous (mean/ (percent (Intensity ( cumulative ~
samples values value threshold) anomalous) X Area) percent 0
maqnitude) t%j
0
{'")
Central district ::c:
t%j
a::
~
Pb-------- NM 500 46 29 364,500 12,569 25.14 63.04 1585 24 {'")
Cu-------- NM 100 46 32 46,550 1,455 14.55 69.S7 1012 lfi >
t"'4
Mo- ------- NM 50 46 14 14,550 1,039 20.79 30.43 633 9. 7
Ag-------- NM 5 46 15 1,377 92 18.36 32.fi1 599 9.2 ::c:
Zn-------- NM 500 46 25 125,200 5,008 10.02 54.3S 544 fl. 3 >
t"'4
0
Zn--------
Cu--------
M
M
500
100
46
46
39 96,910 2,485 4.97 84.78 ll?l fi.4
4.8
sn
33 14,350 435 4.35 71.74 312 r::n
~
Co-------- M 30 46 45 4,160 92 3 .OR 97.83 301 4.fi
Pb--------
Mn--------
M
M
500
2,000
46
46
22
34
60,100
195,000
2,732
5 ,73'1
5.46
2.87
47.83
73.91
261
212
4.0
3.2
~
t%j
~
Sn-------- NlvJ 100 46 8 5,750 719 7.19 17.39 12"1 1.9 {'")
~
Mg------ -- M 15 46 15 62 4 2. 78 32.fi1 91 1.4
V--------- NM 500 46 12 20,200 1,683 3. 37 26.09 88 1.3 ~
Co--------
Ba--------
NM
NM
30
2,000
46
46
14
13
1,150
68,000
82
5, 231
2.74
2.62
30.43
28.26
83
74
1.3
1.1
a::
~

z
~
V---------
Mn--------
M
NM
500
2,000
46
46
21
12
12,400
33,000
590
2,750
1.18
1.38
45.65
26.09
54
36
0.8
0.5
z
0
Be-------- NM 0.3
~
15 46 7 145 21 1.38 15.22 21
Ag- ------- M 5 46 3 42 14 2.80 6. 52 13 0.3
Ba--- ----- NM 50 46 3 350 117 2.33 6.52 15 0.2 0
~

0
Mo- ------- M 50 46 3 270 90 1.80 6.52 12 0.2 ?!
Mg--------
Ba--------
NM
M
1.5
2,000
46
46
4
4
6
8,000
1.5
2,000
1.00
1.00
8. 70
8. 70
8. 7
8. 7
0.1
0.1
zt%j
Au-------- M 20 46 () .1
Au-------- NM 20 46
1
2
70
40
70
20
3.50
1.00
2.17
4.35
7.6
4.4 0.1
~
a::
t%j
Bi-------- M 50 46 1 100 100 2.00 2.17 4.4 0.1
W--------- NM 100 46 1 150 150 1. 50 2.17 3. 3 0.0 ><
~

Be-------- M 15 46 1 15 1'i 1.00 2.17 2.2 0.0 0

0

Total Maqnitude ( EMl------------------- 6,536

 Pinos Altos district

Cu-------- M 100 182 103 233,550 2,267 22.67 56.59 1,283 21

Pb-------- NM 500 182 73 781,300 10,703 21.41 40.11 859 14
Cu-------- NM 100 182 63 131 '900 2,094 20.94 34.62 725 12
Ag-------- NM 5 182 53 6,290 119 23.74 29.12 691 11
Mg- ------- M 1.5 182 179 1' 123 6.3 4.88 98.35 411 6.8
W--------- NM 100 182 25 68,250 2,730 27.30 13.74 375 6.2
Co-------- M 30 182 173 15,290 88 2. 95 95.05 280 4.6
Bi -------- NM 50 182 40 21,740 543 10.87 21.98 239 ~.9
M 2,000 182 158 676,000 4,278 2.14

