AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the current-year 

issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Survey publications released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List." Publications that may be listed in various U.S. 

Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" may no longer be 

available. 

Reports released through the NTIS may be obtained by writing to the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161; please include NTIS report number with inquiry. 

Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices listed below. 

BY MAIL 

Books 

Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, publications 

of general interest (such as leaflets, pamphlets, booklets), single 

copies of Earthquakes & Volcanoes, Preliminary Determination of 

Epicenters, and some miscellaneous reports, including some of the 

foregoing series that have gone out of print at the Superintendent of 

Documents, are obtainable by mail from 

U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services 

Box 25286, Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

Subscriptions to periodicals (Earthquakes & Volcanoes and 

Preliminary Determination of Epicenters) can be obtained ONLY 

from the 

Superintendent of Documents 

Government Printing Office 

Washington, DC 20402 

(Check or money order must be payable to Superintendent of 

Documents.) 

Maps 

For maps, address mail orders to 

U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services 

Box 25286, Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

Residents of Alaska may order maps from 

U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Science Information Center 

101 Twelfth Ave., Box 12 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

OVER THE COUNTER 

Books and Maps 

Books and maps of the U.S. Geological Survey are available 

over the counter at the following U.S. Geological Survey offices, all 

of which are authorized agents of the Superintendent of Documents. 

• ANCHORAGE, Alaska-Rm. 101, 4230 University Dr. 

• LAKEWOOD, Colorado-Federal Center, Bldg. 810 

• MENLO PARK, California-Bldg. 3, Rm. 3128, 

345 Middlefield Rd. 

• RESTON, Virginia-USGS National Center, Rm. 1C402, 

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr. 

• SALT LAKE CITY, Utah-Federal Bldg., Rm. 8105, 

125 South State St. 

• SPOKANE, Washington-U.S. Post Office Bldg., Rm. 135, 

West 904 Riverside Ave. 

• WASHINGTON, D.C.-Main Interior Bldg., Rm. 2650, 

18th and C Sts., NW. 

Maps Only 

Maps may be purchased over the counter at the following 

U.S. Geological Survey offices: 

• FAIRBANKS, Alaska-New Federal Bldg, 10 I Twelfth Ave. 

• ROLLA, Missouri-1400 Independence Rd. 

• STENNIS SPACE CENTER, Mississippi-Bldg. 3101 
Base- and Precious-Metal Concentrations of 

Early Proterozoic Massive Sulfide Deposits in ArizonaCrustal and Thermochemical Controls of Ore Deposition 

By Ed DeWitt 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2138 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1995 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Gordon P. Eaton, Director 

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services 

Box 25286, Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and 

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

DeWitt, Ed. 

Base- and precious-metal concentrations of early Proterozoic massive sulfide 

deposits in Arizona : crustal and thermochemical controls of ore deposition I by 

Ed DeWitt. 

p. em.- (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 2138) 

Includes bibliographical references. 

Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.3:2138 

1. Ore deposits-Arizona. 2. Sulphides-Arizona. 3. Geology, StratigraphicProterozoic. I. Title. II. Series. 

TN24.A6D48 1996 95-22822 

553.4'09791-dc20 CIP 
CONTENTS 

Abstract............................................................................................................................ 1 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ................. .. ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . 1 

Distribution, age, and characteristics of deposits ..................... .. . . . . . . . .. ............. .............. 2 

Overall district summary . . ......... ......... .. ............. ........... ............ .. . . .. ....... .. . ......... ........... .. 3 

Summary of mines by district......................................................................................... 6 

Agua Fria district.................................................................................................... 6 

Big Bug district....................................................................................................... 7 

Hualapai district...................................................................................................... 9 

Kay district . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ... .. . . . . . 12 

Mayer district.......................................................................................................... 12 

New River district................................................................................................... 12 

Old Dick district..................................................................................................... 14 

Verde district . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . 17 

Zonia district........................................................................................................... 23 

Metal zonation patterns and provinces .. .. . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 25 

Base-metal concentrations...................................................................................... 25 

Precious-metal concentrations................................................................................ 25 

Factors controlling ore deposition.................................................................................. 26 

Crustal controls of metallogenesis.......................................................................... 27 

Thermochemical controls of metallogenesis ... . .. . .. . . .. ........................... ......... ......... 27 

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................... 30 

References cited.............................................................................................................. 30 

FIGURES 

1. Map of central and northwestern Arizona showing location of Early Proterozoic massive sulfide 

2. 

3--4. 

5. 

6-11. 

12. 

13-15. 

metallic mineral districts............................................................................................................................... 2 

Location map of mines in the Agua Fria district .................................... ~······························································ 7 

Plots of: 

3. Silver vs. gold and copper iii the Binghampton Mine, 1916--47 .................................................................. 8 

4. Silver vs. gold and copper in the Stoddard Mine, 1929-57 ......................................................................... 8 

Location map of mines in the Big Bug district...................................................................................................... 9 

Plots of: 

6. Gold vs. copper, lead, and zinc in the Iron King Mine, 1903-69 ................................................................ 10 

7. Silver vs. copper, lead, and zinc in the Iron King Mine, 1903-69 ................. ......... ........................ ............. 10 

8. Year of production vs. gold, lead, and zinc in the Iron King Mine, 1936-69 .............................................. 10 

9. Year of production vs. Ag/Au, silver, and gold in the Iron King Mine, 1936-69 ........................................ 11 

10. Year of production vs. ore, silver, and gold in the Iron King Mine, 1936-69.............................................. 11 

11. Silver vs. gold, lead, and zinc in the Hackberry Mine, 1905-56 .................... ........ ............ ............ ............. 11 

Location map of mines in the Hualapai district..................................................................................................... 12 

Plots of: 

13. Year of production vs. silver, copper, and lead in the Antler Mine, 1943-61.............................................. 13 

14. Year of production vs. gold, copper, zinc, and lead in the Copper World Mine, 1944-54 .......................... 13 

15. Gold vs. copper and silver in the Kay Mine, 1910-66................................................................................. 13 

III 
IV 

16. 

17. 

18-21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25-31. 

32. 

33-38. 

39. 

40-43. 

44. 

CONTENTS 

Location map of mines in the Kay district............................................................................................................ 14 

Location map of mines in the Mayer district . . . . . . .. ......... .. . . ....... ..... .. . ... ............ ...... ......... ............ ............ .............. 14 

Plots of: 

18. Year of production vs. silver and gold in the Bluebell Mine, 1903-30 ....................................................... 15 

19. Silver vs. copper in the Bluebell Mine, 1903-59......................................................................................... 15 

20. Year of production vs. gold and silver in the DeSoto Mine, 1904-72......................................................... 16 

21. Silver vs. copper in the DeSoto Mine, 1904-72 .......................................................................................... 16 

Location map of mines in the New River district.................................................................................................. 17 

Plot of silver vs. copper and gold in the Orizaba Mine, 1918-48.. ......... ...... ........ ....... .......... ........... .. . ...... ........ ... 18 

Location map of mines in the Old Dick district.................................................................................................... 18 

Plots of: 

25. Year of production vs. silver, copper, zinc, and lead in the Old Dick Mine, 1947-66 ................................ 19 

26. Year of production vs. Ag/Au and gold in the Old Dick Mine, 1947-66 .................................................... 19 

27. Year of production vs. silver, gold, copper, zinc, and lead in the Bruce Mine, 1968-77 ............................. 19 

28. Year of production vs. copper, lead, silver, and zinc in the Copper King Mine, 1917-27 .......................... 20 

29. Year of production vs. copper, lead, silver, and zinc in the Copper King Mine, 1942-52 .......................... 20 

30. Year of production vs.lead, zinc, and Ag/Au in the Copper King Mine, 1942-52 ..................................... 20 

31. Year of production vs. silver, gold, copper, zinc, and lead in the Copper Queen Mine, 1960-66 ............... 21 

Location map of mines in the Verde district.......................................................................................................... 21 

Plots of: 

33. Year of production vs. Ag/Au and gold in the United Verde Mine, 1884-1975 .......................................... 22 

34. Year of production vs. ore and copper in the United Verde Mine, 1884-1975 ............................................ 22 

35. Year of production vs. copper, zinc, silver, and gold in the United Verde Mine, 1940-53.......................... 22 

36. Year of production vs. silver and gold in the United Verde Extension Mine, 1915-45 ............................... 24 

37. Year of production vs. ore, copper, and silver in the United Verde Extension Mine, 1915-40 ................... 24 

38. Copper vs. silver and gold in the Copper Chief Mine, 1901-48.................................................................. 24 

Location map of mines in the Zonia district ................ .............. .... ................ ........ ...... ............ .............. .... ........... 25 

Plots of: 

40. Silver vs. copper and gold in the Zonia Mine, 1901-51.............................................................................. 26 

41. Year of production vs. ore and copper in the Zonia Mine, 1966-74............................................................ 26 

42. Copper vs. gold for all massive sulfide deposits, Arizona .......... .............. .............. ............ ................ ......... 28 

43. Silver vs. gold for all massive sulfide deposits, Arizona.............................................................................. 28 

Massive sulfide metallic mineral districts and metal zonation patterns in central and northwestern Arizona...... 29 

