@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix dc: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Science, Faculty of"@en, "Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Department of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Delaney, Tracy Anne"@en ; dcterms:issued "2008-08-11T20:38:04Z"@en, "1992"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Science - MSc"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description "Obtaining samples that are both representative and small enough to be analyzed efficiently by standard analytical techniques is a common problem in gold exploration. The recent use of cyanide to extract gold from geochemical samples has allowed samples up to 1 kg or larger to be processed. Results of cyanide analyses cannot be interpreted, however, without first understanding the mode of occurrence of gold in the sample media. Therefore, the location of gold in soils and stream sediments over a variety of deposits in different weathering regimes was determined prior to examining the efficiency of cyanidation. Soil samples were collected over gold mineralization in Nevada, Utah and the Yukon Territory, and over tills covering gold deposits in British Columbia and Ontario. Except in Ontario, stream sediments were also collected. After wet sieving into four fractions between 2000 μm (10 mesh, ASTM) and 53 μm (270 mesh, ASTM) and separation of heavy minerals (S.G. 3.3), samples were analyzed for gold by fire assay-atomic absorption spectroscopy (FA-AAS) and cyanide-AAS (CN-AAS). Results indicate that, on average, 70% of the gold in soils and 67% of the gold in stream sediments resides in the finest fraction (-53 μm, -270 ASTM). Furthermore, although gold concentrations are highest in the heavy mineral fractions (HMCs), the percentage of gold is generally higher in the light mineral fractions (LMFs) and -53 μm fractions, particularly in samples from Nevada and the Yukon Territory. Comparison of CN-AAS analyses with those by FA-AAS -- assumed to represent total gold concentrations -- indicate that, on average, 60% of the gold in soils and about 40% of gold in stream sediments was accessible by cyanide solutions. In regard to exploration, a representative 30 g subsample can generally be obtained from wet sieving of a 500 g field sample. Although the -53 μm fraction contains the bulk of the gold -- and the least possibility of erratic values resulting from the nugget effect -- representativity is not greatly reduced in the -212 μm fraction. There appears to be no particular advantage to preparation of HMCs because gold concentrations can generally be detected in combined density fractions. Cyanidation was effective in detecting gold in all six areas. However, there is no advantage in using this analytical method in areas of fine particulate gold where gold concentrations are easily detected using FA-AAS. Cyanidation may be more useful in areas of low gold concentrations where large (i.e. > 100 g) subsamples are required to obtain representativity, or where gold exists in a variety of particle sizes. Sieving to a size fraction below 212 μm is recommended, however, to optimize representativity."@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/1342?expand=metadata"@en ; dcterms:extent "18822739 bytes"@en ; dc:format "application/pdf"@en ; skos:note "DISTRIBUTION OF GOLD IN SOILS AND STREAM SEDIMENTS AND THE USE OFCYANIDATION IN EXPLORATION GEOCHEMISTRYbyTRACY ANNE DELANEYB.A., University of Colorado, 1984A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDepartment of Geological SciencesWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 1992© Tracy Anne DelaneyIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature) Department of ^Geological SciencesThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate^yi 1 -2/ 0/3DE-6 (2/88)11ABSTRACTObtaining samples that are both representative and small enough to be analyzed efficiently bystandard analytical techniques is a common problem in gold exploration. The recent use of cyanide to extractgold from geochemical samples has allowed samples up to 1 kg or larger to be processed. Results of cyanideanalyses cannot be interpreted, however, without first understanding the mode of occurrence of gold in thesample media. Therefore, the location of gold in soils and stream sediments over a variety of deposits indifferent weathering regimes was determined prior to examining the efficiency of cyanidation.Soil samples were collected over gold mineralization in Nevada, Utah and the Yukon Territory, andover tills covering gold deposits in British Columbia and Ontario. Except in Ontario, stream sediments werealso collected. After wet sieving into four fractions between 2000 pm (10 mesh, ASTM) and 53 pm (270 mesh,ASTM) and separation of heavy minerals (S.G. 3.3), samples were analyzed for gold by fire assay-atomicabsorption spectroscopy (FA-AAS) and cyanide-AAS (CN-AAS).Results indicate that, on average, 70% of the gold in soils and 67% of the gold in stream sedimentsresides in the finest fraction (-53 pm, -270 ASTM). Furthermore, although gold concentrations are highest inthe heavy mineral fractions (HMCs), the percentage of gold is generally higher in the light mineral fractions(LMFs) and -53 um fractions, particularly in samples from Nevada and the Yukon Territory. Comparison ofCN-AAS analyses with those by FA-AAS - assumed to represent total gold concentrations - indicate that, onaverage, 60% of the gold in soils and about 40% of gold in stream sediments was accessible by cyanidesolutions.In regard to exploration, a representative 30 g subsample can generally be obtained from wet sievingof a 500 g field sample. Although the -53 gm fraction contains the bulk of the gold - and the least possibility ofABSTRACT^ iiierratic values resulting from the nugget effect - representativity is not greatly reduced in the -212 gm fraction.There appears to be no particular advantage to preparation of HMCs because gold concentrations can generallybe detected in combined density fractions.Cyanidation was effective in detecting gold in all six areas. However, there is no advantage in usingthis analytical method in areas of fine particulate gold where gold concentrations are easily detected using FA-AAS. Cyanidation may be more useful in areas of low gold concentrations where large (i.e. > 100 g)subsamples are required to obtain representativity, or where gold exists in a variety of particle sizes. Sievingto a size fraction below 212 gm is recommended, however, to optimize representativity.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT^ iiLIST OF TABLES vLIST OF FIGURES ixLIST OF PLATES^ xiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS^ xiiCHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION^ 11.1 Research Objectives and Approach^ 31.2 Problems in geochemical sampling of rare grains^ 41.3 Chemistry of gold and cyanide 8CHAPTER TWO - DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 102.1 Introduction^ 112.2 Kinsley Mountain, Nevada^ 112.2.1 Location and access 112.2.2 Regional geology 112.2.3 Local geology^ 112.2.4 Character of gold mineralization^ 162.2.5 Physiography, climate and vegetation 162.2.6 Description of soils 182.3 Straight Fork, Utah^ 182.3.1 Location and access^ 182.3.2 Regional geology 182.3.3 Local geology 202.3.4 Character of gold mineralization^ 222.3.5 Physiography, climate and vegetation 222.3.6 Description of Soils^ 222.4 Brewery Creek, Yukon Territory 222.4.1 Location and access 222.4.2 Regional geology^ 242.4.3 Property geology 242.4.4 Character of gold mineralization^ 272.4.5 Physiography, climate and vegetation 272.4.6 Description of soils^ 272.5 Fish Lake, British Columbia 292.5.1 Location and access 292.5.2 Regional geology^ 292.5.3 Property geology 312.5.4 Character of gold mineralization^ 312.5.5 Physiography, climate and vegetation 312.5.6 Description of soils^ 332.6 Hemlo gold deposit, Ontario: the David Bell Mine and the Golden Sceptre Property^ 332.6.1 Location and access 332.6.2 Regional geology^ 362.6.3 Local geology 362.6.4 Character of gold mineralization^ 382.6.5 Physiography, climate and vegetation 382.6.6 Description of soils^ 38TABLE OF CONTENTS^ vCHAPTER THREE - SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 413.1 Site selection^ 423.2 Sample collection 423.2.1 Soils 423.2.2 Stream sediments^ 443.3 Laboratory preparation 443.3.1 Minus 149 tun samples 463.3.2 C horizon soils and stream sediments^ 463.3.3 A and B horizon soils^ 493.4 Analytical Methods^ 493.4.1 Cyanidation-AAS 503.4.2 Scanning electron microscope (SEM)^ 503.5 Analytical Accuracy and Precision^ 513.5.1 Introduction^ 513.5.2 Monitoring of Analytical Accuracy^ 513.5.3 Determination of Analytical Precision 553.5.4 Recovery of Gold by CN-AAS 59CHAPTER FOUR - RESULTS^ 664.1 Introduction 674.2 Grain Size and Heavy Minerals Distribution^ 674.2.1 A, B and C Horizon Soils 674.2.2 Stream sediments^ 714.3 Gold Analyses of C Horizon Soils 744.3.1 Distribution of Gold Between Size / Density Fractions^ 744.3.2 Recovery of gold by CN-AAS^ 784.4 Gold Analyses of A and B Horizon Soils 904.4.1 Distribution of Gold Between Size Fractions^ 904.4.2 Recovery of Gold by CN-AAS^ 964.5 Gold Analyses of Stream Sediments 1024.5.1 Distribution of Gold Between Size / Density Fractions^ 1024.5.2 Recovery of Gold by CN-AAS 1074.6 Minus 149 p.m Fraction Results^ 1134.7 Scanning Electron Microscope 113CHAPTER FIVE - DISCUSSION^ 1235.1 Introduction 1245.2 Mode of occurrence of gold 1245.2.1 C Horizon Soils^ 1245.2.2 A and B horizon soils 1325.2.3 Stream sediments 1325.2.4 Summary of mode of occurrence of gold^ 1335.3 Recovery of gold by cyanidation^ 1355.3.1 C horizon soils 1355.3.2 A and B horizon soils 1365.3.3 Stream sediments^ 1375.4 Recommendations for exploration 1385.4.1 Sample representativity 1385.4.2 Dry sieving^ 1505.4.3 Use of cyanidation in geochemical exploration^ 150TABLE OF CONTENTS^ viCHAPTER SIX - CONCLUSIONS^ 155REFERENCES^ 159APPENDIX 164viiLIST OF TABLESTable 2.1 Average annual temperature and precipitation at each study area^ 13Table 3.1 Number of soil pits and stream sediment samples collected from background andanomalous areas of each property^ 43Table 3.2. Gold analysis (ppb) of standards analyzed with soils and stream sediments by FA-AAS ^52Table 3.3. Gold analysis (ppb) of standards analyzed with soils and stream sediments by CN-AAS ^ 54Table 3.4. Comparison of results of analysis of U. S.G.S.-A.E.G standards GXR-2 and GXR-6 withrecommended values ). ^ 56Table 4.1. Average grain size distribution, in weight percent, of the -2000 gin fraction of A and Bhorizon soils.^ 68Table 4.2. Average grain size distribution, in weight percent, of the - 2000 gin fraction of C horizonsoils. 69Table 4.3. Average heavy mineral (SG>3.3) content, in weight percent, of C horizon soils^ 70Table 4.4. Average grain size distribution, in weight percent, of the -2000 pm fraction of streamsediments^ 72Table 4.5. Average heavy mineral (S.G.> 3.3) content, in weight percent, of stream sediments. ^ 73Table 4.6. Concentration (ppb) of gold in each size / density fraction of C horizon soils as determinedby FA-AAS 75Table 4.7. Estimated gold concentrations in the -212+106 gm, -106+53 gm, and -53 gm fractions ofC horizon soils compared to measured concentrations in the -212 gm fraction.^79Table 4.8. Average proportion (%) of total gold content contributed by each size and density fractionof C horizon soils^ 82Table 4.9. Concentration of gold (ppb) in both the ground and unground, -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm light mineral fractions, and the unground -53 gm fraction of C horizons byCN-AAS 85Table 4.10. Population statistics and results of hypothesis tests for gold analyses of each fraction of Chorizons by FA-AAS and CN-AAS^ 89Table 4.11. Population statistics and results of hypothesis tests of gold analyses of the ground andunground, -212+106 gm and -106+53 pm fraction of C horizons analyzed by CN-AAS. ^91Table 4.12. Comparison of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of the ground and unground -212+106gm and -106+53 gm LMFs, and the -53 gm fraction of C horizons using the MLFRregression at the .05% confidence level^ 92Table 4.13. Concentration of gold (ppb) in each size fraction of A and B horizons as determined byFA-AAS.^ 94Table 4.14. Average proportion (%) of total gold content contributed by each size fraction of A and Bhorizons 97Table 4.15. Concentration (ppb) of gold in each size fraction of A and B horizons as determined byCN-AAS^ 99Table 4.16. Population statistics and results of hypothesis tests of gold analyses of each size fractionof A and B horizons by FA-AAS and CN-AAS.^ 103Table 4.17. Comparison of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of each size fraction of A and B horizonsusing the MLFR regression at the .05% confidence level 104Table 4.18. Concentration (ppb) of gold in each size/density fraction of stream sediments asdetermined by FA-AAS.^ 106Table 4.19. Concentration (ppb) of gold in each size fraction of the -212 gm fraction of streamsediments as determined by FA-AAS.^ 108Table 4.20. Average proportion (%) of total gold content contributed by each size and density fractionof stream sediments. ^ 109LIST OF TABLES^ viiiTable 4.21. Concentration (ppb) of gold in the unground -212+106 gm and -106+53 p.m LMFs, andthe -53 gm fraction of stream sediments as determined by CN-AAS.^ 111Table 4.22. Population statistics and results of hypothesis tests of gold analyses of each size fractionof stream sediments by FA-AAS and CN-AAS^ 114Table 4.23. Comparison of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gmlight mineral fractions of stream sediments using the MLFR regression at the .05%confidence level^ 114Table 4.24. Results of examination of selected samples using the SEM^ 117Table 5.1. Estimated number of ideal gold particles with diameter equal to 50 p.m in the heavymineral concentrates of the -212+106 p.m and -106+53 p.m fractions, and the original -53gm fraction of C horizons. Based on field sample weights 127Table 5.2. Determination of ideal gold particle size based on results of replicate analyses^ 130Table 5.3. Estimated number of gold particles in the -212+106 pm and -106+53 p.m heavy mineralconcentrates, and the original -53 gm fraction of stream sediments. Based on field samplewei hts. 134Table 5.4. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 pm in each size / densityfraction of the -212+106 gm and -106 +53 p.m fractions, and the original -53 gm fractionof C horizons. Based on field sample weights^ 140Table 5.5. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 gm in each size fraction ofA and B horizon samples. Based on field sample weight^ 142Table 5.6. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 p.m in each size fraction ofC horizons. Based on a 30 g subsample^ 144Table 5.7. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 pm in each size fraction ofA and B horizon samples. Based on a 30 g subsample^ 146Table 5.8. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 p.m in the -212+106 p.m and-106+53 gm light mineral fractions, and the -53 gm fraction of stream sediments. Basedon a 30 g subsample^ 149Table 5.9. Weight of -212 p.m fraction obtained by dry sieving of 1 kg of original C horizon material ^ 151ixLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.1. Probability, based on a Poisson distribution, that a 200 g sample with gold concentrationof 200 ppb will contain 0, 1, 2, and 3 gold particles, assuming the density of the goldparticles is 19.3 g/cc^ 5Figure 1.2. Comparison of three samples of auriferous material illustrating changes in samplerepresentativity with size fraction and grain size^ 6Figure 2.1. Location of field areas in Canada and the United States 12Figure 2.2. Location map of Kinsley Mountain, Elko County, Nevada, U.S.A^ 14Figure 2.3. Geologic map of the Kinsley Mountain property, Elko County, Nevada 15Figure 2.4. Physiography and soils at the Kinsley Mountain property 17Figure 2.5. Location map of Straight Fork Creek, Box Elder County, Utah, U.S.A^ 19Figure 2.6. Geologic map of the Straight Fork Creek property, Box Elder County, Utah^21Figure 2.7. Physiography and soils at the Straight Fork Creek property^ 23Figure 2.8. Location map of the Brewery Creek property, the Yukon Territory, Canada^25Figure 2.9. Geologic map of the Brewery Creek property, Yukon Territory 26Figure 2.10. Physiography and soils at the Brewery Creek property^ 28Figure 2.11. Location map of the Fish Lake property, British Columbia, Canada^ 30Figure 2.12. Geologic map of the Fish Lake property, British Columbia 32Figure 2.13. Vegetation and soils at the Fish Lake property^ 34Figure 2.14. Location map of the Hemlo gold deposit, Ontario, Canada^ 35Figure 2.15. Geologic map of the Hemlo deposit, Ontario 37Figure 2.16. Vegetation and soils at Hemlo deposit 39Figure 3.1. Sample preparation flowchart for soils and stream sediments^ 45Figure 3.2. Illustration of wet sieving technique using recirculated water 48Figure 3.3. Comparison of duplicate gold analyses of (a) A and B horizons, (b) C horizons,and (c) stream sediments by FA-AAS^ 57Figure 3.4. Comparison of duplicate gold analyses of (a) A and B horizons, (b) C horizons,and (c) stream sediments by CN-AAS 58Figure 3.5. Schematic diagram of a regression equation assigning error to variable Y (a), tovariable X (b), and to both Y and X (c)^ 61Figure 3.6. Scatterplots of relative error versus mean of duplicate pairs of analyses by FA-AAS ^63Figure 3.7. Scatterplots of relative error versus mean of duplicate pairs of analyses by CN-AAS ^64Figure 4.1. Concentration (ppb) of gold in the light mineral fractions and heavy mineralconcentrates of the -212+106 p.m and -106+53 p.m fractions of C horizon soils^77Figure 4.2. Concentration (ppb) of gold in the combined light and heavy mineral fractions of the-212+106 gm and -106+53 p.m fractions of C horizon soils^ 81Figure 4.3. Proportion of gold in light mineral factions, heavy mineral concentrates, and the-53 p.m fraction of C horizon soils^ 83Figure 4.4. Scatterplots of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of each size fraction of C horizon soils ^ 87Figure 4.5. Scatterplots of analyses of ground and unground, -212+106 gm and -106+53 pmlight mineral fractions of C horizon soils^ 88Figure 4.6. Scatterplots of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of each size fraction of C horizonsoils, and results of MLFR regression analysis conducted at the .05% confidence level ^93Figure 4.7. Proportion of gold in each size fraction of A and B horizon soils^ 98Figure 4.8. Scatterplots of analyses by CN-AAS versus FA-AAS for each size fraction of Aand B horizon soils ^ 101Figure 4.9. Scatterplots of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of each size fraction of A and Bhorizon soils, and results of MLFR regression analysis^ 105LIST OF FIGURES^ xFigure 4.10. Proportion of gold in the light mineral fractions, heavy mineral concentrates and-53 pm fraction of stream sediments^ 110Figure 4.11. Comparison of gold analyses of stream sediments by CN-AAS and FA-AAS^ 112Figure 4.12. Scatterplots of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of stream sediments^ 115)dLIST OF PLATESPlate 4.1. Backscatter SEM and SEM photomicrogaphs of gold particles in soils fromKinsley Mountain and Brewery Creek^ 119Plate 4.2. Backscatter SEM and SEM photomicrographs of gold in soils from Fish Lake^ 122xiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis project was funded by Chemex Labs, Cominco Ltd, Noranda Exploration Corporation Ltd., TeckCorporation Ltd. and the National Science and Engineering Research Council. In particular I would like tothank representatives of these companies who reviewed portions of the thesis and related articles: LloydTwaites, Ivor Elliott, Bruce Mackie, Garth Pierce and T. Wayne Spilsbury. Several geologists directed mearound the properties and edited the geologic descriptions in the thesis: Scott C. Monroe, Brien Laird, GordonMacKay, Rick Diment, Paul Johnston and Darwin Piroshco Finally, I would like to thank Jeff Franzen forallowing me access to maps at Taseko Mines Ltd.Many thanks to W.K. Fletcher for his steady encouragement during the course of my research. I would alsolike to thank A.J. Sinclair and L.M .Lavkulich, Tom Heah and Cynthia P. Delaney for careful review of thethesis.Samples were prepared by Joni D. Borges, Sarapi Paopongsawan and Troy Priest. In addition, I am indebted tothe preparation wizardry, organizational skills and patient friendship of Joni Densmore Borges, ace fieldassistant.Steve Cook and Pasakorn Paopongsawan provided discussions on geochemistry and \"showed me the ropes\".Thanks to Tom Heah and The Belemnite for providing excursions on which to get \"perspective\"; to TheBlonde One for encouragement like \"What will you remember 20 years from now - skiing or this exam?\"; toHou Zhihui for sharing his great sense of humor as well his knowledge of geochemistry; to Julie Hunt andAuto-Don for relaxing evenings with tea; to Sibbick for making me laugh even though it was midnight I wasstill in the lab; and to Genga Nadaraju for providing a variety of curries and discussions on the meaning oflife.Finally, I would like to thank my family and, in particular, my parents for their unfailing support of a waywardgeologist.CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION1INTRODUCTION^ 2Results of exploration geochemical surveys for gold are often erratic and difficult to verify becausebackground gold concentrations are often a few parts per billion with only slightly higher concentrationsconstituting possible exploration targets. Furthermore, anomalous concentrations of gold are often present asdiscrete particles. The presence or absence of a single particle may have a dramatic effect on the resulting goldconcentrations, causing difficulties in obtaining a representative sample. Although collecting larger samplescan mitigate the effects of particulate gold, there is a limit to the size of sample that can be analyzed efficiently- 30 g for fire assay, for example. Therefore, analytical methods capable of handling larger geochemicalsamples are needed.Cyanide has been used in processing gold ores for more than one hundred years. More recently, theuse of atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) or graphite furnace-AAS have lowered detection limitssufficiently to allow cyanidation to be adapted to gold concentrations common in exploration geochemistry.The Bulk Leach Extractable Gold, or BLEG, technique (Elliott and Towsey, 1989), which is widely used inAustralia and has spread to North America, uses cyanide to leach gold from bulk (5 to 10 kg) soil and streamsediment samples. In general, cyanide is added to bulk samples and the slurry agitated for 1 to 24 hours. Thecyanide solution is then drained off and analyzed for gold, often following concentration of the gold by solventextraction. Several variations of this technique have been developed in Canada (Fletcher and Horsky, 1988)and Australia (Sharpe, 1988; Elliott and Towsey, 1989).BLEG has several potential advantages over other geochemical techniques including improvedsensitivity resulting from the use of larger samples. Also, there is no loss of fine material as is common in thepreparation of heavy mineral concentrates (11MCs). BLEG is a partial extraction technique, however, theefficiency of which depends on the mode of occurrence of gold in the sample media and, to a lesser extent, onthe composition of the host material. Gold encapsulated in other minerals, such as sulfides or silicates, may beinaccessible to cyanide solutions. The presence of carbon or sulfides in a sample may also inhibit dissolution ofgold. Furthermore, gold concentrations may be diluted by the inclusion of large amounts of material that areINTRODUCTION^ 3barren or in which the gold is inaccessible. Resulting gold values will be lower and the contrast betweenbackground and anomalous concentrations reduced.In order for cyanidation to be effective, residence sites for gold in soils and stream sediments must beidentified. Presumably, these sites vary depending on deposit type - i.e. the original distribution and form ofthe gold - and any modifications caused by weathering. The mode of occurrence of gold in either soils orstream sediments is poorly understood, however, and an examination of the speciation of gold in theweathering environment and its influence on the extraction of gold by cyanide is necessary before cyanidationcan be generally applied.1.1 Research Objectives and ApproachThe objectives of this research are to:1. Improve understanding of the partitioning of gold in soils derived from different types of goldmineralization in a variety of weathering environments,2. Determine the efficiency of the cyanidation technique in determining gold concentrations in differentweathering regimes and ,3.^Make recommendations on sample collection and preparation to optimize the efficiency ofcyanidation.Residence sites of gold in soils and stream sediments were determined by analysis of different sizefractions by FA-AAS. These analyses, assumed to represent total gold concentrations, were then compared toanalyses by CN-AAS to determine the efficiency of gold recovery by cyanidation.INTRODUCTION^ 41.2 Problems in geochemical sampling of rare grainsGeochemical sampling for rare, discrete grains commonly gives erratic and irreproducible results.The presence of such rare particles in a granular sample can be described by the Poisson distribution(Ingamells, 1981; Koch and Link, 1970):P(n) = elle / n!^ (1)where pt. is the expected number of particles and P(n) is the probability of the sample containing n particles.One characteristic of the Poisson distribution is that the mean is equal to the variance. The relative error is,therefore, defined by RE = 1/ -4t.Implications of the Poisson distribution to geochemical samples can be illustrated by a simpleexample. During a reconnaissance geochemical survey 200 g samples of soil with a bulk gold concentration of200 ppb were collected. Gold is present as discrete spheres (diameter = 150 jun) evenly distributed throughoutthe soil and gold concentrations in the host material are negligible. Assuming pure gold (i.e. density = 19.3g/cm3), a 200 g sample contains 40 pg (200 ppb x 200 g) of gold, sufficient for just over one particle of gold(1.17). A 30 g subsample of this material contains enough gold for only 0.176 particles of gold. Usingequation (1), there is an 84% probability that a 30 g sample will contain no gold particles (Fig. 1.1).Furthermore, a subsample containing one gold particle would have a gold concentration of 1137 ppb - over 5times the true gold concentration of 200 ppb. Erratic gold analyses resulting from the presence of particulategold in small subsamples have been termed the \"nugget effect\" (Ingamells, 1981).Variations in sample size and size fraction will greatly effect resulting gold concentrations. Forexample, Fig. 1.2 shows three 100 g soil samples of equal gold concentration in which the host material is100802001^ 2Number of grainsFig. 1.1. Probability, based on a Poisson distribution, that a 200 g sample with gold concentration of 200 ppb will contain 0, 1, 2 and 3gold particles, assuming the density of the gold particles is 19.3 g/cc and diameter is 150 pm.03•• ••• • • •••INTRODUCTION• • • ••• •• • •Sample A Sample B•Sample CFig. 1.2. Three samples of auriferous material with equal bulk gold concentrations. Insamples A and B, gold is evenly distributed throughout the material. Therefore, thelarger subsamples taken from B will be more representative than those from A. SampleC is coarser grained and all the gold is contained in one large particle. A comparison ofthe size of subsamples from A and C indicates that representivity decreases withincreasing grain size (after Nichol et al., 1987).INTRODUCTION^ 7assumed to contain no gold. Subsamples of each sample were analyzed for gold by FA-AAS. In samples A andB, gold is present as fine particles evenly distributed throughout the material. Ten 10 g subsamples fromsample A may contain 0, 1, 2 or more particles of gold resulting in analyses of -100%, 100%, +100%, or moretimes the true concentration of gold (i.e. 1 particle per 10 g subsample). In contrast, 50 g subsamples of sampleB each have a gold concentration that more closely resembles that of the original material. The probability of a50 g subsample containing no particles of gold is remote.The effect of the size fraction on sample representativity can be seen by comparing Samples A and C.Sample C is comprised of material with grain size approximately 3 times that of sample A such that all thegold is contained in one large particle. Of ten 10 g subsamples taken from sample C, nine would contain nogold while one would give a result 10 times the true value. This example illustrates that analytical precisionincreases with increasing sample size and decreasing size fraction.Clifton et al. (1969) found that, for material in which gold is binomially distributed, analyticalprecision is dependent solely on the number of gold particles in a sample, assuming:(1) gold particle mass is uniform,(2) gold particles comprise less than 0.1% of all particles,(3) the sample contains at least 1000 grains,(4) analytical errors are absent, and(5)^gold particles are randomly distributed through the material being sampled.As the number of gold particles decreases, their distribution approaches the Poisson distribution and RE =1/4N. Using this relationship, a minimum of 20 particles of gold are required to achieve ±45% precision at the95% confidence level (Clifton et al., 1969).INTRODUCTION^ 81.3 Chemistry of gold and cyanideCyanide has been used for processing gold ores since the late 19th century and conditions for goldextraction, and the problems involved, are well understood. Gold occurs in two oxidation states in aqueoussolutions, aurous (+1) and auric (+3). Because these ions are relatively unstable in water, however, goldgenerally occurs as complexes with ligands, such as cyanide, in oxygenated, aqueous solutions:Au+ + 2CN- = Au(CN)2-, andAu3+ + 4C/N1- = AuCN4- .Dissolution of gold in alkaline cyanide solutions is generally defined by Elsner's equation (Hedley andTabachnick, 1968):4Au + 8NaCN + 02 + 2H20 = 4NaAu(CN) 2 + 4NaOH.To obtain this reaction, the gold must have a clean surface, the cyanide must be free of impurities and theremust be abundant oxygen present during the reaction. If necessary, lime (sodium or calcium hydroxide) isadded to the solution to:(1) prevent loss of cyanide by hydrolysis or reaction with atmospheric CO 2 , and(2) neutralize acidic components of the ore and acidic products resulting from decomposition ofvarious ore minerals, thereby minimizing the concentration of toxic HCN.INTRODUCTIONIncreasing temperature increases rates of gold dissolution but also decreases the amount of oxygen in solution.The rate of gold dissolution in cyanide is maximized at 85°C, although the cost of heating and increaseddecomposition of cyanide make processing at such high temperatures impractical (Hedley and Tabachnick,1968).Dissolution of gold in cyanide solutions can be inhibited both mechanically and chemically. Forexample, gold may be encapsulated in minerals, such as silicates, sulfides, iron oxides and carbonates, that areinert to cyanide solutions. Crushing or grinding of the host material may be required to liberate the gold andbring it into contact with the cyanide. Iron oxides may also impede cyanide solutions by forming coatings ongold particles. In addition, large gold nuggets may require lengthy exposure to cyanide for completedissolution.Gold decomposition may also be impeded by reaction of cyanide with other constituents of the samplewhich are generally present in much greater concentrations than the gold. For example, copper minerals cancause problems by complexing with cyanide, thereby limiting the amount of cyanide available to react withgold ions. At normal mill concentrations of copper, however, consumption of cyanide has little effect on golddissolution given that sufficient free cyanide is present (Leaver and Woolf, 1931).In the carbon-in-pulp process for recovery of precious metals, gold is removed from cyanide solutionsby reduction of dissolved gold by activated carbon. Similarly, adsorption of gold onto carbonaceous materialspresent in soils and sediments can inhibit gold recovery during cyanidation. For example, lower goldrecoveries by cyanidation from A horizon soils compared to B and C horizons from the Nickel Plate Mine,B.C. were attributed to the presence of organic matter (Sibbick and Fletcher, 1990).10CHAPTER TWO - DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREASDESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 112.1 IntroductionSoil samples were collected from areas of known gold mineralization in Nevada, Utah, the YukonTerritory, British Columbia and Ontario (Fig. 2.1). Stream sediments were also collected except in Ontario.The six areas sampled include a variety of deposit types and weathering environments (Table 2.1). A briefdescription of each follows. Sample location maps and descriptions of individual soil pits and stream sedimentsampling sites are described in the Appendix.2.2 Kinsley Mountain, Nevada2.2.1 Location and accessKinsley Mountain is located in Elko County in northeastern Nevada. Access to the area is viaalternate Highway 93, 63 km southeast of Wendover, Nevada, then 18 km south on an improved dirt road(Fig. 2.2). The claims at Kinsley Mountain are held by Cominco American Resources Ltd.2.2.2 Regional geologyThe Kinsley Mountain range is located in the Basin and Range province in eastern Nevada. Therange is comprised mainly of lower Paleozoic carbonate assemblage rocks deposited in a shallow waterenvironment along the southern flank of the Tooele Arch, an early Paleozoic uplift (Webb, 1958).2.2.3 Local geologyGeology at Kinsley Mountain is comprised of an Ordovician to Cambrian limestone with quartzite,siltstone and dolomite horizons (Fig. 2.3). Gold is hosted by two lithologies of Cambrian age, the Candlandii ♦ Brewery Creeki\\.