-
Mn-------- 86.81 Hlfi 3.1
Ag- ------- M 5 182 24 1,428 59 11.90 13.19 157 2.6 "'%j

Zn-------- NM 500 182 50 124,100 2,482 4. 96 27.47 136 2. 2 0

Zn-------- M 500 182 37 101,900 2 '754 5.51 20.33 112 1.8 c::
~
V--------- M 500 182 139 91,900 661 1.32 76.37 101 1.7 t;rj
Pb-------- M 500 182 30 86,700 2,890 5.78 16.48 95 1.6 00
Mo- ------- NM 50 179 27 7,690 285 5. 70 15.08 86 1.4 Cr.:)
~
~
V--------- NM 500 182 26 60,100 2,312 4.62 14.29 1)6 1.1 ~

Sn- -------
Au--------
NM
NM
100
20
182
182
20
12
10,600
1,760
531
147
5.30
7.33
10.99
6.59
58
48
1.0
0.8 ~
t:C
Bi-------- M 50 182 14 3,860 276 5.51 7.69 42 0.7 t-t
Co-------- NM 30 182 26 2,110 81 2.71 14.29 39 0.6 t;rj
00
~
Mn-------- NM 2,000 182 30 108,000 3,600 1.80 16.48 30 0.5 J,..
Ba-------- NM 2,000 182 32 108,000 3,375 1.69 17.58 30 0.5
Mg-- ------ NM 1.5 182 18 41 2.3 1.52 9.89 15 0.2
Ba-------- M 2,000 182 7 23,000 3,286 1.64 3.85 6.3 0.1
Mo-------- M 50 182 7 420 60 1.20 3.85 4.6 0.1
W--------- M 100 182 5 600 120 1.20 2. 75 3.3 0.1
Be-------- NM 15 182 4 65 16 1.08 2.20 2.4 0.0
Sn-------- M 100 182 3 350 117 1.17 1.65 1.9 0.0

Total Magnitude (EMl------------------~-6,083

'I
'I
 TABLE 3.-Comparison of magnitudes for selected metals-Continued
-:J
00
Concentrate Threshold Number of Number of Sum of Mean Intensity Area Maonitude (EM) REM 0
Element fraction value samples anomalous anomalous anomalous (mean/ (percent (Intensity ( cumulative t%j
samples values value threshold) anomalous) X Area) percent 0
maqnitude) 0
::I:
t%j
=:::
Chloride Flat-Boston Hill district ~
0
>
t-t
Pb------- NM 500 17 15 109,700 7,313 14.63 88.24 1291 22
Ag------- NM 5 17 9 992 110 22.04 52.94 1167 20 ::I:
Pb------- M 500 18 14 41,000 2,929 5.86 77.78 456 7. 9 >
t-t
Zn------- M 500 18 15 39,600 2,640 5.28 83.33 440 7.7 0
Sn- ------ NM 100 17 6 6,350 1,058 10.58 35.29 374 6. 5 sn
rn
~
Co------- M 30 18 17 1,960 115 3.84 94.44 3fi3 11.3
Ag- ------ M 5 18 8 264 33 6.60 44.44 293 'i.1 ~
t%j
Cu------- NM 100 18 14 4,500 321 3. 21 77.78 2'i0 4.4
Zn------- Ni~ 500 17 7 14,700 2,100 4.20 41.18 173 3.0 ~
Mo------- NM 50 17 6 1,090 182 3.63 35.29 128 ?. 2 0
~

Mn------- M 2,000 18 8 43,000 5,375 2.fi9 44.44 119 2.1 ~

Cu------- NM 100 17 5 1,700 340 3.40 29.41 100 1. 7 =:::
~
1.4
Ba-------
Mq-------
M
NM
2,000
1.5
18
17
10
5
2,800
19
2,800
3.8
1.40
2.53
55.5fi
29.41
78
75 1.3 z
~