TABLE 

1. Production data for metallic mineral districts and massive sulfide deposits, Arizona .. .............................. .... ...... 4 
Base- and Precious-Metal Concentrations of 

Early Proterozoic Massive Sulfide Deposits in ArizonaCrustal and Thermochemical Controls of Ore Deposition 

By Ed DeWitt 

ABSTRACT 

Of the 70 known Early Proterozoic massive sulfide 

deposits and prospects in Arizona, 48 have production data 

that can be used to infer differences about the origins of the 

various deposits. Thirteen massive sulfide metallic mineral 

districts contain 48 mines and prospects that, from 1884 

through 1978, produced 55.3 million tons of ore containing 

3.99 billion lb of Cu, 237 million lb of Pb, 1.0 billion lb of 

Zn, 75.2 million oz of Ag, and 2.0 million oz of Au. Average produced grades were 3.6 percent Cu, 0.2 percent Pb, 0.9 

percent Zn, 1.36 oz/ton Ag, and 0.037 oz/ton Au. Because Pb 

and Zn were recovered only sporadically, in-situ grades of 

any deposit that contained Pb and Zn are higher than the 

averages indicated by the production figures above, about 

0.5 percent Pb and 3-10 percent Zn. Ag/Au ratios for all 

deposits averaged 37, but ranged from 8 to 462 for deposits 

producing more than 20,000 tons of ore. Precious-metal concentrations ranged from less than 0.001 to 0.12 oz/ton for Au 

and from 0.009 to 3.56 oz/ton for Ag in deposits that 

produced more than 20,000 tons of ore. 

Low-Au, low-Ag, high Ag/Au ore of the Hualapai and 

Old Dick districts contrasts markedly with the average for 

districts in the Prescott-Jerome area. These differences were 

likely caused by regional variations in the crust underlying 

western Arizona. Mojave-type crust, characterized by elevated 207Pbt204Pb and Th/U values compared to central Ari·-

zona~ underlies western Arizona and was partially melted to 

form much of the metavolcanic strata that host massive sulfide deposits in the Hualapai and Old Dick districts. Apparently, Early Proterozoic Mojave-type crust is impoverished 

in precious metals compared to the crust underlying central 

Arizona. 

Younger (post-1,730 Ma and Phanerozoic) vein deposits in central and western Arizona formed largely in plutonic 

rocks that intruded Mojave-type crust. These deposits are 

characteristically gold-rich and have low Ag/ Au values. 

This metallogenic signature is probably a crustal-scale phenomenon related to emplacement of voluminous plutons 

from 1,690 to 1,740 Ma that largely obliterated the 

metallogenic characteristics of the Early Proterozoic 

Mojave-type crust. 

Low-Cu, high-Pb ore of the Big Bug district contained 

the highest precious metal concentrations, Au averaging 

0.075 oz/ton and Ag averaging 2.65 oz/ton. Small deposits 

having metal ratios similar to the average for the Big Bug 

district are present in the Old Dick, Verde, and Agua Fria 

districts, and their presence indicates that local thermochemical controls of ore deposition, not regional factors, were 

important in the localization of these massive sulfide deposits that contain elevated precious-metal concentrations. 

Deposition of ore minerals at temperatures below 300°C 

from a sulfur-rich hydrothermal fluid is the most likely cause 

for the enhanced precious-metal concentrations, not formation of the deposits in a setting distal from volcanism. 

Low-Au, low-Ag ore, locally present in the Agua Fria 

and Verde districts, also contrasts markedly with the average 

for districts in the Prescott-Jerome area. A likely cause of 

this depletion in precious metals is deposition of ore minerals in these deposits from hydrothermal fluids having temperatures in excess of 300°C, a temperature too high for most 

chloride and sulfide complexes to transport large concentrations of gold and silver in solution. Deposits of this type 

appear to have formed within rhyolite flows and tuffs, not at 

the contact of felsic and more mafic rocks. 

INTRODUCTION 

Early Proterozoic massive sulfide deposits associated 

with submarine mafic to felsic metavolcanic rocks are 

present throughout central, west -central, and northwestern 

Arizona (Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; DeWitt, 1983, 1987; 

Keith and others, 1983, 1984; Conway and Silver, 1986; 

Eastoe and others, 1987; Donnelly and Conway, 1988; Lindberg, 1989). Production data for copper, lead, zinc, gold, and 

silver (Arizona Geological Survey, unpub. data, 1992) for 

most of the known deposits and prospects in 13 metallic mineral districts (Welty and others, 1985) are summarized here. 

Nine of the thirteen districts have recorded production; only 

the Gray's Gulch and Bronco Creek districts southeast of 
2 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

To Kingman 

Hual{tpai 

r;/--- \ 

)J 

Old Dick 

/ 

Mea of f;g,,.~ ~ 

0 

' ,;;;, 

~· /Lr'&: ~ ~~: , 

Mayerf ~/ 

10 

Kayzr, 

20 MILES 

~, c1 

f 

I 

To Phoenix 

To Flagstaff 

l'-

;o 

,.:~ ,r.t~"~·~.,.,r' ~ ,1'' +.! =.., ' 

\~,Pranty~.s 

Cabin 

To Phoenix 

Figure 1. Map of central and northwestern Arizona showing location of Early Proterozoic massive sulfide metallic mineral districts. 

Payson and the Pittsburg-Tonto and Pranty' s Cabin districts 

south of Payson (fig. 1) lack data and are not discussed. 

These four districts produced little ore; omission of their production totals does not materially affect the trends noted for 

the area shown on figure 1. Production data for the remaining nine districts, which contain 48 mines for which metal 

data are available, allow trends in metal content and metal 

ratios from mine to mine and district to district to be evaluated. Some of these trends were noted by DeWitt (1983) and 

Lindberg (1989). 

Data used in this paper have been thoroughly checked 

for accuracy and completeness; however omissions are probably the most likely source of error. Small mines and deposits are particularly likely to have incomplete production 

records, as are many mines that operated in the late 1800's 

and earliest 1900's. Metal contents, ratios, and trends are 

most reliable for large mines and those having complete and 

verifiable records. Some published production data for massive sulfide deposits in Arizona disagree with the data summarized here (examples are the Iron King Mine in the Big 

Bug district (Gilmour and Still, 1968) and some of the notes 

in Donnelly and Conway, 1988); data summarized in this 

paper should supersede earlier summaries. Rigorous statistical treatment of the production data is not deemed appropriate, as ore types have been somewhat homogenized by the 

reporting of amounts of ore and metals on a yearly basis. 

This in-depth comparison of metal ratios and concentrations based on production records is valid, primarily, 

because all the massive sulfide deposits were mined by the 

same underground techniques, and similar base and precious 

metals were extracted throughout the lifetimes of the mines. 

Milling techniques were similar from deposit to deposit, and 

smelting procedures, recoveries, and returns were similar 

due to the small number of smelters operative during the lifetime of most mines. Therefore, different mining techniques 

did not result in widely different dilution rates for stratabound ores. Only the largest mine, the United Verde 

(Verde district), experienced changes in smelter technology; 

those changes are reflected in the production data. Also, 

except where noted, yearly production grades for various 

metals approximate the in-situ concentrations of ore zones. 

Average production grades, especially for lead and zinc, may 

or may not reflect in-situ concentrations, as some metals 

were not produced throughout the lifetime of various mines. 

DISTRIBUTION, AGE, AND 

CHARACTERISTICS OF DEPOSITS 

Metavolcanic rocks of basaltic to rhyolitic composition 

are host to numerous Early Proterozoic, syngenetic, massive 

sulfide deposits in central Arizona. Although most of the 
OVERALL DISTRICT SUMMARY 3 

deposits are in the Prescott-Jerome region of central 

Arizona, mines and prospects are noted from the northwestem part of the state to the east-central part of the state (fig. 

1). The deposits are within 1,700- to 1,780-Ma metavolcanic 

strata. All deposits in the Prescott-Jerome area are hosted by 

1,740- to 1,780-Ma mafic to felsic metavolcanic strata 

(Anderson and others, 1971; Anderson and Silver, 1976; 

Anderson, 1978, 1987, 1989a,b; Donnelly and Hahn, 1981; 

Bowring and others, 1986; Karlstrom and others, 1987). 

Deposits in the western part of the state (Hualapai and Old 

Dick districts) are in mixed metavolcanic and metasedimentary strata that are about 1,730 Ma (Silver, 1968; Bryant and 

Wooden, 1986; Chamberlain and Bowring, 1990; Wooden, 

unpub. data, 1990). These deposits near Payson are associated with felsic to mafic metavolcanic strata that are 

1,700-1,730 Ma (Gastil, 1958; Ludwig, 1973; Conway, 

1976; Silver and others, 1986; Conway and Karlstrom, 1986; 

Karlstrom and others, 1990). Massive sulfide deposits are 

associated neither with Early Proterozoic, predominantly 

subaerial, felsic metavolcanic rocks (Wilson, 1939; Conway, 

1976; Conway and Silver, 1989) that are younger than 1,700 

Ma nor with the pelitic and psammitic Pinal Schist of 

southeastern Arizona. 

