|Quadrangle map, 1:250,000-scale||NM|
|Quadrangle map, 1:63,360-scale||D-2|
|Nearby scientific data||Find additional scientific data near this location|
|Location and accuracy||The Tub Mountain prospect is on hill 956 in the SW1/4NW1/4 section 22, T. 8 S., R 35 W., Kateel River Meridian. It is 1.25 miles southwest of the confluence of Stewart and Sinuk Rivers and about 0.8 mile south of Sinuk River. The prospect is locality 6 of Hummel (1975) and locality 2 of Cobb (1972 [MF 463], 1978 [OFR 78-93]).|
The Tub Mountain prospect is a limonite-rich deposit about 300 by 600 feet that appears to be localized along high-angle faults in marble (Herreid, 1970). It is one of several similar deposits in the area (see NM014, NM014, NM017, NM019, and NM020). The limonite can be massive to granular, botryoidal, mammillary, or fibrous. The iron content ranges to as much as 59 percent in analyzed samples (Eakin, 1915). Hematite, pyrolusite, and calcite are present locally. Shallit (1942; Mulligan and Hess, 1965, table 3) estimated that 8,000 long tons of rock containing 10 to 20 percent iron is present at Tub Mountain.
This prospect and other iron deposits of the Sinuk River area are at or near the base of massive marble whose protolith age is probably lower Paleozoic (Sainsbury, Hummel, and Hudson, 1972; Bundtzen and others, 1994). The deposits are locally controlled by high-angle faults or folds, but they are in general crudely stratabound within the basal massive marble or underlying calc-schist (Mulligan and Hess, 1965; Herreid, 1970). This stratigraphic interval also hosts base metal sulfide-fluorite-barite deposits at the Galena (NM130) and Quarry prospects (NM135).
The origin and age of the iron deposits of the Sinuk River area are uncertain. The deposits may be, in part, gossan developed on oxidized sulfide deposits (Eakin, 1915 [B 622-I, p. 361-365];Mertie, 1918 [B662-I, p. 425-449]; Cathcart, 1922; Mulligan and Hess, 1965; Herreid, 1970). Several of the iron deposits, including American (NM014) and Monarch (NM017), are locally highly anomalous in zinc and lead. Arguing against a simple gossan origin is the paucity of diagnostic textures and structures in boxworks that would suggest derivation from specific sulfide minerals. Alternatively, these deposits could be hypogene iron oxide and carbonate deposits probably transitional to lead-zinc-barite deposits, such as Quarry (NM135), that are at about the same stratigraphic position.The age of the iron deposits of the Sinuk River area is most likely post-mid-Cretaceous because faults that crosscut mid-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks are an important ore control. A Late Cretaceous age for the iron deposits was suggested by Brobst and others (1971) as this is the age of fluorine-rich tin granites of northwestern Seward Peninsula (Hudson and Arth, 1983). The youngest possible age appears to be Early Tertiary, when deep weathering, sandstone-type uranium mineralization, and possibly karst formation occurred to the east in the Solomon quadrangle (Hudson, 1999).
|Geologic map unit||(-165.75173913735, 64.781936449493)|
|Mineral deposit model||Carbonate-hosted, iron oxide deposit.|
|Age of mineralization||Late Cretaceous or Early Tertiary; post mid-Cretaceous metamorphism.|
|Alteration of deposit||Dolomitization and oxidation.|
|Workings or exploration||Surface prospecting pits, dating to before WWI, are present.|
|Indication of production||None|
|Reserve estimates||Shallit (1942; table 3, Mulligan and Hess, 1965) estimated that the Tub Mountain prospect includes 8,000 long tons of rock containing 10 to 20 percent iron.|
Brobst, D.A., Pinckney, D.M., and Sainsbury, C.L., 1971, Geology and geochemistry of the Sinuk River barite deposits, Seward Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 750-D, p. D1-D8.
Bundtzen, T.K., Reger, R.D., Laird, G.M., Pinney, D.S., Clautice, K.H., Liss, S.A., and Cruse, G.R., 1994, Progress report on the geology and mineral resources of the Nome mining district: Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Public Data-File 94-39, 21 p., 2 sheets, scale 1:63,360.
Cathcart, S.H., 1922, Metalliferous lodes in southern Seward Peninsula: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 722-F, p. 163-261.
Cobb, E.H., 1972, Metallic mineral resources map of the Nome quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-463, 2 sheets, scale 1:250,000.
Cobb, E.H., 1978, Summary of references to mineral occurrences (other than mineral fuels and construction materials) in the Nome quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 78-93, 213 p.
Herreid, G.H., 1970, Geology and geochemistry of the Sinuk area, Seward Peninsula, Alaska: Alaska Division of Mines and Minerals Geologic Report 36, 61 p., 3 sheets, scales 1:42,000 and others.
Hudson, T.L., 1999, Alaska Resource Data File, Solomon quadrangle: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-573, 360 p.
Hudson, T.L., and Arth, J. G., 1983, Tin granites of Seward Peninsula, Alaska: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 94, p. 768-790.
Mertie, J.B., Jr., 1918, Lode mining and prospecting on Seward Peninsula, in Brooks, A.H., and others, Mineral resources of Alaska, report on progress of investigations in 1916: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 662, p. 425-449.
Mulligan, J.J., 1965, Examination of the Sinuk iron deposits, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, with a section by Hess, H. D.: U.S. Bureau of Mines Open-File Report 8-65, 34 p.
Sainsbury, C.L., Hummel, C.L., and Hudson, Travis, 1972, Reconnaissance geologic map of the Nome quadrangle, Seward Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 72-326, 28 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:250,000.
|Reporters||C.C. Hawley and Travis L. Hudson|
|Last report date||10/22/1999|