V-------- M 500 18 9 5,900 656 1.31 50.00 66 1.1 z

0
Ba-------
Mg- ------
NM
M
2,000
1.5
17
18
5
8
22,000
16
4,400
2.1
2.20
1. 38
29.41
44.44
65
111
1.1
1.1
;;
Mo------- M 50 18 8 550 68.8 1.38 44.44 61 1.1 0
~

Mn------- NM 2,000 17 5 18,000 3,600 l.RO 29.41 53 0.9 0

Au------- NM 20 17 2 100 so 2.50 11.76 29 0.5 ~
W- ------- NM 100 17 2 400 200 2.00 11. 7fi 24 0.4
zt%j
Be------- M 15 18 4 60 15 1.00 22.22 22 0.4 ~
Bi------- NM 50 17 1 150 150 3.00 5.88 18 0.3
V-------- NM 500 17 2 1,500 750 1.50 11.76 18 0.1
=:::
t%j
1.00 5.88 5. 9 0.1
Be-------
Bi-------
NM
M
15
50
17
18
1
1
15
50
15
50 1.00 5.56 5 .fi 0.1
><
~

0
0
Total Magnitude (EM) ___________________ 5,736
 Hanover-Fierro district

Cu------- M 100 13 11 15,900 1,445 14.45 84.62 122~ 24 .fi

Cu------- NM 100 13 11 8,850 805 8.05 84.62 fi81 13.7
Mo------- NM 50 13 5 3,700 740 14.80 38.46 569 11.4
Pb------- NM 500 13 8 35,200 4,400 8.80 61.54 542 10.9
Bi------- NM 50 13 3 2,250 750 15.00 23.08 346 7.0
Mn------- M 2,000 13 13 72,000 5,538 2.77 100.00 277 5 .fi
Co------- M 50 13 13 940 72 2.41 100.00 241 4.8
Ag------- NM 5 13 4 145 3fi 7.25 30.77 223 4. s
M 500 13 7 10,900 1, 557 53.85

-
Zn------- 3.11 lfi8 3.4
Zn------- NM 500 13 3 9,500 3,167 6.33 23.08 146 2. 9 ~

Sn------- Nt~ 100 13 4 1,650 412 4.13 30.77 121 2.6 0

Au------- NM 20 13 1 200 210 10.00 7.69 77 l.S c:::
~
Mg------- NM 1.5 13 5 14 2.8 1.87 38.46 72 1.4 t;rj
Mg------- M 1.5 13 6 13 2.2 1.50 46.15 fi9 1.4 00
Co------- NM 30 13 5 230 46 1. 53 38.46 1)9 1.2 c.:l
~
~
Ba------- NM 2,000 1J 2 12,000 6,000 3.00 15.38 46 0.9 ~

Mn-------
Pb-------
NM
M
2,000
500
13
13
3
3
9,000
1,500
3,000
SOO
1.50
1.00
23.08
;:>3.08
35
23
0. 7
0.5 ~
t:Jj
V-------- M 500 13 2 1,200 600 1.20 15.38 18 0.4
W-------- NM 100 13 2 200 100 1.00 15.38 15 0.1 ~
00
M 100 1 150 7.69 ......
W- ------- 13 150 1.50 12 0. 2 J,..
Mo------- M 50 13 1 50 50 1.00 7.69 7. 7 0.2

Total Maqnitude (EM) ___________________ 4,971

-.:J
co
 TABLE 3.-Comparison of magnitudes for selected metals-Continued 00
0
0
t_:rj
Concentrate Threshold Number of Number of Sum of Mean Intensity Area Maqnitude (EM) REM
0
Element fraction value samples anomalous anomalous anomalous (mean/ (percent (Intensity (cumulative a
samples values value threshold) anornal ous) X Area) percent ::I:

-
maqnitude) t_:rj
a::
a
Shinqle Canyon district
>
t""
::I:
Pb-------
Co-------
NM
M
500
30
17
17
11
17
86,000
2,970
7,818
175
15.64
5.82
64.71
100.00
1,012
582
25
15
>
t""
Zn------- M 500 17 15 31,100 2,073 4.15 88.24 366 9.2 0
sn
Cu-------
Mn----- --