Some deposits, such as the United Verde, Bruce and 

Old Dick, and to a lesser extent the Stoddard and Antler, 

have the classic features associated with submarine, volcanogenic deposits (Hutchinson, 1973; Franklin and others, 

1981): stratabound nature, massive sulfide ore at the top of a 

major rhyolite body, zonal arrangement of metals within the 

deposit, and chloritic alteration pipe beneath the deposit.. 

Others, such as the Iron King, Bluebell, Copper World, and 

Kay, appear to lack recognizable chlorite alteration pipes 

and metal zonation within the deposits, and instead include 

extensive areas of sericite-rich rocks and minor chlorite-rich 

rocks. Some, such as the Huron, Swindler, and Orizaba, 

have alteration pipes characterized by aluminosilicate-rich 

rocks and epidote (O'Hara, 1987a; DeWitt, unpub. data, 

1989; O'Hara and Long, 1991). 

Some deposits have been studied in detail, principally 

the Iron King Mine, in the Big Bug district (Gilmour and 

Still, 1968, and references cited therein); the Bruce Mine, in 

the Old Dick district (Baker and Clayton, 1968; Larson, 

1984 and references cited therein); the United Verde Mine, 

in the Verde district (Anderson and Creasey, 1958; Lindberg, 1986c, 1989; DeWitt and Waegli, 1989; Gustin, 1990), 

and the United Verde Extension Mine, in the Verde district 

(White, 1986a). Others, principally the Copper Queen Mine, 

in the Agua Fria district (Brook, 1974); the Antler arid 

Copper World Mines, in the Hualapai district (Romslo, 

1948; More, 1980); and the Copper Chief Mine, in the Verde 

district (Johnson, 1986b; Lindberg, 1986b), have been investigated in less detail. Many, however, have not been mapped 

or sampled since Lindgren's (1926) report on mines in the 

Prescott-Jerome region. This summary paper and previous 

summaries (Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; DeWitt, 1983; 

Lindberg, 1989) reveal trends in metal concentrations that 

were caused by first -order crustal differences and second-order thermochemical conditions of ore deposition. 

Obviously, additional work is needed on most deposits 

before they will be more fully understood. 

OVERALL DISTRICT SUMMARY 

The 48 massive sulfide deposits in Arizona for which 

production data are available produced 55.3 million tons of 

ore that contained 3.99 billion lb of Cu, 237 million lb of Pb, 

1.02 billion lb of Zn, 75.2 million oz of Ag, and 2.06 million 

oz of Au (table 1). From all districts, ore averaged 3.6 percent Cu, 0.2 percent Pb, 0.9 percent Zn, 1.35 oz/ton Ag, and 

0.037 oz/ton Au. Averaged lead and zinc grades are artificially low, as most mines did not produce lead- and zinc-rich 

ore because they were penalized at the smelter for zinc. 

Lead, when produced, normally averaged less than 0.5 percent except for deposits in the Big Bug district. Zinc, when 

produced, averaged 3-10 percent. Copper, silver, and gold 

grades most accurately reflect the metal concentrations of 

the deposits because these metals were always profitably 

extracted. However, even gold and silver grades could have 

been partly biased if precious-metal-rich parts of various 

deposits were not mined because they were zinc-rich. Therefore, the combined Cu-Pb-Zn content of most deposits averaged about 7 percent, but was poor in lead. Silver/gold ratios 

averaged 37 but varied from 183 for the Old Dick district to 

12 for the Zonia district. 

Of the nine massive sulfide districts for which production data are available, the Verde district produced by far the 

most ore and metals (table 1). Sixty-nine percent of the ore, 

93 percent of the Cu, 7 4 percent of the Ag, and 73 percent of 

the Au were produced from this district. The United Verde 

Mine, the third largest massive sulfide deposit in North 

America (DeWitt and Waegli, 1989; Lindberg, 1989) produced almost 90 percent of the ore from the district. Copper 

grade for the district (4.91 percent) is higher than the overall 

average primarily because of the extremely rich copper ore 

of the United Verde Extension Mine, which averaged 10 percent Cu. The Verde district also could have led all districts 

in zinc production (Mcilroy and others, 1974), but the 

zinc-rich part of the United Verde deposit has not been 

mined (Anderson and Creasey, 1958; DeWitt and Waegli, 

1989). 

The Zonia district produced the second largest amount 

of ore, but much of this was by open-pit mining and heap 

leaching of low-grade copper during the 1970's. Because 

most other deposits were not mined by open-pit operations 

(some ore from the United Verde being an exception), raw 

production totals from the Zonia district cannot be reasonably compared to those of other districts. The low Ag/ Au 

value ( 12) for the Zonia district is also biased because, during open-pit operations, data for gold and silver were not 
Table 1. Production data for metallic mineral districts and massive sulfide deposits, Arizona. .j:::.. 

[Data from Arizona Geological Survey, unpub. data, 1992; Cu, copper; Pb, lead; Zn, zinc; Ag, silver; Au, gold; t, short tons; lb, pounds; oz. troy ounces; oz/t, troy ounces per short ton; --, no record of production for that element; O.OOx 

grade of element is less than 0.00999; O.OOOx, grade of element is less than 0.000999; copper, silver, and gold amounts and grades accurately reflect metal concentrations and ratios in the massive sulfide deposits because these metals 

normally were produced throughout mining of the deposit; lead and zinc amounts and grades, in most instances, do not accurately reflect concentrations and ratios in the deposits because lead and zinc seldom were produced throughout 

the lifetime of the deposit. See text for ratios that are closer to actual] 

District Ore (t) Cu (lb) Pb (lb) Zn (lb) Ag (oz) Au (oz) Cu (%) Pb (%) Zn (%) Ag (oz/t) Au (oz/t) Ag/Au 

Production data by district 

Agua Fria 181,301 11,738,165 3,319 16,480 47,353 894 3.24 O.OOx O.OOx 0.261 0.005 53 

Big Bug 6,321,997 14,379,240 232,532,742 614,960,375 16,808,553 473,885 0.11 1.84 4.86 2.659 0.075 35 tTl Hualapai 161,990 7,246,895 896,995 11,370,100 97,657 659 2.24 0.28 3.51 0.603 0.004 148 > 

Kay 2,555 295,973 13,349 - 2,735 149 5.19 0.26 - 1.070 0.058 18 ~ 

t""' Mayer 1,401,870 83,675,564 - - 1,624,804 65,064 2.98 - - 1.159 0.046 25 -< New River 29,873 1,267,428 - - 12,682 197 2.12 - - 0.425 0.007 64 '"C 

Old Dick 1,683,702 106,791,361 3,035,113 305,056,606 651,325 3,550 3.17 0.09 9.06 0.387 0.002 183 :::0 

Verde 37,996,107 3, 733,706,691 693,222 94,994,869 55,952,061 1,514,457 4.91 O.OOx 0.13 1.473 0.040 37 0 

~ 

Zonia 7,519,678 30,317,238 801 - 4,019 340 0.20 o.oox - o.ooox O.OOOx 12 tTl 

~ 

Grand total (state average) .. 55,299,073 3,989,418,555 237,175,541 1,026,398,430 75,201,189 2,059,195 (3.61) (0.21) (0.93) (1.360) (0.037) (37) 0 

N 

Production data by mine or deposit 0 

-(J 

Agua Fria District: s= 

Barbara 38 6,422 -- -- 12 1 8.45 - - 0.316 0.026 12 > 

Bigbug 1,352 145,469 -- - 475 84 5.38 - - 0.351 0.062 6 en 

en Binghampton 157,427 9,760,696 -- - 40,265 157 3.10 - - 0.256 O.OOOx 256 -

< Burlington 122 7,228 -- - -- 1 2.96 - - -- 0.008 - tTl 

Copper Dome 113 2,600 -- - 1 - 1.15 - - 0.009 - - en 

Copper Queen 1,413 281,048 -- 7,180 2,236 137 9.95 - 0.25 1.582 0.097 16 e 

t""' 

John Henry 100 13,033 -- - 42 2 6.52 -- - 0.420 0.020 21 ::!l 

Little Egypt 25 664 -- - 10 11 1.33 - - 0.400 0.440 0 0 

Minor 437 50,852 -- -- 239 17 5.82 - - 0.547 0.039 14 tTl 

Pocahontas 30 159 1,019 -- 78 4 0.27 1.70 -- 2.600 0.133 20 0 

tTl 

Stoddard 19,597 1,406,365 2,300 9,300 3,877 458 3.59 O.OOx 0.02 0.198 0.023 8 '"C 

Yallar Kid 647 63,629 -- - 118 22 4.92 - - 0.182 0.034 5 0 

en 

~ Total (district average) .... 181,301 11,738,165 3,319 16,480 47,353 894 (3.24) (O.OOx) (O.OOx) (0.261) (0.005) (53) en 

Big Bug District: z 

Boggs 582 17,920 - -- 2,047 233 1.54 - - 3.517 0.400 9 > Butternut 

Hackberry 20,108 

806 

644,704 

103,373 

509,839 

- 1,117,045 

- 71,617 

4,149 

2,306 

136 6.41 

1.60 

-

1.27 

-

2.78 

5.148 

3.562 

0.169 

0.115 

31 

31 ~ 0 Huron 609 18,300 - -- 589 45 1.50 - - 0.967 0.074 13 z Iron King 6,298,235 13,482,716 232,022,815 613,843,330 16,726,396 470,892 0.11 1.84 4.87 2.656 0.075 36 > Lone Pine 1,235 99,341 88 - 3,358 186 4.02 O.OOx - 2.719 0.151 18 