^David Bell Mine• Fish Lake.._........\\___.1._______._......._../.._..^Golden SceptreStraight Fork,• UtahA Kinsley Mountain,NevadaFig. 2.1. Location of field areas in Canada and the United States.DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 13Table 2.1 Average annual temperature and precipitation ateach study area.Location AverageAnnualTemperature(°C)AverageAnnualPrecipitation(mm)Kinsley Mountain' 8 330Straight Fork2 8 240Brewery Creek3 -5 306Fish Lake\" 2 336Golden Sceptre' 2 711David Bell Mine4 2 7111 U.S.D.A. (1988).2 Laird (1990).3 MacKay et al. (1991).4 Environment Canada, Division of AtmosphericEnvironmental Services (pers. comm.)MaleyMountainPropertyElko Co.Area of figureNEVADAalt.1White Pine Co.Lages Junction0^25 kmi 1iWendover(DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 14Fig. 2.2. Location map of Kinsley Mountain, Elko County, Nevada, U.S.A.Approximate outline ofsample location mapDESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 15Fig. 2.3. Geologic map of the Kinsley Mountain property, Elko County, Nevada (from ComincoAmerican Resources Ltd. maps).DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 16Formation siltstone and the Windfall Formation-equivalent limestone. The Candland siltstone is weaklycalcareous, thin-bedded and fissile and often contains thin micritic limestone beds. The Windfall-equivalentunit is characterized by thin- to medium-bedded, silty, cherty micrites (Monroe, 1991). Alteration at KinsleyMountain consists of pervasive silicification of shales and siltstones, and minor argillic alteration and quartzveining.The oldest structures in the Kinsley Mountains are bedding-parallel thrust faults developed during theSevier Orogeny, a major tectonic event from late Jurassic to the Cretaceous that thrust eugeosynclinalassemblages up to 80 km eastward (Kopp, 1984). High angle northeast- and northwest-trending structurescrosscut the thrust faults and are thought to have channeled the mineralizing fluids. North-south extensionalfaults characteristic of the Basin and Range province appear to post-date mineralization.2.2.4 Character of gold mineralizationGold particles are generally finer than 5 tim and are associated with fine-grained quartz veins andsilicified carbonate rocks (Monroe, 1991). Quartz, calcite, iron oxides and minor pyrite comprise the ganguemineralogy of oxidized zones while pyrite and trace amounts of arsenopyrite, sphalerite and cinnabar havebeen identified in unoxidized material (Monroe, 1991).2.2.5 Physiography, climate and vegetationThe north-south trending Kinsley Mountain range rises abruptly 457 m above broad basins, to anelevation of approximately 2590 m (Fig. 2.4a). The climate is arid with an average annual precipitation ofabout 33 cm and a mean annual temperature of about 8°C (U.S.D.A., 1988). Streams, active every few yearsduring flash floods or spring melting of heavy snow accumulations, carve steep-sided gullies into alluvial fanswhich form at the edge of the basin. Sheetwash removes fine sediment from slopes leaving a pebble pavement.Fig. 2.4. Physiography and soils at the Kinsley Mountain property: (A) looking east from the property; (B) Orthic regosol (site 2).BDESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 18Vegetation consists primarily of single leaf pifion pine and Utah juniper with black sagebrush and bluebunchwheatgrass as scattered undergrowth (U.S.D.A., 1988).2.2.6 Description of soilsSoils in the Kinsley Mountains are residual, generally poorly developed and are rarely more than 100cm deep. The soils are well-drained and contain about 25% pebbles. The average pH of the soil is 8.4 andsecondary calcium carbonate is ubiquitous, commonly forming rinds on pebbles. Soils are generally classifiedas loamy-skeletal, carbonatitic, Entisols or Inceptisols using the U.S. System of Soil Classification (Fig. 2.4b).In the Canadian System of Soil Classification (C.S.S.C.), these soils most closely resemble calcic OrthicRegosols and Eutric Brunisols.2.3 Straight Fork, Utah2.3.1 Location and accessThe Straight Fork property, located in the Goose Creek Mountains in northwestern Utah (Fig. 2.5), iswholly owned by Teck Resources and consists of 276 unpatented lode mining claims and approximately foursections of state-leased land. Access to the property is via Interstate 80 east from Wells, Nevada to Montello,then north and east approximately 64 km.2.3.2 Regional geologyThe Goose Creek Mountains, located in the Basin and Range Province, consist of folded and thrust-faulted Permian sediments dominated by resistant carbonate rocks (Laird, 1989). The sediments wereArea of figure0^40 km1 1owzWendoverUTAHIDAHO'1^UTAH4* St/eight Fork'1 Property4Goose Creek 1 i4 GrouseMountains^i1 CreekGreatSaltLakeMontello4•1DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 19Fig. 2.5. Location map for Straight Fork Creek, Box Elder County, Utah.DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 20deposited in a major foreland trough formed to the east of the Antler highland and deformed during the SevierOrogeny.2.3.3 Local geologyThe property is primarily underlain by a Permian assemblage of dolomites, calcareous sandstones andchert (Fig. 2.6). Local outcrops of Miocene sedimentary and volcanic rocks, such as the massive, coarse-grained Jarbridge rhyolite, overlie the sediments. Cropping out locally along the eastern border of the propertyis a thin, unconsolidated Pliocene (?) conglomerate and tuffaceous sedimentary unit.The structural history of the Straight Fork area is not well understood. Topographic evidence suggeststhe mineralized area resides in a small graben bounded by major north-south structures (Laird, 1989). Therelationship between these structures and the mineralizing system, however, is not known.The dominant type of alteration is decalcification, primarily of Permian calcarenites (Laird 1989).Results of rock chip sampling indicate higher gold concentrations associated with decalcified rock crosscut bycalcite veins. There are also two types of silicic alteration: (1) silica-saturated, very fine-grained limestonelocally grading into chert, and (2) silica replacement of decalcified sandy limestone. The former is widespreadbut generally barren. Gold has been detected in the sandy limestones but it is not known whether the silica wasdeposited during or after the mineralizing event. Both types of silicic alteration are strongly bedding-controlled but the second type forms northwest-trending mineralized bodies, suggesting structural control aswell.ConglomerateRhyolite porphyryPhosphorla Fmn.Rex Chert Mbr.Phosphoria Fmn.Meade Peak Mbr.DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 21Fig. 2.6. Geologic map the Straight Fork Creek property, Box Elder County, Utah (from TeckResources maps).DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 222.3.4 Character of gold mineralizationA northwest trending area of moderate gold concentrations (20 to 140 ppb) was identified by soilsampling but the host and form of the gold are unknown.2.3.5 Physiography, climate and vegetationStraight Fork is dominated by steep, rounded hills with an elevation change of about 670 m (Fig.2.7a). Deeply incised stream channels, indicative of a wetter, colder past, are generally overgrown with blacksage and grasses. This and area receives approximately 24 cm of precipitation annually and has an averagetemperature of 8°C. The only flowing streams are those fed by springs.2.3.6 Description of SoilsSoils at Straight Fork are thin, poorly developed, and contain varying amounts of secondary calciumcarbonate. They are also stony and well-drained. In the U.S. System of Soil Classification the soils areclassified as Entisols or Eutrochrepts and would be Orthic Regosols and Eutric Brunisols in the C. S.S.C. (Fig.2.7b).2.4 Brewery Creek, Yukon Territory2.4.1 Location and accessBrewery Creek is a joint venture between Loki Gold Corporation (49%) and Hemlo Gold Mine Inc.(51%). It is operated by Noranda Exploration Company Ltd. on behalf of Hemlo Gold. The property is locatedA B rriU)nH0Z0I1U)H8›u,Fig. 2.7. Physiography and soils at the Straight Fork Creek property: (A) looking west along a stream drainage; (B) Orthic Eutric Brunisol (site 11).DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 2457 km due east of Dawson City (Fig. 2.8). Access is via the Klondike Highway east from Dawson City 45 km,north on the Dempster Highway 8 km, then 30 km east from the Dempster Highway along dirt roads.2.4.2 Regional geologyBrewery Creek lies within a narrow, northwest-trending arm of the Selwyn Basin, a physiographicprovince underlain by Proterozoic to Mesozoic sedimentary rocks (Green, 1972). The basin is separated frommetamorphic rocks of uncertain age to the southwest by the Tintina Fault, a major structural feature extendingfrom British Columbia to Alaska. Thought to have been active from the late Cretaceous to Eocene, the faulthas more than 450 km of dextral strike-slip movement. The Brewery Creek region remained unglaciatedduring several advances of the Cordilleran ice sheet (Hughes, 1989).2.4.3 Property geologyThe Brewery Creek area is dominated by strongly folded and thrust-faulted Ordovician to SilurianRoad River argillite and chert, and overlying Earn Group elastic sediments (Fig. 2.9; MacKay et al., 1991).The Earn Group can be divided into a western turbidite facies, a central area of intercalated barite and shale,and an eastern facies of volcanic tuffs. This sedimentary succession is intruded by Upper Cretaceous syenite toquartz monzonite dikes and stocks. Zircons from these intrusives were dated at 91.4 Ma. ± 2 Ma. (MacKay etal., 1991).Several episodes of faulting crosscut early Mesozoic regional folds. A southeast-dipping thrust faultdominates the area. Mineralization is associated with imbrications of this structure in the monzonite (MacKayet al., 1991). Several northwest-trending shear zones cross-cut the thrust fault.N4/0^160 km\\....Juneau\\AEa)0i Dawson CityBrewery CreekPropertyWhitehorsek.Gulf of AlaskaDESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 25Fig. 2.8. Location map of the Brewery Creek Property, the Yukon Territory, Canada.DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 26135^ 1^40\\\\^\\^------'N. \\^CORN^N.\\ \\DMEli \\ ›--\\ — --.^CORN^ KqmDMEv /^----- DMEaKqm _^-^- ^,2.-. -• c- DMEs^DM ( 1 /^ ,- .^_-0. ,^Kqm, .........^IMF \\-^'^4,^-N.^\\ if \\\\^..........^,..KcIni^DMEa• Pi°^/ ,^ -- /^\\N^DMEv^.....^. ,........,05 DMEa^7&In/^ , / /^\\/./ ...\\ ...-- .- ----DMEs^// ,:\\ 05\\ —. \\/^ \\_^_...-.1--l, /it_-....-,-,^ ‘.,‘/.\\\\...= COR^A.,..../_ . J,/^N DMEs(Is) /'^ % Kbqm/^Kbqm^Kdr^/ 11/+^--/- //, -1 \"1^/(^DMEs1 li. _ _ _t /1 ^ ..--^ .—.—\\0^/I^I --..^ /‘. _......---/• r— /. /Z //^)^COR/1.•/cooi^ /^02,ce) ..,..-----*i ,^/^0^ 2000 m 00ditch road _ _^ ..., I I —........____, )330000E 135 140Ksy Syenite DMEv Volcanic rock: andeslte and basalt flows,bedded Intermediate to felsic tuffBiotite quartzKqm monzonite Road River GroupBiotfte t hombiende CORClastIc to Ilmy shale; argillite; massivegreenish-grey to black chertKbqmmonzoniteEarn GroupArgillite, minor shale contactDMEa and slltstone shear zoneDMEs Siltstone, arkoslc sandstone, greywacke,conglomerate, arglIllte; Is-limestone thrust faultFig. 2.9. Geologic map of the Brewery Creek Property, Yukon Territory (from NorandaExploration company maps).DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 27Phyllic alteration, dominant at Brewery Creek, is characterized by alteration of mafic phenocrysts topyrite and sericite, feldspars altered to sericite and clays, and stockwork silica veining. Moderate to intenseargillic alteration is characterized by the presence of kaolinite. Pervasive carbonate and fine-grained chloriteare also present locally.2.4.4 Character of gold mineralizationGold is hosted within volcanic and sedimentary rocks and in the porphyritic monzonite. Lithology,therefore, does not appear to be important in localizing mineralization except where it controls permeability.Most of the gold exists as particles less than 5 pm in diameter in the outer rims of pyrite and arsenopyritegrains (Chryssoulis and Agha, 1990).2.4.5 Physiography, climate and vegetationElevations at the Brewery Creek property range from 540 m to 1225 m with moderately steeptopography. The area receives approximately 306 mm precipitation annually and the annual mean temperatureis -5°C. North and northwest facing slopes are covered with thick moss and have thickets of slope alder andconiferous trees interspersed across them. Such areas of moss cover are generally underlain by permafrost.Vegetation on south facing slopes consists either of coniferous trees with abundant undergrowth or deciduousaspen with no undergrowth (MacKay et al., 1991; Fig. 2.10a).2.4.6 Description of soilsSoils vary in thickness from about 40 cm on ridge tops to more than 115 cm on slopes. A thick (5 to12 cm) layer of moss overlies a thin A horizon and well-developed B horizon. Permafrost is common on north-facing slopes but samples were all collected from slopes with a southern exposure. Soils at Brewery Creek areFig. 2.10. Physiography and soils at the Brewery Creek property: (A) A trench on a south-facing slope at the property;(B) Orthic Humo-ferric Podzol (site 29).ADESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 29classified as Orthic Dystric Brunisols and Orthic Humo-ferric Podzols in the C.S.S.C., and as Dystrochrepts inthe U.S.D.A. system (Fig. 2.10b).Many soil profiles examined at Brewery Creek contain multiple C horizons. For instance, layers ofsilty clay, interpreted as loess, are found overlying bedrock, and reach thicknesses of up to half a meter indepressions. Furthermore, exposed in the wall of one trench, a layer of argillite had been eroded downslope toform an additional C horizon. The argillite layer could be traced to its source where it was in contact withmonzonite. Downslope movement of soils might also explain the shift in soil geochemical patterns from drillassays that has been noted at the Brewery Creek Property. Soils with multiple C horizons are classified asOrthic Humo-ferric Podzols, cumulic phase.2.5 Fish Lake, British Columbia2.5.1 Location and accessFish Lake is a Cu-Au porphyry deposit located 128 km south-southwest of William's Lake, BritishColumbia (Fig. 2.11). Access to the area is via the Coola Highway (Hwy. 20) from William's Lake west toHanceville, then southeast about 90 km. The deposit is located approximately 800 m north of Fish Lake.2.5.2 Regional geologyThe Fish Lake area is located in the Tyaughton Trough, a narrow, northeast-trending subsidencebasin active from the mid-Jurassic to mid-Cretaceous (Jeletzky, 1968). The deposit is underlain by marinesediments and volcanic rocks of the Kingsvale Group which are exposed in a 3 km wide, 20 km long north-south window in overlying Miocene Plateau basalts. Several intermediate to felsic stocks intrude thesediments. The last glaciation was from the southwest and deposited 1 to 2 m of glacial drift over the area.■VancouverPACIFIC OCEANHopeCANADA-----U.S.A.PrinceGeorgeN0^100 km1 1Hanceville■ William's LakeFish LakeProperlyIVANCOUVERISLAND1Victoria■i--.._^■DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 30Fig. 2.11 Location map of the Fish Lake Property, British Columbia, Canada.DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 31Because the extensive glacial cover makes mapping difficult, geologic maps of the property are compiled fromdrilling data and cover only the deposit itself (Fig. 2.12). Samples were collected over a much larger area,however (see sample location map the Appendix).2.5.3 Property geologyThe deposit is approximately 900 m in diameter and is centered on a calc-alkalic intrusive complexunderlain and flanked by andesitic tuffs and debris flows. Cross-cutting, coarse-grained quartz dioriteporphyry and quartz feldspar porphyry dikes predate mineralization but make up only a small portion of thedeposit. Approximately 60% of the mineralization is hosted in the sediments (D. Piroshco, pers. comm.).Mineralization at Fish Lake is accompanied by biotite-chlorite-magnetite and chlorite-magnetite alteration,and sericite-carbonate-quartz veining. The southern portion of the deposit has been down-faultedapproximately 200 to 350 m by an east-west trending, nearly vertical fracture.2.5.4 Character of gold mineralizationChalcopyrite, bornite and native gold are found as disseminations, fracture fillings and in veins ofquartz or magnetite with accessory carbonate and pyrite (D. Piroshco, pers. comm.). Gold is generally 10-20tun in diameter (Pauwels, 1982).2.5.5 Physiography, climate and vegetationSituated in the subalpine area east of the Coast Mountains, the Fish Lake property has gently tomoderately sloping glaciated terrain with elevations ranging from 1400 to 1525 m. The area receives, onaverage, 336 mm of precipitation annually and the annual mean temperature is 2°C. The area is dominated byDESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 3210000E^ I imoo E1QFP-1^ BEATLzMICR^OFP-1QFP-2PPD1 FARTDEBFOFP-2 ^OF --2 -2^QFPils.. .1^wawaUP^PPD1^—MICR^\\PPD2^ MICRPPD1 ^FAXTPPD1^QFP-3PMPD------^PPD1^PPD1QFP-3APPD1PMPD^ PPD3_ PPD1^PPD3OVERBURDENPMPD -...._PPD1^DEBFPAM' PPD1^ PPD3DEBFOFPNI ^0 200 mI^ 1FAXT^ zCONG^ 1FI 10000 E^ I 10600 ELEGENDCONG ConglomeratePost ore plagioclase+ hornblende dikePlagioclase porphyrydioritePlagioclase porphyrydioriteopp Quartz feldsparporphyryMicrodioriteBEAT Bedded ash tuff(dacite-rhyolite)Fine and coarse ash tuffPMPD MICR FAXT+ fine grained flowPPD3 PPD1 Crowded plagioclaseporphyry dioritePPD2 DEBF Andesitic debris flow^contact^Z^faultFig. 2.12. Geologic map of the Fish Lake property, British Columbia (from Taseko MinesLtd. company maps).DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 33lodgepole pine with an underlayer of moss and lichen (Fig. 2.13a). Spruce trees, trembling aspen and a shrublayer are found where the soil is wetter.2.5.6 Description of soilsSoil pits ranging in depth from 45 to 73 cm, were dug down to glacial deposits or subcrop. LFHhorizons are generally less than 7 cm thick. Ae horizons are common but rarely thick enough for bulksampling. B horizons contain 5% to 15% coarse fragments (> 2 cm), generally have silty clay loam texturesand appear to be only slightly weathered. The amount of coarse fragments in C horizons is 10% to 30% andtextures tend to be more sandy than in B horizons. Most soils can be classified as Orthic Dystric Brunisolsalthough Orthic Humo-ferric Podzols are formed in areas with more organic matter. Where soils are poorlydrained, Orthic Grey Luvisols have developed (Fig. 2.13b). The Brunisols and Podzols would be classified asDystrochrepts and the Luvisols would be Boralfs in the U.S.D.A. system.2.6 Hemlo gold deposit, Ontario: the David Bell Mine and the Golden Sceptre Property2.6.1 Location and accessThe Hemlo gold deposit straddles the Trans-Canada Highway (Hwy. 17), 35 km east of Marathon,Ontario (Fig. 2.14). Surface geochemical samples were collected near the David Bell Mine, which is ownedjointly by Teck Corporation and Corona Corporation, and on the Golden Sceptre Property, a sub-economicextension of the Hemlo deposit which is owned by Hemlo Gold Mines, Inc. and is located approximately 4 kmwest of the main deposit.cI■-300Fig. 2.13. Vegetation and soils at the Fish Lake property: (A) typical vegetation; (B) Orthic Grey Luvisol (site 34).sO Lake NipIgenHemb DepositGolden Sceptre Mines Ltd.////5061,0,///- -sit////////0^2 kmApproximate outline ofsample location mapand geologic mapInternational Corona Resources Ltd.Thunder BayFig. 2.14. Location map of the Hemlo gold deposit, Ontario, Canada.DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 362.6.2 Regional geologyThe deposit is hosted in the Hemlo-Heron Bay metasedimentary and metavolcanic belt within theArchean Abitibi-Wawa-Shebandowan Subprovince, part of the Superior Province of the Canadian Shield(Quartermain, 1986). This east-trending belt of upper amphibolite facies rocks has been folded into a broad,doubly-plunging synform with late Archean granitic intrusions along its axis. The entire assemblage is dividedinto the Heron Bay Group, which forms the central part of the belt and northern limb of the synform, and thePlayter Harbour Group that comprises the southern limb The northern limb is made up of intermediate tofelsic metavolcanic flows, breccias and tuffs that interfinger with a clastic-dominated metasedimentarysequence to the east. Sheet and pillowed lava flows interbedded with volcaniclastic metasediments form thePlayter Harbour Group. Undeformed Proterozoic subalkalic diabase dikes crosscut both the sediments andintrusions.2.6.3 Local geologyThe Hemlo deposit is located on the southern limb of the Hemlo synform. Stratigraphy can be dividedinto three formations including (from south to north) the Rule Lake Formation, Moose Lake and Cedar CreekFormations (Fig. 2.15). The Rule Lake Formation forms the footwall of the deposit and consists primarily ofquartz-feldspar-muscovite schist (Kuhns et al, 1986). The overlying Moose Lake Formation is comprised ofbiotite-quartz-hornblende-feldspar schists, and mafic-dominated metavolcanic schists and granofels. Thehanging wall of the deposit consists primarily of mafic metasedimentary schists of the Cedar Creek Formation.The ore is hosted primarily in the Moose Lake Formation which is comprised of a muscovite-quartz-feldspar schist and biotite-quartz-feldspar schist. Gold is concentrated in the hanging wall, although thefootwall is also mineralized. The deposit is stratiform and varies from 10 to 40 m in thickness (Kuhns et al.,1986).Fig. 2.15. Geologic map of the Hernia deposit, Ontario.DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 38Intense metamorphism and deformation have obscured nearly all original textures making it difficultto determine how the ore was deposited. Three genetic models have been proposed: (1) an exhalative or hotspring deposit (Valliant and Bradbrook, 1986), (2) an epigenetic shear zone (Hugon, 1986; Burk et al., 1986)and, (3) an intermediate to felsic porphyry system (Kuhns, 1986; Kuhns et al., 1986). Although there isevidence to support each model, none is able to explain all aspects of the deposit.The last major ice advance over the Hemlo area was from the north-northeast. The areas sampled arecovered by a thin (0-2 m), discontinuous layer of glacial drift often reworked by glaciolacustrine processes(Geddes and Kristjansson, 1986).2.6.4 Character of gold mineralizationAlthough there is visible gold at the Hemlo deposit, gold exists primarily as free particles 1 to 25 gmin diameter associated with pyrite-rich schists (Kuhns et al., 1986). Gold is commonly found attached to pyriteor along silicate grain boundaries.2.6.5 Physiography, climate and vegetationThe Hemlo area is characterized by low relief and hummocky topography typical of continentalglaciated terrain. This part of Ontario receives 711 mm of precipitation and has an average annualtemperature of 2°C. Vegetation consists of ferns and moss below alders and lodge pole pine (Fig. 2.16a).2.6.6 Description of soilsSoils around the Hemlo deposit are generally less than a meter deep and well-drained. LFH layers,comprised mainly of humic material, are underlain by thin, discontinuous Ae horizons. Bf horizons aretov)n.0H0Z0ci)H8'-,WVDFig. 2.16. Vegetation and soils at the Hemlo deposit: (A) typical vegetation; (B) Orthic Humo-ferric Podzol (site 50).DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS^ 40common and are usually greater than 10 cm thick, contain 1% to 5% coarse fragments and have a texture ofsilty loam to silty, clay loam. C horizons consist of glacial or fluvial-glacial material generally having a textureof sandy to silty loam and containing 5% to 15% subangular to subrounded coarse fragments > 1 cm indiameter. Soils are classified as Orthic Humo-ferric Podzols (Fig. 2.16b).41CHAPTER THREE - SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODSSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 423.1 Site selectionSoil sample locations were selected on the basis of soil geochemical data provided by the owner ofeach property. Soil pits were located in areas of anomalous and background gold concentrations, generallywithin 10 meters of previous sample sites, avoiding bogs, seeps, depressions and areas where the soil had beendisturbed. At Brewery Creek, pit faces located in the sides of trenches were cleaned carefully prior to samplingin order to avoid contamination. Sediment samples were collected from streams draining both background andanomalous areas, with sample sites located upstream from areas of disturbance, such as roads. Table 3.1 liststhe number of soil and stream sediment samples collected in each area (sample location maps are in theAppendix).3.2 Sample collection3.2.1 SoilsSoil pits were generally deeper than 1 meter, most bottoming in bedrock or C horizon material.Horizons were measured and marked on one wall of each pit and color, texture, the presence or absence oforganic matter, and percentage of roots, mottles and coarse fragments recorded for each. Slope gradient andsurrounding vegetation was also noted. Approximately 1 square meter of the surface horizon, either LFH orpebble pavement, was collected adjacent to the pit. Below the surface, each horizon was divided in halfvertically and 10 to 15 kg duplicate samples collected into plastic bags using a garden trowel. Very coarsefragments (greater than about 5 cm) were removed by hand during sampling.SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 43Table 3.1 Number of soil pits and stream sediment samplescollected from background (Bkgd.) and anomalous (Anom.) areasof each property.Location Soils Stream sedimentsAnom. Bkgd. Anom. Bkgd.Kinsley Mountain 5 2 3 0Straight Fork 3 1 3 0Brewery Creek 6 2 5 0Fish Lake 5 2 2 1Golden Sceptre 3 2 ns nsDavid Bell Mine 4 1 ns nsns - no stream sediments collectedSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 443.2.2 Stream sedimentsAt Brewery Creek and Fish Lake, sediment was collected from gravel bars below the water line andplaced into plastic bags with large cobbles being removed by hand. Samples varied from 10 to 50 kgdepending on the availability of sediment.At Kinsley Mountain streams flow intermittently and were dry at the time of sampling. A compositesample was taken across each channel, avoiding contamination from the banks, and sieved through a 16000pm screen onto a plastic tarpaulin. The finer sediment was shoveled into plastic bags whereas the coarsematerial was collected in a 5 gal. plastic bucket, weighed using a hand scale and discarded. Approximately 80to 100 kg of sediment was required to obtain 30 to 50 kg of -16000 pm sample material.Most stream channels at Straight Fork Creek are inactive and have soils developed above older streamgravels. Samples were collected from these drainages like soils with stream gravels comprising the C horizons.The exception to this, sample 17-47, was taken in a flowing stream fed by a spring.3.3 Laboratory preparationSamples were prepared in three phases: 1) preparation of -149 pm (-100 mesh, ASTM) soil andstream sediment samples; 2) detailed preparation of C horizon soils and stream sediments; and 3) detailedpreparation of A and B horizon soils (Fig. 3.1). C horizons of some soil profiles were too deep to sample or toorocky to provide sufficient material for a sample. For these profiles, the lowest B horizon sample was preparedand analyzed with the C horizons. Throughout preparation, samples from each area were processed together,with background samples being handled before anomalous ones. To avoid contamination, all utensils werethoroughly cleaned between samples.Fig. 3.1. Sample preparation flowchart for soils and stream sediments.1Field samplecone + quarter11 to 2 kg^ weigh remaining9+ kgdetermine AuCN-AASdetermine AuFA-MS30 gI ^130g11pHiweigh andstore+2000pm^—-2000pm to +425 pm-425 pm to +212 pm-212pm to +106pm_ -106 pm to +53 pmoven dry; weighdry sieve tor-- -2000 pm —1+2000 pm^-2000 pm ^weigh and^dry sieve tostore -149pmtest:free carbonatetotal Stotal C20 element ICPdry and weigheach splitheavy mineral separation7- methylene iodide (s.g. 3.3)light minerals/0-g^200grdetermine AuFA-MS 1_F--- splitdetermine AUC horizon soils and^CN-AASstream sedimentsonly.C horizons only.-53 pm1_1split to:i^I^I20g 30gheavy minerals< 30 gdetermine AuFA-AASadd flocculantdryrollerdisaggregatedetermine AuFA-MSdetermine AuCN-AASwet sieve to:SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 463.3.1 Minus 149 gm samplesTo obtain -149 gm material, one 10 to 15 kg sample of each pair of duplicate soils and streamsediments was mixed on a clean, plastic tarpaulin by rolling the sample to each end of the sheet. Material wasthen coned and divided radially into sixteen roughly equal portions. Two portions - 1 to 2 kg in total - fromopposite sides of the coned sediment were dried in ovens at about 60°C, placed in plastic bags and weighedwhile the bulk of the material was returned to the original sample bag and set aside for wet sieving. The driedportion was sieved by hand using a 2000 gm stainless steel screen and the coarse fraction stored. One hundredgrams of the finer material was further dry sieved to -149 gm. Material less than 149 gm was split to obtain a30 g subsample using an aluminum Jones-type riffle splitter and analyzed for gold by FA-AAS.A 20 g split of the -149 pm material was analyzed at Chemex Labs in North Vancouver for Ag, Al,Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Sb, Sr, Ti, V, W and Zn by inductively coupledplasma (ICP) following a perchloric-nitric-hydrofluoric acid digestion. In addition, total C and S weredetermined by Leco induction furnace and CO 2 content determined by dissolution of the sample inhydrochloric acid.Determination of pH was conducted on the -2000 gm material. Where an insufficient amount of thisfraction was available, material was taken from the original duplicate sample. Four grams of soil werecombined with 7.75 ml of distilled water in a 30 ml glass beaker and stirred three times in a half hour. Afterallowing samples to sit for an additional hour, readings were taken using a Corning 115 pH meter.3.3.2 C horizon soils and stream sedimentsAfter removal of material for the -149 gm sample, the bulk of each 10 to 15 kg C horizon and streamsediment sample was weighed and wet sieved to six size fractions (+2000 pm, -2000+425 gm, -425+212 gm,-212+106 gm, -106+53 gm and -53 pm). Sieving was done by stacking the screens on top of a 5 gal. plasticSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 47bucket and water recirculated using a peristaltic pump to prevent loss of fines (Fig. 3.2). Sediment was washedthoroughly with clean tap water before being removed from the sieves.After sieving, the +2000 gm, -2000+425 gm and -425+212 gm fractions were dried, weighed andstored. The -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fractions were separated into heavy and light mineral fractionsusing the heavy liquid, methylene iodide (M.E.I.; S.G. = 3.3). Samples containing more than 800 g of materialwere halved using a splitter, and only one split used in heavy liquid separation. After drying, both heavy andlight mineral separates were transferred to plastic vials or sample bags and weighed. Heavy mineralconcentrates (HMCs), generally weighing less than 30 g, were then analyzed for gold by FA-AAS.Light mineral fractions (LMFs) were split to obtain a 30 g and a 200 g subsample. The smaller splitwas analyzed for gold by CN-AAS while the 200 g subsample was pulverized to approximately 74 gm (200mesh ASTM) in a steel ring mill. The material was again split to obtain a 30 g subsample which was thenanalyzed for gold by FA-AAS. An additional 30 g subsample of ground C horizon material was also analyzedby CN-AAS.During wet sieving, material less than 53 gm was collected in 5 gal. plastic buckets. After adding adilute (10 ml/L) solution of Catfloc (cat. no. 61-110) flocculant to settle the sediment, excess water waspumped out. Sediment was then transferred to glass Pyrex pans and dried in ovens at approximately 60° C.Dry samples were removed from the pans onto clean, brown paper using a plastic spatula, and disaggregatedwith a stainless steel rolling pin. This method of disaggregation reduced the samples to a fine powder, makinggrinding unnecessary. Furthermore, because of the fineness of the material, samples were considered to beadequately mixed during disaggregation to allow a representative sample to be taken without splitting.Material was, therefore, mixed in the sample bags by shaking and two 30 g subsamples collected from materialthroughout the bag. Each sub-sample was analyzed for gold, one by FA-AAS and the other by CN-AAS.recirculation of water 9+ kg sample+2000 pm-2000+425 pmsieves-425+212 pm-212+106 pm-106+53 pmPi- stored^so.