Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the Heddleston Porphyry Cu-Mo Deposit, Montana Ben Schubert Montana Tech
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Montana Tech Library Digital Commons @ Montana Tech Graduate Theses & Non-Theses Student Scholarship Spring 2017 Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the Heddleston Porphyry Cu-Mo Deposit, Montana Ben Schubert Montana Tech Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/grad_rsch Part of the Geochemistry Commons, Geology Commons, and the Other Earth Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Schubert, Ben, "Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the Heddleston Porphyry Cu-Mo Deposit, Montana" (2017). Graduate Theses & Non-Theses. 114. http://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/grad_rsch/114 This Non-Thesis Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Montana Tech. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses & Non-Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Montana Tech. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the Heddleston Porphyry Cu-Mo Deposit, Montana by Ben Schubert A non-thesis research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geosciences: Geology Option Montana Tech April, 2017 ii Acknowledgements This research was made possible by the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration; the Montana Tobacco Root Geological Society; Anadarko; and Montana Tech’s Scholarships and financial assistance to help me cover the costs of attending Montana Tech and allowing me to avoid debt. I am grateful to the faculty and students who took time to accurately answer my questions and bring good suggestions for furthering my research. Many people were very busy with various projects, but generously helped me through problems and brought useful thoughts to this project. Among them include Kyle Eastman, Vincent Spinazola, Garrett Hill, Gary Wyss, Larry Smith, and my committee members Chris Gammons, Diane Wolfgram, and Stan Korzeb. iii Abstract The Heddleston porphyry Cu-Mo deposit is located in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, near the headwaters of the Blackfoot River. It is immediately west of the historic Mike Horse mine, an important producer of Pb-Zn from polymetallic veins and lodes. The Heddleston property was explored extensively by the Anaconda Company in the 1960s and 1970s, but was never mined. Specimens of polished drill core from the deposit are archived in the Anaconda Research Collection at Montana Tech campus. The purpose of this research project was to use the archived samples to examine the geochemistry and mineralogy of the Heddleston and Mike Horse deposits using modern methods of ore deposit research, including portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF), short-wave infrared (SWIR) mineral analysis, fluid inclusions, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and sulfur isotope analysis. The Heddleston deposit is centered on the Mike Horse stock, an Eocene (44.5 Ma) quartz monzonite porphyry, which has intruded into argillite of the mid-Proterozoic Spokane Formation and a thick diorite sill, also Precambrian in age. Drill core examined in this study was from DH 265-161, completed near the center of the district but just outside the mapped limit of the Number 3 Tunnel ore body. Several generations of quartz veins are present, including early quartz-chalcopyrite-pyrite veins with narrow potassic alteration envelopes, quartz-molybdenite veins with no alteration, and quartz-pyrite-chalcopyrite veins with phyllic alteration. Some of the late veins also contain galena, sphalerite, and Ag-bearing tetrahedrite-tennantite. Based on SWIR data, the most common alteration minerals in the altered porphyry host rock are muscovite (sericite), K-illite, kaolinite, and halloysite. Most of the kaolinite is well crystalline and is probably hypogene, while some is poorly crystalline and may have formed during weathering. Fluid inclusions from quartz-molybdenite and quartz-pyrite veins homogenized between 350 and 450˚C and have widely varying liquid/vapor ratios. Many inclusions contain halite daughter minerals, with sylvite and/or chalcopyrite daughter minerals also sometimes being present. This information suggests that boiling of a primary magmatic fluid occurred in the temperature range of 400 to 450˚C. Stable isotopes of S (δ34S) in pyrite from Heddleston range from 3.5 to 5.2‰, and overlap with δ34S values for pyrite, sphalerite, and galena in two samples from Mike Horse. These data also overlap with δ34S data for hypogene sulfides in the world-class Butte porphyry- lode deposit. This suggests that the two porphyry systems may have inherited their sulfur from a common source. However, the Heddleston deposit differs from Butte in many ways, including its smaller size, its younger age (Eocene vs. late Cretaceous), its host rocks (Precambrian metasediments vs. Butte Granite), a lack of copper-rich “Main Stage” veins in the center of the district, and a shallower depth of emplacement. iv Table of Contents Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose and History ................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Regional and local geology ..................................................................................... 2 1.3. Mineralization ......................................................................................................... 6 1.4. Objectives of This Study ......................................................................................... 7 2. Methods.......................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Sample Collection ................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Portable X-ray Fluorescence Scanning .................................................................. 10 2.3. Terraspec Halo Mineral Identifier Scanning .......................................................... 10 2.4. Petrographic Examination ..................................................................................... 12 2.5. Scanning Electron Microscope Work .................................................................... 13 2.6. Fluid Inclusion Work ............................................................................................ 14 2.7. Sulfur Isotopes ...................................................................................................... 16 3. Results ........................................................................................................................... 17 v 3.1. Portable X-ray Fluorescence Scanning .................................................................. 17 3.2. Terraspec Halo Mineral Identifier Scanning .......................................................... 22 3.3. Petrography ........................................................................................................... 29 3.3.1. Vein types ....................................................................................................... 29 3.3.2. Wallrock alteration.......................................................................................... 31 3.3.3. Ore microscopy ............................................................................................... 32 3.3.4. Scanning Electron Microscope Work ............................................................. 34 3.4. Fluid Inclusion Work ............................................................................................. 37 3.5. Sulfur Isotopes ....................................................................................................... 43 4. Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 45 4.1. Comparison of Heddleston to traditional porphyry copper deposit models .......... 45 4.2. Comparison of Heddleston to Butte ....................................................................... 46 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 51 5.1. Major Findings ....................................................................................................... 51 5.2. Recommendations for Future Work....................................................................... 53 6. References Cited ........................................................................................................... 54 vi List of Figures Figure 1: Location of the Heddleston District ................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Regional geologic setting of the Heddleston District ...................................................... 3 Figure 3: Geology of the area surrounding the Heddleston District ............................................... 4 Figure 4: Map of the geology of the Heddleston District, showing the location of historic mines