Swindler 271 7,151 -- - 201 40 1.32 - - 0.742 0.148 5 

Upshot 151 5,735 -- - 196 47 1.90 - - 1.298 0.311 4 

Total (district average) .... 6,321,997 14,379,240 232,532,742 614,960,375 16,808,553 473,885 (0.11) (1.84) (4.86) (2.659) (0.075) (35) 

Hualapai District: 

Antler 100,346 4,326,724 789,539 6,803,390 68,452 551 2.16 0.39 3.39 0.682 0.005 124 

Copper World 61,644 2,920,171 107,456 4,566,710 29,205 108 2.37 0.09 3.70 0.474 0.002 270 

Total (di~trict average) .... 161,990 7,246,895 896,995 11,370,100 97,657 659 (2.24) (0.28) (3.51) (0.603) (0.004) (148) 
District Ore (t) Cu (lb) Pb (lb) Zn (lb) Ag (oz) Au (oz) Cu (%) Pb (%) Zn (%) Ag (oz/t) Au (oz/t) Ag/Au 

Kay District: 

Great Republic 39 2,370 - - 8 - 3.04 - - 0.205 

Kay 2,516 293,603 13,349 - 2,727 149 5.83 0.27 - 1.084 0.059 18 

Total (district average) .... 2,555 295,973 13,349 - 2,735 149 (5.79) (0.26) - (1.070) (0.058) (18) 

Mayer District: 

Bluebell 1,144,603 69,779,084 -- - 1,373,538 54,145 3.05 - - 1.200 0.047 25 

Desoto 257,267 13,896,480 -- - 251,266 10,919 2.70 - - 0.977 0.042 23 

Total (district average) .•.. 1,401,870 83,675,564 - - 1,624,804 65,064 (2.98) - - (1.159) (0.046) (25) 

New River District: 

Orizaba 29,873 1,267,428 - - 12,682 197 2.12 - - 0.425 0.007 64 

Total (district average) .... 29,873 1,267,428 - - 12,682 197 (2.12) - - (0.425) (0.007) (64) 

Old Dick District: 

Bruce 821,608 53,984,189 1,192,409 148,537,521 291,874 2,113 3.29 0.07 9.04 0.355 0.003 138 

Copper King 44,915 582,755 1,098,599 14,532,588 88,222 191 0.65 1.22 16.18 1.964 0.004 462 0 

Copper Queen 146,245 11,804,349 68,148 25,082,700 55,866 232 4.04 0.02 8.58 0.382 0.002 241 < tT1 

Old Dick 667,432 40,037,569 673,490 116,749,868 211,822 952 3.00 0.05 8.75 0.317 0.001 223 :;;r::l 

Pinafore 3,304 357,081 2,092 143,129 3,404 47 5.40 0.03 2.17 1.030 0.014 72 > r Red Cloud 198 25,418 375 10,800 137 15 6.42 0.09 2.73 0.692 0.076 9 r 

ti 

Total (district average) .... 1,683,702 106,791,361 3,035,113 305,056,606 651,325 3,550 (3.17) (0.09) (9.06) (0.387) (0.002) (183) Ci) 

...-3 

Verde District: :;;r::l 

Alice 244 12,100 - - 23 - 2.48 -- -- 0.094 -- - n 

Anchor 140 11,700 -- - 178 6 4.18 - -- 1.271 0.043 30 ...-3 

Cleopatra 2,496 342,451 3,484 15 6.86 1.396 0.006 232 en - - - - c::: 

Cliff 332 29,400 - - 184 - 4.43 - - 0.554 - - ~ Copper Chief 400,174 3,112,816 234,122 - 1,089,027 51,923 0.39 0.03 - 2.721 0.130 21 ~ Florentia 26,890 1,679,547 -- - 239 7 3.12 - - 0.009 0.000 34 > 

Galveston 214 1,329 - - 875 94 0.31 - - 4.089 0.439 9 :;;r::l 

>-<: Green Monster 1,377 2,275 -- - 3,756 102 0.08 - - 2.728 0.074 37 

Jerome Verde 10,050 1,562,991 - - 21,530 887 7.78 - - 2.142 0.088 24 

United Verde 33,558,235 2,928,302,600 459,100 94,994,869 48,177,160 1,302,786 4.36 O.OOx 0.14 1.436 0.039 37 

United V. Ext. 3,902,905 794,254,484 - - 6,635,499 158,589 10.18 - -- 1.700 0.041 42 

Verde Central 93,050 4,394,998 - - 20,106 48 2.36 - - 0.216 O.OOOx 419 

Total (district average) .... 37,996,107 3,733,706,691 693,222 94,994,869 55,952,061 1,514,457 (4.91) (O.OOx) (0.13) (1.473) (0.040) (37) 

Zonia District: 

Navey 26 3,109 - - 61 5 5.98 - - 2.346 0.192 12 

Victory Copper 100 5,059 - - 8 - 2.53 - - 0.080 

Zonia 7,519,552 30,309,070 801 - 3,950 335 0.20 O.OOx -- O.OOOx O.OOOx 12 

Total (district average) .... 7,519,678 30,317,238 801 - 4,019 340 (0.20) (O.OOx) - (O.QOOx) (O.OOOx) (12) 

Vl 
6 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

recorded. Therefore, for massive sulfide districts mined by 

underground methods, the lowest Ag/ Au value ( 18) for the 

Kay district should be considered more representative than 

the figure for the Zonia district. 

The Big Bug district, and principally the Iron King 

Mine, produced the third largest amount of ore but the most 

lead (98 percent of the total) and zinc (60 percent of total). 

The district is unusual because of its low copper grade (0.11 

percent), high lead (almost an order of magnitude higher 

than any other district), and high precious metals (gold and 

silver grades are a factor of 2 higher than most other 

districts). 

The Old Dick district produced the fourth largest 

amount of ore, but had the highest zinc grade (9.06 percent). 

The zinc-rich nature of deposits in the district is real and not 

an artifact of production during World War II, the Korean 

War, and the 1970's. The district has the second lowest silver grade and the lowest gold grade, except for the Zonia district, as noted above. As a result, the Ag/ Au of 183 is the 

highest of any district in the state and is markedly different 

from all districts in the Prescott-Jerome area. The precious-metal-poor nature of the Old Dick district and Hualapai district is discussed in the following section on tectonic 

setting of deposits. 

Mines in the Mayer district produced the third largest 

amounts of copper, silver, and gold, and had the second lowest Ag/ Au value (25). Deposits in the district were zinc-poor 

and had undetermined, though minor, amounts of lead. 

The remaining districts (Agua Fria, Hualapai, Kay, and 

New River) produced minor amounts of ore but had some 

distinctive metal ratios. Agua Fria, dominated by production 

from the Binghampton Mine, had anomalously low silver 

and gold grades (0.261 oz/ton and 0.005 oz/ton, respectively) for a district in the Prescott-Jerome area. Hualapai 

had the second lowest gold grade and the second lowest 

Ag/Au (148). Kay, although producing only a few thousand 

tons of ore, had the lowest Ag/Au, 18 (Zonia excluded). 

New River's low gold and silver grades are partially a 

function of missing production data. 

Compared to other massive sulfide deposits of Archean, 

Early Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic age, averages and ranges 

of base- and precious-metal concentrations in Arizona 

deposits are comparable to Archean deposits in Canada 

(Hutchinson, 1973; Sangster, 1980; Franklin and others, 

1981 ), Paleozoic deposits in the Appalachian region of the 

United States and Canada (Sangster, 1984), Paleozoic 

deposits in eastern Australia (Large and others, 1989), Tertiary deposits in Japan (Ishihara, 1974; Ohmoto and Skinner, 

1983), and Recent deposits on various mid-ocean ridges 

(Bischoff and others, 1983; Koski and others, 1984, 1985; 

Hannington and others, 1986; and Hannington and Scott, 

1989b). 

SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 

Many mines lack sufficient production data to draw 

reliable interpretations concerning metal concentrations In 

this category are mines that either produced less than 

about 20,000 tons of ore, had production data for fewer 

than 5 years, or had highly variable grades from one year 

to the next. Data for those deposits are summarized in 

table 1, but detailed discussions of those deposits' geologic 

setting and metal ratios are not attempted, except to clarify 

features of the production data that are not obvious from 

inspection of the cumulative totals. Most mines that produced more than 20,000 tons of ore and reliable data are 

discussed in some detail, district by district. 

AGUA FRIA DISTRICT 

Located in the Prescott-Jerome area (fig. 1), the Agua 

Fria district (fig. 2) contains massive sulfide deposits that are 

largely restricted to metarhyolite flows and tuffs (Lindgren, 

1926; Evensen, 1969, 1980; Anderson and Blacet, 1972b,c) 

Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; DeWitt, 1983, 1987; Anderson, 1986a; 1989a). The district is unusual for its low gold 

and silver grade. Although the silver grade is lower by a factor of 5 than in surrounding districts, the gold grade is lower 

by an order of magnitude (table 1). 