^heavy mineral separation(methylene iodide, s.g. 3.3)1 heavy^ lightminerals mineralsbucketFig. 3.2. Illustration of wet sieving technique using recirculated water.-53 pmAuFA-AASSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 49Material in some samples did not settle adequately after the addition of the flocculant. Water wasremoved from these samples using a pressure filter consisting of an aluminum base with a spigot, a largeplastic cylinder which fits into the base, and an aluminum lid connected to a compressed air line. The residuewas collected on a piece of filter paper placed between the cylinder and the base. After pouring the slurry intothe cylinder, the aluminum lid was bolted to the base and the apparatus pressurized to 25 to 50 p.s.i. until thewater was removed. The residue on the filter paper was then dried in ovens at 60°C, scraped from the paper,and disaggregated and analyzed with the rest of the sample.3.3.3 A and B horizon soilsGrain size distribution of C horizon soils indicated that, in general, a 30 g subsample of each sizefraction could be obtained by wet sieving of only 2.5 kg of material. Therefore, one quarter of A and B horizonsoils was wet sieved instead of the entire 10 to 15 kg sample. To obtain a representative split for sieving, Aand B horizon soils were rolled on a clean plastic tarpaulin, coned and quartered. The bulk of the material wasreturned to the original sample bag and stored while the smaller portion was wet sieved.Analysis of C horizon soils revealed that a large portion of the gold resides in the light mineralfractions (Table 4.8). Therefore, the A and B horizon samples were not separated into heavy and light mineralfractions. Instead, each size fraction was split into a 30 g subsample, which was analyzed unground for gold byCN-AAS, and a 200 g subsample which was ground using a ring mill. Thirty grams of the ground materialwas analyzed for gold by FA-AAS.3.4 Analytical MethodsAll elemental analyses by ICP, FA-AAS and CN-AAS were conducted by Chemex Labs in NorthVancouver, B.C. Standard analytical methods were used for FA-AAS and ICP. Because of variations in theSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 50cyanidation and BLEG techniques used in exploration a description of the procedure used at Chemex Labs ispresented.3.4.1 Cyanidation-AASGold was extracted using a 0.25% NaCN - NaOH solution made by dissolving 2.5 g NaCN in 1 L ofH2O with 2 pellets (0.214 g) of NaOH added to obtain a pH of 11. Samples were combined with 72 ml of thecyanide solution in 250 ml plastic bottles. The containers were shaken to wet the sample and then rolled for 1hour. After allowing the solids to settle for a short period of time, 5 to 10 ml of the solution was decanted offinto plastic tubes and centrifuged until clear. A portion of this solution was then analyzed for gold by atomicabsorption spectrometry (AAS). Samples with analyses near the 5 ppb detection limit (i.e. below 50 ppb) werereanalyzed after the gold was concentrated using an organic extraction. Fifty ml of centrifuged solution wasplaced in a separatory funnel with 5 ml of diisobutyl ketone-aliquat 336 (DIBK) solution and shaken for 1minute. After the phases separated, the denser cyanide solution was drained off. The pregnant DIBK solutionwas placed into test tubes, centrifuged again and a portion of the solution analyzed by AAS.3.4.2 Scanning electron microscope (SEM)Grain and polished mounts for examination on the scanning electron microscope (SEM) were madeat Vancouver Petrographics Ltd. in Langley, B.C.. Mounts were made from the -212+106 tun and -106+53 gmlight and heavy mineral fractions of C horizon samples containing the highest gold concentrations at eachstudy area. Polished mounts were made by mixing grains in epoxy, placing the mixture in a plastic mount andpolishing the surface such that grain interiors were exposed. Because of reactions to the epoxy preventing itfrom hardening, some samples were simply glued onto glass slides and polished. All samples were carboncoated in a Denton Vacuum DV-515 prior to examination by SEM.SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 51A SEMCO Nanolab 7 SEM with energy dispersive and photographic capabilities at the Departmentof Geological Sciences at The University of British Columbia was used to examine 16 samples. Sections werescanned for gold particles with the electron backscatter image at 30 kV and 500x magnification. Selectsamples were also scanned with a Cameca SX-50 electron microprobe.3.5^Analytical Accuracy and Precision3.5.1 IntroductionQuality control was monitored using reference standards and duplicate analyses. To establishaccuracy and to measure drift in the analyses, 10 g samples of several reference materials were analyzed with afrequency of approximately one every 30 samples. Analytical precision was estimated using duplicate analysesof approximately 10% of the samples.Efficiency of cyanidation was determined using scatterplots of gold concentrations recovered by CN-AAS versus FA-AAS analyses, the latter being assumed to represent total gold concentration. Results ofanalyses by the two methods were then compared statistically using hypothesis tests and regression analyses.3.5.2 Monitoring of Analytical AccuracyCanadian Certified Reference Materials Project (CCRMP) standard GTS-1 was submitted withsamples analyzed by FA-AAS. Results of 21 analyses had a mean of 346 ± 38 ppb compared to arecommended value of 346 ppb (Table 3.2).A second CCRMP standard, STSD-1, submitted only with the -149 gm fraction for gold analysis byFA-AAS returned a value of 75 ppb, much higher than the provisional value of 8 ± 4 ppb. This provisionalSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 52Table 3.2. Gold analysis (ppb) of standards analyzed with soils and streamsediments by FA-AAS.StandardReferenceValueGTS-1346±161STSD-18±42NBM-lb1543±1033NBM-2a9.6±73NBM-2b7818±343 3FA-AAS 340 75 1700 < 5 8240Analyses 330 < 5 1720 < 5 8400315 <5 <5345 < 5355 < 5345 5320 < 5365355390390370350375300315350230345395390Mean 346 ins. 1710 ins. 8320Standarddeviation 38 ins. 14 ins. 113ins. = insufficient data for statistical calculations.1 Recommended value (Steger, 1986).2 Provisional value (Lynch, 1990).3 Recommended value (NBMG, 1991).SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 53value is the mean of 98 analyses from 11 laboratories and excludes 8 outliers (Lynch, 1990). These outliersand the large standard deviation relative to the mean indicate the high variability in the standard. As anadditional test of its reliability, six 10 g replicate samples of the standard were analyzed by FA-AAS. Five ofthese analyses were below the 5 ppb detection limit while one was at the detection limit. The initial analyticalvalue of 75 ppb probably results from the presence of particulate gold, suggesting that this standard isunreliable for gold.Results of FA-AAS analysis of Nevada Bureau of Mines (NBM) standard, NBM-2a were below thedetection limit compared to a recommended value of 9.6 ppb (standard deviation not provided). In contrast,results of standards NBM-lb and NBM-2b analyzed for gold by FA-AAS are 10% and 7% higher than theirrecommended values, respectively. This difference may result from analytical bias.Results of CN-AAS analysis of standard GTS-1 and four NBM standards (Table 3.3) were generallymuch lower than those obtained by FA-AAS because gold that is encapsulated in other minerals will beinaccessible to cyanide solutions. For example, only about 14% of the consensus gold value of 346 ppb wasrecovered from the GTS-1 standard, composed of mill tailings previously treated with cyanide. Results of thesame standard analyzed by FA-AAS were accurate to within 11%, on average (Table 3.2), indicating that alarge portion of the gold remaining in the tailings is inaccessible to cyanide solutions.Results of standards NBM-lb, NBM-lc and NBM-2a were within ± 20% of their reference value,whereas less than 2% of the gold in standard NBM-2b was recovered by CN-AAS. NBM-2b is composed ofmaterial from the Jerritt Canyon Mine, Nevada, a carbonaceous, limestone-hosted gold deposit containinglarge amounts of free carbon (P. Lechler, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, pers. comm.). CarbonSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 54Table 3.3. Gold analysis (ppb) of standards analyzed with soils and stream sedimentsby CN-AAS.StandardReferencevalueGTS-13461161NBM- lb154312NBM-lc1591115492NBM-2a9.6172NBM-2b78181343 2CN-AAS 50 1295 15800 < 10 100Analyses 50 1400 16300 < 10 14515 1730 601440 1451440 1451585 40720 1451440Mean 38 1381 16050 na 111Standarddeviation 20 297 354 na 451 Recommended value (Steger, 1986).2 Recommended value (NBMG, 1991).SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 55commonly absorbs gold in cyanide solutions and is often used in mills to extract gold from cyanide solutionsproduced in heap leach mining. The presence of carbon in this standard may be responsible for the low goldrecovery.Two standards from the U.S. Geological Survey, GXR-2 and GXR-6, were analyzed for 24 elementsby ICP after digestion in perchloric-nitric-hydrofluoric acid. Results of these analyses are generally lower but,except for Al and Be, are within 50% of the recommended value (Table 3.4). Ba, Cu, W and Zn, however,have concentrations ranging from 2% to 84% (W) higher than the recommended values.3.5.3 Determination of Analytical PrecisionDuplicates for the determination of analytical precision were prepared by taking two representative 30g splits from a sample, relabeling them and submitting them for analysis with the primary samples. With oneexception, there was insufficient heavy minerals to provide duplicates.Analyses of duplicate A, B and C horizon samples by FA-AAS were generally precise to within ±20% (Fig. 3.3a and b). Analytical precision of stream sediment samples analyzed by FA-AAS (Fig. 3.3c) andall analyses by CN-AAS (Fig. 3.4) were also generally within ± 20% above about 30 ppb but decreased belowthis value. Imprecision at low gold concentrations can probably be attributed to analytical error near thedetection limit, but may also result from the presence of particulate gold.Comparisons of duplicate analyses for the -149 gm fraction submitted for 24 element ICP analysisand determination of total C and S and inorganic CO 2 are shown in the Appendix. Although precision wasgenerally within ± 20% for most elements, analyses for inorganic CO 2 , Bi, Mo and Pb have more variation.Data for W is not shown because all values were below detection limit except one which was at the detectionlimit.SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 56Table 3.4. Comparison of results of analysis of U.S.G.S.-A.E.G standards GXR-2 and GXR-6 withrecommended values (Abbey, 1983). Analyses by ICP except where noted. Values in ppm exceptwhere noted.Element DetectionLimitGXR - 2 GXR - 6Rec. Obs. Rec. Obs.Ag 0.2 na 16.810.57 na 0.1010.0Al % 0.01 18.6 7.0410.52 16.6 9.59 10.83Ba 10.0 2000.0 2110.01 14.0 1100.0 1330.01 170.0Be 0.5 1.64 0.40 10.14 1.1 0.30 10.0Bi 2.0 na 2.011.0 na 1.00 ±0.0Ca % 0.01 0.82 0.85 10.06 0.10 0.18 10.01Cd 0.5 na 3.50 10.71 na 0.30 10.0Co 1.0 9.0 8.510.71 14.0 11.510.71Cr 1.0 37.0 31.011.41 96.0 86.019.90Cu 1.0 74.0? 79.010.0 105.0 63.017.07Fe % 0.01 1.90 1.83 10.06 5.58 5.43 10.50K % 0.01 1.41 1.41 10.02 2.04 1.81 10.14Mg % 0.01 0.88 0.82 10.05 0.62 0.59 10.06Mn 5.0 960.0 977.51 60.1 1000.0 1048.0174.3Mo 1.0 < 4.0 1.00.0 1.7 1.50 10.71Na % 0.01 0.55 0.67 10.03 0.10 0.30 10.03Ni 1.0 18.0 16.011.41 22.0 23.010.0P 10.0 na 770.01 99.0 na 478.017.0Pb(AAS) 2.0 615.0 620.01 14.0 110.0 86.012.83Sr 1.0 160.0 157.510.71 42.0 40.014.24Ti % 0.01 0.28 0.25 10.01 0.50 0.48 10.06V 1.0 57.0 41.512.12 180.0 176.0114.0W 10.0 1.8 5.010.0 0.88 5.010.0Zn 2.0 500.0 526.01 14.0 120.0 128.0111.0na = elements for which standards were not analyzed.* observed values include the mean and standard deviation calculated from two analyses ofeach standard.10,0003,0001,000300100301 03-212+106 pm•3,000110,0001,000:aa 300<• 100a)8 300-• 100310,0003,0001,00030010030103-212+106 pm LMF-212+106 pm HMC•-106+53 pm•-106+53 pm LMF0-53 pmSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 573^10 30^100 300 1,000 3,000 10,000Au (ppb)Fig. 3.3. Comparison of duplicate gold analyses of (a) A and B horizons, (b) C horizons, and(c) stream sediments by FA-AAS. Solid lines represent the x=y line; dashed lines represent± 20% analytical precision.SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 5810,0003,0001,0003001003010310,000-212+106 pm•3,0002:7 1,000O.O.300M< 100NU 3013.men^103110,0003,0001,000300100301031 1 3^10 30 100 300 1,000 3,000 10,000Au (ppb)-212+106 pm LMFground0-212+106pm LMFunground•-106+53 pm•-106+53 pm LMFground•-106+53 pm LMFungroundn,-53 pm*Fig. 3.4. Comparison of duplicate gold analyses of (a) A and B horizons, (b) C horizons, and(0) stream sediments by CN-AAS. Solid lines represent the x=y line; dashed lines represent± 20% analytical precision.SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 593.5.4 Recovery of Gold by CN-AASThree types of statistical analyses - hypothesis tests, regression analysis and binomial probabilitydistributions - were used to determine if gold analyses by CN-AAS are significantly different from those byFA-AAS. Values below 30 ppb were excluded for these analyses because of errors resulting from bothanalytical methods at low gold concentrations.Hypothesis tests determine whether differences between two sets of data are significant, at some levelof confidence, by comparing a particular statistical parameter. F-tests compare the variances of two samplepopulations and t-tests compare the means. For both, the null hypothesis (Ho) assumes there is no significantstatistical difference between the data sets.F-tests compare a ratio of the variances of the two data sets,F = vFA2 / vcN2,to a critical value (F*) at some specified degree of confidence. If F is less than F* for the appropriate degreesof freedom, then the null hypothesis, Ho: F < F*, is accepted and the variances of the two sample populationsare indistinguishable. Because F is a squared value its distribution is positively skewed and, thus, has only oneF* value.T-tests are conducted only when variances of the two sample populations are indistinguishable usingthe F-test. A pooled variance is estimated first:n _S 2 = [(nFA-1 )SFA2 + k—inFAC'j f'c CN21i // (kn—FA '.4_—C1s1-- /11 .SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 60Then a t-test is conducted:t = XFA-XCN / Sp0/11FA + 1/%0-2 .Because the t statistic has a normal (i.e. symmetrical) distribution, there are two critical values, one at eachend of the data. The null hypothesis, Ho : 4* > t < +t*, will be accepted when the t statistic lies between themRegression techniques are commonly used to compare two analytical methods by estimating the biasof one method in relation to the other. Regular linear regressions assume, however, that all measurement erroris attributed to only one analytical method (Ripley and Thompson, 1987). Thus, if x is assumed to be theindependent variable, all error is attributed to y (Fig. 3.5a) and, conversely, if y is considered independent thenx is assumed to contain all the error (Fig. 3.5b). The slope of the regression line varies considerably accordingto which variable is assigned the error. A more realistic situation attributes error to both analytical methods.This can be done by minimizing the sum of squared perpendicular distances to the fitted line (Fig. 3.5c) with aregression-like technique, the Maximum Likelihood Functional Relationship (MLFR).The MLFR regression technique can be used to compute a functional relationship between twoanalytical methods using the standard error of duplicate analyses. Standard errors can generally be determinedusing a regression equation which accounts for changes in analytical error over a wide range ofconcentrations. After removal of analyses below 30 ppb, however, only 31 duplicates by FA-AAS and 23 byCN-AAS remained - too few to obtain a regression equation that would provide a realistic estimate of standarderror (Thompson and Howarth, 1978).Standard errors of duplicate analyses were, therefore, estimated using the average relative standarderrors for each analytical method. For each pair of duplicate analyses, the standard deviation was divided bythe mean (RE=s/x) to obtain the relative standard error. These relative standard errors were then averaged,SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 61XFig. 3.5. Schematic diagram of a regression assigning error to variable Y (a), to variable X (b),and to both Y and X (c) (after Ripley and Thompson, 1987).SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 62resulting in one average relative standard error for analyses by FA-AAS and one for CN-AAS analyses (Tablesare located in the Appendix). Unlike estimates of errors obtained with a regression equation, the averagerelative standard error is constant across all concentrations, and is, therefore, a less precise estimate of theerror in the analyses. The average relative standard errors were then multiplied by the original analyses by FA-AAS and CN-AAS.Relative standard errors of duplicate pairs of analyses by FA-AAS and CN-AAS are plotted againstthe corresponding means in Fig. 3.6a and 3.7a, respectively. For both analytical methods, the amount ofscatter decreases dramatically with increasing mean concentration, suggesting that there are two groupings ineach data set. Averaging the relative standard errors for all concentrations would, therefore, give a poorestimate of error. For this reason, one average relative error was determined for low gold concentrations andone for high concentrations for both data sets. Thus, the average relative error for duplicate analyses by FA-AAS below and above 200 ppb are 0.09 and 0.04, respectively (Figs. 3.6b and c). Similarly, analyses by CN-AAS have an average relative error of 0.14 and 0.02 for mean concentrations below and above 250 ppb,respectively (Figs. 3.7b and c) Analyses by FA-AAS and CN-AAS were then multiplied by the appropriateaverage relative error to obtain the absolute error for each value.Absolute errors of analyses by both analytical methods were then used to determine the MLFRregression using SYSTAT (Wilkinson, 1990) software. This regression technique is found in the NONLINmode of the program and requires a model and a loss function:model: y = intercept + slope*xloss = (y-estimate)2/(sy2+ (slope2 * sx2)),o I°(a) all duplicatesSAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 630.50.40.30.20.100 1,000^2,000^3,000^4,000^5,0000.50.4 (b) 5. 200 ppbaverage relative 0.1error = 0.0950oo 100 1500.50.40.30.20. 1average relativeerror = 0.04^0 n1(c) > 200 ppb^02001,000^2,000^3,000^4,000^5,000Mean (ppb)Fig. 3.6. Scatterplots of relative error versus mean of duplicate pairs ofanalyses by FA-MS:(a) all duplicates, (b) duplicates with values 5200 ppb, and (c) duplicates with values >200 ppb.SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 64(a) all duplicates0 0^1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,0000.60.50.4a)> 0.3CC 0.2average relativeerror = 0.14^0.1 (b) 250 ppb0.60.50.40.30.20.1WNW' ^50^100^150^200^2500 0^0.6(c) >250 ppbaverage relative 0error = 0.02^1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000Mean0.50.40.30.20.1Fig. 3.7. Scatterplot of relative error versus mean for duplicate analyses by CN-AAS: (a) allduplicates, (b) duplicates with values ^250 ppb, and (0) duplicates with values > 250 ppb.SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 65where x and y are the raw analyses determined by FA-AAS and CN-AAS, respectively, and sx and sy are therelative standard errors of the analyses by FA-AAS and CN-AAS, respectively. For this data, the Simplexoption was used.Binomial probability distributions determine the probability that a given number of occurrences arethe result of a random distribution. In this study, these distributions are used with scatterplots of gold analysesby FA-AAS versus those by CN-AAS to determine the probability that the number of samples falling aboveand below the x=y line is random. If the probability is low that the distribution would occur randomly then it isassumed that there is bias in the data. Binomial probabilities were calculated using MICROSTAT (ECOSOFT,INC., 1984) software. Results of these tests for each sample type are discussed in the appropriate sections onRecovery of Gold in Chapter Four.66CHAPTER FOUR - RESULTSRESULTS^ 674.1 IntroductionLocating gold particles in soils and stream sediments samples using the scanning electron microscope(SEM) is extremely time-consuming because the particles are generally rare and very fine grained (ie. < 50pm). Therefore, samples were separated into different size and density fractions and analyzed by FA-AAS todetermine the distribution of the gold. Later, select size and density fractions were examined under the SEM todetermine how the gold is associated with other mineral grains.4.1 Grain Size and Heavy Minerals Distribution4.1.1 A, B and C Horizon SoilsOn average, more than 35%, of A, B and C horizon material resides in the -53 pm fraction in all sixfield areas (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). At Kinsley Mountain, generally more than 50% of material resides in the -53gm fraction. Similarly, most material at Straight Fork and Fish Lake is found in the -53 gm fraction, althoughsome samples have a distinctly bimodal distribution with large amounts of material in the -212+106 gmfraction (see Appendix for weights of individual samples). C horizon samples at Brewery Creek also have abimodal distribution whereas most material in the A and B horizons is found in the -53 pm fraction. AtGolden Sceptre and David Bell, the bulk of material in all horizons is found either in the -53 pm fraction orevenly distributed across all three size fractions. In general, at all six areas, the amount of fine materialincreases from the C horizon to the A and B horizons but there is no trend between the two upper horizons.Heavy minerals generally comprise less than 1% of the -212+106 pm and -106+53 pm fractions of Chorizons at Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and Golden Sceptre, and just over 2% at David Bell (Table 4.3).At Brewery Creek, large variations in heavy minerals, from 1% to 6%, are attributed to composite soil profilesRESULTS^ 68Table 4.1. Average grain size distribution, in weight percent, of the -2000 gm fractionof A and B horizon soils.Location Size fraction (gm)-2000+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley 19.61 6.7 13.8 59.9Mountain(n=10)4.22 2.0 1.9 5.5Straight 27.8 6.1 12.9 53.2Fork(n=6)14.1 1.5 3.9 12.0Brewery 19.9 2.5 14.5 63.2Creek(n=15)15.5 2.2 5.9 15.1Fish 33.9 11.9 11.4 42.9Lake(n=11)8.2 2.3 2.3 8.3Golden 19.6 14.3 17.4 48.7Sceptre(n=10)7.7 6.5 11.5 19.3David 28.6 17.4 19.2 34.7Bell 8.9 2.8 9.1 10.4(n=7)1 = mean2 = standard deviationRESULTS^ 69Table 4.2. Average grain size distribution, in weight percent, of the - 2000 gm fraction of C horizonsoils.Location Size fraction (um)-2000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain 18.7 1 7.0 9.6 13.1 51.6(n=8) 6.62 2.8 2.6 3.0 10.8Straight Fork 27.3 8.9 9.4 12.8 41.8(n=4) 13.6 3.1 2.1 3.3 14.5Brewery Creek 37.2 8.2 5.5 8.9 40.2(n=15) 14.8 3.6 2.3 3.5 17.4Fish Lake 32.8 9.4 10.6 8.7 38.6(n=7) 13.8 4.5 4.2 3.0 10.4Golden Sceptre 12.8 14.2 22.4 14.9 35.8(n=6) 4.0 6.2 8.6 9.8 18.5David Bell 19.2 15.1 21.8 9.7 34.2(n=6) 8.2 3.1 6.8 6.2 13.91 = mean2 = standard deviationRESULTS^ 70Table 4.3. Average heavy mineral (SG>3.3)content, in weight percent, of C horizon soils.Location Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53Kinsley 0.271 0.41Mountain(n=8)0.122 0.22Straight 0.28 0.32Fork(n=4)0.43 0.35Brewery 1.22 1.30Creek(n=15)1.57 1.60Fish 4.20 5.96Lake(n=7)1.07 5.98Golden 0.71 0.94Sceptre(n=6)0.43 0.50David 0.82 2.29Bell 0.62 1.90(n=6)1 = mean2 = standard deviationRESULTS^ 71with colluvial C horizons derived from different lithologies. Percentages of heavy minerals at Fish Lake rangefrom 2% to nearly 15%.4.1.2 Stream sedimentsStream sediment samples were not collected from the Golden Sceptre Property and the David BellMine because these areas lack stream drainages. On average, over 55% of stream sediment from KinsleyMountain, Brewery Creek and Fish Lake resides in the -2000+425 tun fraction (Table 4.4). At Straight Fork,grain size distribution resembles that of soils with more than 40% of material in the -53 tun fraction. Streamchannels in this area are inactive and overgrown with sage and grasses. As a result, soil horizons havedeveloped over old stream gravels (samples 13-37 and 16-46 in Appendix). Grain size distribution in thegravel horizon resembles that of soil samples because fine material has infiltrated the gravels during soildevelopment. In contrast, Sample 17-47, also from Straight Fork, was collected from an active stream and hasa grain size distribution similar to that of stream sediments collected in the other areas.Distribution of material between light and heavy minerals in the -212+106 tun and -106+53 gmfractions of stream sediments (Table 4.5) is similar to that in the corresponding C horizon samples (Table 4.3).For example, at Kinsley Mountain and Straight Fork, heavy minerals generally comprise less than 1% of eachsize fraction in both C horizons and sediments. At Brewery Creek the percentage of heavy minerals insediments ranges from less than 1% to nearly 5%, compared to a 1-6% range in C horizons. Sediments and Chorizons from Fish Lake contain from about 1% to 11% and 15% heavy minerals, respectively.RESULTS^ 72Table 4.4. Average grain size distribution, in weight percent, of the -2000 um fractionof stream sediments.Location Size fraction (gm)-2000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley 55.91 10.0 6.4 7.2 20.6Mountain(n=3)12.82 1.8 2.1 3.0 6.4Straight 30.5 6.2 7.5 15.2 40.70Fork(n=6)21.1 3.1 1.8 6.6 16.2Brewery 75.5 8.3 2.9 3.5 9.8Creek(n=5)9.4 3.3 1.9 1.8 3.7Fish 76.6 8.1 3.7 2.7 8.9Lake 4.2 1.2 1.1 .5 2.3(n=3)1 = mean2 = standard deviationRESULTS^ 73Table 4.5. Average heavy mineral (S.G.> 3.3)content, in weight percent, of stream sediments.Location Size fraction (un)-212+106 -106+53Kinsley 0.441 0.95Mountain(n=3)0.212 0.10Straight 0.27 0.50Fork(n=6)0.23 0.32Brewery 1.85 1.08Creek(n=5)0.72 0.52Fish 5.53 6.55Lake 3.21 4.32(n=3)1 = mean2 = standard deviationRESULTS^ 744.2 Gold Analyses of C Horizon Soils4.2.1 Distribution of Gold Between Size / Density FractionsHeavy mineral concentrates obtained from C horizons contain higher gold concentrations thancorresponding light mineral fractions in all six field areas (Table 4.6; Fig. 4.1). Light mineral fractions atKinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and Brewery Creek also carry considerable amounts of gold, however. Insharp contrast, gold content of the light mineral fractions from Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre and David Bell isgenerally much lower than in the heavy mineral concentrates and is often at or below the 5 ppb detection limit.Gold concentrations vary considerably within and between the field areas. Both light and heavymineral fractions of samples from background sites generally contain much less gold than those fromanomalous sites. At Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and Brewery Creek, gold concentrations of both densityfractions from background profiles vary from below the 5 ppb detection limit to 25 ppb. Most backgroundsamples of both density fractions at Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre and David Bell have gold concentrations belowthe detection limit, although several range up to 180 ppb. An exception to this is the -212+106 gm fractionHMC of sample 50-181 from David Bell which has a gold concentration of 1400 ppb suggesting that this sitedoes not actually represent background gold contents.Disregarding background samples, gold concentrations in light mineral fractions at Straight Fork,Kinsley Mountain and Brewery Creek range from 30 ppb to more than 300 ppb, 2000 ppb and 3000 ppb,respectively. Gold content of heavy mineral concentrates show even more variation with gold values rangingfrom <5 ppb to nearly 1 ppm. A similar range of gold concentrations (with a maximum of 6510 ppb) are foundin the heavy mineral concentrates at Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre and David Bell, but light mineral fractionsfrom these areas have concentrations that are much lower - generally below the detection limit. Straight ForkRESULTS^ 75Table 4.6. Concentration (ppb) of gold in each size / density fraction of C horizon soils asdetermined by FA-AAS.Location/Sample numberSize / density fraction (pin)-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCKinsley Mountain2-6b <5 <145 <5 <55 102-7b 10 <85 5 <70 253-10b 10 <60 <5 <90 <56-18 70 < 90 55 < 35 657-20 95 < 150 75 < 65 1005-16 320 855 315 2400 4201-3 400 1240 320 1110 5004-13 2340 3240 2180 3490 3290Straight Fork15-43b <5 <160 <5 <80 <514-41 40 < 835 35 < 195 6512-33 225 < 525 275 < 415 27011-29 315 440 380 485 440Brewery Creek21-63b < 5 25 < 5 < 5 2522-67b < 5 < 1000 < 5 < 40 < 522-68b < 5 < 15 < 5 < 15 1029-87 15 < 105 30 < 100 13029-86 180 965 65 100 10019-56 300 1140 290 845 50020-59 400 1950 405 1120 118030-95 470 3000 555 1360 182018-51 525 1960 590 1430 145028-77 740 2900 810 1500 236018-53 710 1300 615 6000 326028-79 930 1320 1090 < 3330 478018-52 1300 4350 1230 2550 624028-78 1890 7620 1760 4480 488028-80 2390 9400 3100 9320 9970Fish Lake31-103 < 5 195 < 5 425 3032-108 < 5 285 < 5 365 2534-115b < 5 < 5 < 5 < 20 535-120 < 5 3560 25 6510 15536-126b < 5 15 < 5 70 3537-129 25 1400 35 4680 45033-111 370 1300 240 3300 450RESULTS^ 76Table 4.6. cont.Location/Sample numberSize / density fraction (um)-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCGolden Sceptre42-144b < 5 < 50 < 5 < 65 < 543-148b < 5 < 35 < 5 < 10 < 543-149b < 5 < 40 < 5 180 < 544-155 < 5 230 < 5 1475 3545-159 < 5 1105 < 5 1385 10041-139 20 210 15 260 75David Bell Mine46-162 < 5 < 90 < 5 465 < 549-176 < 5 895 < 5 540 8050-181b < 5 1400 < 5 745 < 550-182b < 5 < 20 < 5 55 < 548-171 20 320 15 510 7547-166 40 1310 30 1190 70b = background.Fig. 4.1. Concentration (ppb) of gold in the light mineral fractions (LMFs) and heavy mineral concentrates (HMCs) of the -212+106 pm and-106+53 pm fractions of C horizon soils.HMC-212+106 pmLMFGold values belowdetection limit-106+53 pmLMF^HMCKinsley Mountain^I...-background10,000Straight Fork5-61,000a_-5\" 1001010,0001,00010010110,0001,000100101 1I11111 1 Illi 1 I. iGolden SceptreDavid BellNote for gold values below the detection limit the maximum possibleconcentration was plotted, ie.the detection limit.RESULTS^ 78represents an intermediate situation in which gold concentrations cover a range of values below 500 ppb inboth density fractions.Based on gold concentrations (Tables 4.6) and size distribution (Appendix), gold contents of heavyand light mineral fractions from the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fractions have been combined to provideestimates of gold content in the original material (Table 4.7; Fig. 4.2). These estimates are then directlycomparable to gold content of the original -53 gm material. In addition, gold concentrations in all threefractions have been recombined to give estimates of total gold content of material finer than 212 gm. Thesecalculations indicate that gold is uniformly distributed across all three size fractions at Kinsley Mountain andStraight Fork. There is an increase in gold content of the -53 gm fraction at Golden Sceptre, David Bell and,most notably, at Brewery Creek. There are no obvious trends at Fish Lake.Gold concentrations and sample weights were also used to calculate the percentage of goldcontributed by each size and density fraction (Table 4.8; Fig. 4.3). At each area, the bulk of the gold resides inthe -53 gm fraction and in only 8 of 47 samples is the proportion of gold in the -53 gm fraction less than 60%of the total gold content (Appendix). In contrast, heavy mineral fractions generally contain less than 1% of thegold particularly at Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and Brewery Creek. At Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre andDavid Bell, gold content of the heavy mineral concentrates ranges from < 1% to nearly 39%.4.2.2 Recovery of gold by CN-AASScatterplotsFA-AAS analyses of ground -212+106 gm and -106+53 pm light mineral fractions, and the unground-53 gm fraction are assumed to represent total gold content of these size/density fractions (Table 4.6). ResultsRESULTS^ 79Table 4.7. Estimated gold concentrations in the -212+106 um, -106+53 i.un, and -53 umfractions of C horizon soils compared to estimated gold concentrations in the -212 umfraction.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (um) Total Auin -212 um-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain2-6b (<5)1 (<5) 10 (8)2-7b (10) (5) 25 (18)3-10b (10) (<5) <5 (<5)6-18 (70) (55) 65 (64)7-20 (95) (75) 100 (96)5-16 322 332 420 3891-3 401 322 500 4474-13 2342 2183 3290 2887Straight Fork15-43b (<5) (<5) <5 (<5)14-41 (40) (35) 65 (58)12-33 (225) (275) 270 (263)11-29 316 381 440 404Brewery Creek21-63b <5 (<5) 25 (18)22-67b (<5) (<5) <5 (<5)22-68b (<5) (<5) 10 (8)29-87 (15) (30) 130 (99)29-86 188 65 100 9819-56 308 294 500 44020-59 412 408 1180 98630-95 513 572 1820 149218-51 537 602 1450 114128-77 742 811 2360 202818-53 714 625 3260 240028-79 930 (1090) 4780 (3530)18-52 1307 1234 6240 454228-78 1903 1769 4880 414828-80 2532 3293 9970 7328Fish Lake31-103 13 19 30 2732-108 14 12 25 2234-115b (<5) (5) 5 (<5)35-120 120 172 155 15036-126b <5 13 35 (23)37-129 91 715 450 41233-111 422 339 50 423RESULTS^ 80Table 4.7. cont.