| Basis for focus area |
Extent of known mineralization. |
| Identified resources |
Identified fluorite resources; historical fluorite production. |
| Production |
22,679 tonnes of ore were mined at McFadden Peak for testing only, with results unknown (Sawyer and others, 1992). |
| Status |
Past mining. |
| Estimated resources |
Quartz Ledge/White Cow: 35,850 tons @ >50% CaF2 (Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources files-ADDMR); Packard/Bluebird: 118,205 tons @ >50% CaF2 (ADDMR); Redrock: 105,455 @ >50% CaF2 (ADDMR); McFadden Peak: historical Indicated resource of 450,000 tons @ 65% CaF2 (ADDMR). |
| Geologic maps |
Bergquist and others (1981), scale 1:48,000; Skotnicki (1999b), scale 1:24,000; Spencer and others (1999), scale 1:24,000; Skotnicki (2002), scale 1:100,000. |
| Geophysical data |
Inadequate aeromagnetic and aeroradiometric coverage. |
| Favorable rocks and structures |
All deposits occupy steep veins, with each deposit having different strikes. Packard is hosted in metamorphosed rhyolite of the lowermost Apache Group and a Precambrian granite. Quartz Ledge is hosted within a granite of presumably Precambrian age. Red Rock is hosted within a quartzite. |
| Deposits |
Quartz Ledge (White Cow) (MRDS dep_id: 10209714), Packard mine (Bluebird mine) (MRDS dep_id: 10046361) McFadden Peak (MRDS dep_id: 10056467), Red Rock mine (MRDS dep_id: 10056466). |
| Evidence from mineral occurrences |
MRDS. |
| Geochemical evidence |
Unknown. |
| Geophysical evidence |
No data known. |
| Evidence from other sources |
None. |
| Comments |
Several small high-grade, low-tonnage deposits in area. Much of the area has not been mapped at a scale larger than 1:100,000 (including Red Rock and McFadden Peak). |
| Cover thickness and description |
Surface exposures of mineralization at each mine, but bulk of resource follows vein system to depth. Vein widths vary between 1.1-12.9 feet (Pincock, Allen and Holt, Inc., 1978, 1979). |
| Authors |
Carson A. Richardson, Joshua M. Rosera. |
| New data needs |
Detailed geologic mapping. |
| Geologic mapping and modeling needs |
Detailed geologic mapping. |
| Geophysical survey and modeling needs |
Perhaps aeromagnetic survey could be of use, but most vein fluorite deposits have been more successfully explored via electromagnetic or magnetotelluric surveys. |
| Digital elevation data needs |
Lidar mostly inadequate. |