At the Binghampton Mine (Lindgren, 1926; Higgins, 

1986), ore is localized within a large metarhyolite-dacite 

unit. Chalcopyrite-tetrahedrite is the predominant ore 

assemblage. As the largest producer in the district (table 1), 

the deposit is the principal factor causing the low grades of 

precious metals over the lifetime of the mine, Ag/ Au is rather 

constant (table 1, fig. 3), which indicates that the low grades 

of precious metals are not an artifact of poor data. Also, the 

positive correlation of copper and silver indicates that, in 

general, the production data are not flawed for the Binghampton Mine. The positive correlation of copper and silver 

is probably due to the presence of tetrahedrite. Apparently, 

the Agua Fria district, characterized by the Binghampton 

deposit, is a precious-metal-poor region within the otherwise 

average to precious-metal-rich Prescott-Jerome area. 

The Stoddard Mine (Lindgren, 1926), the second largest producer in the district, is localized within a large metarhyolite unit. The deposit shows a modest correlation of gold 

with silver and a good correlation of copper with silver (fig. 

4). Silver grade at the Stoddard is as low as the Binghampton, but gold grade is notably higher (0.023 compared to 

0.001 oz/ton). However, this higher grade may be an artifact 

of more enriched, oxidized ore in a smaller deposit (table 1). 

Although lead and zinc grades appear low for the Stoddard, 

when lead and zinc were produced, their grades were 0.7-5.0 

percent for lead and 3-30 percent for zinc. 

The Copper Queen Mine (Lindgren, 1926; Brook, 

1974; Higgins, 1986; Hurlbut and others, 1986), the third 
SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 7 

largest producer in the district and located adjacent to the 

Binghampton Mine (fig. 2), appears from table 1 to be much 

richer in precious metals than is the Binghampton. Ore at the 

Copper Queen is localized in the same metarhyolite-dacite 

unit and contains the same minerals. Data for the Copper 

R.l E. R. 2E. 

SCALE 1: 100 000 

0 2MILES 

Figure 2. Location map of mines in the Agua Fria district. Base 

from U.S. Geological Survey, Bradshaw Mountains 1:100,000, 

1981. Mine names in italics are massive sulfide deposits for which 

production data are not available. Mines having questionable loca·-

tions are shown with a query (?). 

Queen are highly influenced by approximated data for 1901; 

without that data the deposit averaged -0.6 oz/ton Ag and 

-0.06 oz/ton Au, values that are more similar to the Binghampton. When zinc was produced at the Copper Queen, it 

averaged 3.8 percent. 

Unusual deposits for the district include the Pocahontas 

(Lindgren, 1926; Evensen, 1969), with 1.7 percent Pb and 

only 0.27 percent Cu, and 0.13 oz/ton Au. The Stoddard produced a minor amount of lead-rich ore, so the high lead concentration for the Pocahontas, especially considering the 

minor amount of ore produced, may not be highly significant. Metal ratios in the Pocahontas are similar to those in 

the Iron King and Hackberry Mines, in the Big Bug district. 

BIG BUG DISTRICT 

The Big Bug district is northwest of the Agua Fria district (figs. 1 and 5) and is characterized by massive sulfide 

deposits spatially associated with one metarhyolite tuff that 

is overlain and underlain by metabasalt (Lindgren, 1926; 

Creasey, 1950, 1952; Gilmour and Still, 1968; Anderson and 

Blacet, 1972b; Bouley and Hodder, 1976; Webb, 1979; 

Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; DeWitt, 1983, 1987; Anderson, 1986a, 1989a; O'Hara, 1986; O'Hara and Armstrong, 

1986). The district has the lowest copper grade and the highest lead, silver, and gold grades of any district (table 1). 

Although production from the district is highly biased by the 

Iron King Mine (table 1), which accounted for 99 percent of 

the ore, 94 percent of the copper, and 99 percent of the precious metals, all the small deposits (fig. 5) have silver grades 

of 1-4 oz/ton and gold grades of 0.1-0.4 oz/ton. Likewise, 

except for the Butternut and Lone Pine, all copper grades for 

small mines are less than 2 percent. Therefore the district as 

a whole is poor in copper and rich in lead, silver, and gold. 

Zinc, when produced, was average compared to most districts. Cambrian lead- and gold-rich massive sulfide deposits in western Tasmania bear a striking resemblance to those 

in the Big Bug district (Large and others, 1989). 

The copper-poor and lead-, silver-, and gold-rich 

deposit at the Iron King Mine is localized along altered 

metarhyolite units within a metabasaltic to andesitic flow 

sequence (Lindgren, 1926; Mills, 1941, 1944, 1946, 1947; 

Hendricks, 1947; Creasey, 1950, 1952; Kumke and Mills, 

1950; Anderson and Creasey, 1958; Mitchell, 1964; Gilmour 

and Still, 1968; Lawrence and Dixon, 1986). Two ore horizons are present, a lower copper- and zinc-rich zone, and a 

higher copper-poor zone (Lindberg, 1989). Ore minerals are 

sphalerite, galena, pyrite, tennantite, arsenopyrite, and chalcopyrite. Production data for the nine reveal moderate correlation of copper with gold (fig. 6) and copper with silver 

(fig. 7), but a much better correlation of lead with gold (fig. 

6), especially for gold grades less than 0.1 oz/ton. Data points 

that lie to the lower right of the major positive correlation of 
8 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

0.025 .,-----------------------------.10 Figure 3. Plot of silver vs. gold and 

copper in the Binghampton Mine, 

1916-47. Symbols that plot on the 

x-axis indicate no data for gold, not 

values of zero. 

~ ~ . 0.02 +················································'··························································································································································· ···+8 + + 

'2 0.015 

~ + 6 

,£. 

~ 0.01 , .... 

• 

4 ········+···-4---·-· 

++ 

+ • 

.. · ... j 17 years production 

. ........ 11916-19471 .. .. + + 

0.005 ... ~ .. 2 

+ .. 

0 +-~~~----~--~----~----~----~----~----~----+0 ... -

0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 

Ag (oz/ton) 

3 3.5 4 4.5 

0.16 ,--------------------------------..,. 10 Figure 4. Plot of silver vs. gold and 

copper in the Stoddard Mine, 1929-57. 

Symbols that plot on the x-axis indicate 

no data for gold; symbols that plot on the 

0.12 y-axis indicate no data for silver . 

§ 

,£. ~ 0.08 

~ 

14 years production 

. ··11929-1957)· 

• 

+ 

······~··=·=··· .......... +. 

+ + • + + 

+ + 

+ 

+ 8 

6 

4 

0.04 ....... ± ..... ...................................•...........•.... 

• 2 

• • 

... 0 --~=-----~--------~--------~---------~--------~o • 

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 

Ag (oz/ton) 

gold and lead-those having high precious-metal concentrations and low lead concentrations--come from pre-1940 production (fig. 8) in which oxidized(?), anomalously gold- and 

silver-rich ore having unusually low base-metal concentrations was mined. Elimination of those points from figures 6 

and 7 strengthens the positive correlation of precious metals, 

especially gold with lead (fig. 8). Variations in Ag/Au are 

caused more by shifts in gold grade than shifts in silver grade 

(fig. 9), which remained essentially constant from 1940 to 

1970 (fig. 10). Creasey (1952) and Gilmour and Still (1968) 

suggested that silver is present in tennantite, but metallurgical tests have not proven that association. Both authors state 

that gold appears to be associated with pyrite, galena, and 

sphalerite. However, the production data (fig. 6) show that 

much gold is spatially associated with galena. Neither precious metal correlates well with zinc but, importantly, high 

zinc grades do not indicate low precious-metal 

concentrations (figs. 6 and 8). 

0.8 

The Hackberry Mine (Lindgren, 1926), the second largest producer in the district, is also rich in lead, silver, and 

gold (table 1). The deposit is localized at the contact of 

metarhyolite and metabasalt and is probably at the same 

stratigraphic position as the Iron King Mine to the north. 

Correlation of this metarhyolite horizon, which hosts most of 

the massive sulfide deposits in the Big Bug district (Anderson and Blacet, 1972a,b) is strengthened by the similarity of 

metal ratios in mines along the horizon. Pyrite-chalcopyrite-galena-sphalerite-tetrahedrite is the ore assemblage. 

Ag/ Au for most of the lifetime of the mine has been rather 

constant (fig. 11 ). Silver correlates very well with lead, but 

less well with zinc (fig. 11), and probably indicates that precious metals are mostly associated with galena. Lead and 

zinc, when produced, averaged 2.37 percent and 5.25 

percent, respectively for the deposit. 

Smaller mines in the district have several noteworthy 

features. Totals for the Butternut are highly influenced by 
SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 9 

R.1 W. R. 1 E. 

SCALE 1:100 000 

0 2 MILES 

Figure 5. Location map of mines in the Big Bug district. Base 

from U.S. Geological Survey, Bradshaw Mountains and Prescott 

1:100,000, 1981. Mine names in italics are massive sulfide 

deposits for which production data are not available. 

data for 1903, which account for half the total ore produced 

and much of the very high grade material. Data for the Lone 

Pine include high-grade lead and silver ore for 1924, which 

may not be entirely representative of most ore in the mineralized system. The Boggs Mine (Hurlbut, 1986) is one of the 

highest grade deposits for precious metals in the area. The 

Huron and Swindler (or Victor-Swindler) prospects 

(O'Hara, 1987a; O'Hara and Long, 1991) are characterized 

by extensive alumino-silicate assemblages and development 

of quartz-epidote in the footwall of the massive sulfide 

deposits. Their somewhat unusual alteration assemblages 

may indicate slightly different physico-chemical conditions 

of formation compared to surrounding deposits. 