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (gm) Total Auin -212 gm -212+106^-106+53^-53Golden Sceptre^42-144b^ (<5)^(<5)^<5^(<5)43-148b (<5) (<5) <5 (<5)43-149b (<5)^<5^<5^(<5)44-155^ 5 16 35 1945-159 7^11^100^3541-139 23 7 75 41David Bell Mine46-162^ (<5)^<5^<5^(<5)49-176 11 19 80 4150-181b 9^31^<5^550-182b^ (<5) <5 <5 (<5)48-171 26^39^75^50^47-166 48 14 70 591 In estimating gold concentrations: (1) values of <5 ppb in the LMFs were taken as 3ppb; (2) concentrations of gold below the detection limits in the HMCs were ignored, i.e.in such cases, only the gold content of the LMFs is taken into account. Estimates forwhich gold content of HMCs is below the detection limit are given in parentheses.Kinsley Mountain . ^Fish Lake11 di^ONbackground 11°Y^IIIENI^Mil^=IIn 114^ Ell^lit, I■P^I,^A tillId^,ati PHMil^1^Nil 1 I:1,I10,0001,00010010110,000:Ft 1,00010010110,0001,000100101-106+53 pm111 -212+106pmFig. 42. Concentration (ppb) of gold in the combined light and heavy mineral fractions of the -212+106 pm and -106+53 pm fractions,and the original -53 pm fraction of C horizon soils.RESULTS^ 82Table 4.8. Average proportion (%) of total gold content contributed by each size anddensity fraction of C horizon soils.Location Size fraction (pm)-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCKinsley 12.53 1 0.11 11.88 0.26 75.21Mountain(n=8)5.372 0.11 4.11 0.36 8.34Straight 13.33 0.16 19.19 0.27 67.05Fork(n=4)4.63 0.18 6.90 0.40 11.49Brewery 3.92 0.25 7.34 0.23 88.26Creek(n=15)1.75 0.32 4.89 0.24 5.01Fish 5.41 5.11 6.04 9.76 73.68Lake(n=7)6.81 5.82 8.13 9.35 12.24Golden 20.08 2.12 6.86 5.95 64.99Sceptre(n=6)18.25 1.36 4.67 6.79 18.69David 22.35 9.02 6.34 6.73 55.56Bell 18.30 14.72 7.76 4.57 23.87(n=6)1 = mean2 = standard deviationFig. 4.3. Proportion of gold in light mineral fractions (LMFs), heavy mineral concentrates (HMCs), and the -53 pm fraction of C horizon soils.Fish Lake David BellKinsley Mtn. Golden SceptreStraight Fork^Brewery CreekLMF HMC^-53 pm10080Co 600.00.40200RESULTS^ 84of gold analyses by CN-AAS of the ground -212+106 um and -106+53 tun light mineral fractions andunground material of all three size fractions are given in Table 4.9. To determine the efficiency of cyanidationgold analyses by CN-AAS are compared to corresponding analyses by FA-AAS (Fig. 4.4).Gold concentrations determined by FA-AAS are generally higher than those by CN-AAS. For somesamples, however, particularly those with gold values less than 30 ppb by FA-AAS, analyses by CN-AAS arehigher. Because CN-AAS is a partial extraction technique, more gold cannot be recovered than by FA-AASwhich is considered to provide \"total\" gold content. This suggests some error in the particular solventextraction method used for samples with gold concentrations lower than 50 ppb (see page 50).At high gold concentrations, particularly above 100 ppb, generally 80% to 100% of the gold isextractable by CN-AAS. Between 30 and 100 ppb, however, recovery of gold by CN-AAS decreases slightlywith decreasing total gold concentration (i.e. FA-AAS). Further, more gold is recovered in the ground fractionthan in unground samples. Comparing the -212+106 um fraction (Fig. 4.4a) with the two finer fractions (Fig.4.4 b and c), it is apparent that gold recovery by CN-AAS improves with decreasing size fraction. This is alsoevident when results of gold analyses by CN-AAS of ground and unground samples are compared to oneanother for both the -212+106 tun and -106+53 tun LMFs (Fig. 4.5).Hypothesis testsHypothesis tests were conducted on gold analyses of each size fraction of C horizons by FA-AAS andCN-AAS to determine if data by the two methods are significantly different from one another (Table 4.10).Because of erratic gold analyses below 30 ppb, samples with gold concentrations below this value wereexcluded from the hypothesis tests. At the .05% confidence level, the null hypothesis, Ho, was accepted for theground and unground -212+106 um and -106+53 tun LMFs, indicating that analyses of these fractions by FA-RESULTS^ 85Table 4.9. Concentration of gold (ppb) in both the ground and unground, -212+106 ttrn and-106+53 inn light mineral fractions, and the unground -53 ttm fraction of C horizons byCN-AAS.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (ttm)-212+106 -106+53 -53unground ground unground groundKinsley Mountain2-6b <5 20 <5 20 <52-7b <5 30 <5 24 503-10b 20 35 25 25 <56-18 65 65 45 60 507-20 65 50 50 50 955-16 290 190 290 290 4301-3 385 385 290 335 4804-13 1295 2260 1730 2110 3360Straight Fork15-43b <5 10 <5 <5 2514-41 30 40 35 25 5012-33 145 190 240 240 24011-29 290 290 335 335 430Brewery Creek21-63b <5 <5 <5 <5 4022-67b 30 ins. <5 <5 5022-68b <5 <5 <5 <5 3529-87 <5 15 15 30 14529-86 65 ins. 15 20 9519-56 290 290 290 240 57520-59 385 335 290 290 115030-95 385 430 430 480 226018-51 625 670 530 575 163028-77 720 670 770 720 288018-53 770 815 625 720 370028-79 770 670 910 865 624018-52 1300 1300 1250 1300 768028-78 2020 1970 2020 1970 595028-80 2590 2590 3360 3310 12500RESULTS^ 86Table 4.9. cont.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (p.m)-212+106 -106+53 -53unground ground unground groundFish Lake31-103 10 <5 15 <5 5032-108 <5 20 <5 10 5034-115b 10 15 <5 10 4035-120 20 25 35 35 14536-126b 10 <5 5 5 9537-129 15 30 25 25 24033-111 240 335 145 190 335Golden Sceptre42-144b <5 <5 <5 <5 1543-148b 20 10 15 10 <543-149b <5 <5 <5 <5 <544-155 10 20 <5 10 4045-159 15 15 20 20 9541-139 20 25 25 20 50David Bell Mine46-162 <5 <5 ins. 15 2049-176 15 30 15 20 5050-181b <5 <5 <5 <10 2550-182b <5 <5 20 <5 1548-171 30 25 15 25 5047-166 25 25 30 30 50ins. = insufficient material for analysis by CN-AAS..1^3^10 30 100 3001,000 3,00010,000Au (ppb) - FA-AASKinsley^Straight^BreweryMountain^Fork^Creek^ A oRESULTS^ 8710,0003,0001,00030010030103110,0003,0001,0003001003010311 3^10 30 100 300 1,0003,00010,00010,0003,0001,0003001003010311 3^10 30 100 300 1,0003,00010,000Au (ppb) - FA-AASFish^Golden^DavidLake^Sceptre^Bell* ■ •Fig. 4.4. Scatterplots of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of each size fraction of C horizon soils.In each case, ground and unground refers to samples analyzed by CN-AAS. FA-AAS for eachrepresents total gold concentrations. LMF = light mineral fraction. Solid line represents x=yline; dashed lines = ±20% limits. Note that scale of c is different from the others.RESULTS^ 8810,0003,0001,000300100356^0c= 1020c^3=co^1i 10,00003,00013'a 1,000a<= 30010030103^10 30 100 300 1,0003,00010,0003 10 30 100 300 1,0003,00010,000Au (ppb) - CN-AAS (ground)Kinsley^Straight Brewery Fish Golden DavidMountain^Fork^Creek Lake Sceptre Bell^ A 0 * ■ •Fig. 4.5. Scatterplots of analyses of ground and unground, -212+106 pm and -106+53 pmlight mineral fractions of C horizon soils. Solid line = x=y line. Dashed lines = ±20% limits.b.p. = binomial probability.RESULTS^ 89Table 4.10. Population statistics and results of hypothesis tests for gold analyses of each fraction of C horizons byFA-AAS and CN-AAS. Analyses by the two different methods are indistinguishable at the .05% confidence levelwhen the null hypothesis, Ho , is accepted for both F- and t-tests. F and t are the calculated F and t statistics,respectively. F* and e are the critical values at the .05% confidence interval for n samples. Samples with goldconcentrations < 30 ppb are excluded.F-testt-testHo: F < F*Ho: -t* > t < +t*Size fraction Statistics F-test t-testFA-AAS CN-AAS F F* HO t t* HOUnground-53 tunn 39 39mean 1392 1623 1.55 1.69 accepted 2.57 2.02 rejectedsd ±2181 ±2719min 30 40max 9970 12500-106+53 ttm LMFn 22 22 1.08 2.07 accepted -1.596 2.07 acceptedmean 726 675sd ±777 ±806min 30 30max 3100 3360-212+106 gm LMFn 22 22 1.09 2.07 accepted -1.431 2.07 acceptedmean 686 613sd ±701 ±663min 40 30max 2390 2590Ground-106+53 um LMFn 20 20 1.13 2.12 accepted -0.85 2.09 acceptedmean 763 742sd ±789 ±840min 30 30max 3100 3310-212+106 um LMFn 20 20 0.90 2.12 accepted -1.132 2.086 acceptedmean 739 709sd ±713 ±745min 40 40max 2390 2590n = number of samples; sd = standard deviation; min = population minimum; max = population maximum.RESULTS^ 90AAS and CN-AAS are indistinguishable for these tests. For the -53 um fraction, whereas the null hypothesisof the F-test was accepted, Ho for the t-test was rejected, indicating that the two sets of analyses aresignificantly different from one another. Gold analyses of ground and unground -212+106 gm and -106+53gm LMFs by CN-AAS were also compared using hypothesis tests (Table 4.11). For both fractions, analyseswere indistinguishable.Regression analysisMLFR regression equations comparing analyses by FA-AAS and CN-AAS are listed in Table 4.12.Also listed is whether the intercept and slope are significantly different from 0 and 1, respectively, and thestandard errors associated with these regression parameters. The regression lines listed in Table 4.12 areshown on a scatterplot of analyses of each size fraction by FA-AAS and CN-AAS in Fig. 4.6. This is the samedata that was plotted on a logarithmic scale in Fig. 4.4.The null hypothesis was accepted for all size fractions of C horizons analyzed for gold. One samplefrom Kinsley Mountain, however, plots as an outlier for the unground -212+106 jun and -106+53 pm fractions(sample with asterisk in Figs. 4.6a and b). The low gold recovery by CN-AAS may be a result of encapsulationof some of the gold in silica. Because of this outlier, the hypothesis tests for the regression parameters may notbe sufficiently rigorous. Upon removal of the sample, however, the null hypotheses were still accepted.4.3 Gold Analyses of A and B Horizon Soils4.3.1 Distribution of Gold Between Size FractionsGold concentrations in A and B horizons (Table 4.13) are generally at least 50% lower than incorresponding C horizons. Only Kinsley Mountain, Brewery Creek and Fish Lake have gold concentrationsRESULTS^ 91Table 4.11. Population statistics and results of hypothesis tests of gold analyses of the ground and unground, -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fraction of C horizons analyzed by CN-AAS. The two sets of analyses areindistinguishable at the .05% confidence level when the null hypothesis, H 0 , is accepted for both F- and t-tests.F and t are the calculated F and t statistics, respectively. F* and t* are the critical values at the .05%confidence level for n samples. Samples with gold concentrations < 30 ppb are excluded.F-testt-testHo: F < F*H0: -t* > t < +t*Size fraction Statistics F-test t-testCN-AASgroundCN-AASungroundF F* HO t t* HO-106+53 gm LMFnmeansdminmax-212+106 grn LMFnmeansdminmax20742±84030331020709±74540259020718±82630336020664±6733025901.031.232.122.12acceptedaccepted1.1510.8912.0862.086acceptedacceptedn = number of samples; sd = standard deviation; min = population minimum; max = population maximum.RESULTS^ 92Table 4.12. Comparison of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of the ground and unground -212+106 gm and-106+53 jun LMFs, and the -53 jun fraction of C horizons using the MLFR regression at the .05%confidence level. SE = standard errors of the intercept and slope. H01= null hypothesis that the intercept isnot significantly different from 0. HOS = null hypothesis that the slope is not significantly different from 1.Samples with gold values < 30 ppb excluded.Fraction Regression Equation Intercept SlopeSE H01 SE HOSUnground-53 gm(n=39)y = -24.070 + 1.099(x) 10.065 accepted -0.041 accepted-106+53 pm LMF(n=22)y = -8.250 + 0.965(x) 11.153 accepted 0.038 accepted-212+106 gm LMF(n=22)y = -16.612 + 0.987(x) 16.652 accepted 0.050 acceptedGround-106+53 p.m LMF(n=20)y = -5.127 + 0.916(x) 8.387 accepted 0.034 accepted-212+53 gm LMF(n=20)y = -17.650 + 0.971(x) 13.938 accepted 0.051 acceptedNote: The null hypotheses for the intercept (Ho) and slope (Hos) were rejected if, at the 95% confidenceinterval, they were significantly different from 0 and 1, respectively.500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 0^500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500Au (ppb) - FA-AAS(a) -212+106 pm LMF_ Unground^0/RESULTS 3,5003,0002,5002,0001,5001,0005003,5003,000cn* 2,500i, 2,000a.Q 1,500=<1,000500014,00012,00010,0008,0006,0004,0002,000Kinsley Straight BreweryMountain^Fork^Creek0^.!, 0Fish^Golden^DavidLake^Sceptre^Bell* ■^•930 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000Au (ppb) - FA-AASFig. 4.6. Scatterplots of FA-AAS and CN-MS analyses of each size fraction of C horizon soils, andresults of MLFR regression analysis conducted at the .05% confidence level. Solid line representsregression line described by the corresponding equation. Dashed lines are x=y lines. Note differentscale in graph c. * = outlier.RESULTS^ 94Table 4.13. Concentration of gold (ppb) in each size fraction of A and Bhorizons as determined by FA-AAS.Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain2-5b A <5 <5 <53-9b A <5 <5 <53-lib B <5 <5 <56-17 A 75 60 657-19 A 65 45 1505-15 B 295 340 6505-14 A 270 375 6951-1 A 420 425 10501-12 A 490 560 12101-2 B 440 585 1220Straight Fork15-42b A <5 <5 <512-32 A 35 20 3014-39 A 15 10 5014-40 B 20 5 11511-27 A 60 70 11011-28 B 90 210 250Brewery Creek21-61b B <5 <521-62b B 5 <5 <522-66b B ins. <5 <528-75 Ae 15 <5 1029-83 Ae 115 30 <519-55 B 30 15 1518-50 B 115 55 5028-76 B 85 45 7029-84 B 170 45 10029-85 B 260 95 14030-93 B 130 75 18520-58 B 270 205 57030-92 B 390 280 86030-90 Ae 940 810 132030-91 B 1110 1090 298095Table 4.13. cont.Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53Fish Lake34-113b B <5 <5 <534-114b Bt <5 <5 <532-107 Bt <5 <5 532-106 Bt <5 15 536-125 Bt <5 <5 1031-102 B 5 95 3032-105 Ae 200 <5 1035-118 Bhf <5 190 8035-119 B2 81 130 20037-128 Bf 60 300 15533-110 B 2320 1490 505Golden Sceptre42-143b Bf <5 <5 <543-146b Bf <5 <5 <543-147b <5 <5 <542-142b Ae 40 <5 <541-138 Bf 40 15 2545-158 30 15 4044-153 B1 5 10 7044-154 B2 35 25 4545-157 Bf 25 80 3044-152 Bf <5 30 140David Bell46-161 Bf <5 <5 <550-178b Ae <5 <5 <550-180b <5 <5 549-174 Bfl 15 3 1049-175 Bf2 85 30 2048-170 30 30 6048-169 Bf 45 45 40RESULTSRESULTS^ 96greater than 1000 ppb in the upper horizons, while at Golden Sceptre and David Bell values are all below100 ppb. With the exception of sample 42-142, samples representing background sites have goldconcentrations below or near the 5 ppb detection limit. In addition, at Kinsley Mountain and Straight Forkdistribution of gold across size fractions changes from being uniform in C horizons to having distinctlyhigher gold concentrations in the -53 gm fraction of A and B horizons. At Brewery Creek, the -53 gmfractions of all three horizons contain the bulk of the gold whereas no trends can be seen in any horizon atFish Lake, Golden Sceptre and David Bell.The proportion of gold contributed by each size fraction of A ad B horizons was calculated fromgold concentrations and sample weights (Table 4.14; Fig. 4.7). As in C horizons, a large portion of goldin the upper horizons resides in the -53 gm fraction, particularly at Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork andBrewery Creek. At Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre and David Bell the percentage of gold contributed by the -53 gm fraction is lower but still generally more than half of total gold content.4.3.2 Recovery of Gold by CN-AASScatterplotsResults of gold analyses of A and B horizon samples by CN-AAS (Table 4.15) are compared tocorresponding FA-AAS analyses in Fig. 4.8. Excluding concentrations of 10 ppb or less, gold recovery bycyanide increases with increasing gold content. Between 10 ppb and 300 ppb, gold values by CN-AAS arelower than those by FA-AAS, whereas above this value nearly all the gold is accessible to cyanidesolutions. This increase in gold recovery at higher gold concentrations was also noted in C horizons aboveabout 30 ppb. No trends in gold recovery are seen between A and B horizons.RESULTS^ 97Table 4.14. Average proportion (%) of total gold contentcontributed by each size fraction of A and B horizons.Location Size fraction (mn)-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley 5.71 12.2 82.1Mountain(n=10)2.92 4.3 6.8Straight 5.6 11.5 83.0Fork(n=6)3.2 8.3 11.1Brewery 4.7 15.3 80.0Creek(n=15)4.5 14.5 17.6Fish 18.5 23.5 58.0Lake(n=11)23.9 17.2 21.7Golden 19.5 17.6 62.9Sceptre(n=10)18.3 19.0 25.0David 29.1 20.9 50.0Bell 13.1 9.2 17.0(n=7)1 = mean2 = standard deviationn=10^6^15^11^10^710080\"czC0o 600.00.20Fish Lake^Golden Sceptre^David BellKinsley Mtn.^Straight Fork^Brewery Creek-212+106pm^-106+53 pm -53 pmFig. 4.7. Proportion of gold in each size fraction of A and B horizon soils. VD00RESULTS^ 99Table 4.15. Concentration (ppb) of gold in each size fraction of A and Bhorizons as determined by CN-AAS.Location /Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain2-5b A <5 <5 <53-9b A <5 <5 <53-11b B <5 <5 <56-17 A 40 45 507-19 A 35 35 1055-15 B 290 335 6255-14 A 240 385 7201-1 A 385 430 11054-12 A 430 575 12001-2 B 530 625 1150Straight Fork15-42b A <5 <5 <512-32 A 20 15 2514-39 A <5 5 3014-40 B 5 15 8511-27 A 30 40 9011-28 B 145 145 240Brewery Creek21-61b B ins. <5 <521-62b B <5 <5 <522-66b B ins. <5 <528-75 Ae ins. 5 529-83 Ae 50 15 5019-55 B ins. 10 518-50 B ins. 20 2528-76 B 45 25 4529-84 B 95 30 7529-85 B 190 50 10030-93 B 145 45 19020-58 B 240 95 48030-92 B 290 240 81530-90 Ae 720 670 134530-91 B 815 770 3170100Table 4.15. cont.Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53Fish Lake34-113b B <5 <5 534-114b Bt 5 <5 2532-107 Bt 5 10 2032-106 Bt <5 <5 1536-125 Bt 10 40 2031-102 B 20 50 2032-105 Ae 5 <5 <535-118 Bhf 75 75 1035-119 B2 35 145 9537-128 Bf 20 75 6533-110 B 530 1150 335Golden Sceptre42-143b Bf 5 5 <543-146b Bf <5 <5 <543-147b B 10 <5 <542-142b Ae <5 <5 <541-138 Bf 30 5 545-158 B 15 40 4044-153 B1 10 <5 5044-154 B2 25 10 4545-157 Bf 10 15 2044-152 Bf 15 35 70David Bell46-161 Bf <5 <5 <550-178b Ae <5 10 <550-180b B 10 <5 <549-174 Bfl 5 <5 <549-175 Bfl 10 45 1548-170 B 25 20 3048-169 Bf 45 30 35ins. = insufficient material for analysis.RESULTS10,0003,0001,00030010030103110,000*Z 3000100-6D. 30am^103<3,000(/) 1,0003^10 30 100 300 1,000 3,000 10,000Au (ppb) -- FA-AASKinsley^Straight^Brewery^Fish^Golden^DavidMountain^Fork^Creek^Lake^Sceptre^Bell^ A 0 * ■ ARESULTS^ 101Fig. 4.8. Scatterplots of analyses by CN-MS versus FA-MS for each size fraction of A and Bhorizon soils. Solid line represents x=y; dashed line = ±20% limits. b.p. = binomial probability.RESULTS^ 102Hypothesis testsSamples with gold analyses below 30 ppb were removed from the dataset before significance testswere conducted. Results of hypothesis tests and the population statistics for analyses by FA-AAS and CN-AASof each fraction of A and B horizons are listed in Table 4.16. The null hypotheses for both F- and t-tests wereaccepted for the -212+106 gm fraction. For the -106+53 gm and -53 gin fractions, however, the variances ofthe two data sets were indistinguishable while the means were not.Regression analysisResults of MLFR analyses are listed in Table 4.17 and are plotted in Fig. 4.9. This is the same data asin Fig. 4.8. For the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fraction of A and B horizons, the slopes and intercepts arenot significantly different from 1 and 0, respectively. This suggests that analyses of these fractions by FA-AASand CN-AAS are indistinguishable. The slope of the regression line for the -212+106 gm fraction is about 4%lower than that for the -106+53 pm fraction. This decrease can be attributed to one sample at high goldconcentrations and several below 300 ppb for which gold extraction by cyanide was poor. For the -53 pmfraction, whereas the null hypothesis was accepted for the slope, the intercept was significantly different from0. Above about 100 ppb, however, analyses by CN-AAS are usually within 20% of those by FA-AAS (Fig.4.8).4.4^Gold Analyses of Stream Sediments4.4.1 Distribution of Gold Between Size / Density FractionsOverall gold concentrations are much lower in stream sediments (Table 4.18) than in C horizonsamples (Table 4.6) and, except for samples 24-70 (Brewery Creek) and 38-133 (Fish Lake), all are below1000 ppb.RESULTS^ 103Table 4.16. Population statistics and results of hypothesis tests of gold analyses of each size fraction of A andB horizons by FA-AAS and CN-AAS. Analyses by the two different methods are indistinguishable at the .05%confidence level when the null hypothesis, Ha, is accepted for both F- and t-tests. F and t are the calculated Fand t statistics, respectively. F* and t* are the critical values at the .05% confidence level for n samples.Samples with gold concentrations < 30 are ppb excluded.F-testt-testHO: F < F*HO: -t* > t < +t*Size fraction Statistics F-test t-testFA-AAS CN-AAS F F* HO t t* HO-53 jimn 31 31 1.12 1.84 accepted -2.40 2.04 rejectedmean 450 424sd ±614 ±649min 40 30max 2980 3170-106+53 pimn 28 28 0.69 1.87 accepted -3.16 2.05 rejectedmean 295 237sd ±347 ±289min 30 30max 1490 1150-212+106 grnn 22 22 0.21 2.07 accepted -1.58 2.07 acceptedmean 371 243sd ±518 ±235min 40 30max 2320 815n = number of samples; sd = standard deviation; min = population minimum; max = population maximum.RESULTS^ 104Table 4.17. Comparison of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of each size fraction of A and B horizonsusing the MLFR regression at the .05% confidence level. SE = standard errors of the intercept and slopegiven in the regression equation. H01= null hypothesis that intercept is not significantly different from 0.Hos = null hypothesis that slope is not significantly different from 1. Samples with gold concentrations< 30 ppb are excluded.Fraction Regression Equation Intercept SlopeSE HOI SE Hos-53 gm y = -18.073 + 0.967(x) 5.292 rejected 0.030 accepted(n=31)-106+53 gm y = -13.200 + 0.922(x) 9.345 accepted 0.060 accepted(n=28)-212+53 tun y = -16.552 + 0.894(x) 15.339 accepted 0.090 accepted(n-22)Note: The null hypotheses for the intercept (HO and slope (H os) were rejected if, at the 95% confidenceinterval, they were significantly different from 0 and 1, respectively.500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500Au (ppb) - FA-MSRESULTS^ 1053,5003,0002,5002,0001,5001,00050003,5003,0002,5002,0001,5001,00050003,5003,0002,5002,0001,5001,000500A horizons B horizons•^AFig. 4.9. Scatterplots of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of each size fraction of A and B horizonsoils, and results of MLFR regression analysis. Solid lines = regression lines described by thecorresponding equation. Dashed lines are x=y lines.RESULTS^ 106Table 4.18. Concentration (ppb) of gold in each size/density fraction of streamsediments as determined by FA-AAS.Location/Sample numberSize fraction (.un)-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCKinsley Mountain9-23 5 65 <5 60 258-22 25 160 20 100 6510-24 70 280 80 320 325Straight Fork17-47 <5 <50 <5 <50 <513-35 <5 <230 <5 <50 513-36 15 <180 <5 <35 <513-37 <5 <85 <5 <30 1016-45 20 <220 15 80 1516-46 20 <170 <5 <30 20Brewery Creek26-72 5 10 <5 390 1523-69 <5 <280 <5 <45 3025-71 25 <20 15 20 6024-70 30 <60 20 4770 7027-73 25 240 15 490 80Fish Lake39-134 <5 <20 <5 <30 <540-135b <5 <30 <5 70 1538-133 35 8810 30 7340 400RESULTS^ 107Furthermore, all but four of the 17 sediment samples have gold concentrations below the detection limit in atleast one fraction making it difficult to identify trends. Despite the limitations of the data, however, it isevident that heavy mineral fractions contain higher gold concentrations than corresponding light mineralfractions. This is similar to C horizon soils at Fish Lake but in contrast to those at Kinsley Mountain, StraightFork and Brewery Creek where light mineral fractions contained nearly the same amount of gold as heavymineral concentrations.Based on size distribution of light and heavy minerals fractions (Appendix) and their gold contents(Table 4.18), heavy and light mineral -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fractions have been combined to estimategold content in the original material and the total gold content of the -212 gm fraction (Table 4.19). Despitehigher gold concentrations in the heavy mineral concentrates, gold content in combined fractions resemblesthose of the light mineral fractions because of the greater abundance of this material.As in C horizon samples, the bulk of the gold in stream sediments appears to reside in the -53 gmfraction (Table 4.20; Fig. 4.10). In addition, heavy mineral concentrates from Kinsley Mountain generallycontain less than 1% of the gold in both stream sediments and C horizons. This is also generally true atBrewery Creek, although the proportion of gold in the heavy mineral concentrates of stream sediments is morevaried. For example, the mean proportion of gold in the -106+53 gm HMC is 5.32 ± 6.54.4.4.2 Recovery of Gold by Cyanidation-AASConcentration of gold in the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm light mineral fractions, and -53 gm fraction asdetermined by CN-AAS are listed in Table 4.21. Comparison of these results with analyses by FA-AASindicate that less than 20% of the gold in the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm light mineral fractions wasrecovered by cyanide solutions, whereas gold recovery in the -53 gm fraction was 80% to 100% (Fig 4.11).RESULTS^ 108Table 4.19. Concentration (ppb) of gold in each size fraction of the -212fraction of stream sediments as determined by FA-AAS.Location/Sample numberSize fraction (gun) Total in-212 gmfraction-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain9-23 5 (5)1 25 (17)8-22 26 21 65 4710-24 70 83 325 232Straight Fork17-47 (<5) (<5) (<5) (<5)13-35 (<5) (<5) 5 (5)13-36 (15) (15) (<5) (<5)13-37 (<5) (<5) 10 (<5)16-45 (20) 15 15 (16)16-46 (20) (<5) (<5) (16)Brewery Creek26-72 5 (<5) 15 (12)23-69 (<5) (<5) 30 (20)25-71 (25) 15 60 4224-70 (30) 39 70 5727-73 30 19 80 64Fish Lake39-134 (<5) (<5) <30 540-135b (<5) (6) 15 (10)38-133 839 871 400 5791 In estimating gold concentrations: (1) values of <5 ppb in the LMFswere taken as 3 ppb; (2) concentrations of gold below the detectionlimits in the HMCs were ignored, i.e. in such cases only the gold contentof the LMFs is taken into account. Estimates for which gold content ofHMCs is below the detection limit are given in parentheses.RESULTS^ 109Table 4.20. Average proportion (%) of total gold content contributed byeach size and density fraction of stream sediments.Location/Sample numberSize fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF IIMCKinsley 7.131 0.26 6.54 0.45 85.60Mountain(n=3)3.172 0.18 3.24 0.20 6.30Straight 14.30 0.10 26.01 0.40 59.19Fork(n=1)Brewery 8.65 0.38 6.06 5.35 79.56Creek(n=4)4.64 0.34 1.30 6.54 7.86Fish 1.24 31.40 0.78 24.86 41.72Lake(n=1)1 = mean2 = standard deviationFig. 4.10. Proportion of gold in the light mineral fractions (LMFs), heavy mineral concentrates (HMCs) and -53 pm fraction ofstream sediments.10080C0o600.00.40200HMC41 1 1111,AFish LakeKinsley Mtn. Straight ForkLMFBrewery Creek-53 pmRESULTS^ 111Table 4.21. Concentration (ppb) of gold in the unground-212+106 ttm and -106+53 tun LMFs, and the -53 tunfraction of stream sediments as determined by CN-AAS.Location/Sample numberSize fraction (pin)-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain9-23 <5 <5 308-22 5 10 5010-24 35 25 290Straight Fork17-47 <5 5 <513-35 5 <5 1013-36 <5 <5 1513-37 <5 <5 1516-45 5 5 2016-46 10 <5 20Brewery Creek26-72 <5 <5 523-69 <5 5 1025-71 <5 <5 4024-70 15 <5 3527-73 ins. <5 50Fish Lake39-134 <5 <5 <3040-135b ins. <5 1038-133 5 5 190ins. = insufficient material for analysis1,0003001003010311,000300U)i 1000<= 1 0301031RESULTS^ 1121^3^10^30^100^300^1,000Au (ppb) -- FA-AAS^Kinsley Straight Brewery^FishMountain Fork^Creek^Lake^^ ^A 0 *Fig. 4.11. Comparison of gold analyses of stream sediments by CN-AAS and FA-AAS. Solid linerepresents x=y; dashed line = ± 20% limits. LMF = light mineral fraction. b.p. = binomialprobability.RESULTS^ 113Hypothesis tests and regression analysisHypothesis tests and regression analysis could not be conducted on the -212+106 gm and -106+53 funlight mineral fractions of sediment samples because most gold concentrations were below the detection limit.For the -53 gm fraction, statistical analyses were done on six samples that had analyses above 30 ppb - twofrom Kinsley Mountain, three from Brewery Creek and one from Fish Lake. The null hypotheses wereaccepted for both the F- and t-tests on this small database (Table 4.22). In addition, at the .05% confidencelevel, the null hypothesis was accepted for both the slope and intercept of the MLFR regression line (Table4.23; Fig. 4.12). This result is greatly effected by one sample from Fish Lake for which recovery of gold byCN-AAS is about three times lower than by FA-AAS. Removal of this sample improves the slope of theregression line to 0.961 but the intercept drops to -22.487.4.5 Minus 149 gm Fraction ResultsResults of determination of 22 elements by ICP, Au by FA-AAS, Ag and As by AAS, anddetermination of total C, total S and inorganic CO 2 for the -149 gm fraction are listed in the Appendix. Theseanalyses were conducted to detect effects of different elements on gold recovery by cyanidation. No trends wereseen between gold recovery and the other elements, however.4.6 Scanning Electron MicroscopeResults of examination of 16 grain mounts of light and heavy -212+106 pun and -106+53 funfractions of C horizon soils under the SEM are listed in Table 4.24. Also listed are the concentration of gold ineach sample and an estimate of the number of gold particles on the surface of each grain mount. Numbers ofgold particles were estimated by first determining the mass of material on the surface of the mount assuming aRESULTS^ 114Table 4.22. Population statistics and results of hypothesis tests of gold analyses of each size fraction of streamsediments by FA-AAS and CN-AAS. Analyses are indistinguishable at the .05% confidence level if the nullhypothesis, Ho , is accepted for both F- and t-tests. F and t are the calculated F and t statistics, respectively.F* and t* are the critical values at the .05% confidence level for n samples. Samples with gold concentrations< 30 ppb are excluded.F-test^HO: F < F*t-test HO: -t* > t < +t*Size^Statistics^F-test^ t-testfraction^FA-AAS CN-AAS^F^F*^HO^t^t*^HO-53 p.mn^6^6^0.48^3.18^accepted^-1.87^2.45^acceptedmean^167 109sd ±154^±106min^60 35max 400^290n = number of samples; sd = standard deviation; min = population minimum; max = population maximum.Table 4.23. Comparison of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of the -212+106 pm and -106+53pm light mineral fractions of stream sediments using the MLFR regression at the .05%confidence level. SE = standard errors of the intercept and slope given in the regressionequation. H01= null hypothesis that the intercept is not significantly different from 0. Hos = nullhypothesis that the slope is not significantly different from 1. Samples with gold values < 30ppb are excluded.Fraction^Regression Equation^Intercept^SlopeSE^HOI^SE^HOS-53 gm^y = -15.644 + 0.860x^104.917^accepted^0.111^accepted(n=6) -212+106pm fraction08 °100806040200100806040200 0 20^40^60^80^1000^100^200^300^4004003002001000RESULTSAu (ppb) - FA-AASKinsley^Straight Brewery^FishMountain^Fork^Creek^Lake^ A 0Fig. 4.12. Scatterplots of FA-AAS and CN-AAS analyses of stream sediments. For the -53 pmfraction, results of MLFR regression analysis at the .05% confidence level is also shown.Solid line = regression line described by the corresponding equation. Dashed lines are x=ylines.115RESULTS^ 116disk-shaped volume of sample having a diameter equal to that of the grain mount (2.5 cm), height equal to 5gm and a density equal to that of quartz (2.7g/cc):mass = t r2 (0.005 cm) (2.7 g/cc) = 0.007 g.Because epoxy comprises about 50% of the surface area of each mount, the mass was halved to approximatethe amount of sample. Thus, the mass of sample on the mount surface was calculated to be 0.003 g. Numbersof gold particles with diameter equal to 5 gm in this amount of each sample were then estimated based on thegold concentration of each sample, assuming a specific gravity of 15 for gold.After nearly 120 hours of scanning samples using the SEM, gold was identified in only 5 samplesfrom Kinsley Mountain, Brewery Creek and Fish Lake. Heavy minerals from both the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fractions of samples from Straight Fork, Golden Sceptre and David Bell were also examined, butno gold was detected. Four gold particles were found in the -212+106 gm LMF of Kinsley Mountain. All ofthese particles were less than 5 gm across and were either attached to the surfaces of quartz or calcite grains,or exist as inclusions in these minerals. Of three gold particles shown in Plate 4.1A, for example, one isobviously attached to the edge of the amorphous silica grain while the other two appear to be inclusions.No gold was found in the LMFs from Brewery Creek despite gold concentrations of 2000-3000 ppb. ,Eight gold particles were found in the -212+106 tun HMC, however, and 7 were found in the -106+53 tunHMC. Both of these fractions contain gold concentrations greater than 9300 ppb. Most of the gold particleswere about 1 gm across and all were associated with an antimony mineral, possibly stibnite. One gold particleidentified in the HMC of -212+106 gm fraction of sample 28-80 is attached to the irregular surface of anantimony mineral (Plate 4.1B). In contrast, the gold particle shown in Plate 4.1C was originally imbedded inthe host, an iron oxide grain, but has been pulled out - probably during polishing of the mount. At Fish Lake,one particle of gold was found associated with iron oxide in the -106+53 gm heavy mineral concentrate ofRESULTS^ 117Table 4.24. Results of examination of selected samples using the SEM.