Cu-------
V--------
M
NM

NM
M
100
2,000

100
500
17
17

17
17
12
13

13
9
6,150
80,000

3,650
18,200
512
6,154

281
2,022
5.13
3.08

2.81
4.04
70.59
7n.47

76.47
52.94
362
235

215
214
9.1
5. g

'i.4
5.4
-
r:n
t""
<
t_:rj

Mg-------
Zn-------
Mo-------
M
NM
NM
1.5
500
50
17
17
17
6
9
3
45
14,000
1,270
7.5
1,556
423
5.00
3.11
8.47
35.29
52.94
17.65
176
165
149
4.4
4.1
3.8
~
a
~-
--
Ag- ------ NM 5.0 17 4 90 22 4.50 23.53 105 2. 7 a::
Pb-------
Mn-------
M
NM
500
2,000
17
17
7
8
8,700
28,000
1,243
3,500
2.49
1. 75
41.18
47.06
102
82
2.6
2.1
z
Co------- NM 30 17 5 350 70 2.33 29.41 69 1.7 z0
V-------- M 500 17 7 4,600 657 1.31 41.18 54 1.4
~

-
t_:rj
Mg------- NM 1.5 17 1 5 5.0 3.33 5.88 20 O.'i 0
Sn------- NM 100 17 1 300 300 3.00 5.88 18 0.4
Ba------- NM 2,000 17 1 5,000 5,000 2.50 5.88 15 0.4 0
Bi------- NM 50 17 1 100 100 2.00 5.88 12 0.3 ~
Be------- NM 15 17 1 15 15 1.00 5.08 5.9 0.1 zt_:rj
Bi ------- M 50 17 1 50 50 1.00 5.88 5. 9 0.1 ~
Mo------- M 50 17 1 50 50 1.00 5.88 5.9 0.1 a::

-
t_:rj
><
Total Magnitude (EM)_ ____________________ 3,971 a
0
 Juniper Hill district

Ag- ------ NM 5 77 12 2,270 189 37.8~ 15.58 li90 2~

Pb------- NM 500 77 14 147,500 10,536 21.07 18.18 3R3 15
Co------- M 30 79 69 1),420 79 2.62 87.34 229 9.0
Mg------- M 1.5 79 50 261 5.2 3.49 63.29 221 R. 7
Mn------- M 2,000 79 60 346,000 5,767 2.88 75.91i 219 lUi

Mg------- NM 1.5 77 23 190 8.3 5.51 29.87 1Fi4 fi.5

V-------- M 500 79 58 45,900 791 1. 58 73.42 116 4.fi
Zn-- ----- M 500 79 46 42,800 930 1.86 58.23 108 4.3
Zn-------
Mo---- ---

Pb- ------
Ba-------
NM
NM

M
NM
500
50

500
2,000
77
75

79
77
11
7

17
18
35,000
3,240

33,200
86,000
3,819
463

1, 953
4,778
6. 36
9.26

3.91
2.39
14.29
9.33

21.52
23.38
91
Rfi

84
56
3.fi
3.4

3.3
2.2
-
"'%j

0
c:::
:;:c
t_%j
Ba------- M 2,000 79 19 59,000 3 105 1.55 24.05 37 1.5 r:n
V-------- NM 500 77 11 11,900 1 082 2.16 14.29 31 1.2 c..,
Mo- ------ M 50 79 8 740 92 1.85 10.13 19 0.7 ~
~~
Mn------- NM 2,000 77 8 25,000 3,125 1.56 10.39 16 O.fi t-3
Cu------- NM 100 77 7 1,250 179 1. 79 9.09 16 0.6 >
t:C
Cu------- M 100 79 9 1,250 139 1.39 11.39 16 0.6
Ag------- M 5 79 7 53 7.6 1.51 8.8fi 13 0.5 t""
t_%j
Be-------

W- -------
Au-------
M

M
NM
15

100
20
79

79
77
7

3
2
130

600
80
18.6

200
40
1.24

2.00
2.00
8.86

3.80
2.60
11

7.6
5.2
0.4

0.3
0.2
-
r:n
J,...