The Bell Ranch prospect (Swan and others, 198 L; 

Swan, 1987; O'Hara, 1987b), located southeast of the Lone 

Pine Mine, has produced no ore, but is similar in most 

regards to other mines in the Big Bug district. Gold- and 

silver-bearing pyrite, chalcopyrite, and arsenopyrite are 

present in and adjacent to metarhyolite. Very little massive 

sulfide ore is known. The Bell Ranch prospect may be a 

gold-rich end member of the precious-metal-rich deposits in 

the Big Bug district. 

In summary, for the Big Bug district, the highest precious-metal grades are in deposits having the highest lead 

concentrations. The district as a whole is very lead-rich and 

has the highest silver and gold grades in the state. The 

Ag/ Au of 35, which is the same as the state average, indicates that the district is preferentially enriched in both precious metals, and suggests that gold and silver are spatially 

associated with galena in the deposits. 

HUALAPAI DISTRICT 

The Hualapai district (Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; 

More, 1980; Stensrud and More, 1980; Loghry and Heinrichs, 1980; DeWitt, 1983, Conway and others, 1990), in the 

central Hualapai Mountains of northwestern Arizona (figs. 1 

and 12), is unusual compared to districts in the Prescott-Jerome area because of its high Ag/ Au ( 148) and its low 

precious-metal concentrations, especially gold (table 1), 

which are among the lowest in the state. Massive sulfide 

deposits at the Antler Mine are localized in thin metavolcanic units that are overlain and underlain by pelitic, metasedimentary rocks and at the Copper World Mine are within the 

pelitic rocks. Therefore, the tectonic setting of the deposits 

is fundamentally different from those in the Prescott-Jerome 

area, which are entirely within thick metavolcanic 

sequences. 

The Antler Mine is localized in felsic gneiss and 

amphibolite that is interbedded with pelitic metasedimentary 

rocks (Romslo, 1948; More, 1980; Stensrud and More, 1980; 

Conway and others, 1990). Ore minerals include iron-rich 

sphalerite, chalcopyrite, galena, pyrrhotite, and pyrite. Production data from the mine, the largest producer in the district, reveal that the deposit has a relatively constant Ag/ Au 

and that silver (and consequently gold) correlates best with 

copper and less well with lead (fig. 13). Zinc does not correlate well with precious metals, but high zinc grades do not 

mean depressed gold or silver grades. Assay data (Romslo, 

1948) show that silver correlates best with lead and less well 

with combined lead and zinc. Silver correlates poorly with 

copper. Data for 1948 suggest that an unusual ore type was 

mined from the deposit in that year. When produced, lead 

and zinc averaged 0.40 percent and 3.45 percent, respectively. The existence of both pyrrhotite and iron-rich 

sphalerite at the Antler is noteworthy. Whether or not pyrrhotite is primary or the result of contact metamorphism 

cannot be determined from present data. 

The Copper World Mine is hosted by pelitic to psammitic metasedimentary rocks (More, 1980; Stensrud and 
10 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

-

0.4 .-----------------------------,.-10 

0.3 

~ ·······························~··············.;······························································~·-················· 0 

0 0 

0 

0 ~0~ 

+ 8 

····················-Gt-········e···-O~········ ········································-~· 

0 0 +------- ~ 

';' 0.2 ................................... ± 

u 0 <=t9 + + 

+ 

8o +-r+- + 

+ ++ + ++ 

0.1 ·······························-'F···············±~--ii:~·~··· ······························· ·········································· ···························································· 

+++~X X~ 

O~cp~ + X X 

X XX 

2 

0 +----------4~~-----.-~--~~~~--~----~--~--~----~e=r--+O 

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 

Au(oz/ton) 

0.4 ..---------------------------~8 

43 years production 

0 

0 0 

·····································+·····················0 ..... . ··········eC2 ... o ........................................... ± .................................................... . 

+ + 

~ -------- + + + ++ + 

0.1 ····················································i~ ~1;~~"·························· 

o ~ x x--!Pbl + X L.:J X XX 

+ 

············································ 2 

X 

X X 

0 +---------~------~,-----------~~~~--~--~~--~-e~----+0 

0 2 3 

Ag(oz/ton) 

4 5 6 

0.4 ,--------------------------------,,------,8 

0.3 

0.1 

Q 

................... ¢ ..... G-€J .... 

0 

! \ ;; 1 ~?~~5<2' 

If< '><f.X\ / 

-x-;)_ ; 'x_x 

o ···········o··· G ... o··._ 0 

0 

6 Q 

0 

0 

. ................ 0 .... . 

·o. 

2 

0 ~~H3-~.B~· ~------~------~------~------~--------~------+0 

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 

Year 

Figure 6. Plot of gold vs. copper, lead, 

and zinc in the Iron King Mine, 

1903-69. Symbols that plot on the 

x-axis indicate no data for copper or 

zinc. 

Figure 7. Plot of silver vs. copper, 

lead, and zinc in the Iron King Mine, 

1903-69. Symbols that plot on the 

x-axis indicate no data for lead or zinc. 

Figure 8. Plot of year of production 

vs. gold, lead, and zinc in the Iron King 

Mine, 1936-69. Symbols that plot on 

the x -axis indicate no data for zinc. 
,......._ 

0 

0 

0" 

>< 

<l:l 

s:: 

6 

0 

'-< 0 

SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 

80~----~--------------------------------·--------------.12 

60 

20 

8---...... :-. Ill' 

... 

.. . 

·······- . ... ~-·.··:::~·· 

\ Ag/Au \ 

······~·· 

" 

.. ..... .. _il(. 

... ·,····. 

10 

8 

···+······· . 6 

4 

2 

0 +-------~------~------~------~------~-----~~------+0 

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 

Year 

400 ~----------------------------------------------~~12 

300 

200 

100 

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '\ ..................... ;. ... 

' '\ 

[SJ 

\ 

\ 

[SJ 

I 

I 

• 

. ...•... 

I.B 

~ '\ 

...... ra~~--~=··· 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 +-----~~--~------------~----------~--------~~0 

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 

Year 

0.35 -,----------------------------------------------------.10 

• 0 

0.3 

8 

• 

0.25 ···~··· 

• X 

§ 0.2 

~ 

..... \ .. 

0 

• 6 

--3, 

~ 0.15 0 • 0 • X 

• 

• 

• .......... -~ars production 

[ 1905-19561 

0.1 ...................... ·•···· 

• ······•····· 

• 

[ ... 

4 

2 

0.05 

Pb, Zn only 6 and 5 yrs production 

0 +-----~~~~~~®--4~~--~~--------~~------e----+0 

2 4 6 8 10 

Ag (oz/ton) 

l 

--3, 

0 

0 

-

11 

Figure 9. Plot of year of production 

vs. Ag/Au, silver, and gold in the Iron 

King Mine, 1936-69. 

Figure 10. Plot of year of production 

vs. ore, silver, and gold in the Iron King 

Mine, 1936-69. 

Figure 11. Plot of silver vs. gold, lead, 

and zinc in the Hackberry Mine, 

1905-56. Symbols that plot on the 

x -axis indicate no data for gold, lead, or 

zinc . 
12 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

R.16W. R.15W. 

SCALE 1: 100 000 

0 1 2 MILES 

Figure 12. Location map of mines in the Hualapai district. Base 

from U.S. Geological Survey, Bagdad 1:100,000, 1979. 

More, 1980). Ore minerals include sphalerite, chalcopyrite, 

galena, pyrite, and pyrrhotite. The deposit has relatively 

constant Ag/ Au, but precious metals do not correlate very 

well with any base metal (fig. 14). Because lead and zinc 

were recovered for most years for which production data are 

available, the grades in table 1 accurately reflect metal concentrations of the deposit. Only the Binghampton Mine in 

the Agua Fria district and the Old Dick Mine in the Old Dick 

district have gold grades lower than in the Copper World 

Mine. 

KAY DISTRICT 

The Kay district, located south of the Agua Fria district 

(figs. 1 and 16), is characterized by small massive sulfide 

deposits in a large complex of metarhyolite tuff and minor 

meta-andesite (Willis, 1920b; Lindgren, 1926; Jerome, 

1956; Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; Winn, 1982; DeWitt, 

1983, 1987; Anderson, 1989a). The district has the lowest 

Ag/Au (18, Zonia excepted), and the second highest gold 

grade in the state. Because the district produced only 2,500 

tons of ore (table 1), these figures may not be representative 

of metal ratios for all deposits in the district. 