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53LMF HMC LMF HMCKinsley Mountain4-13 4 1 082 8(2340)3 (2180)Straight Fork11-29 0 012 16(440) (485)Brewery Creek28-80 0 8 0 78 103 11 93(2390) (9400) (3100) (9320)Fish Lake33-111 0 0 11 12 40(370) (1300) (3300)Golden Sceptre44-155 0 01 12(230) (1475)David Bell47-166 0 030 52(1310)^(1190) 1 Number of gold particles identified under the SEM. 2 Numbers of gold particleswere estimated for a volume of sample covering the SEM mount (surfacediameter = 2.5 cm) at a thickness of 5 gm. Gold particles were assumed to bespheres with diameter = 5 pin. 3 ( ) = gold concentration (ppb) of the ungroundLMF and unground HMC for size each fraction as determined by FA-AAS.RESULTS^118Plate 4.1A. Backscatter SEM photomicrograph of three gold particles in an amorphous silica grain (sil). From the-212+106 gm LMF of sample 4-13 from Kinsley Mountain.B. Backscatter SEM photomicrograph of a gold particle attached to the edge of an antimony mineral(ant), possibly stibnite. From the -212+106 gm HMC of sample 28-80 from Brewery Creek.C.^SEM photomicrograph of a gold particle in an iron oxide grain (PE-0). Gold particle has been pulledout of host grain and flipped over. From the -212+106 tun HMC of sample 28-80 from BreweryCreek. CmP■-3cnRESULTS^ 120sample 33-111 (Plate 4.2A and B). This particle is nearly 10 tun long and appears to be part of an iron oxidegrain rather than simply attached to the surface of the grain.RESULTS^ 121Plate 4.2A. SEM photomicrograph of gold attached to an iron oxide grain (FeO). From -106+53 pm HMCfraction of sample 33-111 from Fish Lake.B. Backscatter SEM photomicrograph of the same grain in A. From -106+53 gm HMC fraction ofsample 33-111 from Fish Lake.122123CHAPTER FIVE - DISCUSSIONDISCUSSION^ 1245.1 IntroductionIn order to interpret results of cyanidation it is necessary to determine the mode of occurrence of goldin soils and stream sediments. Comparing the distribution of gold in the six study areas allows some inferencesto be made about the partitioning of gold in the weathering environment. What is striking is the similarity inthe gold distributions in areas of vastly differing climates and forms of mineralization. For example, a largeportion of gold in each area exists as particles finer than 53 gm, generally residing in the light as well as theheavy mineral fractions. Results also suggest that most of this gold is accessible to cyanide solutions. Thepresence of gold as microscopic particles which are extractable by cyanide in both the heavy and light mineralfractions has important implications for geochemical sampling.5.2 Mode of occurrence of gold5.2.1 C Horizon SoilsThe previous chapter showed that over 50% of the gold in C horizons from each area resides in the -53 gm fraction (Table 4.8; Fig. 4.3). Several additional lines of evidence suggest that, particularly at KinsleyMountain, Straight Fork and Brewery Creek, gold exists as fine particles - generally smaller than 50 gm -included in other mineral grains in all size fractions less than 212 gm.Gold distribution between size and density fractionsAlthough heavy mineral concentrates at Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork Creek and Brewery Creek,have higher gold concentrations, light mineral fractions also carry large amounts of gold (Table 4.6; Fig. 4.1).This is contrary to the expectation that gold, with a specific gravity of 19.3 in its pure form, would partition tothe heavy mineral concentrates, and indicates that a large portion of gold exists as inclusions in the lightmineral fractions. Further, at Kinsley Mountain and Straight Fork gold concentrations are rather uniformlyDISCUSSION^ 125distributed across size fractions (Table 4.7; Fig. 4.2). As gold-bearing material in these areas is broken downduring weathering, gold concentrations remain relatively constant. Because the presence of large gold particleswould result in either erratic gold concentrations across size fractions or high gold concentrations in only onesize fraction, most of the gold must exist as fine particles evenly distributed throughout the host material.Gold is also rather uniformly distributed across size fractions at Brewery Creek, but is more stronglyassociated with heavy minerals and the -53 gm fraction. Because gold concentrations at this area do notchange with the breakdown of material, gold possibly exists as fine particles in both density fractions. Theassociation of gold with the HMCs suggests that weathering preferentially releases heavy minerals containinginclusions of fine gold from the host material. These heavy minerals are then further decomposed chemically -most likely through oxidation - transferring gold to the -53 tun fraction. This interpretation is compatible withresults of ion probe analysis of ore minerals that found over 90% of the gold in the outer rims of pyrite andarsenopyrite grains (Chryssoulis and Agha, 1990).At Fish Lake, the Golden Sceptre property and the David Bell Mine, gold in C horizons is stronglypartitioned into the heavy mineral concentrates and has only a weak preferential association with the -53 gmfraction. Furthermore, variation in gold concentrations between size fractions suggest that gold (or its heavymineral host) exists in a range of particle sizes. If all the gold were fine, it would be distributed evenly acrossthe heavy mineral concentrates or be released into the -53 gm fraction. Conversely, uniformly coarse goldwould not reach the -53 gm fraction at all. Therefore, gold must be present in a variety of particle sizes, withmost less than 53 tun in diameter.DISCUSSION^ 126Number of ideal gold particles in heavy mineral concentratesThe number of gold particles in the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm HMCs of C horizons weremodeled assuming that particles occur as spheres with diameters equal to the geometric mean of the boundingmesh sizes. Calculations were based on field sample weights and the gold was assumed to have a specificgravity of 15 - approximately the specific gravity of electrum particles containing 50% gold. No calculationswere initially made for numbers of gold particles in the light mineral fractions on the basis that such particlesare unlikely to be either free or amenable to cyanidation. For the -53 gm fraction, a relatively large graindiameter of 50 gm was assumed, giving a minimum number of ideal gold particles. Taking into account thepossibility of a wide range of diameters and shapes within any size range, the estimates could vary by a factorof five in either direction. Nevertheless, they are useful in showing possible trends in the number of particles offree gold that might be present.Results of this model indicate that only samples 28-80 (Brewery Creek) and 35-120 (Fish Lake)contain sufficient gold in the -212+106 pm fraction to form one or more particles of gold (Table 5.1).Therefore, it is highly unlikely that there will be free gold in this fraction and anomalous gold concentrationsare probably present as inclusions. The possibility of the presence of free gold increases in the -106+53 pmsize range - most notably at Fish Lake where samples 35-120 and 37-129 each contain sufficient gold to formmore than 30 ideal particles of gold. Obviously, these estimates will vary with the concentration of gold andthe amount of heavy minerals in each size fraction.Subsampling variabilityAs discussed in Chapter One, sample representativity improves with increasing numbers of goldparticles. The number of gold particles in a sample can, therefore, be estimated from the analytical precisiondetermined from analysis of duplicate or replicate samples (Harris, 1982; Cohen, 1990). Thus, the relativelyDISCUSSION^ 127Table 5.1. Estimated number of ideal gold particles with diameterequal to the geometric mean of the bounding mesh sizes in the heavymineral concentrates of the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fractions,and the original -53 gm fraction of C horizons. Based on field sampleweights.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (lin)-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain2-6b Cl 0.00 0.03 19.392-7b C2 0.00 0.06 48.313-10b C 0.00 0.03 10.536-18 BC 0.00 0.03 180.087-20 Bk 0.00 0.03 255.195-16 C 0.05 5.11 1101.781-3 C 0.07 0.95 1560.924-13 C 0.14 1.46 7059.49Straight Fork15-43b Ck 0.00 0.07 7.9514-41 Ck 0.00 0.03 199.0212-33 Ck 0.00 0.05 258.4311-29 Ck 0.06 0.46 535.17Brewery Creek21-63b C 0.02 0.03 36.5822-67b Cl 0.00 0.06 13.0122-68b C2 0.00 0.06 13.0429-87 C2 0.00 0.03 301.6029-86 Cl 0.03 0.19 615.2719-56 C 0.13 1.04 1115.8720-59 C 0.14 0.77 2975.9430-95 C2 0.68 3.79 4176.2218-51 C 0.19 4.50 2726.2228-77 Cl 0.04 0.19 6355.9518-53 C 0.05 0.89 2794.1528-79 C3 0.06 0.04 17893.4018-52 C 0.11 0.80 8081.9528-78 C2 0.17 1.43 9261.1828-80 C4 3.33 29.27 13729.90128Table 5.1 cont.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (pm)-212+106 -106+53 -53Fish Lake31-103 C 0.07 0.84 49.6232-108 C 0.28 1.40 83.6434-115b C 0.00 0.03 10.0535-120 C 4.45 34.46 444.3136-126b C 0.02 2.06 67.6637-129 C 0.56 33.18 267.5533-111 C 0.55 8.45 381.10Golden Sceptre42-144b B 0.00 0.03 18.2543-148b Cl 0.01 0.05 9.0343-149b C2 0.01 0.24 7.8244-155 C 0.17 5.60 73.9245-159 C 0.30 8.54 225.1541-139 B 0.16 1.42 146.48David Bell Mine46-162 C 0.01 0.51 6.7249-176 C 0.45 5.24 138.7250-181b Cl 0.48 0.89 10.8050-182b C2 0.01 0.06 6.6348-171 C 0.41 9.63 179.044.7-166 B\\C 0.22 0.85 262.04b = backgroundDISCUSSIONDISCUSSION^ 129high analytical precision - within ± 20% - obtained from 18 duplicate C horizon soil samples (Fig. 3.3b)suggests the presence of abundant fine grained gold particles. The number of particles can be estimated usingthe relative error (RE) which is defined by s/c, where c is the mean concentration and s the standard deviation.For materials containing small numbers of gold particles, the sampling distribution of gold is described by thePoisson distribution for which RE = 1/4z. Numbers of gold particles (z) can, therefore, be calculated from(c/s)2 . The number of particles required to achieve ± 20% precision at the 95th percentile is 100.A more rigorous determination of numbers, and thereby size, of gold particles was conducted usingthe analytical precision estimated from replicate analyses. Five 10 g replicates from the -212+106 gm lightmineral fraction of one C horizon sample from each area were analyzed for gold by FA-AAS (Table 5.2). Thissize fraction was used because, a single free gold particle in this fraction would result in more erratic analysesthan in the finer fractions. For each sample, an ideal number of gold particles and particle diameters weremodeled using the NUGGET program developed by C.R. Stanley. This program employs the equant grainmodel which assumes that:(1) all grains are free and have the same size and shape,(2) grains are either rare gold nuggets or gangue minerals,(3) gold occurs only in the nuggets and all nuggets have the same composition„(4) a small number of nuggets are present in the sample,(5) a large number of gangue grains are present in the sample, and(6) Poisson probability theory can adequately model the frequency distribution of the nuggets inthe sample.Furthermore, particles were assumed to be comprised of pure gold (SG= 19.3).DISCUSSION^ 130Table 5.2. Determination of ideal gold particle size based on results of replicate analyses.Location Sample Replicate Mean Standard Number of Idealnumber analyses deviation particles diameter2(ppb) (4z=c/s)1 (tun)Kinsley 4-13 2030 2092 55.4 1426 11Mountain 2120204021102160Straight 11-29 320 303 12.5 588 8Fork 305300285305Brewery 28-80 2310 2432 269.2 82 31Creek 2330 (3213 3.3 947968 1)235029102260Fish 37-129 45 47 13.5 12 16Lake 35407045Golden 41-139 40 31 5.5 32 10Sceptre 30253030David 47-166 50 49 6.5 57 9Bell 454560451 z = number of gold particles; c = mean concentration; s = standard deviation.2 See text for calculation of ideal particle diameters.DISCUSSION^ 131The ideal particle diameter is less than 20 t.um for each area except Brewery Creek where the idealdiameter is 31 gm. The large ideal particle size at this area results from inclusion of one sample for which theresult is approximately 400 ppb higher than the others. Removing this sample gives an ideal diameter of 1 pm.This serves to illustrate the effect of a single large nugget even in an area known for fine gold.Scanning electron microscopeDistribution of gold across size fractions, numbers of ideal gold particles and subsampling variabilitysuggest that gold exists primarily as particles finer than 50 tun, even in the coarser fractions. Because these areindirect methods of determining the size and location of gold particles, one C horizon sample from each areawas examined for gold under the SEM. A total of only 26 gold particles were identified in 16 -212+106 ttmand -106+53 gm fraction samples (Table 4.24). Four gold particles were found in the -212+106 ttm LMF ofsample 4-13 from Kinsley Mountain and one was identified in the -106+53 gm HMC of sample 33-111 fromFish Lake. The remaining gold particles were found in the -212+106 pm and -106+53 pm HMCs of sample28-80 from Brewery Creek. No gold was identified in the LMFs from Brewery Creek or the -106+53 pm LMFfrom Kinsley Mountain, despite gold concentrations greater than 2000 ppb. The paucity of identifiable gold inall samples examined suggests either the presence of a few coarse gold particles (i.e. diameters between 212pm and 53 gm), or abundant gold particles too fine to be seen (i.e. <0.5 turt). Because all gold particlesidentified had diameters smaller than 5 t.tm and most samples contain insufficient gold to form one ideal goldparticle (Table 5.1), the latter interpretation is more likely. Results of examination of samples under the SEMare, therefore, consistent with previous evidence that the bulk of the gold is present as fine particles. This isparticularly true at Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and Brewery Creek.DISCUSSION^ 1325.2.2 A and B horizon soilsAt Kinsley Mountain and Straight Fork, gold content is uniform across size fractions in C horizonsbut increases in the -53 gm fraction of A and B horizons (Section 4.3.1). This change in distribution suggeststhat, during weathering, more gold is transferred into the -53 um fraction as C horizon material is brokendown. At Brewery Creek, the distribution of gold across size fractions remains the same down profile, withmost of the gold residing in the -53 pm fraction. Gold appears to be preferentially released into the finestfraction during weathering. No trends between size fractions are seen in soil horizons at Fish Lake, GoldenSceptre or David Bell.For most soil samples, gold concentrations are either uniform across size fraction or increase in the -53 gm fraction. Of 104 A, B and C horizon samples, however, 21 have highest gold contents in the -212+106gm fraction and all but 3 of these are A or B horizons. Furthermore, although gold contents in A and Bhorizons are generally lower than in C horizons (compare Table 4.12 and Table 4.7), gold content does notincrease down profile at all sites. Many background sites have uniform gold content down profile whereas atsites 1, 5 and 7 at Kinsley Mountain gold content of the upper horizons is actually higher than in thecorresponding C horizons. Reasons for higher gold concentrations in the coarser fraction and up profile atparticular sites are not known.5.2.3 Stream sedimentsDespite a database of only 17 stream sediments, many with gold concentrations below the detectionlimit, some trends can be seen in the distribution of gold across size and density fractions. Heavy mineralconcentrates of stream sediments contain higher gold concentrations than the corresponding light mineralfractions (Table 4.17). Further, gold concentrations appear to increase with decreasing size fraction (Table4.18).DISCUSSION^ 133As with C horizons, numbers of ideal gold particles in heavy mineral concentrates of the -212+106fun and -106+53 gm fractions of stream sediments were calculated assuming the gold has a specific gravity of15, is present as spheres with diameters equal to the mean of the bounding mesh sizes, and has a diameter of50 gm for the finest fraction. Except for sample 38-133 from Fish Lake, results indicate that there isinsufficient gold in the heavy minerals of either fraction to form one particle of free gold (Table 5.3). Thus,gold in stream sediments appears to exist primarily as fine particles encapsulated in mineral grains. This issupported by results of duplicate analyses which gave an analytical precision generally within ± 20%, above 30ppb (Figure 3.3c). Although no replicates were made of stream sediments, the relatively high precisionsuggests the presence of fine gold particles.5.2.4 Summary of mode of occurrence of goldThe previous sections have revealed several unexpected results concerning the location of gold insoils and stream sediments. The distribution of gold across size and density fractions, and calculations ofnumbers of ideal gold particles in heavy mineral concentrates indicate that a large portion of the gold in Chorizon soils exists as particles less than 50 gin in diameter. Furthermore, much of this gold resides asinclusions in the LMFs, particularly at Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and Brewery Creek. This is incontrast to expectations that most of the gold would occur in a variety of particle sizes in the heavy mineralconcentrates. The presence of fine gold was corroborated by calculations of estimated grain size using replicateC horizon samples as well as examination of samples under the SEM. Trends in gold distribution between sizefractions and results of duplicate analyses suggest that gold in the A and B horizons is also fine grained. Ingeneral, gold concentrations decrease up profile.Rigorous analyses of the gold distribution in stream sediments is difficult because of the smalldatabase and frequency of analyses below the detection limit. However, numbers of ideal gold particles in theDISCUSSION^ 134Table 5.3. Estimated number of gold particles in the -212+106tun and -106+53 gm heavy mineral concentrates, and theoriginal -53 gm fraction of stream sediments. Based on fieldsample weights.Location/Sample numberSize fraction (tun)-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain9-23 0.01 0.09 44.058-22 0.02 0.20 126.4210-24 0.01 0.29 341.58Straight Fork17-47 0.00 0.01 1.4613-35 0.00 0.01 9.1813-36 0.00 0.02 4.8313-37 0.00 0.01 31.6216-45 0.00 0.06 29.2416-46 0.00 0.02 45.95Brewery Creek26-72 0.01 0.93 15.9523-69 0.00 0.01 20.9325-71 0.00 0.03 60.0824-70 0.00 0.61 31.1027-73 0.01 0.17 41.99Fish Lake39-134 0.00 0.01 0.9440-135b 0.00 0.06 2.9738-133 7.29 44.35 261.34b = backgroundDISCUSSION^ 135heavy mineral concentrates and gold distribution across density fractions indicate that gold in the -212+106gm and -106+53 tun fractions of sediments is primarily fine grained, existing as inclusions in heavy minerals.5.3 Recovery of gold by cyanidationContrary to expectations that gold in the light mineral fractions would be encapsulated and, therefore,inaccessible to cyanide solutions, results indicate that most of the gold in soils and, to a lesser extent, streamsediments, is recoverable by cyanide.5.3.1 C horizon soilsTo determine the efficiency of cyanidation, results of gold analyses by CN-AAS were compared tothose by FA-AAS. The MLFR regression was used to estimate the bias in the two sets of analyses, excludingsamples with gold concentrations below 30 ppb by either analytical method. Results of regression analysis foreach size fraction of C horizon soils analyzed for gold indicate that, at the .05% confidence level, the slopesand intercepts of the regression lines were not statistically different from 1 and 0, respectively (Table 4.12).This suggests that there is no bias in the analyses. However, for each size fraction, differences in theorientation of the regression lines with respect to the x=y line suggest that there is bias in the data (Fig. 4.6).The likelihood that these distributions occurred randomly can be determined using a binomial probabilitydistribution. For the -53 tun fraction, there is a 9.9% probability that 15 out of 39 samples would plot abovethe x=y line as a result of random variability (Fig. 4.4c). The probability that the distributions of the otherfractions of C horizons occurred randomly is less than 6% (Figs 4.4a, b, d and e). These low probabilitiessuggest that bias is present in all size fractions of C horizons.Most of the bias in the -53 gm fraction probably results from analytical error because there is littlescatter in the data (i.e. most samples are within the ± 20% limits) and, at gold concentrations above 1000 ppb,DISCUSSION^ 136gold analyses by CN-AAS are higher than those by FA-AAS. As mentioned earlier, more gold cannot berecovered by CN-AAS because it is a partial extraction technique.For the ground and unground, -212+106 pin and -106+53 gm light mineral fractions of C horizons itis evident that not all the bias in each fraction is analytical. This is because samples of each size fraction wereanalyzed in one batch by FA-AAS and in another by CN-AAS. Therefore, samples analyzed by each analyticalmethod contain the same amount of analytical bias. If this were the only error present, regression lines foreach set of data would be similar. The regressions are quite different, however, reflecting the variations in theaccessibility of gold in each size fraction to cyanide solutions.Above 100 ppb, the bulk of the gold in the unground -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm light mineralfractions, and the -53 gm fraction of C horizons is accessible to cyanide solutions (Fig. 4.4a, b and c). For thetwo coarser fractions, this gold cannot be present as free particles because the particles would partition to theheavy mineral concentrates. Therefore, most of the gold must exist either as fine particles adhering to surfacesof other minerals or within porous grains. Some gold is present as inclusions, however, because recovery ofgold increases with grinding (compare Figs. 4.4a to d; b to e). Furthermore, gold recovery by cyanide increaseswith decreasing size fraction because more gold is exposed to cyanide solutions in the finer material. Forexample, above 100 ppb, more than 80% of the gold in the -53 gm fraction is accessible to cyanide. Thisfraction was not separated into density fractions, however, so that gold recovery is from both the heavy andlight mineral fractions. Therefore, regardless of density fraction, most gold finer than 53 gm is present asparticles accessible to cyanide solutions.5.3.2 A and B horizon soilsFor each size fraction of A and B horizons, the MLFR regression equations for analyses by FA-AASand CN-AAS were not found to be significantly different from the x=y line (Table 4.17; Fig. 4.9). Like CDISCUSSION^ 137horizons, however, some bias can be seen in the data (Fig. 4.8). Analysis of the data using a binomialprobability distribution indicates that there is less than a 05% chance that these sample distributions would beobtained randomly.As in C horizons, gold recovery in the A and B horizons increases with decreasing size fraction,again indicating that more gold is accessible to cyanide solutions in the finer fractions. Unlike C horizons,however, each size fraction of A and B horizons was analyzed without being separated into density fractions.Therefore, one would expect that, because free gold is generally associated with heavy mineral concentrates,gold recovery by cyanide would be higher in the A and B horizons than in the LMFs of C horizons. In fact,recovery of gold by cyanidation is lower in A and B horizons, particularly below 300 ppb. There are severalpossible explanations for the lower gold recovery, including inhibition of cyanide extraction due to thepresence of organic matter, encapsulation of gold in secondary minerals such as iron oxides or encapsulationof gold in primary minerals that have a source other than the C horizon such as aeolian deposits or materialadded to the soils as a result of downslope movement. However, decreased gold concentrations in the A and Bhorizons with respect to C horizons is seen across all the areas and does not appear to be effected bydifferences in climate or soil type. The most likely explanation, therefore, is that gold is encapsulated in heavyminerals. This is the reverse of the common assumption that most gold associated with heavy minerals existsas free particles.5.3.3 Stream sedimentsRegression analysis could not be conducted on the two coarser fractions of stream sediments becauseof the large number of analyses below the detection limit. For the -53 gm fraction, the null hypothesis wasaccepted for both the slope and intercept of the MLFR regression line for analyses by FA-AAS and CN-AAS(Table 4.23; Fig. 4.12). It is evident that there is bias in the analyses, however (Fig. 4.11c), and that most of itresults from low gold recovery by cyanide. The binomial probability (b.p.) of obtaining this sample distributionDISCUSSION^ 138(for samples above 30 ppb) as a result of random error is given in each graph in Fig. 4.11. Because of thesmall number of -212+106 gm and -106+53 tun LMFs with gold analyses greater than 30 ppb (3 and 2samples, respectively), the relatively high probabilities 13% and 25%, respectively, are not unreasonable. Theprobability drops to 2% for the -53 tun fraction, which has 6 samples above 30 ppb.Almost 50% of the gold in the -212+106 gm and -106+53 tun light mineral fractions of streamsediments is inaccessible to cyanide solutions (Figs. 4.1 la and b) and probably exists as inclusions in otherminerals. In the -53 gm fraction, 30% to 100% of the gold was recovered by CN-AAS, slightly more than inthe coarser fractions (Fig. 4.11c). As in soils, higher gold recovery in the finest fraction of stream sedimentsprobably results from the liberation of gold during weathering. Considering the nearly total recovery of gold bycyanide from all fractions of C horizons (above 30 ppb), it is puzzling that a large portion of gold in sedimentsis inaccessible.5.4 Recommendations for exploration5.4.1 Sample representativityAs discussed in section 1.3, Clifton et al. (1969) stated that to obtain ± 45% precision, geochemicalsamples should contain a minimum of 20 particles of gold. In contrast, in an experiment on peoples' ability torecognize anomalous patterns, Stanley and Smee (1988 and 1989) found that, anomalous patterns couldgenerally be recognized if samples containing 1 particle of gold were collected at sufficient density. Thus, therequirements of an exploration program determine the sample representativity needed. On a reconnaissancescale where decisions are based on individual samples, these samples must be large enough to contain at least20 particles of gold. Smaller samples may be sufficient, however, if samples are closely spaced on a specificproperty. In this section, reference will be made to the more conservative requirement of 20 particles of gold.DISCUSSION^ 139SoilsInterpretation of C horizon data suggests that, in the six study areas, much of the gold probablyoccurs as particles less than 50 gm in diameter. Based on this assumption, numbers of ideal gold particles ineach fraction of the C horizons, as well as A and B horizons, have been modeled assuming they are sphereswith diameters of 50 pm (Tables 5.4 and 5.5, respectively). For the -53 pm fraction, this assumption results ina very conservative (minimum) number of gold particles. This may also be a conservative number of ideal goldparticles in the coarser fractions because, based on replicate analyses, particle diameters calculated for the -212+106 pm LMFs were less than 20 gm (Table 5.2).In A, B, and C horizon soils, the -53 gm fraction contains the greatest number of ideal gold particlesbecause it makes up about 50% of each sample (Tables 4.1 and 4.2) and contains about 50% of the gold in the-212 pm fraction (Table 4.8 and 4.13). Therefore, these numbers have been recalculated to the number of idealparticles of gold likely to be present in 30 g of each size fraction of C horizons and A and B horizons (Tables5.6 and 5.7, respectively). These calculations show that a 30 g subsample of any fraction of C horizons fromKinsley Mountain, and of A, B and C horizons from Brewery Creek would contain sufficient gold particles(20) necessary to provide a representative sample. However, twenty or more particles would only be obtainedin samples with the highest gold concentrations. Larger samples would be required if all samples collectedwere to be representative. Larger samples would also be required of A and B horizons from Kinsley Mountain,and of any horizon at Straight Fork, Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre and David Bell. The best representivity for allareas would be provided by the -53 gm fraction because this fraction contains the largest number of ideal goldparticles for all any soil horizons.Obtaining material less than 53 gm obviously requires more effort than does sieving to a coarserscreen size. Tables 5.6 and 5.7 also list the number of ideal gold particles in 30 g of the -212 gm fraction of Chorizons and A and B horizons, respectively. Comparison of these numbers with numbers of gold particles inDISCUSSION^ 140Table 5.4. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 pm in each size /density fraction of the -212+106 tun and -106 +53 pm fractions, and the original -53 gmfraction of C horizons. Based on field sample weights.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCKinsley Mountain2-6b Cl 0.84 0.05 1.13 0.05 19.392-7b C2 4.50 0.05 3.82 0.11 48.313-10b C 3.28 0.05 1.90 0.05 10.536-18 BC 28.73 0.05 33.12 0.06 180.087-20 Bk 45.90 0.05 37.78 0.05 255.195-16 C 149.10 1.34 268.03 17.25 1101.781-3 C 379.35 1.89 315.24 3.20 1560.924-13 C 1607.89 3.73 1513.68 4.94 7059.49Straight Fork15-43b Ck 2.07 0.05 3.10 0.11 7.9514-41 Ck 15.23 0.06 23.67 0.05 199.0212-33 Ck 69.63 0.06 111.77 0.08 258.4311-29 Ck 126.14 1.65 146.48 1.55 535.17Brewery Creek21-63b C 0.91 0.49 1.32 0.050 36.5822-67b Cl 0.07 0.06 3.68 0.10 13.0122-68b C2 0.73 0.06 0.79 0.10 13.0429-87 C2 8.02 0.05 11.69 0.05 301.6029-86 Cl 14.54 0.82 45.07 0.65 615.2719-56 C 98.14 3.39 179.43 3.52 1115.8720-59 C 104.57 3.84 235.03 2.60 2975.9430-95 C2 166.09 18.47 235.81 12.79 4176.2218-51 C 158.22 5.11 427.38 15.17 2726.2228-77 Cl 255.88 0.95 298.20 0.63 6355.9518-53 C 103.95 1.29 168.77 3.00 2794.1528-79 C3 940.07 1.51 915.72 0.07 17893.4018-52 C 388.96 3.10 455.99 2.70 8081.9528-78 C2 502.97 4.66 582.61 4.84 9261.1828-80 C4 1104.45 89.86 1025.27 98.78 13729.90DISCUSSION^ 141Table 5.4. cont.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCFish Lake31-103 C 0.56 2.01 0.52 2.85 49.6232-108 C 1.96 7.65 1.47 4.73 83.6434-115b C 2.98 0.07 3.84 0.05 10.0535-120 C 2.98 120.12 19.24 116.30 444.3136-126b C 2.35 0.46 1.74 6.94 67.6637-129 C 5.32 15.10 4.88 111.99 267.5533-111 C 70.78 14.78 61.79 28.52 381.10Golden Sceptre42-144b B 2.67 0.10 1.96 0.051 18.2543-148b Cl 10.74 0.40 3.49 0.081 9.0343-149b C2 6.98 0.20 1.43 0.82 7.8244-155 C 6.13 4.61 4.32 18.91 73.9245-159 C 6.70 7.99 10.70 28.84 225.1541-139 B 28.21 4.38 3.40 4.79 146.48David Bell Mine46-162 C 9.35 0.21 4.95 1.72 6.7249-176 C 4.50 12.23 3.20 17.70 138.7250-181b Cl 6.58 13.08 0.30 3.00 10.8050-182b C2 7.32 0.23 0.68 0.20 6.6348-171 C 35.55 11.15 18.78 32.51 179.0447-166 B\\C 30.54 6.04 7.65 2.85 262.04DISCUSSION^ 142Table 5.5. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equalto 50 um in each size fraction of A and B horizon samples. Basedon field sample weight.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (um)-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain3-9b A 0.26 0.66 3.363-11b B 0.21 0.70 3.612-5b A 0.24 0.60 2.906-17 A 31.22 43.11 157.677-19 A 5.84 11.51 211.555-14 A 34.37 90.06 559.335-15 B 31.07 72.37 487.851-1 A 48.16 101.55 1065.141-2 B 48.15 106.37 982.054-12 A 52.69 85.41 854.27Straight Fork15-42b A 0.39 0.98 2.8814-39 A 1.21 1.97 45.9214-40 B 1.37 0.97 109.3312-32 A 2.99 3.90 32.9511-27 A 6.17 10.66 60.9011-28 B 6.68 23.10 102.84Brewery Creek22-66b B ins. 0.80 5.0921-61b B1 0.52 3.92 15.3521-62b B2 0.36 6.26 20.7129-83 Ae 9.16 35.67 10.4729-84 B1 12.74 64.99 348.2429-85 B2 18.15 27.82 179.8619-55 B 1.80 8.44 65.9720-58 B 17.00 116.91 1410.3530-90 Ae 83.71 71.75 547.7130-91 B1 99.26 122.90 1656.4430-92 B2 36.61 46.84 549.0030-93 B 10.46 70.45 493.2118-50 B 5.09 39.79 256.3228-75 Ae 0.91 0.42 14.5028-76 B 6.81 28.78 237.78DISCUSSION^ 143Table 5.5 cont.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53Fish Lake34-113b B 2.07 2.01 8.7734-114b Bt 1.46 1.31 6.7836-125b B 2.07 2.24 30.3831-102 B 3.20 71.23 61.5432-105 Ae 59.70 0.99 11.8532-106 B 1.46 6.23 9.2432-107 Bt 1.66 1.35 16.4835-118 Bhf 2.42 164.78 174.4535-119 B2 67.50 93.04 355.5437-128 Bf 61.60 236.29 444.3133-110 B 851.87 544.22 613.72Golden Sceptre43-146b Bf 2.64 0.53 9.8543-147b B 1.84 1.81 21.0542-142b Ae 13.20 1.68 6.8942-143b Bf 1.27 0.71 13.9441-138 Bf 10.45 8.96 50.6645-157 Bf 17.35 130.16 40.6045-158 B 50.73 34.16 98.5844-152 Bf 1.48 13.02 182.8444-153 B1 8.35 22.82 158.9744-154 B2 66.93 37.03 91.50David Bell50-178b Ae 2.29 2.53 5.1050-180b B 6.04 0.92 24.1346-161 Bf 4.85 5.87 9.6149-174 Bfl 18.03 6.85 17.4149-175 Bfl 105.39 52.19 42.6849-169 Bf 40.87 62.29 118.9548-170 B 48.81 38.70 117.08ins. = insufficient material for analysisDISCUSSION^ 144Table 5.6. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 pm in eachsize fraction of C horizons. Based on a 30 g subsample.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (pm) Total in-212µmfraction-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain2-6b Cl 0.10 0.10 0.31 0.252-7b C2 0.31 0.16 0.76 0.553-10b C 0.31 0.09 0.08 0.096-18 BC 2.14 1.68 1.99 1.957-20 Bk 2.90 2.29 3.06 2.935-16 C 9.84 10.16 12.84 11.901-3 C 12.27 9.85 15.29 13.664-13 C 71.59 66.73 100.59 88.26Straight Fork15-43b Ck 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.0814-41 Ck 1.23 1.07 1.99 1.7712-33 Ck 6.88 8.41 8.25 8.0411-29 Ck 9.67 11.64 13.45 12.34Brewery Creek21-63b C 0.13 0.09 0.76 0.5422-67b Cl 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.0822-68b C2 0.10 0.10 0.31 0.2529-87 C2 0.46 0.92 3.97 3.0329-86 Cl 5.75 2.00 3.06 2.9819-56 C 9.40 8.98 15.29 13.4420-59 C 12.58 12.47 36.08 30.1630-95 C2 15.69 17.50 55.64 45.6318-51 C 16.43 18.41 44.33 34.9028-77 Cl 22.69 24.79 72.15 62.0118-53 C 21.83 19.10 99.67 73.3928-79 C3 28.45 33.33 146.14 107.9218-52 C 39.97 37.72 190.78 138.8528-78 C2 58.19 54.08 149.20 126.8228-80 C4 77.41 100.68 304.82 224.03Fish Lake31-103 C 0.40 0.57 0.92 0.8432-108 C 0.43 0.38 0.76 0.6734-115b C 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.0935-120 C 3.67 5.26 4.74 4.5936-126b C 0.11 0.39 1.07 0.7137-129 C 2.79 21.86 13.76 12.6133-111 C 12.91 10.38 13.76 12.94DISCUSSIONTable 5.6. cont.Location/ Horizon Size fraction (.un) Total inSample number -212 gm-212+106^-106+53 -53 fractionGolden Sceptre42-144b B 0.09^0.09 0.08 0.0843-148b Cl 0.09^0.09 0.08 0.0943-149b C2 0.09^0.14 0.08 0.0944-155 C 0.16^0.49 1.07 0.5945-159 C 0.20^0.34 3.06 1.0641-139 B 0.70^0.22 2.29 1.26David Bell Mine46-162 C 0.09^0.12 0.08 0.0949-176 C 0.34^0.58 2.45 1.2450-181b Cl 0.27^0.96 0.08 0.1650-182b C2 0.09^0.12 0.08 0.0948-171 C 0.79^1.19 2.29 1.5447-166 B\\C 1.46^0.42 2.14 1.79145DISCUSSION^ 146Table 5.7. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 pm ineach size fraction of A and B horizon samples. Based on a 30 g subsample.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size Fraction (pm) Total in-212µmfraction-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain3-9b A 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.093-11b B 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.092-5b A 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.096-17 A 2.29 1.83 1.99 1.997-19 A 1.99 1.38 4.59 3.995-14 A 8.25 11.46 21.25 17.835-15 B 9.02 10.39 19.87 16.921-1 A 12.84 12.99 32.10 27.151-2 B 13.45 17.89 37.30 31.704-12 A 14.98 17.12 36.99 31.41Straight Fork15-42b A 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0914-39 A 0.46 0.31 1.53 1.2514-40 B 0.61 0.15 3.52 2.8112-32 A 1.07 0.61 0.92 0.8811-27 A 1.83 2.14 3.36 2.9411-28 B 2.75 6.42 7.64 6.81Brewery Creek22-66b B 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.0921-61b B1 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.0921-62b B2 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.0929-83 Ae 3.52 0.92 0.09 0.3629-84 B1 5.20 1.38 3.06 2.6029-85 B2 7.95 2.90 4.28 4.1919-55 B 0.92 0.46 0.46 0.4620-58 B 8.25 6.27 17.43 15.1930-90 Ae 28.74 24.76 40.36 36.2830-91 B1 33.94 33.32 91.11 75.7730-92 B2 11.92 8.56 26.29 21.5030-93 B 3.97 2.29 5.66 4.7618-50 B 3.52 1.68 1.53 1.5628-75 Ae 0.46 0.09 0.31 0.2928-76 B 2.60 1.38 2.14 2.03DISCUSSIONTable 5.7. cont.Location/Sample numberHorizon Size Fraction (gm) Total in-212 gin-212+106 -106+53 -53 fractionFish Lake34-113b B 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0934-114b Bt 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0936-125 B 0.09 0.09 0.31 0.2431-102 B 0.15 2.90 0.92 1.2132-105 Ae 6.11 0.09 0.31 1.2232-106 B 0.09 0.46 0.15 0.1932-107 Bt 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.1435-118 Bhf 0.09 5.81 2.45 2.7135-119 B2 2.48 3.97 6.11 4.7437-128 Bf 1.83 9.17 4.74 4.8533-110 B 70.93 45.55 15.44 31.55Golden Sceptre43-146b Bf 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0943-147b B 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0942-142b Ae 1.22 0.09 0.09 0.2142-143b Bf 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0941-138 Bf 1.22 0.46 0.76 0.7445-157 Bf 0.76 2.45 0.92 1.5745-158 B 0.92 0.46 1.22 0.8744-152 Bf 0.09 0.92 4.28 2.7044-153 B1 0.15 0.31 2.14 0.9344-154 B2 1.07 0.76 1.38 1.10David Bell50-178b Ae 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0950-180b B 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.1346-161 Bf 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0949-174 Bfl 0.46 0.09 0.31 0.2549-175 Bfl 2.60 0.92 0.61 1.2048-169 Bf 1.38 1.38 1.22 1.2948-170 B 0.92 0.92 1.83 1.28147DISCUSSION^ 148the -53 gm fraction indicates that there are only slightly fewer gold particles in the -212 pm fraction than inthe -53 pxn fraction. Therefore, sample representativity would not be greatly reduced using the coarser sizefraction. Furthermore, although the possibility of erratic gold analyses resulting from the presence of free goldparticles would increase in a subsample of the -212 gm fraction, problems of the nugget effect would probablybe rare because the HMCs of most samples contain insufficient gold to form one particle of gold (Table 5.1).Preparation of heavy mineral concentrates is common in geochemical exploration for gold. Use ofconcentrates in areas where much of the gold is present as inclusions in the light mineral fractions, such as atKinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and Brewery Creek, however, involves needless time and expense.Furthermore, there is a risk of obtaining insufficient heavy minerals for analysis, such as at Kinsley Mountainand Straight Fork where many of the -212+106 pm and -106+53 gm fractions contained less than 2 g of heavyminerals. With such small samples there is also less certainty in the analyses and, therefore, the detection limitincreases. As a result, gold values at these areas are often below the detection limit despite the presence ofanomalous concentrations in the corresponding LMFs. Where gold is found primarily in the heavy minerals,concentrates may be more useful. However, anomalous gold concentrations were detectable in the combinedlight and heavy mineral concentrates in all three horizons at Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre and David Bell,(Tables 4.7 and 4.12). Although appropriate in some cases, routine use of heavy mineral concentrates is oftenunjustified, a conclusion also reached by Sibbick and Fletcher (1990).Stream sedimentsAs with C horizons, stream sediments collected from Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and BreweryCreek contain the highest number of ideal gold particles in the -53 pm fraction (Table 5.8). More sedimentwould need to be collected for subsamples to be representative, however. Sixty grams of the -53 pm materialwould be required at Kinsley Mountain, for example, whereas at least 250 g would be needed at BreweryCreek and almost 1 kg at Straight Fork. Representativity would be slightly reduced by sampling the -212 gmDISCUSSION^ 149Table 5.8. Estimated number of gold particles with diameter equal to 50 tunin the -212+106 um and -106+53 gm light mineral fractions, and the -53 IIMfraction of stream sediments. Based on a 30 g subsample.Location/Sample numberSize fraction (tun) Total in-212 p.mfraction -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain9-23 0.15 0.11 0.76 0.538-22 0.78 0.63 1.99 1.4310-24 2.15 2.52 9.94 7.12Straight Fork17-47 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0913-35 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.1313-36 0.46 0.09 0.09 0.1413-37 0.10 0.09 0.31 0.2416-45 0.62 0.46 0.16 0.4816-46 0.62 0.09 0.61 0.48Brewery Creek26-72 0.16 0.29 0.46 0.3623-69 0.11 0.09 0.92 0.6225-71 0.76 0.46 1.83 1.2824-70 0.93 1.19 2.14 1.7427-73 0.91 0.58 2.45 1.95Fish Lake39-134 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0940-135b 0.09 0.18 0.46 0.3038-133 25.65 26.63 12.23 17.71DISCUSSION^ 150fraction, while increasing the possibility of erratic gold values due to the nugget effect. In contrast, at FishLake the number of ideal gold particles is highest in the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fractions, and a 30 gsubsample of either of these fractions, or of the -212 gm fraction, would provide a representative sample.5.4.2 Dry sievingThis research has been based on the size and density distribution of material obtained by wet sieving.Although this is an accurate way of separating granular material into different size fractions, it is time-consuming and, therefore, impractical if large numbers of samples are to be processed. Dry sieving is fasterbut often too little fine material is obtained to provide a representative subsample. To determine how large afield sample is required to obtain a 30 g subsample by dry sieving, 1 kg of a C horizon sample from each areawas dry sieved to the -212 gm fraction. Samples chosen for sieving had a grain size distribution representativeof C horizons from that area. In addition to the 212 gm screen, a 2000 gm and a 425 gm screen were used.Sieving was done by hand and less than 4 minutes were spent on each sample. Results indicate that, except forBrewery Creek, a 30 g subsample can generally be obtained from a 500 g field sample (Table 5.9). Becausethey contain more -212 gm material than C horizons, dry sieving of A and B horizons should give comparableor improved results.5.4.3 Use of cyanidation in geochemical explorationIn exploration, cyanide has generally been used to extract gold from bulk stream sediment samples,and studies of the technique have generally been empirical in nature (Elliott and Towsey, 1989; Sharpe, 1988;Mazzuchelli, 1987). There has been little emphasis on where the gold exists in stream sediments or soils, or onwhat size and density fraction cyanide can be used most effectively. By first determining the mode ofoccurrence of the gold, this study has provided a basis for interpreting results of cyanide extraction.DISCUSSION^ 151Table 5.9. Weight of -212 tun fraction obtained by dry sieving of1 kg of original C horizon material.Location^Sample^Weight (g) of -212 tunnumber materialKinsley Mountain^6-18^350Straight Fork^11-29 101Brewery Creek^20-59^49Fish Lake^35-120^79Golden Sceptre^43-148^375David Bell^46-163^327DISCUSSION^ 152SoilsCyanidation of different size and density fractions from a variety of deposits and weathering regimesindicate that there is no advantage to using this technique on soil samples from areas where gold is present asfine (i.e. <50 p.m) particles disseminated throughout the host material. At Kinsley Mountain and BreweryCreek, for example, a 30 g subsample of C horizon material would provide adequately representative samplesthat could be analyzed by FA-AAS (Table 5.6). Slightly larger subsamples - approximately 50 g - wouldprobably be required in areas of lower gold concentrations such as Straight Fork Creek. Recall, however, thatthese estimates are based on gold particles with diameter equal to 50 gm. As discussed earlier, the idealparticle sizes calculated from replicate analyses and results of examination of samples under the SEM suggestthat most of the gold in all six areas have diameters less than 20 um. Therefore, actual numbers of particlesare possibly much higher than shown in Table 5.6, and subsamples larger than 30 g may be unnecessary.Cyanidation is more applicable in areas where much of the gold exists in a range of particle sizesbecause larger subsamples are required to obtain representativity. For example, 50 g subsamples of the -212um fraction would probably be adequate at Fish Lake, whereas 500 g would be required at Golden Sceptre andDavid Bell. Sampling the -53 tun fraction would only reduce subsample size at the latter two areas by 200 g.Obviously, 300 g subsamples are too large to analyze efficiently by FA-AAS. Such large samples can easily beprocessed using cyanidation, however, while avoiding problems of particulate gold.A and B horizons generally have lower gold concentrations than C horizons and larger samples maybe required if these horizons are to be used. Whereas 30 g subsamples of the -212 tun and -53 gm fractions ofA and B horizons, or any fraction below 212 tun at Brewery Creek would provide adequate representativity,slightly larger samples would be necessary in the coarser fractions at Kinsley Mountain and in all fractionsfrom the other areas (Table 5.7). Again, this does not take into account indications that actual gold particlesizes are possibly much smaller than 50 ttm.DISCUSSION^ 153Stream sedimentsBecause up to 1 kg of material is often required to obtain adequately representative samples of streamsediment, cyanidation would be useful for this sampling media. Recovery of gold by cyanide in the -212+106um and -106+53 tun fractions of stream sediments was only about 50%, however (Fig. 4.11). Therefore, thebest results are likely to be obtained by analyzing the -53 tun fraction, which not only provides the mostrepresentative samples but also has slightly higher amounts of cyanide extractable gold than in the coarserfractions. This is based on only 17 samples, however, and more study on the use of cyanidation on streamsediments is necessary.The cost of sieving and analyzing samples by CN-AAS may be the same or slightly higher thanpreparation for and analysis by FA-AAS. This is primarily because laboratories in North America are not setup to process large numbers of samples by cyanide efficiently. Transport of larger sample from the field to thelab adds further expense to cyanidation. Recently, however, a portable system for conducting analyses using acyanide extraction followed by anodic stripping voltammetry has been developed which can be transported in afour wheel drive vehicle (Lintern, et al., 1992). Such a system would not only save the expense of sampletransport, but with analytical results available within 24 to 48 hours of collection, time in the field could beused more efficiently.SummaryBecause of increased sample representativity obtained by using larger (i.e. > 100 g) samples,cyanidation is most useful in areas of low gold concentrations or areas where gold exists in a variety of particlesizes and gold analyses by FA-AAS are erratic because of the presence of rare, large nuggets. Sieving samplesto some size fraction below-212 p.m for soils and to the -53 tun fraction for stream sediments is recommendedDISCUSSION^ 154prior to analysis to improve representativity. Furthermore, by removing coarse, barren material or material inwhich gold is inaccessible by cyanide solutions, there is less chance of dilution of gold concentrations.155CHAPTER SIX - CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS^ 156Based on this research, several conclusions can be made about the mode of occurrence of gold in soilsand stream sediments from a variety of weathering environments:• On average, over 42 % of C horizon material and 34% of A and B horizon material resides in the -53 gmfraction. In contrast, excluding inactive stream channels from Straight Fork, generally more than 55% ofstream sediment resides in the -2000+425 tun fraction.• Heavy minerals comprise less than 7%, and commonly less than 1%, of the -212+106 gm and -106+53gm fraction of C horizons and stream sediments.• While gold concentrations are consistently higher in the heavy mineral concentrates from C horizons,light mineral fractions from Kinsley Mountain, Straight Fork and Brewery Creek also contain largeamounts of gold. In contrast, gold concentrations in the LMFs at Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre and DavidBell are generally at or near the detection limit• Gold concentrations in C horizons are rather uniform across size fractions at Kinsley Mountain andStraight Fork. As material breaks down during weathering, gold concentrations remain relativelyconstant, indicating that gold exists as fine particles evenly distributed throughout the host material.• Gold is also distributed uniformly across size fractions at Brewery Creek, but is more closely associatedwith heavy minerals and the -53 gm fraction. This suggests that, during weathering, gold-bearingminerals are released preferentially, first into the heavy mineral concentrate and later into the -53 i.unfraction.• At Fish Lake, Golden Sceptre and David Bell, distribution of gold across size fractions is erraticsuggesting that gold is present in a variety of particle sizes.CONCLUSIONS^ 157• Contrary to the expectation that gold in light mineral fractions would be inaccessible to cyanide, between80% and 100% of gold was typically recovered, indicating that gold in these fractions is present withinporous grains or on grain surfaces.• Location of gold particles on the surfaces of mineral grains was supported by examination of samplesunder the scanning electron microscope.Some recommendations for geochemical sampling for gold can also be made:• A 30 g subsample of the -53 tun fraction of C horizon material can usually be obtained by wet sieving a500 g field sample. The same size field sample will also generally provide 30 g of -212 gm material by drysieving.• Preparation of heavy mineral concentrates is often unjustified because anomalous gold concentrations canbe detected in samples with combined density fractions.• The -53 gm fraction provides optimum sample representativity in all areas. Sample representativity isonly slightly reduced in the -212 tun fraction, however, which is easier to obtain.• Cyanidation recovers a large portion of gold in all fractions but is most effective on the -53 tun fraction,possibly a result of the release of gold into this fraction during weathering.• Although effective for soils in all six areas, cyanidation has no particular advantage in areas of fine, freegold where gold concentrations can be adequately detected using standard FA-AAS analysis. Where goldexists in a variety of particle sizes or gold concentrations are too low to obtain an adequatelyrepresentative subsample given size restrictions imposed by FA-AAS, cyanidation may be more useful.CONCLUSIONS^ 158• Cyanidation may be more useful for stream sediments which commonly have lower and more erratic goldconcentrations than soils.159REFERENCESREFERENCES^ 160Abbey, Sydney, 1983. Studies in \"standard samples\" of silicate rocks and minerals 1969-1982; GeologicalSurvey of Canada. Paper 83-15, p. 35-36.Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey. 1987. The Canadian system of soil classification(C.S.S.C.). 2nd ed. Agriculture Canada Publication 1646, 164 pp.Burk, R., Hodgson, C.J., and Quartermain, R.A., 1986. The Geological setting of the Teck-Corona Au-Mo-Badeposit, Hemlo, Ontario, Canada. Proceedings of Gold '86 Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, p. 311-326.Clifton, H.E., Hunter, R.E., Swanson, F.J. and Phillips, R.L. 1969. Sample size and meaningful gold analysis.United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 625-C, 17 pp.Chryssoulis, S.L. and Agha, Umbreen, 1990. Gold Process Mineralogy of Select Samples from Brewery Creek,Yukon Territory. Report to Noranda Exploration Company Ltd., University of Western Ontario, 15pp.Cohen, D.R., 1990. Goldcalc - A FORTRAN program for estimating the number and size of gold particles ingeological samples. Computers and Geosciences, vol. 16, n. 2, p. 153-161.ECOSOFT, INC., 1984. MICROSOFT: An interactive general - purpose statistics package, release 4.1.Indianapolis, Indiana.Elliott, S.M. and Towsey, C.A., 1989. Regional drainage geochemical gold exploration techniques used inQueensland, Australia. North Queensland Gold '89 Conference, Townsville Queensland, p. 51-61.Fletcher, K. and Horsky, S., 1988. Determination of gold by cyanidation and graphite furnace atomicabsorption spectroscopy. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, v. 30, p. 29-34.Geddes, R.S. and Kristjansson, F.J., 1985. Quaternary geology of the Hemlo area: constraints on mineralexploration. Geological Journal of the Canadian Institute of Mining, p. 5-8.Green, L.H., 1972. Geology of Nash Creek, Carson Creek and Dawson Map area. Yukon Geological Survey ofCanada Memoir 364 (incl. map 1284A).Harris, J. F., 1982. Sampling and analytical requirements for effective use of geochemistry in exploration forgold; in Precious Metals in the Northern Cordillera, A.A. Levinson, ed., p. 53-67.Hedley, N. and Tabachnick, H., 1968. Chemistry of Cyanidation. Mineral Dressing Notes Number 23,American Cyanamid Co., Wayne, New Jersey, 54 pp.REFERENCES^ 161Hughes, 0.L., 1989. Quaternary geology in Excursion guidebook A20 (a) and (b) - Quaternary research in theYukon Territory. XII International Congress (INQUA87), July - August, 1987.Hugon, Herve, 1986. The Hemlo Gold Deposit, Ontario, Canada: A central portion of a large scale, wide zoneof heterogeneous ductile shear. Proceedings of Gold '86 Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, p. 379-387.Ingamells, C.O., 1981. Evaluation of skewed exploration data - the nugget effect. Geochim Cosmochim. Acta,v. 45, p. 1209-1216.Jeletzky, J.A. and Tipper, H.W., 1968. Upper Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks of Taseko map-area and theirbearing on the geological history of southwestern British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada,Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Paper 67-54, 218 pp.Koch, J.S. and Link, R.F., 1970. Statistical analysis of geological data. John Wiley & Sons, 375 pp.Kopp, Richard S., 1984. Geology and hydrocarbon potential of the northeast corner of Elko County, Nevada.Utah Geological Association Publication 13, p. 117-164.Kuhns, R.J., 1986. Alteration styles and trace element dispersion associated with the Golden Giant deposit,Hemlo, Ontario, Canada; Proceedings of Gold '86 Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, p. 340-353.Kuhns, R.J., Kennedy, P., Cooper, P., Brown, P., Mackie, B., Kusins, R. and Friesen, R., 1986. Geology andmineralization associated with the Golden Giant deposit, Hemlo, Ontario, Canada. Proceedings ofGold '86 Symposium, Toronto, p. 327-339.Laird, Brian, 1989. Straight Fork Project, Box Elder County, Utah - 1989 Summary. Teck Resources (U.S.)Inc. internal report, 4 pp.Leaver and Woolf, 1931. Copper and zinc in cyanidation, sulphide-acid precipitation. U.S. Bureau of MinesTechnical Paper 494, 63 pp.Lintern, M.J., Mann, A.W. and Longman, G.D., 1992. Field analysis by cyanide digestion and anodicstripping voltammetry. J. Geochem. Explor., vol. 43, p. 233-248.MacKay, G., Diment, R Gillstrom, G. and Brornmeland, L. 1991. Geological, geochemical, geophysical anddrilling report on the Brewery Creek Property, Dawson Mining District. Noranda Exploration Co.internal report, 276 pp.REFERENCES^ 162Mazzuchelli, R.H., 1987. Gold in stream sediments in Meaningful sampling in gold exploration. MG BulletinNo. 7, p. 85-100.Monroe, Scott C., 1991. Kinsley Mountain Project, in Geology and Ore Deposits of the Great Basin. RuthBuffa and Alan Coyner, eds., Fieldtrip Guidebook Compendium, Geological Society of Nevada, p. 6-12.Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (NBMG) standard reference material information sheets, 1991, 5 pp.Nichol, I., Closs, L.G., and Lavin, 0.P., 1987. Sample representativity with reference to gold exploration.Exploration '87 Proceedings, p. 609-624.Pauwels, A., 1982. Diamond drilling, geological, geophysical and geochemical report on the Fish LakeProperty, Clinton Mining Division, British, Columbia. Cominco Ltd. internal report, 10 pp.Quartermain, R., 1986. The geology of the Teck-Corona Mine area in Harris, D.C., ed., Field Guide to theHemlo Area. GAC-MAC-CGU Joint Annual Meeting, 1986, Ottawa, p.44-49.Ripley, B.D. and Thompson, M., 1987. Regression techniques for the detection of analytical bias. Analyst, vol.112, p. 377-383.Sharpe, W.V., 1988. BLEG: a geochemical tool in the Great Sandy Desert. The Second InternationalConference on Prospecting in Arid Terrain, Perth, Australia, p. 117-119.Sibbick, S.J. and Fletcher W.K., 1990. An application of cyanidation to gold exploration in glaciated terrain,British Columbia, Canada, in Methods of Geochemical Prospecting, extended abstracts, J. Janatka, T.Hlavata, I. Barnet and E. Jelinek, eds.. International Symposium on Geochemical Prospecting,Prague, Czechoslovakia, p. 206-207.Stanley, C.R. and Smee, B.W. 1988. A test in pattern recognition: defining anomalous patterns in surficialsamples which exhibit severe nugget effects. Explore, v. 63: 12-14.Stanley, C.R. and Smee, B.W. 1989. A test in pattern recognition: defining anomalous patterns in surficialsamples which exhibit severe nugget effects - II. Explore, v. 65: 12-14.Steger, H.F. 1986. Certified reference materials CM84-14E Mineral Science Laboratories, Energy, Mines andResources, Ottawa, Canada, 42 pp.REFERENCES^ 163Thompson, M. and Howarth, R J., 1978. A new approach to the estimation of analytical precision. Journal ofGeochemical Exploration, v. 9, p. 23-30.United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) National Cooperative Soil Survey, Location: Pookaloo,tentative series, Nevada, 1988.Valiant and Bradbrook, 1986. Relationship between stratigraphy, faults and gold deposits, Page-WilliamsMine, Hemlo, Ontario, Canada. Proceedings of Gold '86 Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, p. 355-361.Webb, G.W., 1958. Middle Ordovician stratigraphy in eastern Nevada and western Utah: AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 42, n. 10, p. 2335-2377.Wilkinson, Leland, 1990. SYSTAT: The system for statistics. Evanston, II: SYSTAT, Inc..164APPENDIXSample location mapsFig. 1 Kinsley Mountain, Nevada^ 165Fig. 2. Straight Fork Creek, Utah 166Fig. 3. Brewery Creek, the Yukon Territory - stream sediments^ 167Fig. 4. Brewery Creek, the Yukon Territory - soils^ 168Fig. 5. Fish Lake, British Columbia^ 169Fig. 6. The Hemlo Deposit, Ontario 170Comparison of duplicate analyses of -149 tun soils and stream sediment.Fig. 7. Al, Ca, K, Mg, Na, Ti; Ba, Bi, Cd and Sr by ICP^ 171Fig. 8. Co, Cr, Mn, Ni, P, V, Cu, Mo and Zn by ICP; Ag and Pb by AAS^ 172Fig. 9. Free , CO2 by HC1; total C and S by Leco-induction furnace; Fe by ICP 173Determination of average relative standard errors of analyses by FA-AAS^ 174Determination of average relative standard errors of analyses by CN-AAS 175Weight (g) of material in each size fraction of A and B horizon soils 176Weight (g) of material in each size fraction of C horizon soils^ 178Weight (g) of material in each size fraction of stream sediments 180Weight percent (%) of material in each size fraction of A and B horizon soils^ 181Weight percent (%) of material in each size fraction of C horizon soils 183Weight percent (%) of heavy minerals in the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fractions of C horizon soils ^ 185Weight percent (%) of material in each size fraction of stream sediments^ 187Weight percent (%) of heavy minerals in the -212+106 gm and -106+53 gm fraction of stream sediments ^ 188Proportion (%) of gold contributed by each size fraction of A and B horizon soils^ 189Proportion (%) of gold contributed by each size / density fraction of C horizon soils 191Proportion (%) of gold contributed by each size /density fraction of stream sediments 193pH of the -149 pm fraction of soils^ 194Results of analyses of 22 elements by ICP, free CO 2 by dissolution in HC1 and total Cand S by Leco-induction furnace 196Description of soil profiles^ 208Description of stream sediment sample locations^ 226Fig. 1. Sample location map of soils (squares) and stream sediments (circles) collected from the Insley Mountain Property,Elko County, Nevada.Fig. 2. Sample location map of soils (squares) and stream sediments (circles) collected from the StraightFork Creek property, Box Elder County, Utah.166167135^ I^40Approximate outline of sample^ —0location map (Appendix A)N N. __--- 6905 Noranda Camp,_—_---—^2511,/^■, ., i \\^,^,s,/27 05__--,I^7-(_____^4,\\ s)---_-----'----,.^ ,.--\\■,.\\0 ./z IA^ / .1./—.--- '.--.^ ..^.,40____ __---- I ooc`—^ditch-road ,^0^2000m_____----^_____, 0026 ^---,‘ I- -- Scale330000 E^1 35^ I 40Fig. 3. Sample location map of stream sediments collected near the Brewery Creek Property,the Yukon Territory.35 136 1 37 I 383000 \" // ..._/.. 111_07.//3000/I■ 30ml 1819O •/ 29 ■/ 28// •06• _/./22 [1-].. '21111 . . -./i - --.. 25Field camp .//,----v / ,-- 1000 mo Ct) 27 ....... , I-- - \\ Scale 05___/ i634000m E^135 1 36 1 37 1 38Fig. 4. Sample location map of soils (squares) and stream sediments (circles) from the Brewery Creek Property, the YukonTerritory.169Fig. 5. Sample location map of soils (squares) and stream sediments (circles) collected at the Fish Lakeproperty, British Columbia. Stream sediments 39 and 40 are not shown. These were collected on streamslocated west-northwest of the property and do not drain mineralization.Fig. 6. Sample location map of soils collected from the David Bell Mine and the Golden Sceptre Property, Ontario.APPENDIX^ 171Original sample (%)10,0001,000Eaaa) 100C.Ega)\"50 10'am010.1 I01^1^10^100^1,000^10,000Original sample (ppm)Fig. 7. Comparison of duplicate -149pm soil and stream sediment samples analyzed by ICPfor Al, Ca, K, Mg, Na and Ti (a) and Ba, Be, Bi, Cd and Sr (b). Solid lines represent x=y;dashed line = ± 20% limits.10,0003,000Ea.aa) 300aEit 100CO$3,,,6 30t.M0311,00010APPENDIX^ 1721^3^10^30^100^300^1,000 3,000 10,000Original sample (ppm)1^3^10^30^100 300Original sample (ppm)Fig. 8. Comparison of duplicate soil and stream sediment samples analyzed byICP for Co, Cr, Mn, Ni, P, V (a), Cu, Mo and Zn (b), and for Ag and Pb by MS(b). Solid lines represent x=y; dashed line = ± 20% limit.173Original sample (%)Fig. 9. Comparison of duplicate -149pm soil and stream sediment samplesanalyzed for free CO2 by leaching with hydrochloric (HCI) acid, total C and Susing Leco induction furnace, and FE by ICP. Solid lines represent x=y; dashedline = ±20% limit.APPENDIX^ 174Determination of average relative standard errors of analyses byFA-AAS. Included are the original analyses (Orig.), the duplicateanalyses (Dup.), their mean, standard deviation and relative standarderrors. Two average relative standard errors were calculated: 0.09 foranalyses <= 200 ppb and 0.04 for analyses >= 200 ppb.Sample^Analyses by FA-AASNumberMean(x)Standarddeviation(s)Relativestandarderror(s/x)Orig. Dup.10 -^24^35 35 35 0 0.0012 -^32^40 30 35 10 0.2044 -^153^30 40 35 10 0.208 -^22^30 55 43 25 0.4214 -^41^40 50 45 10 0.166 -^18^55 55 55 0 0.0014 -^41^65 55 60 10 0.1228 -^76^60 65 63 5 0.0610 -^24^70 65 68 5 0.056 -^17^65 70 68 5 0.0511 -^27^70 70 70 0 0.0010 -^24^80 75 78 5 0.0510 -^24^80 80 80 0 0.0010 -^24^80 80 80 0 0.0029 -^86^80 85 83 5 0.0449 -^176^80 95 88 10 0.127 -^20^100 100 100 0 0.0010 -^24^120 85 103 35 0.247 -^19^115 120 118 5 0.0335 -^120^140 170 155 30 0.14Average relative standard error 0.0911 -^28^250 285 268 35 0.091 -^3^400 410 405 10 0.0211 -^29^440 445 443 5 0.011 -^3^500 495 498 5 0.0133 -^111^450 560 505 110 0.1520 -^58^570 540 555 30 0.0430 -^94^935 940 938 5 0.0128 -^79^1050 990 1020 60 0.0418 -^51^1450 1450 1450 0 0.004 -^13^2100 2070 2085 30 0.0128 -^79^4780 5090 4935 310 0.04Average relative standard error 0.04APPENDIX^ 175Determination of average relative standard errors of analyses byCN-AAS. Included are the original analyses (Orig.), the duplicateanalyses (Dup.), their mean, standard deviation and relative standarderrors. Two average relative standard errors were calculated: 0.14 foranalyses <= 200 ppb and 0.04 for analyses >= 200 ppb.Sample^Analyses by CN-AASNumberMean(x)Standarddeviation(s)Relativestandarderror(s/x)Orig. Dup.21 -^63^40 30 35 10 0.234 -^115^40 35 38 5 0.0948 -^169^30 45 38 15 0.2810 -^24^35 40 38 5 0.0936 -^125^40 40 40 0 0.0047 -^166^60 50 55 10 0.1335 -^118^75 35 55 40 0.5114 -^41^50 80 65 30 0.337 -^20^65 65 65 0 0.007 -^20^95 75 85 20 0.1714 -^40^85 85 85 0 0.007 -^20^95 95 95 0 0.0035 -^120^145 145 145 0 0.00Average relative standard error 0.145 -^16^190 290 240 100 0.2933 -^111^240 240 240 0 0.0011 -^29^290 290 290 0 0.0020 -^59^290 290 290 0 0.0019 -^56^290 290 290 0 0.005 -^14^385 385 385 0 0.0018 -^51^530 575 553 45 0.0630 -^91^625 670 648 45 0.0528 -^78^2020 1970 1995 50 0.0228 -^78^5950 6050 6000 100 0.01Average relative standard error 0.04APPENDIX^ 176Weight (g) of material in each size fraction of A and B horizon soils.Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm) Total wt.in -2000 tunfraction-2000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain1 -^1 A 2752.50 332.10 112.51 234.45 995.40 1674.461 - 2 B 2607.60 107.37 107.37 178.42 789.87 1183.032 - 5b A 2089.31 394.00 79.03 197.14 949.77 1619.943 - 9 A 1869.45 318.30 83.70 214.44 1100.10 1716.543 -^1 lb B 679.70 238.51 70.04 228.93 1180.40 1717.884 - 12 A 1323.80 313.78 105.51 149.65 692.77 1261.715 - 14 A 1142.70 228.98 124.92 235.66 789.70 1379.265 -^15 B 1198.00 194.22 103.36 208.85 736.47 1242.906 - 17 A 874.16 334.62 408.48 704.96 2380.20 3828.267 -^19 A 2634.30 342.76 88.13 251.08 1383.90 2065.87Straight Fork11 - 27 A 969.70 724.50 100.92 149.40 543.23 1518.0511 - 28 B 1510.80 415.95 72.79 107.95 403.63 1000.3212 - 32 A 2030.00 520.47 83.90 191.13 1077.69 1873.1914 - 39 A 917.80 267.65 79.07 193.79 901.11 1441.6214 - 40 B 939.80 278.15 67.36 191.05 932.83 1469.3915 - 42b A 742.30 194.36 128.02 320.14 942.70 1585.22Brewery Creek18 - 50 B 1126.68 590.10 53.39 709.81 5030.20 6383.5019 - 55 B 2002.05 648.46 59.02 552.28 4315.60 5575.3620 - 58 B 1014.83 680.25 61.79 559.59 2427.90 3729.5321 - 61b B 426.12 391.84 50.67 1281.00 5020.00 6743.5121 - 62b B 1319.00 513.95 69.72 2046.90 6775.00 9405.5722 - 66b B 37.69 55.88 10.77 262.44 1664.40 1993.4928 - 75 Ae 527.15 424.80 59.53 138.51 1423.20 2046.0428 - 76 B 1453.65 690.81 78.64 627.51 3333.10 4730.0629 - 83 Ae 1177.30 714.78 78.19 1166.73 3426.10 5385.8029 - 84 B 2115.10 645.51 73.51 1417.24 3417.10 5553.3629 - 85 B 1921.80 505.88 68.50 287.40 1260.60 2122.3830 - 90 Ae 2501.27 821.05 87.38 86.92 407.15 1402.5030 - 91 B 1540.50 553.77 87.75 110.64 545.43 1297.5930 - 92 B 1284.40 522.17 92.10 164.16 626.40 1404.8330 - 93 B 4371.20 1048.80 78.92 921.73 2616.00 4665.45APPENDIX^ 177Weight (g) of material in each size fraction of A and B horizon soils (cont.)Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (Lum) Total wt.in -2000 tunfraction-2000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Fish Lake31 -^102 B 1577.90 2624.51 627.78 735.69 2012.94 6000.9232 - 105 Ae 314.80 837.99 292.90 324.70 1162.50 2618.0932 - 106 B1 3492.00 1327.43 479.14 407.80 1814.20 4028.5732 - 107 Bt 2547.80 1647.39 542.11 442.66 3234.07 5866.2333 -^110 B 7248.50 2098.30 360.30 358.40 1192.50 4009.5034 -^113b B 1815.80 1797.11 675.90 658.72 2867.91 5999.6434 - 114b Bt 3956.20 1463.31 477.17 429.12 2218.02 4587.6235 -^118 Bhf 2456.00 1857.02 790.40 850.98 2139.69 5638.0935 -^119 B2 4211.30 1873.60 817.70 702.30 1744.39 5137.9936 - 125b B 3011.50 1179.42 677.33 733.62 2981.26 5571.6337 - 128 Bf 4835.00 2093.87 1007.41 772.86 2812.78 6686.92Golden Sceptre41 -^138 Bf 171.80 340.60 256.46 586.42 1988.40 3171.8842 - 142b Ae 202.90 594.40 323.87 548.26 2252.70 3719.2342 - 143b Bf 325.70 1351.10 416.30 232.18 4559.20 6558.7843 - 146b Bf 750.70 1453.50 862.60 174.29 3222.30 5712.6943 - 147b B 166.30 689.50 601.90 592.60 6885.00 8769.0044 - 152 Bf 430.80 798.60 485.01 426.02 1281.50 2991.1344 - 153 B1 887.20 2145.90 1637.90 2239.39 2228.40 8251.5944 - 154 B2 1325.60 2458.90 1876.40 1453.40 1995.10 7783.8045 - 157 Bf 322.10 596.00 681.10 1596.50 1328.00 4201.6045 - 158 B 489.00 1301.90 1659.40 2234.90 2418.20 7614.40David Bell46 - 161 Bf 1020.90 2495.20 1585.00 1919.80 3143.60 9143.6048 - 169 Bf 1209.40 1786.70 891.20 1358.30 2918.10 6954.3048 - 170 B 2422.20 3582.70 1596.50 1265.70 1914.70 8359.6049 - 174 Bfl 1160.40 1474.40 1179.50 2240.80 1708.30 6603.0049 - 175 Bfl 2674.50 3147.40 1216.60 1707.20 2094.17 8165.3750 - 178b Ae 317.40 715.10 749.80 827.60 1669.60 3962.1050 - 180 B 1774.30 2406.80 1975.90 299.87 4736.30 9418.87APPENDIX 178Weight (g) of material in each size fraction of C horizon soils.Location\\ Horizon Size fraction (p.m) Total wt.Sample number in -2000 Itm+2000 000+425-425+212-212+106 -106+53 -53 fractionKinsley Mountain2 - 6 Cl 6359.63 566.37^218.81 274.11 371.42 1902.70 3333.412 - 7 C2 5297.09 1053.92^297.81 442.34 752.10 1896.20 4442.373 - 10 C 723.48 433.46^113.90 323.51 622.42 4131.70 5624.996 -^18 BC 5169.66 882.86^406.73 403.87 593.95 2718.50 5005.917 - 20 Bk 11315.95 1560.40^462.12 474.74 495.81 2504.10 5497.175 -^16 C 5182.24 637.47^205.38 458.75 841.99 2574.10 4717.691 - 3 C 2907.03 1169.01^757.99 932.10 969.48 3063.30 6891.884 -^13 C 5579.43 1261.40^451.31 675.38 682.72 2105.51 5176.32Straight Fork15 - 43 Ck 3727.97 623.22^360.20 676.85 1017.39 3121.80 5799.4614 - 41 Ck 6961.62 1104.16^335.49 373.69 664.00 3004.50 5481.8412 - 33 Ck 6539.61 1336.80^371.23 303.88 399.19 939.20 3350.3011 - 29 Ck 6236.90 1453.60^467.00 396.62 381.38 1193.50 3892.10Brewery Creek21 - 63 C 7212.00 1553.60^374.63 316.73 450.89 1435.80 4131.6522 - 67 Cl 307.06 163.82^28.67 24.09 1207.10 5105.20 6528.8822 - 68 C2 6734.05 2542.40^545.41 247.74 271.01 1279.40 4885.9629 - 87 C2 1918.20 3901.10^1145.00 525.39 383.33 2276.53 8231.3529 - 86 Cl 3543.66 555.87^113.33 80.11 686.80 6037.30 7473.4119 - 56 C 6621.23 1857.70^419.12 323.91 611.20 2189.90 5401.8320 - 59 C 6316.54 2526.70^389.01 258.45 571.73 2474.70 6220.5930 - 95 C 7595.36 2064.40^499.14 352.80 426.14 2251.60 5594.0818 - 51 C 10724.15 2701.70^418.33 298.29 721.20 1844.90 5984.4228 - 77 Cl 5767.30 1724.20^473.09 339.62 361.66 2642.70 5541.2718 - 53 C 15180.00 929.80^180.77 144.64 269.76 841.03 2366.0028 - 79 C3 3787.40 4840.10^1464.40 993.00 824.40 3673.20 11795.1018 - 52 C 11418.75 2973.00^444.99 294.29 364.81 1270.90 5347.9928 - 78 C2 6349.68 1669.40^363.60 261.73 325.88 1862.20 4482.8128 - 80 C4 6435.13 2816.50^676.40 462.83 334.93 1351.30 5641.96Fish Lake31 -^103 C 6692.71 1738.70^286.26 192.29 175.89 1622.89 4016.0332 - 108 C 3098.20 1140.55^583.26 667.84 493.62 3283.01 6168.2834 -^115 C 2663.47 1592.20^1035.12 1000.16 759.92 3945.11 8332.5135 - 120 C 2924.60 1693.68^965.36 1007.41 772.86 2812.78 7252.0936 -^126 C 5341.95 1355.75^58.87 798.28 667.13 1896.98 4777.0137 -^129 C 3201.20 976.90^319.00 219.30 160.40 583.41 2259.0133 -^111 C 8124.16 1775.22^257.65 198.88 261.10 831.00 3323.85APPENDIX 179Weight (g) of material in each size fraction of C horizon soils (cont.).Location\\ Horizon Size fraction (gm) Total wt.Sample number in -2000 gm+2000 000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53 fractionGolden Sceptre42 - 144 B 486.00 769.60 571.10 877.70 642.30 7165.00 10025.7043 - 148 Cl 160.93 781.50 977.00 3534.30 1157.90 3543.10 9993.8043 - 149 C2 1391.88 1373.70 1830.00 2292.40 473.20 3068.80 9038.1044 - 155 C 1648.24 1440.90 1994.80 2025.30 1427.00 2072.40 8960.4045 - 159 C 398.74 1565.90 1500.80 2199.00 3521.75 2209.30 10996.7541 - 139 B 1555.00 1009.00 843.10 1404.50 1129.70 1916.40 6302.70David Bell46 - 162 C 1019.86 1489.90 1781.70 3062.90 1623.70 2635.80 10594.0047 - 176 C 2134.97 2172.80 1232.60 1483.70 1079.70 1701.50 7670.3050 -^181 Cl 1982.48 1301.00 1123.60 2160.20 103.62 4238.50 8926.9250 - 182 C2 1395.99 1480.00 1670.10 2416.40 224.90 2600.50 8391.9048 - 171 C 2338.00 2926.80 1325.00 1778.40 1291.40 2342.40 9664.0047 - 166 B\\C 563.94 686.30 759.20 753.60 753.37 3673.20 6625.67APPENDIX^ 180Weight (g) of material in each size fraction of stream sediments.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (gm) Total wt.in -2000 i.unfraction+2000 -2000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain8 - 22 7907.32 983.53 4037.32 683.12 796.01 1908.40 8408.389 - 23 367.68 676.88 3293.01 468.64 570.17 1728.80 6737.5010 - 24 12134.72 624.87 5453.38 314.97 293.11 1031.30 7717.63Straight Fork13 - 35 2795.51 168.31 822.62 308.14 597.98 1802.30 3699.3513 - 36 4570.81 225.71 1135.88 292.40 580.59 1579.90 3814.4813 - 37 4268.22 290.88 1938.37 426.05 981.33 3102.70 6739.3316 - 45 2370.56 186.82 519.23 347.02 843.01 1912.90 3808.9816 - 46 3455.86 219.49 763.13 420.43 898.24 2254.60 4555.8917 - 47 6387.32 715.08 4107.32 261.03 179.92 478.40 5741.75Brewery Creek23 - 69 13485.71 281.59 4103.60 169.41 229.80 684.70 5469.1024 - 70 10681.63 521.29 9464.85 138.28 109.52 435.90 10669.8425 - 71 11602.55 953.78 4748.33 425.09 389.34 982.60 7499.1426 - 72 12790.49 915.31 6885.00 320.06 477.93 1043.50 9641.8027 - 73 16319.68 555.26 4710.35 59.09 140.20 515.00 5979.90Fish Lake38 -^133 12593.92 474.44 4038.39 239.15 180.94 641.10 5574.0239 - 134 14979.00 277.01 3297.32 99.98 93.64 306.90 4074.8540 - 135 1315.42 231.90 1947.32 108.06 62.01 194.55 2543.84APPENDIX^ 181Weight percent of material in each size fraction of A and B horizon soils afterwet sieving.Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (.tm)-2000+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain3 - 9 A 18.54 4.88 12.49 64.093 -^11 B 13.88 4.08 13.33 68.712 - 5 A 24.32 4.88 12.17 58.636 - 17 A 25.86 8.67 14.96 50.517 - 19 A 16.59 4.26 12.15 66.995 - 14 A 16.60 9.06 17.09 57.265 - 15 B 15.63 8.32 16.80 59.251 -^1 A 19.83 6.72 14.00 59.451 - 2 B 19.93 7.99 13.28 58.804 - 12 A 24.87 8.36 11.86 54.91Straight Fork15 - 42 A 12.26 8.07 20.20 59.4714 - 39 A 18.57 5.48 13.44 62.5114 - 40 B 18.93 4.58 13.00 63.4812 - 32 A 27.79 4.48 10.20 57.5311 - 27 A 47.73 6.65 9.84 35.7811 - 28 B 41.58 7.28 10.79 40.35Brewery Creek22 - 66 B 2.80 0.54 13.16 83.4921 - 61 B1 5.81 0.75 19.00 74.4421 - 62 B2 5.36 0.74 21.79 72.1129 - 83 Ae 13.27 1.45 21.66 63.6129 - 84 B1 11.62 1.32 25.52 61.5329 - 85 B2 23.84 3.23 13.54 59.4019 - 55 B 11.63 1.06 9.90 77.4020 - 58 B 18.24 1.66 15.00 65.1030 - 90 Ae 58.54 6.23 6.20 29.0330 - 91 B1 42.68 6.76 8.53 42.0330 - 92 B2 37.17 6.55 11.69 44.5930 - 93 B3 22.48 1.69 19.76 56.0718 - 50 B 9.26 0.68 11.14 78.9228 - 75 Ae 20.76 2.91 6.77 69.5628 - 76 B 14.60 1.66 13.27 70.47182Weight percent of material in each size fraction of A and B horizon soils afterwet sieving (cont.).Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-2000+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Fish Lake34 -^113 B 29.95 11.27 10.98 47.8034 - 114 Bt 31.90 10.40 9.35 48.3536 - 125 B 21.17 12.16 13.17 53.5131 - 102 B 43.73 10.46 12.26 33.5432 - 105 Ae 32.01 11.19 12.40 44.4032 - 106 B 32.95 11.89 10.12 45.0332 - 107 Bt 28.08 9.24 7.54 55.1335 -^118 Bhf 32.94 14.02 15.09 37.9535 -^119 B2 36.47 15.91 13.67 33.9537 - 128 Bf 31.31 15.06 11.56 42.0633 -^110 B 52.33 8.99 8.94 29.74Golden Sceptre43 - 146 Bf 25.44 15.10 3.05 56.4143 - 147 B 7.86 6.86 6.76 78.5242 - 142 Ae 15.98 8.71 14.74 60.5742 - 143 Bf 20.60 6.35 3.54 69.5141 -^138 Bf 10.74 8.09 18.49 62.6945 - 157 Bf 14.19 16.21 38.00 31.6145 - 158 B 17.10 21.79 29.35 31.7644 - 152 Bf 26.70 16.21 14.24 42.8444 - 153 B1 26.00 19.85 27.14 27.0044 - 154 B2 31.59 24.11 18.67 25.63David Bell50 - 178 Ae 18.05 18.92 20.89 42.1450 - 180 B 25.55 20.98 3.18 50.2846 - 161 Bf 27.29 17.33 21.00 34.3849 - 174 Bfl 22.33 17.86 33.94 25.8749 - 175 Bfl 38.55 14.90 20.91 25.6548 - 169 Bf 25.69 12.81 19.53 41.9648 - 170 B 42.86 19.10 15.14 22.90APPENDIX^ 183Weight percent material in each size fraction of C horizon soils after wet sieving.Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (run)-2000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain2 - 6b Cl 16.99 6.56 8.22 11.14 57.082 - 7b C2 23.72 6.70 9.96 16.93 42.683 - 10b C 7.71 2.02 5.75 11.07 73.456 - 18 BC 17.64 8.12 8.07 11.86 54.317 - 20 Bk 28.39 8.41 8.64 9.02 45.555 - 16 C 13.51 4.35 9.72 17.85 54.561 - 3 C 16.96 11.00 13.52 14.07 44.454 - 13 C 24.37 8.72 13.05 13.19 40.68Straight Fork15 - 43b Ck 11.75 6.21 11.67 17.54 53.8314 - 41 Ck 20.14 6.12 6.82 12.11 54.8112 - 33 Ck 39.90 11.08 9.07 11.92 28.0311 - 29 Ck 37.35 12.00 10.19 9.80 30.66Brewery Creek21 - 63b C 37.60 9.07 7.67 10.91 34.7522 - 67b Cl 2.51 0.44 0.37 18.49 78.1922 - 68b C2 52.03 11.16 5.07 5.55 26.1928 - 77 Cl 31.12 8.54 6.13 6.53 47.6929 - 87 C2 47.39 13.91 6.38 4.66 27.6629 - 86 Cl 7.44 1.52 1.07 9.19 80.7819 - 56 C 34.39 7.76 6.00 11.31 40.5420 - 59 C 40.88 6.29 4.18 8.61 40.0430 - 95 C2 36.90 8.92 6.31 7.62 40.2518 - 51 C 45.15 6.99 4.98 12.05 30.8318 - 53 C 39.30 7.64 6.11 11.40 35.5528 - 79 C3 41.03 12.42 8.42 6.99 31.1418 - 52 C 55.59 8.32 5.50 6.82 23.7628 - 78 C2 37.24 8.11 5.84 7.27 41.5428 - 80 C4 49.92 11.99 8.20 5.94 23.95Fish Lake31 -^103 C 43.29 7.13 4.79 4.38 40.4132 - 108 C 18.49 9.45 10.83 8.00 53.2234 - 115b C 19.11 12.42 12.00 9.12 47.3535 - 120 C 23.35 13.31 13.89 10.66 38.7936 - 126b C 28.38 1.23 16.71 13.97 39.7137 - 129 C 43.24 14.12 9.71 7.10 25.8333 -^111 C 53.41 7.75 5.98 7.86 25.00APPENDIX^ 184Weight percent material in each size fraction of C horizon soils after wet sieving (cont.).Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (um)-2000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Golden Sceptre42 - 144b B 7.68 5.70 8.75 6.41 71.4643 - 148b Cl 7.82 9.78 35.36 11.59 35.4543 - 149b C2 15.20 20.25 25.36 5.24 33.9544 - 155 C 16.08 22.26 22.60 15.93 23.1345 - 159 C 14.24 13.65 20.00 32.03 20.0941 - 139 B 16.01 13.38 22.28 17.92 30.41David Bell46 - 162 C 14.04 16.82 28.91 15.33 24.8949 - 176 C 28.33 16.07 19.34 14.08 22.1850 - 181b Cl 14.57 12.59 24.20 1.16 47.4850 - 182b C2 17.64 19.90 28.79 2.68 30.9948 - 171 C 30.29 13.71 18.40 13.36 24.2447 - 166 BC 10.36 11.46 11.37 11.37 55.44APPENDIX^ 185Weight percent of heavy minerals in the -212+106 gmand -106+53 pm fraction of C horizon soils.Location\\^Horizon^Size fraction (pm)Sample number-212+106 -106+53Kinsley Mountain2 - 6b^Cl^0.26^0.512 - 7b C2 0.28^0.393 - 10b^C^0.51^0.18^6 - 18 BC 0.28^0.527 - 20^Bk^0.14^0.315 - 16 C 0.34^0.841 - 3^C^0.16^0.294 - 13 C 0.17^0.20Straight Fork15 - 43b^Ck^0.09^0.2714 - 41 Ck 0.04^0.0812 - 33^Ck^0.07^0.1011 - 29 Ck 0.93^0.82Brewery Creek21 - 63b^C^6.05^4.3322 - 67b^Cl 0.46^0.4122 - 68b^C2^3.02^4.9028 - 77 Cl 0.09^0.1129 - 87^C2^0.18^0.2729 - 86 Cl 1.04^0.9319 - 56^C^0.90^0.6720 - 59 C 0.75^0.4030 - 95^C2^1.71^2.1718 - 51 C 0.86^1.4418 - 53^C^0.67^0.1828 - 79 C3 0.11^0.0018 - 52^C^0.24^0.2928 - 78 C2 0.23^0.3328 - 80^C4^2.03^3.11Fish Lake31 - 103^C^5.25^3.7432 - 108^C 3.95^2.5734 - 115b^C^2.69^0.7135 - 120^C 3.29^2.2736 - 126b^C^3.79^14.5837 - 129^C 4.82^14.6433 - 111^C^5.61^3.25APPENDIX^ 186Weight percent of heavy minerals in the -212+106 ixmand -106+53 um fraction of C horizon soils (cont.).Location\\^Horizon^Size fraction (um)Sample number-212+106 -106+53Golden Sceptre^42 - 144b^B^0.43^0.2543 - 148b^Cl 0.64^1.4143 - 149b^C2^0.43^0.9344 - 155^C 0.97^0.8845 - 159^C^0.32^0.5841 - 139^B 1.46^1.60David Bell46 - 162^C^0.15^0.2247 - 176^C 0.90^2.9850 - 181b^Cl^0.42^3.8150 - 182^C2 0.94^1.5648 - 171^C^1.92^4.8447 - 166^B \\C 0.56^0.31APPENDIX^ 187Weight percent of material in each size fraction of stream sediments after wetsieving.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (tun)-2000+425 -425+212 -212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain9 - 23 48.88 10.05 6.96 8.46 25.668 - 22 48.02 11.70 8.12 9.47 22.7010 - 24 70.66 8.10 4.08 3.80 13.36Straight Fork17 - 47 71.53 12.45 4.55 3.13 8.3313 - 35 22.24 4.55 8.33 16.16 48.7213 - 36 29.78 5.92 7.67 15.22 41.4213 - 37 28.76 4.32 6.32 14.56 46.0416 - 45 13.63 4.90 9.11 22.13 50.2216 - 46 16.75 4.82 9.23 19.72 49.49Brewery Creek26 - 72 71.41 9.49 3.32 4.96 10.8223 - 69 75.03 5.15 3.10 4.20 12.5225 - 71 63.32 12.72 5.67 5.19 13.1024 - 70 88.71 4.89 1.30 1.03 4.0927 - 73 78.77 9.29 0.99 2.34 8.61Fish Lake39 - 134 80.92 6.80 2.45 2.30 7.5340 - 135 76.55 9.12 4.25 2.44 7.6538 - 133 72.45 8.51 4.29 3.25 11.50188APPENDIXWeight percent of heavy minerals in the-212+106 gm and -106+53 urn fractions ofstream sediments.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (gin)-212+106 -106+53Kinsley Mountain9 - 23 0.65 0.938 - 22 0.45 0.8610 - 24 0.23 1.06Straight Fork17 - 47 0.73 1.1313 - 35 0.14 0.3313 - 36 0.19 0.5013 - 37 0.27 0.3216 - 45 0.13 0.2916 - 46 0.14 0.41Brewery Creek26 - 72 4.67 1.7123 - 69 0.21 0.9325 - 71 1.04 1.5024 - 70 1.16 0.4027 - 73 2.15 0.87Fish Lake39 - 134 4.36 3.6540 - 135b 3.06 4.4838 - 133 9.16 11.51APPENDIX^ 189Proportion (%) of gold contributed by each size fraction of A and Bhorizon soils.Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (pm)-212+106 -106+53 -53Kinsley Mountain3 - 9b A 5.99 15.34 78.683 - 1 lb B 4.73 15.47 79.792 - 5b A 6.45 16.08 77.476 - 17 A 13.46 18.58 67.967 -^19 A 2.55 5.03 92.425 - 14 A 5.03 13.17 81.805 -^15 B 5.26 12.24 82.511 -^1 A 3.96 8.36 87.681 - 2 B 4.24 9.36 86.414 - 12 A 5.31 8.61 86.08Straight Fork15 - 42b A 9.20 23.02 67.7814 - 39 A 2.46 4.02 93.5214 - 40 B 1.23 0.87 97.9012 - 32 A 7.51 9.78 82.7111 - 27 A 7.94 13.71 78.3511 - 28 B 5.03 17.42 77.54Brewery Creek22 - 66b B 0.00 13.62 86.3821 - 61b Bl 2.61 19.80 77.5921 - 62b B2 1.30 22.90 75.8029 - 83 Ae 16.57 64.49 18.9429 - 84 B1 2.99 15.26 81.7529 - 85 B2 8.04 12.32 79.6419 - 55 B 2.37 11.08 86.5620 - 58 B 1.10 7.57 91.3330 - 90 Ae 11.90 10.20 77.8930 - 91 B1 5.28 6.54 88.1730 - 92 B2 5.79 7.41 86.8130 - 93 B3 1.82 12.27 85.9118 - 50 B 1.69 13.21 85.1028 - 75 Ae 5.75 2.67 91.5828 - 76 B 2.49 10.53 86.98APPENDIX^ 190Proportion (%) of gold contributed by each size fraction of A and Bhorizon soils (cont.).Location\\Sample numberHorizon Size fraction (gm)-212+106 -106+53 -53Fish Lake34 -^113b B 16.08 15.67 68.2434 - 114b Bt 15.27 13.73 70.9936 - 125b B 5.97 6.46 87.5731 - 102 B 2.35 52.38 45.2632 - 105 Ae 82.30 1.37 16.3332 - 106 B 8.65 36.79 54.5632 - 107 Bt 8.50 6.94 84.5535 -^118 Bhf 0.71 48.23 51.0635 - 119 B2 13.08 18.03 68.8937 - 128 Bf 8.30 31.84 59.86Golden Sceptre33 -^110 B 42.39 27.08 30.5443 - 146b Bf 7.45 7.33 85.2243 - 147b B 0.75 6.60 92.6542 - 142b Ae 60.66 7.70 31.6442 - 143b Bf 7.99 4.46 87.5541 - 138 Bf 14.92 12.79 72.2945 - 157 Bf 27.65 18.62 53.7345 - 158 B 27.65 18.62 53.7344 - 152 Bf 4.39 12.00 83.6144 - 153 B1 34.24 18.95 46.8144 - 154 B2 9.22 69.19 21.58David Bell50 - 178b Ae 23.09 25.49 51.4250 - 180b B 19.43 2.95 77.6246 -^161 Bf 23.84 28.88 47.2849 - 174 Bfl 42.63 16.20 41.1749 - 175 Bfl 52.62 26.06 21.3148 - 169 Bf 18.40 28.04 53.5648 - 170 B 23.86 18.91 57.23191Proportion (%) of gold contributed by each size / density fraction of C horizon soils.Location\\^Horizon^ Size fraction (um)Sample number-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCKinsley Mountain2 - 6b Cl 3.89 0.25 5.26 0.25 90.352 - 7b C2 7.92 0.09 6.72 0.19 85.083 - 10b C 20.75 0.32 12.02 0.32 66.596 - 18 BC 11.87 0.02 13.68 0.02 74.407 - 20 Bk 13.54 0.02 11.15 0.02 75.285 -^16 C 9.70 0.09 17.43 1.12 71.661 -^3 C 16.78 0.08 13.94 0.14 69.054 - 13 C 15.78 0.04 14.85 0.05 69.28Straight Fork15 - 43b Ck 15.56 0.39 23.35 0.85 59.8614 - 41 Ck 6.40 0.03 9.94 0.02 83.6112 - 33 Ck 15.83 0.01 25.40 0.02 58.7411 - 29 Ck 15.55 0.20 18.06 0.19 65.99Brewery Creek21 - 63b C 2.31 1.24 3.35 0.13 92.9722 - 67b Cl 0.43 0.33 21.73 0.60 76.9122 - 68b C2 4.99 0.39 5.35 0.69 88.5828 - 77 Cl 3.70 0.01 4.31 0.01 91.9629 - 87 C2 2.49 0.02 3.64 0.02 93.8429 - 86 Cl 2.15 0.12 6.66 0.10 90.9719 - 56 C 7.01 0.24 12.81 0.25 79.6920 - 59 C 3.15 0.12 7.08 0.08 89.5830 - 95 C2 3.60 0.40 5.12 0.28 90.6018 - 51 C 4.75 0.15 12.83 0.46 81.8218 - 53 C 3.38 0.04 5.50 0.10 90.9828 - 79 C3 4.76 0.01 4.64 0.00 90.6018 - 52 C 4.35 0.03 5.10 0.03 90.4828 - 78 C2 4.86 0.04 5.63 0.05 89.4328 - 80 C4 6.88 0.56 6.39 0.62 85.55Fish Lake31 -^103 C 1.00 3.61 0.93 5.13 89.3232 - 108 C 1.97 7.70 1.48 4.75 84.1034 - 115b C 17.51 0.40 22.62 0.32 59.1435 - 120 C 0.42 17.09 2.74 16.54 63.2136 - 126b C 2.97 0.58 2.20 8.76 85.4837 - 129 C 1.31 3.73 1.21 27.66 66.0933 -^111 C 12.71 2.65 11.09 5.12 68.42APPENDIX^ 192Proportion (%) of gold contributed by each size / density fraction of C horizon soils (cont.).Location\\^Horizon^ Size fraction (pn)Sample number-212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCGolden Sceptre42 - 144b B 11.60 0.41 8.50 0.23 79.2543 - 148b Cl 45.23 1.69 14.70 0.35 38.0343 - 149b C2 40.48 1.16 8.31 4.68 45.3644 - 155 C 5.68 4.27 4.01 17.53 68.5145 - 159 C 2.40 2.86 3.83 10.32 80.59David Bell41 -^139 B 15.07 2.34 1.81 2.56 78.2246 - 162 C 40.73 0.93 21.58 7.51 29.2647 - 176 C 2.55 6.94 1.82 10.04 78.6650 - 181b Cl 19.48 38.74 0.90 8.88 31.9950 - 182 C2 48.63 1.53 4.50 1.31 44.0348 -^171 C 12.83 4.03 6.78 11.74 64.6247 - 166 B\\C 9.88 1.95 2.48 0.92 84.77APPENDIX^ 193Proportion (%) of gold contributed by each size \\ density fraction of streamsediments.Location\\Sample numberSize fraction (gm) -212+106 -106+53 -53LMF HMC LMF HMCKinsley Mountain9 - 23 4.88 0.41 3.55 0.66 90.508 - 22 10.76 0.31 9.99 0.43 78.5110 - 24 5.77 0.05 6.08 0.26 87.84Straight Fork13 - 35 7.81 0.43 15.12 0.42 76.2213 - 36 39.97 0.46 15.82 0.48 43.2713 - 37 3.61 0.14 8.31 0.14 87.8116 - 45 14.30 0.10 26.01 0.40 59.1916 - 46 14.92 0.09 4.77 0.10 80.1217 - 47 27.33 1.67 18.76 1.79 50.45Brewery Creek26 - 72 6.96 0.67 6.43 14.56 71.3723 - 69 2.32 0.23 3.13 0.23 94.0925 - 71 13.95 0.06 7.63 0.15 78.2024 - 70 10.53 0.12 5.60 5.39 78.3627 - 73 3.17 0.67 4.57 1.31 90.29Fish Lake39 - 134 18.24 2.77 17.21 3.26 58.5340 - 135b 8.60 1.36 4.86 5.33 79.8538 - 133 1.24 31.40 0.78 24.86 41.72APPENDIX 194pH of the -149 gm fraction of soils.Location\\Sample numberHorizon pH Location\\Sample numberHorizon pHKinsley Mountain Brewery Creek (cont.)1-^1 A 8.10 22 - 67 Cl 4.701 - 2 Bk 8.50 22 - 68 C2 5.701 -^3 Ck 8.80 28 - 75 Ae 4.702 - 5 A 8.60 28 - 76 B 5.002 - 6 Bk 7.30 28 - 77 Cl 5.102 - 7 Ck 7.70 28 - 78 C2 5.103 - 9 A 7.70 28 - 79 C3 5.503 - 10 Ck 8.80 28 - 80 C4 5.703 -^11 Bk 8.80 29 - 83 Ae 4.704 - 12 AB 8.80 29 - 84 B1 5.204 - 13 Ck 8.80 29 - 85 B2 5.605 -^14 A 8.30 29 - 86 Cl 6.105 -^15 Bk 8.70 29 - 87 C2 6.705 - 16 Ck 8.80 30 - 90 Ae 4.706 - 17 AB 8.50 30 - 91 Bf 4.906 - 18 Ck 8.70 30 - 92 IC1 5.107 -^19 A 8.20 30 - 93 IC2 5.407 - 20 Ck 8.50 30 - 94 IC3 5.80Straight Fork 30 - 95 IIC 5.9011 - 27 A 7.80 Fish Lake11 - 28 Bk 8.40 31 - 102 B 6.1011 - 29 Ck 8.70 31 -^103 C 6.7012 - 32 A 7.90 31 -^105 A 6.0012 - 33 Ck 8.30 32 - 106 B 6.8014 - 39 A 7.80 32 - 107 Bt 7.0014 - 40 Bk 8.20 32 - 108 C 7.1014 - 41 Ck 8.40 33 -^110 B 6.1015 - 42 A 7.80 33 -^111 C 6.4015 - 43 Ck 8.50 34 -^113 B 6.00Brewery Creek 34 - 114 Bt 6.0018 - 50 B 5.20 34 -^115 C 6.3018 - 51 Cl 5.20 35 - 118 Bhf 5.4018 - 52 C 5.50 35 -^119 B 5.6018 - 53 C 5.90 35 - 120 C 5.9019 - 55 B 5.20 36 - 124 Ah 6.4019 - 56 C 5.70 36^125 B 6.9020 - 58 Bt 4.60 36^126 C 7.2020 - 59 C 5.00 37^128 Bf 5.9021 - 61 B1 5.80 37 - 129 C 5.8021 - 62 B2 5.80 Golden Sceptre21 - 63 C 6.00 41 -^137 Ae 5.2022 - 65 Ae 3.80 41 - 138 Bf 5.4022 - 66 B 4.80 41 -^139 B 5.90APPENDIX^ 195pH of the -149 um fraction of soils (cont.).Location\\^HorizonSample numberpHGolden Sceptre (cont.)42 - 142 Ae 4.1042 - 143 Bf 4.5042 - 144 B 4.9043 - 146 Bf 4.9043 - 147 B 5.9043 - 148 Cl 7.1043 - 149 C2 8.1044 - 152 Bf 6.0044 - 153 B1 6.2044 - 154 B2 6.5044 - 155 C 6.4045 - 157 Bf 5.0045 - 158 B 5.3045 - 159 C 5.60David Bell46 - 161 Bf 5.0046 - 162 C 6.5047 - 165 Bf 4.7047 - 166 BC 5.7048 - 168 Ae 4.3048 - 169 Bf 5.0048 - 170 B 5.3048 - 171 C 5.6048 - 173 Ae 4.5049 - 174 Bfl 5.2049 - 175 Bfl 5.4049 - 176 C 5.6050 - 178 Ae 4.3050 - 179 Bf 4.3050 - 180 B 5.1050 - 181 Cl 5.4050 - 182 C2 5.6022 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb(Analyses by ICP except where noted; T = stream sediment sample; D = duplicate sample)Location\\Sample numberSamplemediaTotal C%(Leco)CO2%(HC1)Total S%(Leco)Agppm(AAS)Al%BappmBeppmBippmCa%CdppmCoppmCrppmKinsley Mountain1 -^1 A 3.32 5.0 0.03 0.1 6.73 600 0.3 1 5.95 0.3 9 451 - 2 Bk 5.28 8.9 0.02 0.1 6.05 540 0.3 1 9.82 0.3 8 411 - 2 D 5.09 8.7 0.02 0.1 5.59 490 0.3 1 8.95 0.3 7 401 - 3 Ck 6.66 19.6 0.01 0.1 3.74 390 0.3 1 19.93 0.3 5 292 - 5 A 2.88 3.9 0.02 0.1 7.10 660 0.3 1 5.30 0.5 9 442 - 6 Bk 4.81 8.9 0.02 0.1 5.94 530 0.3 1 9.35 0.5 9 402 - 7 Ck 3.38 10.5 0.02 0.1 6.08 540 0.3 1 8.85 0.3 9 473 - 9 A 3.86 9.5 0.02 0.1 5.81 520 0.3 1 8.01 0.3 7 393 -^10 Ck 7.25 25.8 0.02 0.1 2.92 190 0.3 1 25.00 0.5 6 273 -^11 Bk 6.71 19.4 0.02 0.1 3.96 320 0.3 1 19.61 0.3 8 334 - 12 AB 5.24 12.2 0.01 0.2 5.29 440 0.3 1 10.79 0.3 6 354 -^13 Ck 6.28 17.4 0.02 0.4 3.73 270 0.3 1 15.81 0.3 7 274 -^13 D 6.26 17.4 0.02 0.4 3.86 280 0.3 1 16.55 0.3 7 285 -^14 A 2.88 5.7 0.01 0.2 6.97 600 2.0 1 4.30 0.3 8 455 - 15 Bk 4.75 12.4 0.01 0.1 5.36 480 0.3 1 9.82 0.3 8 365 -^16 Ck 4.28 13.2 0.01 0.1 5.34 490 0.3 1 10.63 0.3 6 366 - 17 AB 4.31 6.8 0.01 0.1 6.60 560 0.3 1 6.12 0.5 8 456 - 18 Ck 5.59 13.8 0.01 0.1 5.70 400 0.3 1 12.05 0.3 7 497 - 19 A 2.13 2.0 0.02 0.1 7.75 620 2.5 1 2.33 0.3 11 547 - 20 Ck 6.82 12.7 0.02 0.1 5.97 400 0.3 1 11.84 0.5 11 508 - 22 T 4.89 12.9 0.03 0.1 4.99 460 0.3 1 12.38 0.5 7 369 - 23 T 4.23 10.5 0.03 0.1 5.16 470 0.3 6 8.64 0.3 6 3610 - 24 T 4.96 14.0 0.02 0.1 4.47 400 0.3 1 11.77 0.5 6 33Straight Fork11 - 27 A 3.70 6.5 0.05 0.1 5.24 1610 0.3 1 4.34 0.5 10 9711 - 28 Bk 5.26 10.1 0.05 0.1 4.64 1760 0.3 1 9.04 1.0 13 17611 - 29 Ck 7.41 18.1 0.07 0.1 4.25 1740 0.3 1 15.10 1.0 16 30122 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Cu Fe K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sr Ti V W ZnPPm % % % PPm ppm % PPm PPm PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm(AAS)23 2.41 2.27 1.26 625 1 0.90 19 890 14 229 0.27 51 5 8019 2.14 2.01 1.24 500 1 0.76 18 910 10 236 0.25 47 5 6618 1.97 1.87 1.15 455 1 0.71 16 860 8 215 0.23 43 5 628 1.29 1.07 1.18 195 1 0.52 11 540 6 262 0.16 29 5 3622 2.48 2.33 1.22 920 1 1.12 18 1180 16 280 0.29 53 5 8617 2.04 1.85 1.01 660 1 0.81 16 1180 12 273 0.24 47 5 6430 1.92 2.09 1.04 515 1 0.83 14 1110 12 289 0.24 48 5 5417 2.05 1.95 0.99 645 2 0.78 13 920 12 250 0.25 43 5 685 1.28 1.27 0.69 365 1 0.21 6 660 1 696 0.13 19 5 2011 1.50 1.60 0.75 395 2 0.35 11 850 1 451 0.19 30 5 3416 1.95 1.67 1.96 430 6 0.70 12 1040 14 208 0.22 40 5 7412 1.54 1.23 1.33 305 5 0.38 9 1080 8 276 0.16 28 5 5212 1.59 1.25 1.38 310 5 0.38 10 1120 8 286 0.19 29 5 5220 2.49 2.25 2.02 750 2 0.98 17 870 14 210 0.27 51 5 8616 1.85 1.60 1.95 500 1 0.73 12 850 10 210 0.22 40 5 6011 1.79 1.60 2.12 410 1 0.73 13 770 8 239 0.21 40 5 5617 2.31 2.32 1.52 690 1 0.92 16 810 14 218 0.26 50 5 7213 1.94 2.31 1.31 410 1 0.47 15 780 8 211 0.22 44 5 4822 2.76 2.72 0.99 895 1 0.93 19 990 20 203 0.31 57 5 8817 1.87 2.36 0.86 715 1 0.43 18 1210 10 172 0.25 39 5 5223 1.72 1.80 1.64 495 2 0.82 13 1000 18 268 0.21 40 5 5825 1.84 1.86 1.80 595 2 0.79 14 1150 18 226 0.23 43 5 6414 1.55 1.61 2.09 500 3 0.63 15 810 14 221 0.18 35 5 5219 2.05 1.46 1.80 415 1 0.74 36 2220 16 222 0.24 51 5 9021 2.07 1.00 1.46 280 1 0.52 56 2330 14 286 0.26 72 5 7629 2.04 0.50 0.96 155 1 0.23 86 2080 16 353 0.29 106 5 5822 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Location\\Sample numberSamplemediaTotal C%(Leco)CO2%Total S%(Leco)Agppm(AAS)Al%BappmBeppmBippmCa%CdppmCoppmCrppm12 - 32 D 2.91 1.1 0.04 0.1 6.36 610 0.3 1 2.00 1.5 8 6612 - 32 A 3.01 0.5 0.04 0.1 6.77 640 0.3 1 2.07 1.0 9 6712 - 33 Ck 7.29 13.2 0.04 0.1 3.20 260 0.3 1 12.34 2.0 5 5413 - 35 T 4.62 0.4 0.04 0.1 4.76 540 0.3 1 1.35 2.0 6 6913 - 36 T 3.30 0.3 0.04 0.1 4.45 520 0.3 1 1.24 1.5 5 7113 - 37 T 2.56 0.7 0.03 0.1 5.05 610 0.3 1 1.55 2.0 6 7513 - 35 D 3.09 0.7 0.03 0.1 4.93 560 0.3 2 1.56 2.0 7 7913 - 36 D 4.33 0.1 0.03 0.1 4.98 550 0.3 4 1.36 2.0 7 7213 - 37 D 2.54 0.4 0.03 0.1 5.25 620 0.3 2 1.66 1.5 7 7913 - 37 D 2.54 0.7 0.03 0.1 5.40 650 0.3 1 1.70 2.0 7 8114 - 39 A 2.71 0.5 0.03 0.1 5.15 520 0.3 1 1.55 1.0 5 7714 - 40 Bk 2.29 0.5 0.03 0.1 5.54 550 0.3 1 1.66 1.0 7 8214 - 41 Ck 2.98 4.2 0.02 0.1 4.83 510 0.3 1 3.23 1.0 5 7815 - 42 A 1.66 0.5 0.02 0.1 5.33 480 0.3 1 1.18 1.0 6 6015 - 43 Ck 1.50 0.1 0.02 0.1 6.13 550 0.3 1 1.32 1.0 6 6616 - 45 T 5.78 0.5 0.04 0.1 5.35 1030 0.3 1 1.46 1.5 5 6416 - 46 T 5.61 0.1 0.04 0.1 5.10 990 0.3 1 1.42 1.5 5 6816 - 45 D 5.56 0.1 0.05 0.1 5.03 980 0.3 1 1.50 2.0 7 6516 - 46 D 5.40 0.1 0.04 0.1 5.43 1000 0.3 1 1.70 2.0 8 7117 - 47 T 2.07 1.8 0.05 0.1 4.19 710 0.3 1 2.96 0.5 5 70Brewery Creek18 - 50 D 0.96 0.1 0.00 0.1 6.20 830 0.3 1 0.62 0.5 8 7018 - 50 B 0.97 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.18 970 0.3 1 0.69 0.3 9 8018 - 51 Cl 0.53 0.1 0.00 0.1 9.23 2380 0.3 1 0.26 0.5 10 7518 - 52 C2 0.39 0.1 0.01 1.0 4.72 1760 3.0 4 0.10 20.0 12 7018 - 53 C3 0.10 0.1 0.04 0.4 9.19 3860 0.3 1 0.17 9.0 23 4519 - 55 B 0.79 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.68 960 0.3 1 0.69 0.3 8 6719 - 56 C 0.35 0.1 0.01 0.1 9.29 1940 0.3 1 0.25 0.3 11 6522 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Cu Fe K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sr Ti V W ZnPPm % % % PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm(AAS)28 2.41 1.98 1.17 545 1 0.95 18 1630 20 201 0.27 48 5 10621 2.53 2.06 1.24 580 1 0.99 21 1700 20 212 0.29 50 5 11013 1.10 0.74 0.80 160 1 0.32 13 1720 10 192 0.14 23 5 5619 1.78 1.39 0.63 565 1 0.55 17 2420 10 144 0.21 38 5 12416 1.63 1.33 0.60 455 1 0.55 18 2270 6 142 0.20 36 5 9616 1.82 1.48 0.75 485 1 0.65 18 2420 10 161 0.23 40 5 10217 1.82 1.51 0.72 530 1 0.63 23 2740 14 155 0.22 41 5 11018 1.85 1.49 0.64 595 1 0.65 20 2470 14 152 0.23 41 5 12416 1.91 1.60 0.78 540 1 0.69 20 2670 14 164 0.24 44 5 10816 1.96 1.64 0.80 545 1 0.71 21 2740 16 166 0.24 45 5 11014 1.90 1.51 0.96 500 1 0.67 17 2470 12 155 0.23 41 5 9214 2.05 1.60 1.06 495 1 0.72 18 2550 12 165 0.24 44 5 9812 1.72 1.40 1.45 365 1 0.67 17 2410 8 151 0.21 38 5 8014 1.96 1.78 0.71 475 1 0.71 17 1750 14 145 0.25 42 5 9016 2.32 2.11 0.83 505 1 0.75 19 1810 10 170 0.29 49 5 10419 2.04 2.01 0.74 680 2 0.69 17 2320 10 170 0.22 42 5 13818 1.94 1.74 0.72 635 1 0.67 16 2190 16 164 0.21 41 5 13218 1.89 1.67 0.72 670 1 0.68 17 2460 18 161 0.22 41 5 12820 2.04 1.76 0.80 780 1 0.72 19 2610 12 170 0.23 44 5 14011 1.37 1.53 0.75 425 1 0.61 14 3140 12 144 0.27 38 5 7412 3.42 1.14 0.69 335 2 1.08 22 360 12 153 0.34 108 5 7015 3.90 1.40 0.78 385 1 1.37 23 410 12 171 0.41 127 5 8021 5.76 1.57 0.40 815 1 0.57 26 1340 46 198 0.71 171 5 20210 5.86 1.86 0.22 1380 1 0.20 30 1980 96 230 0.70 198 5 20013 4.38 1.64 0.18 1470 1 0.23 55 1920 46 318 0.53 140 5 2388 3.71 1.11 0.69 380 1 1.16 18 450 16 161 0.42 128 5 9425 6.05 1.75 0.35 545 2 0.53 26 930 50 159 0.56 156 5 21222 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Location\\Sample numberSamplemediaTotal C%(Lew)CO2%Total S%(Leco)Agppm(AAS)Al%BappmBeppmBippmCa%CdppmCoppmCrppm20^58 Bt 1.19 0.1 0.02 0.1 7.07 1730 0.3 1 0.82 0.5 8 8320^59 C 0.60 0.1 0.06 0.6 7.18 2870 0.3 1 0.61 2.0 10 11021 - 61 B1 1.20 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.26 1040 0.3 1 0.86 0.3 8 7421 - 62 B2 0.37 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.67 1390 0.3 1 0.80 0.3 10 7921 - 62 D 0.38 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.77 1410 0.3 4 0.82 0.3 10 7922 - 65 Ae 3.44 0.1 0.01 0.4 6.17 950 0.3 2 0.80 0.3 5 6622 - 66 B 0.95 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.10 1040 0.3 1 0.82 0.3 9 8322 - 67 Cl 0.69 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.84 1010 0.3 2 0.78 0.3 10 7922 - 68 C2 0.53 0.1 0.01 0.1 8.47 1950 0.3 1 0.43 4.5 33 6428 - 75 Ae 2.95 0.1 0.01 3.4 5.72 1530 0.3 1 0.95 2.5 8 6828 - 76 B 1.38 0.1 0.01 1.4 6.65 1370 0.3 1 0.87 1.0 10 8628 - 77 Cl 0.74 0.1 0.05 3.6 6.05 4060 0.3 1 1.14 5.5 8 17728 - 78 C2 0.63 0.1 0.06 5.8 6.28 4360 0.3 4 0.87 14.0 6 17228 - 78 D 0.62 0.1 0.07 5.6 6.44 4480 0.3 1 0.91 13.5 7 18228 - 79 C3 1.12 0.1 0.09 8.0 4.17 10000 0.5 2 1.83 20.0 6 40428 - 80 C4 0.48 0.1 0.03 6.8 9.52 7410 0.3 4 0.34 51.0 12 13229 - 83 Ae 1.58 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.27 1040 0.3 1 0.87 0.3 6 7229 - 84 B1 0.86 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.05 1010 0.3 1 0.81 0.3 8 6829 - 85 B2 0.94 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.39 1060 0.3 1 0.85 0.3 9 7229 - 86 Cl 0.35 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.93 1860 0.3 1 1.18 0.3 14 8729 - 87 C2 0.11 0.1 0.01 0.1 9.51 2950 0.3 2 0.80 1.5 10 8030 - 90 Ae 1.40 0.1 0.06 0.4 6.33 4440 0.3 1 0.17 4.0 4 5830 - 91 D 1.48 0.1 0.22 1.2 7.39 5820 0.3 2 0.24 5.5 6 7030 - 91 Bf 1.47 0.1 0.22 1.2 6.99 5160 0.5 8 0.23 5.5 5 6930 - 92 ICI 0.86 0.1 0.54 0.6 7.06 4530 0.3 1 0.52 3.0 10 7330 - 93 IC2 0.49 0.1 0.10 0.1 7.17 5850 0.3 1 1.03 1.5 11 8230 - 94 IC3 0.33 0.1 0.33 0.6 7.68 6150 0.3 1 0.64 3.0 11 7930^95 IIC 0.21 0.1 0.17 1.0 10.43 10000 0.5 1 0.46 6.0 19 11923^69 T 3.90 0.1 0.07 0.4 5.55 2230 0.3 1 1.05 4.0 13 8522 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Cu Fe K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sr Ti V W ZnPPm % % % PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm(AAS)27 3.20 1.37 0.81 365 1 1.30 29 620 16 227 0.38 161 5 11024 2.96 1.61 0.62 400 1 0.92 30 1500 24 420 0.40 211 5 15219 3.30 1.13 0.75 390 1 1.25 24 600 16 192 0.39 132 5 10228 3.51 1.26 0.80 495 2 1.33 28 660 22 196 0.37 147 5 12028 3.60 1.29 0.82 505 2 1.35 30 660 20 200 0.38 150 5 12410 2.49 1.19 0.60 295 1 1.33 13 1590 18 179 0.44 126 5 7811 4.00 1.29 0.85 455 2 1.41 21 900 26 186 0.45 147 5 15613 3.89 1.27 0.85 455 2 1.40 26 690 16 184 0.40 128 5 12631 7.79 1.34 0.51 4255 21 0.78 127 1710 50 150 0.48 157 5 88416 2.72 1.17 0.62 635 3 1.28 19 2130 24 198 0.38 182 5 16617 3.75 1.26 0.79 535 3 1.28 27 2120 22 194 0.40 214 5 196115 4.21 1.26 0.39 285 27 0.61 85 7260 100 478 0.37 977 10 640147 4.98 1.00 0.28 445 26 0.41 95 6950 190 458 0.34 978 5 734151 5.08 1.07 0.29 470 29 0.44 99 7320 184 471 0.37 1010 5 746284 3.95 0.73 0.22 455 14 0.08 94 10000 72 1319 0.19 1764 5 582156 9.44 1.36 0.26 2405 19 0.23 184 5970 294 470 0.46 727 5 155810 3.22 1.28 0.76 315 3 1.31 22 700 20 185 0.41 130 5 8818 3.27 1.14 0.76 390 2 1.19 25 580 20 173 0.36 119 5 9819 3.47 1.23 0.80 405 2 1.27 27 630 20 182 0.39 125 5 10242 4.22 1.50 1.08 715 6 1.52 45 720 16 252 0.47 176 5 17632 4.71 2.45 0.83 845 6 0.86 90 1860 64 345 0.43 163 5 60413 2.95 0.95 0.20 125 7 0.38 32 2120 40 309 0.38 254 5 31621 3.55 1.10 0.35 195 8 0.47 41 2290 40 392 0.38 309 5 34220 3.36 1.05 0.33 185 7 0.45 38 2170 36 371 0.38 292 5 32228 3.36 1.36 0.63 400 7 0.79 44 1560 24 358 0.38 259 5 30031 3.40 1.55 0.95 505 2 1.34 40 740 18 231 0.40 168 5 19436 3.87 1.76 0.80 510 5 0.88 50 1310 36 311 0.44 224 5 32235 5.56 3.18 0.66 1165 2 0.47 75 2310 66 292 0.53 255 5 39834 2.82 1.59 0.61 940 8 0.72 40 1590 14 210 0.29 364 5 22422 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)tidPLocation\\Sample numberSamplemediaTotal C%(Leco)CO2%Total S%(Leco)Agppm(AAS)Al%BappmBeppmBippmCa%CdppmCoppmCrppm24 - 70 T 1.39 0.1 0.09 0.1 6.23 3910 0.3 1 0.84 1.5 13 8525 - 71 T 2.51 0.1 0.07 0.1 6.78 3510 0.3 1 1.17 3.5 14 8626 - 72 T 2.28 0.1 0.06 0.1 5.86 2060 0.3 1 1.50 1.0 14 7726 - 72 D 2.30 0.1 0.06 0.1 5.91 2080 0.3 1 1.49 1.5 14 7927 - 73 T 2.40 0.1 0.09 0.1 6.68 4400 0.3 1 1.24 2.5 14 91Fish Lake31 - 102 B 1.13 0.1 0.01 0.1 8.38 410 0.3 1 2.40 0.3 16 