Bi------- NM 50 77 2 200 100 2.00 2.60 5.2 0.2

W-------- NM 100 77 3 300 100 1.00 3.90 3.9 0.2
Be------- NM 15 77 2 30 15 1.00 2.60 2 .fi 0.1

Co------- NM 30 77 2 60 30 1.00 2.60 2.6 0.1

Sn------- NM 100 77 1 100 100 1.00 1.30 1.3 0.1

Total Maqnitude (EM) ____________________ 2,534

00
1-'
 00
t...:>
0
tz:j
0
C".)
TABLE 3.-Comparison of magnitudes for selected metals-Continued ::t:
tz:j

Concentrate Threshold Number of Number of Sum of Mean Intensity Area Maqnitude (EM) REM 0==
Element fraction value samples anomalous anomalous anomalous (mean/ (percent (Intensity (cumulative >
t:"'
samples values value threshold) anomalous) X Area) percent
maqnitude) ::t:
>
Skate Canyon
s
sn
en
~

M t:"'
Co 30 25 25 4,870 195 6.49 100.00 fi49 29 <!
Mg M 1.5 25 25 146 5.8 3.89 100.00 381 18 .tz::l
Mn M 2,000 25 16 129,000 8,063 4.03 64.00 258 12 ~
v M 500 25 24 23,000 958 1.92 96.00 184 8.4 C".)
~
Zn M 500 25 19 17' 900 942 1.88 76.00 143 6.5
~
Mg NM 1.5 25 10 40 4.0 2. 70 40.00 108 ll.9
Ba
Sn
Mn
Co
M
NM
NM
NM
2,000
100
2,000
30
25
25
25
25
7
3
11
3
54,000
1,900
32,000
380
7' 714
633
2,909
127
3.86
6.33
1.45
4.22
28.00
12.00
44.00
12.00
108
76
fi4
~1
4.9
3.5
2.9
? .3
-
~

z==
z0
~
Cu M 100 25 6 1,250 208 2.08 24.00 50 2.3 tz:j
Cu NM 100 25 4 1,150 287 2.88 16.00 46 2.1 0~
Pb NM 500 25 2 3,000 1,500 3.00 8.00 24 1.1 0
v NM 500 25 4 2,700 675 1.35 16.00 22 1.0 ~z
NM
Be 15 25 4 70 17 1.17 16.00 19 0.8
ztz:j
Ba NM 2,000 25 1 2,000 2,000 1.00 4.00 4.0 0.2
Zn NM 500 25 1 500 500 1.00 4.00 4.0 0.2
~
tz:j
==
Total Magnitude (EMl---------------------2,199 ><
~
C".)
0
 Sheep Corral Canyon

Mg------ M 1.5 41 38 310 8.2 5.45 92.68 505 26

Co------ M 30 41 41 4,570 111 3.72 100.00 372 19
Mn------ M 2,000 41 36 242,000 6,722 3.36 87.80 295 15.3
Sn------ NM 100 41 7 5,600 800 8.00 17.07 137 7.1
Zn------ M 500 41 22 23,000 1,045 2.09 53.66 112 5.8

V------- M 500 41 31 22,300 719 1.44 75.61 109 5.fi

Mg------ NM 1.5 41 7 57 8.1 5.43 17.07 Q3 4.8
Bi------ NM 50 41 2 1,800 900 18.00 4.88 88 4.6
Cu------ M 100 41 16 2,750 172 1. 72 39.02 67 3.5
Ba------