Data from only the Kay Mine (Willis, 1920a, 1924; 

Anonymous, 1919, 1924, 1925, 1926; Southwest Mining 

News Service, 1925; Lindgren, 1926; Jerome, 1956) can be 

reliably interpreted. The deposit is localized near the contact 

of metarhyolite and metabasalt. Ore minerals are pyrite, 

chalcopyrite, galena, minor tetrahedrite-tennantite, and arsenopyrite. Ag/ Au during the life of the mine was constant 

(fig. 15). Gold and silver correlate moderately well with 

copper. Lead, when produced, averaged 2.2 percent. Gold 

may be spatially associated more with galena than with tetrahedrite-tennantite, as at the Iron King Mine, but data for 

lead are too sparse to be sure. 

MAYER DISTRICT 

Located southwest of the Agua Fria district, the Mayer 

district (figs. 1, 17) contains massive sulfide deposits in and 

at the contacts of metarhyolite flows with metabasalt and 

meta-andesite (Lindgren, 1926; Tenney, 1935; Blacet, 1968, 

1985; Anderson and Blacet, 1972a,b; DeWitt, 1976, 1978, 

1979, 1987; Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; O'Hara, 1980; 

Vrba, 1980; Argenbright and Karlstrom, 1986; Anderson, 

1989a). The district has average to very slightly low copper 

and silver grades and an average to slightly high gold grade 

(table 1). Two mines, the Bluebell and DeSoto (table 1), produced all the ore from the district and have very similar metal 

concentrations. Neither produced lead or zinc, and both 

contain only minor galena or sphalerite (Lindgren, 1926). 

The Bluebell Mine was the fifth largest massive sulfide 

deposit in the state in terms of tons of ore produced. The 

deposit is localized in and at the contact of underlying 

metabasalt and overlying metarhyolite (Lindgren, 1926; 

DeWitt, 1976, 1979). Both pyrite-rich and pyrite-poor ore is 

present. Ore minerals are pyrite, chalcopyrite, minor arsenopyrite, sphalerite, and minor galena. Gold correlates well 

with silver (fig. 18), resulting in a constant Ag/Au of about 

25 over much of the life of the mine. High gold and silver 

grades after 1920 are a result of mining small quantities of 

enriched ore (fig. 18). The prominent peak for 1905 data is 

a result of estimating pre-1905 production. Silver and gold 

correlate well with copper (fig. 19). 

The DeSoto Mine (Lindgren, 1926; Blacet, 1968; 

DeWitt, 1976, 1979; Vrba, 1980) produced only one-fourth 

as much ore as the Bluebell, but shared most of its characteristics. Massive sulfide and stringer ore are at the contact of 

underlying metabasalt and overlying metarhyolite. Ore 

minerals are the same as at the Bluebell Mine. Gold 

correlates highly with silver (fig. 20). Ag/ Au is constant 

over the lifetime of the mine. Silver (and hence, gold) correlates moderately well with copper (fig. 21). A 1904 estimate accounts for half the ore produced at the DeSoto, but 

that estimate agrees with metal ratios for succeeding years. 

NEW RIVER DISTRICT 

The New River district, southeast of the southernmost 

part of the Kay district (figs. 1, 22), contains only one mine, 
SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 

-

e 2 ::s 

u 

3 ,-----~1 ~------~,~~-------------------------------------.6 

I I I 

l ! \ \ ' I I 

----\-X-,K- ---{---- \-- \ I I 

\ ·. I I +--.,' T I 

'- / I ;, / I 

, ___ + - -- - -- ~.:::-.7-.::-:-~;--· _..- ;·7 4 

'"-- - \\ _.-----// 

""' ..- / 

2.5 

14 years product~ 

---------11943-1961] ____ __ 

X 

5 

§1.5 

~ 

~,-------------------X----- __ ~ 

ICul ____ r- ----~~- -.\ ;..-/' ->' </*"~/// 3 ~ 

X\ /+:--

-.2.-

.(l 

., ,..-:::~---X 

~--_?--

-------------~ 

~ 

2 

0 +-----------~--------~----------~----------~---------+0 

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

Year 

0.01 .---------------------~------------------------~10 

/ ~\ i , \ ~ars production I 

0.008 mm m [~]m 'mm \m m m i ,:.,·:,_>·'\m m[ 1944-19541mmmm 8 

(!) 

'2'0.006 

.s Cu ---e ' 8 ····-·---··············E]··--·············--·······&1:·~·-·······1---····-- ..................................... : •................. ··---········--······································· 6 

.5> ;_ ! 

::s 

< 0.004 

~ +------... ••••• 1~ 

i 

cp------

0.002 2 

0 +-----------------~----~~~----~--------~~~~~0 

1940 1945 1950 1955 

Year 

15 .---------------------------------------------------------3 

12 

+ + 

·······\ + ... 0 ... ----1 12 years production 1----. 

2.5 

1191 a-1 966 1 EJ 2 

9 -. + ~ C> 

'-" 

::s + 1.5 

u 

6 

3 r:J 

0.5 

0 

0 

e -

0 

-

"2 

0 

~ 

-.2.-

on 

< 

13 

Figure 13. Plot of year of production 

vs. silver, copper, and lead in the Antler 

Mine, 1943-61. 

Figure 14. Plot of year of production 

vs. gold, copper, zinc, and lead in the 

Copper World Mine, 1944-54. Symbols 

that plot on the x-axis indicate no data 

for lead or gold. 

Figure 15. Plot of gold vs. copper and 

silver in the Kay Mine, 1910-66. Symbols that plot on the y-axis indicate no 

data for copper or silver. 
14 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

T. 

R.1 E. 

0 

A 

0 

B 

R. 2 E. 

SCALE 1:100 000 

1 

R. 2 E. 

SCALE 1: 100 000 

2 MILES 

2MILES 

Figure 16. Location map of mines in the Kay district. Base from 

U.S. Geological Survey, Bradshaw Mountains 1:100,000, 1981. 

Mine names in italics are massive sulfide deposits for which production data are not available. A, northern part; B, southern part. 

0 

R.1 E. 

SCALE 1: 100 000 

1 2MILES 

Figure 17. Location map of mines in the Mayer district. Base from 

U.S. Geological Survey, Bradshaw Mountains 1:100,000, 1981. 

the Orizaba, localized in meta-andesite and metabasalt 

(Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; DeWitt, 1983, 1987; Maynard, 1986). Pyrite-chalcopyrite-minor sphalerite is the ore 

assemblage. On first inspection of table 1, the Orizaba 

appears to have an anomalously low gold grade (0.007 

oz/ton). However, production records for gold from the 

mine are incomplete; when gold was reported, the Ag/ Au 

was 24, not 64 as summarized in table 1, and gold averaged 

0.01-0.02 oz/ton. This gold grade is slightly lower than in 

the Kay district to the west, but is in better agreement with 

districts farther north that contain similar massive sulfide 

deposits hosted in thick metavolcanic sequences. The minimal data for the Orizaba indicate that silver correlates moderately with gold and that both precious metals correlate 

moderately with copper (fig. 23). No data for lead or zinc are 

available. 

OLD DICK DISTRICT 

The Old Dick district, at Bagdad (figs. 1 and 24), is 

unusual because it has the highest average zinc grade (9 .06 
SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 15 

3 ~-------------------------.--.--0.3 Figure 18. Plot of year of production 

vs. silver and gold in the Bluebell Mine, 

1903-30. 

2.5 

2 

______ j 25 years production~----

11903-1930 1 

-------------- 0.2 

'2 

11 

II 

II 

I I 

:J II 1 - I I I 

.·,··· \ ·········•••••••••••····•••••·······•·•••·•••• ••····•r\ I ~ ...... 1 I 

B 'N 

~ 

~ 

0.1 

\ ~ I I: 

\.~ ~ ---~~~~--" /,. ___ " ! \I 

0.5 ------"-.".------~----". " ----.-:.:-oa"-':::.---~/- -~--- - --~---

-------"./ 

0 +--------~--------~---------+0 

1900 1910 1920 1930 

Year 

10 ,---------------------------- Figure 19. Plot of silver vs. copper in 

the Bluebell Mine, 1903-59. 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

31 years production 

- ---------j 1903-19591----

• ------------------

• 

0.5 

• 

• 

• - • 

• • 

.111 __ 1111111_~--

• 

•• 

• 

• • 

1.5 

• 

Ag (oz/ton) 

• • 

percent), the lowest gold grade (0.002 oz/ton), the highest 

Ag/Au (183), and the second lowest silver grade (0.387 

oz/ton) (table 1). Averages for individual deposits were even 

more extreme: 16 percent Zn, 0.001 oz/ton Au, Ag/Au of 

462, and 0.355 oz/ton Ag (table 1). These unusual metal 

ratios are dissimilar to those for mines and districts in the 

Prescott-Jerome area but are like those in the Hualapai district. The metavolcanic belt at Bagdad is relatively thin in 

comparison to those in the Prescott-Jerome area and is laterally not as extensive (Anderson and others, 1955; Baker and 

Clayton, 1968; Clayton, 1978; Anderson and Guilbert, 1979; 

DeWitt, 1983, 1987; Larson, 1984; Conway, 1986; Conway 

and others, 1986a; Connelly and Conway, 1987; Robison, 

1987; Robison and others, 1986; Robison and Conway, 

1987). The belt appears to have been deposited in an extensional basin on or near the edge of "Mojave type" continental 

crust (DeWitt, unpub. mapping, 1990; Wooden and DeWitt, 

2 

• 

• 

2.5 

• 

• 

3 

1991). All these factors may aid in explaining unusual metal 

ratios for the district. 