11431 - 103 C 0.72 0.1 0.02 0.1 8.90 370 0.3 1 2.04 0.3 18 12232 - 106 B 1.43 0.1 0.02 0.1 8.49 380 0.3 1 2.59 0.3 19 12632 - 107 Bt 1.11 0.1 0.01 0.1 9.02 350 0.3 1 2.33 0.3 23 14832 - 108 C 0.58 0.1 0.01 0.1 9.16 360 0.3 1 2.51 0.3 21 14633 -^110 B 1.44 0.1 0.01 0.1 9.18 410 0.3 1 2.11 0.3 20 13233 -^111 C 1.37 0.1 0.02 0.4 8.50 360 0.3 1 1.96 0.3 17 12134 - 113 B 0.80 0.1 0.01 0.1 8.93 420 0.3 1 2.25 0.3 12 8034 - 114 Bt 0.54 0.8 0.01 0.1 9.21 360 0.3 1 1.73 0.3 13 8734 -^114 D 0.51 0.3 0.01 0.1 8.62 350 0.3 1 1.67 0.3 12 7234 -^115 C 0.40 0.1 0.01 0.1 9.25 470 0.3 1 2.46 0.3 13 7535 -^118 Bhf 1.79 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.99 420 0.3 1 2.05 0.3 13 8035 -^119 B 0.88 0.3 0.02 0.1 8.56 430 0.3 1 1.88 0.5 16 9635 - 120 C 0.44 0.1 0.02 0.1 8.74 440 0.3 1 1.83 0.3 17 10335 - 120 D 0.41 0.1 0.02 0.1 8.79 440 0.3 1 1.83 0.3 16 10936 - 124 Ah 5.82 0.4 0.03 0.1 7.10 320 0.3 1 2.54 0.3 12 9136 - 125 B 1.77 0.4 0.02 0.1 8.10 330 0.3 1 2.49 0.3 13 11436 - 126 C 0.98 0.1 0.02 0.1 8.74 360 0.3 1 2.75 0.3 13 13937 - 128 Bf 2.67 0.1 0.01 0.2 8.22 380 0.3 1 2.00 0.3 17 100ts.)37 - 129 C 2.41 0.5 0.04 1.0 8.12 350 0.3 2 1.91 1.0 17 118 O38 - 133 T 2.01 0.1 0.02 0.1 8.27 410 0.3 1 2.49 0.5 22 12739 - 134 T 2.86 0.1 0.03 0.1 7.96 220 0.3 1 4.67 0.3 29 21622 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Cu Fe K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sr Ti V W ZnPPm % % % PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm(AAS)25 3.12 1.88 0.64 635 6 0.64 50 1460 30 205 0.36 272 5 26829 3.09 1.90 0.69 590 4 0.79 56 1390 26 228 0.37 235 5 33225 3.08 1.60 0.96 600 2 1.01 43 1200 14 213 0.41 159 5 17826 3.09 1.62 0.95 600 1 1.00 42 1230 16 214 0.42 163 5 18026 3.52 1.87 0.73 620 4 0.82 56 1500 22 233 0.42 245 5 30839 4.10 0.87 1.19 485 2 2.26 47 740 6 358 0.59 116 5 122144 5.02 0.90 1.35 610 1 2.25 60 560 4 369 0.64 129 5 8224 4.56 0.99 1.13 730 1 2.38 41 500 4 402 0.64 130 5 9048 5.71 0.96 1.55 820 1 2.04 71 570 1 350 0.59 135 5 9662 5.82 0.92 1.72 825 1 2.11 71 710 1 372 0.61 142 5 112125 6.53 1.04 1.19 540 2 2.09 44 620 1 334 0.67 156 5 116216 6.87 0.94 1.06 515 1 1.89 44 560 1 318 0.54 134 5 9018 3.64 1.00 0.99 570 1 2.68 25 530 4 424 0.60 115 5 8038 4.50 0.80 0.97 490 1 2.53 28 620 1 404 0.71 141 5 8835 4.51 0.78 0.93 475 1 2.43 28 590 2 390 0.65 135 5 9229 4.48 1.04 1.24 545 1 2.57 36 780 1 420 0.55 118 5 7617 3.70 1.02 0.88 550 1 2.39 25 590 1 368 0.54 112 5 13665 5.10 0.95 1.14 505 1 2.33 36 620 1 366 0.57 137 5 110114 5.62 0.99 1.18 555 1 2.26 41 510 1 372 0.58 138 5 72119 5.63 1.02 1.19 560 1 2.31 41 510 1 376 0.58 139 5 7438 3.48 0.75 1.00 815 1 1.93 40 750 1 327 0.46 93 5 8033 4.01 0.79 1.13 605 1 2.27 43 580 6 364 0.55 112 5 8455 5.03 0.82 1.52 590 1 2.36 66 590 4 393 0.58 140 5 7232 4.90 0.90 1.02 890 1 2.07 41 670 12 316 0.55 132 5 466113 5.56 0.85 1.09 660 1 1.97 46 600 64 310 0.51 132 5 33291 6.04 1.01 1.25 1125 1 1.83 47 600 8 337 0.53 149 5 13848 6.53 0.50 3.01 1145 1 2.12 128 1040 1 420 0.81 136 5 11822 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Location\\Sample numberSamplemediaTotal C%(Leco)CO2%Total S%(Leco)Agppm(AAS)Al%BappmBeppmBippmCa%CdppmCoppmCrppm40 - 135 T 1.44 0.1 0.02 0.1 8.62 390 0.3 1 3.30 0.3 21 128Golden Sceptre41 -^137 Ae 1.00 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.24 510 0.3 1 1.02 0.3 4 2441 -^138 Bf 1.62 0.6 0.01 0.1 6.89 580 0.3 1 1.32 0.3 8 4241 -^139 B 0.72 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.75 580 0.3 1 1.64 0.3 8 4442 - 142 Ae 1.05 0.1 0.01 0.1 5.95 580 0.3 1 1.14 0.3 4 2642 - 143 Bf 1.28 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.76 550 0.3 1 1.35 0.3 7 4742 - 144 B 0.27 0.1 0.00 0.1 7.26 610 0.3 1 1.56 0.3 9 5042 - 144 D 0.25 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.99 590 0.3 1 1.50 0.3 8 4843 - 146 Bf 1.02 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.15 570 0.3 1 1.42 0.3 8 4743 - 147 B 0.16 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.95 590 0.3 1 1.53 0.3 8 5743 - 148 Cl 0.35 0.9 0.01 0.1 6.40 550 0.5 1 2.08 0.3 5 3543 - 149 C2 1.83 6.7 0.01 0.1 6.58 500 0.3 4 5.83 0.3 7 5044 - 152 Bf 2.27 0.1 0.02 0.8 7.03 580 0.3 6 1.32 0.3 10 4644 - 153 B1 0.36 0.1 0.02 0.1 6.89 3540 0.3 1 1.60 0.3 8 4544 - 154 B2 0.23 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.26 650 0.5 6 1.55 0.3 5 3344 - 155 C 0.20 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.48 580 0.3 4 1.68 0.3 6 3545 - 157 Bf 2.12 0.1 0.03 0.1 7.62 460 0.3 6 1.05 0.3 6 2845 - 158 B 0.93 0.4 0.04 0.1 8.26 480 0.3 1 1.13 0.3 9 3045 - 159 C 0.51 0.4 0.05 0.1 8.49 190 0.3 4 0.72 0.3 6 27David Bell46 -^161 D 0.88 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.09 580 0.3 1 1.46 0.3 8 5946 - 161 Bf 0.89 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.01 570 0.3 1 1.44 0.3 8 5846 - 162 C 0.37 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.17 520 0.3 4 1.67 0.3 10 9947 - 165 Bf 2.92 0.1 0.02 0.1 5.96 3350 0.3 1 0.75 1.5 3 3447 - 166 BC 2.97 0.1 0.04 0.1 7.36 1860 0.3 1 0.86 2.5 7 4548 - 168 Ae 0.78 0.1 0.00 0.1 5.77 770 0.3 1 1.09 0.3 3 1922 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Cu Fe K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sr Ti V W ZnPPm % % % PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm(AAS)40 4.45 0.94 1.66 1200 1 2.55 59 860 6 449 0.58 127 5 947 0.93 1.74 0.38 225 6 2.69 9 210 10 279 0.20 27 5 1625 2.39 1.98 0.60 270 6 2.36 18 410 12 305 0.26 46 5 3020 1.94 1.86 0.60 330 3 2.36 19 660 8 396 0.22 37 5 281 0.85 1.94 0.30 165 1 2.12 7 180 10 348 0.25 31 5 163 1.82 2.00 0.52 230 1 2.06 21 430 10 328 0.22 38 5 285 1.83 2.18 0.59 325 1 2.40 19 500 10 387 0.24 39 5 305 1.75 2.09 0.57 300 1 2.28 18 490 8 372 0.22 37 5 282 1.76 1.87 0.56 230 1 2.30 20 290 12 387 0.26 43 5 389 1.75 2.33 0.54 270 1 2.34 17 430 14 359 0.23 38 5 287 1.36 1.81 0.67 275 1 2.36 13 690 12 409 0.17 29 5 2211 1.76 1.49 2.17 360 1 2.45 22 810 6 478 0.20 39 5 3829 2.27 1.63 0.64 445 13 1.99 34 400 10 308 0.25 46 5 4211 1.73 1.93 0.58 275 5 2.40 18 350 8 471 0.22 35 5 268 1.39 1.74 0.50 245 2 2.25 16 530 12 400 0.18 29 5 2410 1.56 1.84 0.55 290 1 2.36 16 770 16 413 0.19 33 5 287 2.63 1.31 1.04 205 21 3.35 13 450 10 226 0.29 62 5 348 2.53 1.38 1.27 225 20 3.62 16 570 8 240 0.29 62 5 386 1.67 0.63 1.45 165 17 4.92 15 480 6 170 0.24 43 5 224 2.07 1.82 0.62 245 1 2.35 23 340 14 417 0.27 50 5 364 2.06 1.81 0.62 245 1 2.32 24 350 10 412 0.27 51 5 3617 2.39 1.52 0.95 335 1 2.52 40 610 12 445 0.26 54 5 5013 3.46 1.58 0.35 120 71 1.36 11 310 14 246 0.28 75 5 4217 5.96 1.64 0.43 160 79 1.51 21 550 12 239 0.22 58 5 841 0.69 2.12 0.26 150 3 1.94 4 220 14 370 0.23 23 5 2222 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Location\\Sample numberSamplemediaTotal C%(Leco)CO2%Total S%(Leco)Agppm(AAS)Al%BappmBeppmBippmCa%CdppmCoppmCrppm48 - 169 Bf 1.99 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.34 570 0.3 4 1.16 0.3 6 4648 - 170 B 1.53 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.27 640 0.3 1 1.58 0.3 10 4748 -^171 C 0.90 0.1 0.00 0.1 7.70 750 0.3 1 1.65 0.3 11 5348 - 173 Ae 0.93 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.47 650 0.3 1 1.51 0.3 5 3149 - 174 Bfl 2.52 0.1 0.02 0.1 7.94 570 0.3 1 1.59 0.3 9 7149 - 175 Bf2 1.33 0.4 0.01 0.1 7.56 610 0.3 1 1.55 0.3 12 5949 - 176 C 0.67 0.4 0.01 0.1 6.87 620 0.3 4 1.53 0.3 10 5250 - 178 Ae 0.88 0.1 0.00 0.1 6.21 640 0.3 1 1.29 0.3 3 2650 - 179 Bf 3.03 0.1 0.01 0.1 6.28 510 0.3 1 1.22 0.3 4 4850 - 180 B 1.08 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.39 560 0.3 1 1.41 0.3 10 7550 - 181 Cl 0.46 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.55 620 0.3 1 1.60 0.3 11 7550 - 181 D 0.47 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.17 580 0.3 1 1.52 0.3 11 7150 - 182 C2 0.34 0.1 0.01 0.1 7.63 660 0.3 1 1.78 0.3 11 7222 element ICP, total C, total S, carbonate, Ag and Pb (cont.)Cu Fe K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P Pb Sr Ti V W ZnPPm % % % PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm PPm % PPm PPm PPm(AAS)2 2.29 1.82 0.51 245 3 1.77 19 680 12 297 0.22 46 5 425 2.31 1.86 0.73 325 2 2.24 22 940 16 419 0.23 51 5 467 2.24 2.19 0.75 345 1 2.44 26 950 16 440 0.25 51 5 421 1.09 1.82 0.39 340 1 2.26 9 330 18 486 0.25 33 5 267 2.88 1.60 0.80 290 2 2.10 26 780 12 535 0.26 58 5 5010 2.44 1.85 0.72 285 1 2.28 29 760 10 430 0.25 47 5 4414 2.06 1.72 0.71 285 1 2.24 28 750 10 440 0.22 43 5 401 0.75 1.63 0.27 150 1 2.34 7 150 12 439 0.24 30 5 164 2.16 1.40 0.43 175 1 2.05 15 290 14 384 0.24 58 5 2610 2.50 1.56 0.73 260 1 2.31 34 410 14 428 0.27 55 5 3615 2.24 1.66 0.83 295 1 2.51 33 470 14 479 0.23 49 5 3815 2.14 1.58 0.80 280 1 2.38 34 470 8 452 0.22 46 5 3615 2.22 1.61 0.91 315 1 2.63 37 640 16 554 0.23 51 5 42APPENDIX^ 2081990 CYANIDATION PROJECT - Soil SamplesAll soil samples were collected in the summer of 1990.STATION:^1PROPERTY: Kinsley MountainTOPOGRAPHY:^steep slope (20°)DRAINAGE: dryPARENT MATERIAL: jasperoid; passively silicified Candland shaleSITE DESCRIPTION:^East-facing slope; juniper, sage, pifton pine. No grass or LFH. Abund. pebblepavement.SOIL TYPE:^Orthic Eutric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR* M %CFSHP TXT NOTES1 0-14 A 7.5YR 4/4 N 5 R-SA silty-clayloamModerately dense w/ few smallroots; CaCO3 coatings on rarepebbles.2 14-40 Bk 5YR 3/4 N 10 SA-A clay-loamMore friable than A; abund. roots;CaCO3 coatings common onpebbles; few cobbles.3 40-90+ Ck 7.5YR 6/4 N 10 R-SA clay-loamDensely-cemented w/ CaCO3; fewroots; few cobblesS# = sample number; DEPTH = depth from the bottom of the LFH layer to top of the horizon; HZ = soilhorizon; M = mottles ('Y' for the presence of mottles, 'N' for their absence); %CF = percentage of coarsefragments; SHP = shape of coarse fragments: A - angular, R - rounded, SA - subangular, SR - subrounded;TXT = soil texture.* From the Munsell color chart.STATION:^2PROPERTY: Kinsley MountainTOPOGRAPHY:^steep slope (25°)DRAINAGE: dryPARENT MATERIAL:^Candland shale w/ interbedded argillite layers. Minor carbonate and Mn-oxide.SITE DESCRIPTION:^Piton pine, no undergrowth or LFH. Pebble pavement.SOIL TYPE:^Orthic RegosolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES5 0-23 A 10YR 4/3 N 25 SR-A loam Moderately dense w/ few smallroots; CaCO3 common in soil.6 23-65 Bk 10YR 4/4 N 40 A loam More friable than A; few roots;CaCO3 common in soil.7 65-90 Ck 10YR 5\\6 N 45 A loam Very friable; (5%) large roots;CaCO3 common in soil.APPENDIX^ 209STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:3Kinsley Mountainsteep slopedryLimestone interbedded w/ argillite with evidence of folding and faulting.Minor caliche and Mn-oxide.Road cut. Moderate slope w/ pifion pine. No LFH. Pebble pavement.Orthic antic BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES9 0-17 A 5YR 4/4 N 15 R-SA loam CaCO3 common; some pebbleshave caliche rinds, 10% fineroots.11 17-30 Bk 10YR 4/6(mottles:5YR 5/1)Y 5 SA silty, clayloamCaCO3 common; 5% med. tolarge roots; mottles appear torepresent weathering of argillitebeds.10 30-53 Ck 10YR 5/2 N 5 R-SA silty, clayloamAbund. cobbles of highlyweathered parent rock ;moderately CaC01 cemented.STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:4Kinsley Mountainsteep slope (35°)dryLamb dolomite (?)South-facing slope between two dirt roads. Pebble pavement. Sage brush, pifionpine and grasses. No LFH.Orthic RegosolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES12130-3535-85AC7.5YR 4/47.5YR 5/4NN1015R-SAR-SAclay loamclay loamSlightly moist in upper 8 cm.Fine to large roots common.Moderately cemented; clastscommonly have CaCO3 rinds.APPENDIX^ 210STATION:^5PROPERTY: Kinsley MountainTOPOGRAPHY:^steep slopeDRAINAGE: dryPARENT MATERIAL: Candland shaleSITE DESCRIPTION:^Pifion pine, juniper and sage common; grasses and LFH rare. Pebble pavement.SOIL TYPE:^Orthic Eutric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES14 0-16 A 5YR 4/5 N 15 SA silty clayloamMinor fine roots. Upper portionmay be transported material.15 16-43 B 5YR 3/4 N 20 R-SA clay loam Moderately friable. Minor fine tolarge roots. Pebbles have CaCO3rinds.16 43-95+ C 7.5YR 4/4 N 25 SA-A clay loam More CaCO3 and clay than in B.Few cobbles; pebbles haveCaCO3 rinds.STATION:^6PROPERTY: Kinsley MountainTOPOGRAPHY:^gentle slope (5°)DRAINAGE: dryPARENT MATERIAL: Candland shaleSITE DESCRIPTION:^Piffon pine, juniper and few sage. No grasses. Pebble pavement.SOIL TYPE:^Orthic RegosolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES17180-2222-40ABC5YR 4/45YR 4/5NN1030AAsilty clayloamsiltyloamA few intermediate size roots.Moderately cemented; abund.intermediate to large roots;CaCO3 rinds on clasts.APPENDIX^ 211STATION:^7PROPERTY: Kinsley MountainTOPOGRAPHY:^steep slopeDRAINAGE: dryPARENT MATERIAL: limestoneSITE DESCRIPTION:^Pifion pine, juniper; no sage, little grass. Pebble (limestone) pavement.SOIL TYPE:^Orthic RegosolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES19200-1010-27ABk5YR 4/45YR 4/6NN2040SASA-Asilty clayloamclay loamFine roots commonAbund. cobbles with roots.STATION:^11PROPERTY: Straight ForkTOPOGRAPHY:^steep slope (20°)DRAINAGE: dryPARENT MATERIAL:^light grey, fine-grained sandy limestoneSITE DESCRIPTION:^West-facing slope. Small black sage, grasses. Pebble pavement.SOIL TYPE:^Orthic Eutric RegosolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES27 0-17 A 10YR 3/3 N 5 SA sandyloamAbund. CaCO3 rinds; 10% fineto medium roots.28 17-31 Bk 10YR 5/6 N 25 R-SA sandyloamCaCO3 rinds.29 31-45 Ck 10YR 5/4 N 25 SA sand Abund. CaCO3 in matrix - moredensely cemented than upperhorizons; CaCO1 rinds.APPENDIX^ 212STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:12Straight Forkmoderate slope (11°)drytan-grey, fine-grained sandstoneBlack sage and grasses. Pebble pavement.Orthic RegosolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES32330-1313-24ACk10YR 4/310YR 5/4NN2025SA-ASA-Aloamloam10% fine roots. Pebbles withCaCO3 rinds.Slightly more dense than A Noroots. Wavy, irregular upperboundary. CaC0-4 rinds.STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:14Straight Forksteep slope (26°)dryaltered limestone and dolomiteSouth-facing slope. Abund. sage and grasses.Orthic Eutric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES39 0-20 A 7.5YR 3/2 N 10 SA sandyloamMinor CaCO3. Organic-rich. 2%fine roots.40 20-45 Bk 10YR 3/3 N 10 SA sandyloamMinor CaCO3. 1% fine roots.Pebbles commonly have CaCO3rinds.41 45-65 Ck 10YR 4/4 N 20 R-SA siltyloamAbund. CaCO3APPENDIX^ 213STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:15Straight Forkmoderate slope (16°)drySandstoneAbund. sage and grassesOrthic RegosolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES42430-2020-53ACk10YR 3/310YR 4/3NN2015SAR-SAsandyloamsandyloamMinor CaCO3. 5% fine roots;abund. organics.Minor CaCO3; rinds. 3% roots.STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:18Brewery Creekgentle slopewetNear ridge top, moderatly dense lodgepole pine with scattered dwarf birch,poplar and willows. 2-5 cm of moss.Orthic Dystric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES49 0-8 LFH 7.5YR 4/2 N Only organic material (moss)collected.50 8-22 B 10YR 4/4 N 1 silty clay Wavy upper boundary.51 22- —35 Cl 7.5YR 5/6 N 50 SA-A coarsesand52 —35-55 C2 10YR 6/6 N 40 SA-A coarsesand53 55-88 C3 10YR 6/6 N 50 SA-A coarsesandSample 52 and 53 were collected in a trench near sample site.APPENDIX^ 214STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:19Brewery Creekmoderate slope (10 °)wetquartz monzoniteJust below ridge top. Lodgepole pine, dwarf birch, polar and willows; moss andmoose grass.Orthic Dystric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES54 0-5 LFH N Only organic material sampled(moss).55 5-13 B 7.5YR 4/5 Y 3 SA siltyclayloamWavy lower boundary. Purplemottles on top of horizon.56 13-40 C 7.5YR 5/8 N 20 SA-A coarsesandSTATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:20Brewery Creekmoderate slope (12°)wetquartz monzonite and argilliteLodgepole pine with few willows and young poplar. Thick moss layer.Orthic Dystric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES57 0-14 LFH N58 14-24 Bt 10YR 4/4 N 1 siltyclaySpotty Ae on top of Bt horizon.Thin Bf in places. Wavy upperboundary.59 24-52 C 10YR 5/6 N 30 SA sandyAPPENDIX^ 215STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:21Brewery Creeksteep slope (26°)wetquartz monzoniteCollected in east wall of trench. Lodgepole pine with few young poplar; moss.Orthic Dystric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES60 0-10 LFH61 10-50 B1 10YR 4/3 Y 1 silty clayloamHeavy gleying on top ofhorizon. Distinct platy structure.62 50-80 B2 10YR 4/4 Y 1 silty clayloamDistinct platy structure.63 80-95 C 10YR 5/6 N 50 SA sandygravelSTATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:22Brewery Creeksteep slopewetQuartz monzoniteEast wall of trench.Eluviated Dystric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES64 0-12 LFH65 12-17 Ae 10YR 4/2 Y 1 silty clay66 17-32 B 10YR 4/4 N 1 silty clayloam67 32-53 Cl 10YR 5/6 N 1 silty clay68 53-90 C2 7.5YR 5/6 N 50 SA sandygravelSand from between cobbles.FeOx staining common.APPENDIX^ 216STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:28Brewery Creeksteep slopemoistquartz monzonitePoplar and lodgepole pine; thick moss.Orthic Humo-ferric Podzol, cumulic phaseS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES74 0-8 LFH75 8-12 Ae 10YR 4/3 Y 5 SA silty loam76 12-27 Bf 2.5YR 5/6 Y 10 R-SA silty clayloam77 27-50 Cl 10YR 6/6 N 20 SA-A sandyloamSlightly platy structure. Rootscommon.78 50-75 C2 10YR 5/6 N 30 SA-A sandyloamDistinct upper boundary.79 75-105 C3 5YR 3/1 N 20 SA sand Argillite being pulled downslope by soil creep. Horizontallayering.80 105-135 C4 7YR 4/8 N 30 SA-A sand Horizontal structure. Fe-oxidecoatings on some sand grains.STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:29Brewery Creekmoderate slope (10°)wetquartz monzoniteCollected in trench on south-facing slope. Thick willows, alders and poplar; fewlodgepole pine; thick moss.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES82 0-12 LFH83 12-25 Ae 10YR 5/4 Y 30 A silt loam Mottled: reddish brown and lightgrey.84 25-37 B1 2.5YR 4/4 N 10 A silt loam Mottles on top. Very fine platystructure in silty sections.85 37-75 B2 2.5YR 4/4 N 15 SA silt loam Blocky structure.86 75-104 C 10YR 4/3 N 15 SA silt loam Blocky/platy structure.87 104-125 IIC 10YR 5/6 N 20 SA loamysandGrus.APPENDIX^ 217STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:30Brewery Creekmoderate slope (12°)moistquartz monzoniteOrthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES89 0-10 LFH90 10-20 A 10YR 5/6 Y 40 SA loamysandA or B ?91 20-31 B1 10YR 5/8 N 25 SA loamysandModerate platy structure. Fewthick roots.92 31-50 B2 2.5YR 4/4 N 15 SA clay loam Slight platy structure.93 50-72 B3 2.5YR 4/4 N 10 SA clay loam Blocky structure.94 72-93 C 2.5YR 4/4 N 150 SA clay loam95 93-115 IIC 10YR 5/8 N 15 SA loamysandGrus (weathered monzonite).Abund. Fe-oxide.STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:31Fish Lakemoderate slopemoistglacial tillLodgepole pine; bushes and grasses common.BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES101 0-2 F N102 2-22 B 10YR 4/6 N 5 SA silty clayloam102 22-65 C 10YR 4/3 N 30 R-SA loamAPPENDIX^ 218STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:32Fish Lakesteep slopemoistGlacial tillCollected in small meadow. Lodgepole pine, grasses and flowers.Orthic Grey LuvisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES105 0-9 A 7.5YR 3/2 N 10 S-R sandy Few fine roots.106 9-23 B1 5YR 3/3 N 10 R-SA sandyclay15% fine to medium tubularroots.107 23-55 Bt 10YR 4/4 N 5 R-SA silty clay108 55-73 C 10YR 4/3 N 10 R-SA silty clayloamSTATION:^33PROPERTY: Fish LakeTOPOGRAPHY:^Gentle slopeDRAINAGE: moistPARENT MATERIAL: glacial tillSITE DESCRIPTION:^Lodgepole pine, grasses common; scattered flowers and bushes. Lots of fallen trees.SOIL TYPE:^Orthic Dystric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES109 0-9 LFH N Only F and H collected.110 9-40 B 7.5YR 5/6 N 20 SA-A clayeysandAbund. fibrous to thick roots.111 40-72 C 10YR 5/4 N 20 SA-A sand More friable than BAPPENDIX^219STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:34Fish Lakemoderate slope (8°)wetglacial tillTwenty meters from seepage area. Abund. lodgepole pines, grasses; few flowers andbushes.Orthic Grey LuvisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES112 0-7 LFH/ 10YR 3/2 NAe113 7-19 B 10YR 4/4 N 55 R-SA clayeysandFew tubular roots.114 19-34 Bt 10YR 5/4 N 10 R-SA sandyclay115 34-60 C 10YR 5/3 Y 20 R-SA clayeysandIntense gleying: light grey andred-brown.STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:35Fish Lakegentle slopemoistglacial tillAbund. lodgepole pine; fallen logs. Little undergrowth. Patchy moss.Orthic Dystric BrunisolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES117 0-1 LFH Mostly L.118 1-10 Bhf 7.5YR 4/4 N 5 SA-A clayeysandSpotty Ae above Bhf. Many fineroots.119 10-20 B2 10YR 4/4 N 10 R-SA clayeysand120 20-45 C 10YR 5/5 N 20 SA-A clayeysandAPPENDIX^ 220STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:36Fish Lakegentle slope (8°)moistglacial tillCollected in road cut. Abund. lodgepole pine and few spruce; bushes, grasses andflowers common.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES123 0-4 LFH N124 4-7 Ah 7.5YR 3/2 N 5 R-SA sand Only enough material for onebag.125 7-25 B 7.5YR 4/4 N 15 R-SA silty clayloam126 25-55 C 10YR 4/4 N 20 R-SA silty clayloamSTATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:37Fish Lakegentle slopemoisttalus/subcrop; glacial tillLodgepole pine and grasses common; few bushes. Abund. fallen logsOrthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES127 0-7 LFH128 7-17 Bf 5YR 4/6 N 15 A clayeysand129 17-52 C 10YR 5/6 N 20 R-SA clayeysandAPPENDIX^ 221STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:41Golden Sceptregently slopemoistmetasediments and volcanicsAbund. alders and deciduous trees; thick undergrowth.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES136 0-4 LFH137 4-8 Ae 10YR 6/2 N 1 R sandyloamWavy, indistinct lower boundary.138 8-28 Bf 10YR 5/6 N 1 R sandyloamWavy, indistinct upper and lowerboundariesCaCO3.139 28-60 B 10YR 6/6 N 10 R-SA sandyloamSTATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:42Golden Sceptregentle slope (2°)moist?Abund. lodgepole pine with moss on limbs, abund. alders, moss and small ferns.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolsS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES141 0-10 LFH142 10-18 Ae 10YR 5/2 N 1 SA sandyloamWavy lower boundary.143 18-37 Bf 10YR 6/6 N 3 SA sandyloam144 37-45 B 10YR 6/4 N 1 SA sandyloamAPPENDIX^ 222STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:43Golden Sceptregentle slopemoistfluvial glacial tillLodgepole pines, alders and bushes common.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES145 0-12 LFH146 12-17 Bf 10YR 4/3 N 3 SA silty sand Wavy and indistinct lowerboundary.147 17-34 B 10YR 6/3 N 1 silty loam Compact soil.148 34-80 C 2.5YR 6/2 N 1 silty sand149 80-85 IIC 2.5YR 6/2 N 5 SR-SA sandSTATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:44Golden Sceptregentle slope (3°)moistmetasedimentsLodgepole pine and alders common.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES151 0-7 LFH152 7-18 Bf 7.5YR 4/4 N 5 S siltysandWavy, indistinct lower boundary.153 18-32 B1 10 YR 6/3 N 5 S siltysand154 32-55 B2 2.5YR 6/2 N 10 S siltysand155 55-90 C 2.5YR 6/2 N 15 S siltysandAPPENDIX^ 223STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:45Golden Sceptregentle slopedrymetasedimentsPines and alders common.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES156 0-7 LFH157 7-21 Bf 7.5YR 4/4 N 3 R-SA sandyclaySpotty Ae on top of Bf.158 21-42 B 10YR 6/6 N 3 SA clayeysandVery fine-grained and friable.159 42-63 C 7.5YR 6/6 Y 10 SA clayeysandSTATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:46David Bellgentle slopemoistmetasedimentsLodgepole pines and birch common; moderately thick undergrowth.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES160 0-7 LFH161 7-25 Bf 10YR 5/3 N 5 R-A clayeysandSpotty Ae above Bf. Color variesthroughout horizon.162 25-43 C 2.5YR 6/2 N 3 R-A clayeysand0.5 cm of Fe-rich sandy materialoverlying bedrock.APPENDIX^ 224STATION:^47PROPERTY: David BellTOPOGRAPHY:^levelDRAINAGE: moistPARENT MATERIAL: schistSITE DESCRIPTION:^^Collected in an opening with moss and small shrubs; abund. lodgepole pines, aldersand raspberry bushes.SOIL TYPE:^Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES164 0-9 LFH165 9-15 Bf 5YR 3/3 N 1 SA sandyloam0.5 cm Ae above a discontinuousBf.166 15-35 B/C 5YR 4/6 N 5 SA sandyloamSTATION:^48PROPERTY: David BellTOPOGRAPHY:^gentle slope (3°)DRAINAGE: moistPARENT MATERIAL: metasedimentsSITE DESCRIPTION:^Lodgepole pine thick growths of alder; moss commonSOIL TYPE:^Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES167 0-7 LFH168 7-10 Ae N 1 Spotty.169 10-35 Bf 7.5YR 5/6 N 5 S sandyloamWavy, distinct upper boundary.170 35-50 B 10YR 5/6 N 10 S sandyloamMore friable than Bf.171 50-82 C 10YR 6/4 N 15 S sandAPPENDIX^ 225STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:49David Belllevel top of ridgedry to moistmetasedimentsAbund. lodgepole pine, birch alder and bushes.Orthic Humo-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES172 0-7 LFH173 7-8 Ae N174 8-25 Bfl 7.5YR 5/6 N 10 SA-A sandyloam175 25-45 Bfl 7.5YR 5/6 N 10 SA-A sandyloam176 45-90 C 2.5Y 6/4 N 10 R-SA sand Wavy upper boundary.STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:SOIL TYPE:50David Bellhill topmoistmetasedimentsAbund. evergreens, grassesOrthic Htuno-ferric PodzolS# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES177 0-13 LFH178 13-16 Ae 1 R-SA silt loam179 16-20 Bf 7.5YR 4/6 N 1 SA silt loam180 20-34 B 7.5YR 3/2 N 3 SA silt clayloam181 34-49 C 2.5Y 5/6 N 5 SA silt clayloam182 49-55 IIC 2.5Y 4/3 N 10 SA sandyloamAPPENDIX^ 226CYANIDATION 1990 - Stream sedimentsAll stream sediments were collected in the summer of 1990.STATION:^8-22PROPERTY: Kinsley MountainGRADIENT: steepDRAINAGE:^dryNEARBY OUTCROP:^none; drainage cut into alluvial fanSTREAM WIDTH (m):^13SAMPLING DEPTH (cm): 10SORTING:^goodSEDIMENT SIZE:^fine silt to bouldersSITE DESCRIPTION:^Inactive stream; some grasses and sage in streambed.STATION:^9-23PROPERTY: Kinsley MountainGRADIENT: steepDRAINAGE:^dryNEARBY OUTCROP:^limestone —15 m upstreamSTREAM WIDTH (m):^11SAMPLING DEPTH (cm): 10SORTING:^goodSEDIMENT SIZE:^fine silt to bouldersSITE DESCRIPTION:^Inactive stream; some grasses and sage in streambed.STATION:^10-24PROPERTY: Kinsley MountainGRADIENT: steepDRAINAGE:^moistNEARBY OUTCROP:^limestoneSTREAM WIDTH (m):^10SAMPLING DEPTH (cm): 10SORTING:^goodSEDIMENT SIZE:^fine silt to bouldersSITE DESCRIPTION:^Inactive stream; some grasses and sage in streambed. Abundant sand andsilt; few organics. Pifton pine and juniper on banks.STATION:^13PROPERTY: Straight ForkTOPOGRAPHY:^depression (4 ° slope)DRAINAGE: moistPARENT MATERIAL:^fluvial layers below soil horizons.SITE DESCRIPTION:^Pit dug in drainage. Sage, grasses in streambed.APPENDIX^ 227S# DEPTH HZ COLOR M % SHP TXT NOTES(cm) CF35 0-35 A 5YR 2/5 N 5 R-SA loam36 35-65 C 10YR 3/2 N 30 R-SA sand Fluvial sand layer.37 65-85 IIC 7.5YR 3/2 N 10 R loam Fluvial silt, sand, gravel layer.STATION:PROPERTY:TOPOGRAPHY:DRAINAGE:PARENT MATERIAL:SITE DESCRIPTION:16Straight Forkvalley floormoistfluvial sedimentAbundant grasses and sage in streambed. Steep (25°) slopes on either side.S# DEPTH(cm)HZ COLOR M %CFSHP TXT NOTES45460-1515-45AC7.5YR 3/210YR 3/2NN55SASAsiltyloamsiltyloamAbundant organics and fine roots.Fluvial sediments. High organiccontent.STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:17-47Straight Forkmoderateflowingnone; stream incised into recent gravels1.75moderatefine silt to bouldersStream depth 0.5 m. Marshy area upstream 60 m.STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:23-69Brewery Creekmoderateflowingnone0.5 to 15poorfine silt to cobblesStream overgrown with willows; thick (<0.5m) tundra.APPENDIX^ 228STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:24-70Brewery Creekmoderateflowingnone110moderatefine silt to cobblesStream overgrown with willows; thick (<0.5 m) tundra. Less clay than 23-69.25-71Brewery Creekmoderateflowingargillite and quartz monzonite1 to 210poorfine silt to cobblesDrilling upstream has increased silt content. Dark grey-brown sediment,moderate amount of organics, low clay content.26-72Brewery Creeklowflowingnone310moderatefine silt to cobblesSample taken in ditch with active sediment. Abundant willows and grasseson banks.STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:27-73Brewery Creekmoderateflowingnone0.3 to 15poorfine silt to cobblesAbundant willows and thick moss on banks. Abundant sediment.APPENDIX^ 229STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:38-133Fish Lakesteepflowingnone0.5 to 15moderatefine silt to bouldersLodge pole pine and underbrush overgrowing stream; mosquitoes; manyfallen logs.38-134Fish Lakemoderateflowingnone1 to 1.5<15poorfine silt to bouldersAlders overgrowing stream; little grass and wild roses. Alluvium on slopeto the north.STATION:PROPERTY:GRADIENT:DRAINAGE:NEARBY OUTCROP:STREAM WIDTH (m):SAMPLING DEPTH (cm):SORTING:SEDIMENT SIZE:SITE DESCRIPTION:38-135Fish Lakemoderateflowingnone0.5 to 12goodfine silt to pebbles (few)Collected in a meadow with grasses and flowers. Stream cut about 0.4 minto meadow.PUBLICATIONSDelaney, Tracy A. and Fletcher, W.K., Size distribution of gold in soils: Implications ofExploration Geochemical Surveys, Journal of Exploration Geochemists, (in review).Also presented at the 121st annual meeting of the Society for Mining and Engineering inPhoenix, Arizona, February,1992.Sinclair, A.J. and Delaney, T., 1992. Preliminary evaluation of multielement regional streamsediment data, Eskay Creek area (NTS 104B). British Columbia Ministry of Energy,Mines and Petroleum Resources Fieldwork (in review).Delaney, Tracy, A.; Day, Gordon W.; Turner, Robert L.; and Jones, Janet L., 1987. Analyticalresults and sample locality map of heavy-mineral-concentrate and rock samples from theOrgan Mountains Wilderness Study Area (NM-030-074), Dona Ana County, NewMexico: USGS Open-file Report No. OF 87-0638, 13 p.Delaney, Tracy A.; Detra, David E.; Kilburn, James E.; Vaughn, Robert B.; and Allen, MichaelS., 1988. Analytical results and sample locality map of stream-sediment and heavy-mineral-concentrate samples from the Diamond Breaks Wilderness Study Area (CO-010-214/UT-080-113), Moffat County, Colorado, and Daggett County, Utah: USGS Open-fileReport No. OF 87-0638, 13 p.Connor, Jon, J.; Delaney, Tracy A.; Kulik, Dolores M.; Sawatzky, Don L.; Whipple, James W.;and Ryan, George S., 1987. Mineral Resources of the Diamond Breaks Wilderness StudyArea, Moffat County, Colorado, and Daggett County, Utah: USGS Bulletin B 1714-B, 15p.Adrian, Betty M.; Turner, Robert; Malcolm, Mollie J.; Fey, David L.; Gent, Carol, A.; andDelaney, Tracy A., 1987. Analytical results and sample locality maps of heavy-mineral-concentrate and rock samples from the Silver Peak Range (NV-050-338) Wilderness StudyArea, Esmerelda County, Nevada: USGS Open-file Report No. OF 87-0505, 19 p.Adrian, Betty M.; Turner, Robert; Fey, David L.; Malcolm, Mollie J.; Gent, Carol, A.; andDelaney, Tracy A., 1988. Analytical results and sample locality maps of stream-sediment,heavy-mineral-concentrate and rock samples from the East Fork High Rock Canyon (CA-020-914/NV-020-006), Little High Rock Canyon (CA-020-913/NV-020-008), High RockCanyon (CA-020-913B) Wilderness Study Areas, Humbolt and Washoe Counties,Nevada: USGS Open-file Report No. OF -88-0056, 44 p.Adrian, B.M.; Smith, D.B.; Hill, R.H.; Roemer, T.A.; Vaughn, R.B.; and Delaney Tracy A., 1986.Analytical results and sample locality maps of stream-sediment, heavy-mineral-concentrate, and rock samples from the Kofa Wilderness Refuge, Yuma and La PazCounties, Arizona: USGS Open-file Report No. OF 86-0199, 122 P.Adrian, B.M.; Smith, D.B.; Hill, R.H.; Roemer, T.A.; Vaughn, Robert B.; and Delaney, Tracy A.,1987. Analytical results and sample locality map of stream-sediment, heavy-mineral-concentrate and rock samples from the New Water Mountains Wilderness Study Area, LaPaz county, Arizona: USGS Open-file Report No. OF 87-0339, 34 p.Adrian, B.M.; Turner, R.L.; Malcolm, M.J.; Fey, D.L.; Crock, J.G.; and Delaney, Tracy A., 1987.Analytical results and sample locality map of stream-sediment, heavy-mineral-concentrateand rock samples from the Rough Hills Wilderness Study Area, Elko County, Nevada(NV-010-151): USGS Open-file Report No. OF 87-0431, 12 p.Detra, D.E.; Kilburn, James E.; and Delaney, Tracy A., 1987. Analytical results and samplelocality map of heavy-mineral-concentrate samples from the Southern Inyo Mountains(CA-010-056) Wilderness Study Area, Inyo County, California: USGS Open-file ReportNo. OF 87-0011, 9 p.Riad, Samir; Smith, Donald H.; Meyers, Herbert; Rinehart, Wilbur; Rockwell, Mark; andDelaney, Tracy A. (compilers), 1985. Seismicity of the Middle East: NationalGeophysical Data Center, World Data Center A Research in Environmental Science,Boulder, Colorado, map."@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; vivo:dateIssued "1993-05"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0052503"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Geological Sciences"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "Distribution of gold in soils and stream sediments and the use of cyanidation in exploration geochemistry"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/1342"@en .