Co------
Cu------
NM

NM
NM
2,000

30
100
41

41
41
12

5
5
36,000

430
1,000
3 000

86
200
1.50

2.87
2.00
29.27

12.20
12.20
44

35
24
2.3

1.8
1.3
-c::
~
0
~
Pb------ NM 500 41 5 4,400 880 1. 76 12.20 21 1.1 tz::l
Mn------ NM 2,000 41 2 10,000 5,000 2.50 4.88 12 0.6 en
Ba------ M 2,000 41 1 5,000 5,000 2.50 2.44 6.1 0.3 c,.,
~
Mo------ NM 50 41 1 70 70 1.40 2.44 3.4 0.2 -
~

V-------
Be------
NM
NM
500
15
41
41
1
1
700
15
700
15
1.40
1.00
2.44
2.44
3.4
2.4
0.2
0.1
~
l:rl
t-t
tz::l
Total Maqnitude (EM)--------------------- 1,929
en
~

00
c..,
 00
~

0
tr:l
0
0
::r:

-
tr:l
Concentrate Threshold Number of Number of Sum of Mean Intensity Area Maqnitude (EM) REM ~
Element fraction value samples anomalous anomalous anomalous (mean/ (percent (Intensity ( cumulative
samples values value threshold) anomalous) X Area) percent 0
maqnitude) >
t-t
::r:
Circle Mesa
>
t-t
0
Co-------
Ba-------
Mn-------
W- -------
M

M
M

M
30.0
2,000.
2,000.
100.
21
21
21
21
21
16
10
12
1,610
79,000
68,000
2,9SO
77
4,937
6,800
246
2.56
2.47
3.40
2.46
100.00
76.19
47.62
57.14
2'16
188
162
140
19
14
12
10
-
sn
00

~
tr:l
Sn-------

V--------
NM

NM
100.

500.
21

21
6

21
2,700

11,600
450

553
4.50

1.10
28.57

100.00
129

110
9.5

8.2 -
~
0

--
Ba------- NM 2,000. 21 5 40,000 8,000 4.00 23.81 95 7.0
Zn------- M 500. 21 17 9,400 552 1.11 80.95 90 fi.6 ~
Pb-------
Cu-------
M
M
500.
100.
21
21
10
7
8,100
800
810
114
1.62
1.14
47.62
33.33
77
38
5. 7
2.8
z
z
0
l~n------- NM 2,000. 21 3 8,000 2,667 1.33 14.29 19 1.4
Zn------- NM 500. 21 3 1,700 567 1.13 14.29 16 1.2
~
Cu-------
Be-------
Be-------
NM
M
NM
100.
15.
15.
21
21
21
1
1
1
150
20
15
150
20
15
1.50
1.33
1.00
4.76
4.76
4.76
7.1
6.4
4.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0
0
~
-
~
Mo------- NM 50. 21 1 50 50.000 1.00 4.76 4.8 0.4
V-------- NM 500. 21 1 500 500.000 1.00 4.76 4.8 0.4
W-------- NM 100. 21 1 100 100.000 1.00 4.76 4.8 0.4 ~
~
tr:l
Total Maqnitude (EM)---------------------1,348
~
0
0
 FIGURES 3-22, TABLES 1-4 85

TABLE 4.-Additive ratios of element

magnitudes (EM)
[EM = Intensity X halo size (area). Leaders (-)
indicate no value calculated]

1
Pb + Ag + Ba
Area
Cu + Mo + Bi

Georgetown district ......... . 14.78

Fleming Camp area ......... . 12.82
Chloride Flat-Boston Hill
district ................... . 10.26
Juniper Hill district ......... . 9.54
Circle Mesa ................ . 8.00
Shingle Canyon district ...... . 3.89
Central district . . . . . . . . . .... . 1.54
Pinos Altos district . . . . . . ... . 1.50
Fierro· Hanover district ...... . 0.51
Skate Canyon 2 • • • • • • • • • • . • • •
Sheep Corral Canyon2 • • • • • • • •

'Nonmagnetic component.
'Statistically nonsignificant due to insufficient number of
values.

-tr U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-776-041/4021 REGION NO. 8