The Bruce and Old Dick Mines are the deep and surface 

expressions, respectively, of a composite orebody (Anderson, 1950; Anderson and others, 1955; Anonymous, 1962; 

Mauger and others, 1965; Baker and Clayton, 1968; Clayton 

and Baker, 1973; Mauger, 1973; Clayton, 1978; Larson, 

1976, 1977, 1984, 1987; Douglas, 1982; Conway and others, 

1986a,b; Connelly and Conway, 1983, 1987; Connelly and 

others, 1986). The deposit is localized at the top of the Bridle Formation, a sequence of metabasalt flows, within and at 

the base of the Dick Rhyolite, which is a metarhyolite dome 

and intrusive rock. Ore minerals are pyrite, sphalerite, chalcopyrite, galena, and cobaltian arsenopyrite. Sphalerite is 

both resinous and black (Anderson, 1950). Clean concentrates of sphalerite contain about 8 percent Fe (Baker and 

Clayton, 1968). Pyrrhotite is a common gangue. Initial 
16 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

0.1 .--.~--------------------------------------------r3 Figure 20. Plot of year of production 

vs. gold and silver in the DeSoto Mine, 

1904-72. Symbols that plot on the 

x-axis indicate no data for gold or silver. 

0.08 

GJ ~ j 27 years production j 

······----~·····················-~---················································································································ 

\ ~ 11904-19721 I 

··································· 2.4 

'2'0.06 

0 

~ 

~ 

I 

I ···············:···························································································································································· ........................ 1.8 § 

! ~ I ~ ::s 

< 0.04 I ~ 

--------------··\··--------------------- r ----------------------------------------······- 1.2 < 

0.02 

I 

I 

0.6 

0 +-----~----~----~------~----~--~~~--~~---+0 

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 

Year 

10 ,--------------------------------------------------, Figure 21. Plot of silver vs. copper in 

the DeSoto Mine, 1904-72. 

• 

8 

6 ,-._ 

e • ::s 

23 years production 

.. ··11904-19721· 

• 

• 

• 

.....•.. • 

u 

4 

• • • ····---~EJ--

2 • • 

0.5 

• 

...........•..•.. • 

• 

• 

• • 

1.5 2 

Ag (ozJton) 

production from the Old Dick in the early 1940's consisted 

mainly of high-grade lead and zinc ore that averaged 2-4 

percent Pb and 12-17 percent Zn. This ore had a Ag/Au of 

50-150 and silver grades of 0.5 oz/ton (figs. 25, 26). As 

mining progressed, lead and zinc grades decreased (fig. 25), 

and gold grades decreased more dramatically than silver 

grades, resulting in an increase in the Ag/Au from about 150 

in the early 1950's to 250 at the close of mining operations. 

The Old Dick Mine has the dubious distinction of having the 

lowest gold grade (0.001 oz/ton) of any massive sulfide 

deposit in Arizona (table 1). From 1947 through 1966, gold 

correlated moderately with copper (figs. 25 and 26); copper 

and gold spikes in 1952 and 1954 may indicate dramatically 

different ore types being produced. Silver correlates highly 

with zinc and moderately with lead (fig. 25). All metal 

grades decreased as mining came to an end in 1966. 

As the last of the Old Dick orebody was depleted, the 

deeper Bruce orebody was mined (Anonymous, 1973; 

2.5 3 

Clayton, 1978). Ore minerals in the deposit are similar to 

those of the Old Dick with the exception of notable pyrrhotite and minor tennantite. During mining of the Bruce 

deposit, gold grades increased by a factor of 4, silver by a 

factor of 2, zinc by 50 percent, and copper by 20 percent 

compared to production from the Old Dick deposit. Data for 

lead are too incomplete for a meaningful analysis. A dramatic four-fold difference in gold grades between the two 

orebodies is noted. Silver in the Bruce Mine correlates well 

with both copper and zinc (fig. 27). Gold concentrations and 

elements that correlate with gold differ greatly from the 

Bruce to the Old Dick. These differences are probably 

caused by the copper- and zinc-rich zones in the body noted 

by Clayton ( 1978) and suggest zoning of gold within the 

deposit. 

The Copper King Mine is localized in meta-tuffs within 

metabasaltic flows and is near the contact of an intrusive part 

of the overlying Dick Rhyolite (Anderson, 1950; Anderson 
SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 17 

R. 2 E. R. 3 E. 

SCALE 1: 100 000 

0 2MILES 

Figure 22. Location map of mines in the New River district. 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, Bradshaw Mountains 

1:100,000, 1981, and Phoenix North 1:100,000, 1988. 

and others, 1955; Conway and others, 1986b). Ore minerals 

are resinous sphalerite, chalcopyrite, pyrite, and galena. The 

deposit is inappropriately named, as it has the lowest copper 

grade in 'the district (0.65 percent), and in the state is second 

only to the Iron King Mine (0.11 percent Cu). Of deposits 

producing more than 20,000 tons, the Copper King has the 

third highest lead grade (1.22 percent) and the highest zinc 

grade (16.18 percent). For a deposit in the Old Dick district, 

the mine has very high silver grades. The Copper King's 

Ag/ Au ( 462) is the highest of any deposit in the state. All 

these characteristics except the high Ag/ Au make the metal 

ratios of the Copper King very similar to those of the Iron 

King Mine. 

The high lead and silver grades and the very high zinc 

grades are partly a function of hand sorting of small amounts 

of ore throughout the lifetime of the Copper King Mine. 

Nearly pure sphalerite concentrates containing galena were 

the ore type for 1915-20 and 1925-27 (fig. 28). From 1944 

through 1952 the ore consisted of more than 50 percent 

sphalerite and greater than 10 percent galena (fig. 29). For 

both periods, silver correlates highly with lead and less well 

with zinc. As lead grade increased, Ag/ Au also increased 

(fig. 30), a correlation that suggests that some gold is in sites 

independent from those that contain silver and lead. In the 

richest lead ore, Ag/Au exceeded 700 (fig. 30). If beneficiation at the Copper King had not been by hand concentration 

and zinc had averaged only 7 percent (the average zinc grade 

for the district), precious-metal concentrations would have 

been closer to the average for the Old Dick district. Even so, 

the deposit was rich in lead and silver and poor in copper. 

An unusual ore type must have been produced in 1942 and 

1943, when copper and gold grades increased dramatically 

and lead and zinc decreased equally dramatically (figs. 29 

and 30). This ore is similar to the copper- and gold-rich ore 

noted for the Old Dick Mine. 

The Copper Queen Mine (Baker and Clayton, 1968; 

Conway and others, 1986b) is located on the opposite side 

(east) of the Dick Rhyolite from the Bruce and Old Dick 

Mines and is interpreted to be localized near the upper contact of the rhyolite with overlying meta-andesite and metabasalt flows. Lindberg (1989) believed the Copper Queen is at 

the same stratigraphic horizon as the Bruce and Old Dick 

Mines due to isoclinal folding. Minerals in the deposit are 

similar to those in the Bruce and Old Dick Mines and include 

pyrite, sphalerite, chalcopyrite, galena, and minor arsenopyrite. Early production consisted of high-grade copper ore 

that had a Ag/ Au of about 40 and gold grades of about 0.02 

oz/ton. Lead and zinc were reported for this period. Major 

production from 1960 to 1966 was from zinc-rich ore that 

had a constant Ag/ Au of about 240 and gold grades of 0.002 

oz/ton (fig. 31). Gold and silver for this period correlate well 

with copper and less well with lead and zinc. 

The Pinafore and Red Cloud Mines have anomalously 

low Ag/Au (72 and 9, respectively), but both produced very 

little ore, much of which was probably oxidized and preferentially enriched in gold. When lead and zinc were produced, grades were 0.25 percent Pb and 4.5 percent Zn for 

the Pinafore and 0.1 percent Pb and 3.0 percent Zn for the 

Red Cloud. 

VERDE DISTRICT 

The Verde district (fig. 32), produced by far the most 

ore and metals of any massive sulfide district in Arizona 

(table 1). Production was dominated by the 33.5 million tons 

of ore from the United Verde Mine. The United Verde 

Extension produced 39 million tons; no other deposit 

accounted for more than 400,000 tons of ore (table 1). The 

small deposits in the region are similar in most respects to the 

larger ones, but significant differences exist that are 

discussed below. 

The largest mined volcanogenic massive sulfide 

deposit in the United States, the United Verde Mine at Jerome is one of the best studied deposits in Arizona if not in 

the entire United States (Reber, 1922, 1938; Lindgren, 1926; 

Anderson and Creasey, 1958, 1967; Anderson and Nash, 

1972; Lindberg and Jacobson, 1974; DeWitt and Waegli, 

1986, 1989; Lindberg, 1986a,c, 1989; Vance, 1987; Vance 
18 

34° 

30' 

EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

8 .,-------------------------------,2.5 Figure 23. Plot of silver vs. 

copper and gold in the Orizaba 

Mine, 1918-48 . 

• 

6 

2 

8 years production 

0 u 0000 Ohhmm mh 0011918-1948 lmO 0 0 u u mohmm+hh 

• ······················+~· 

+ • ~ 

L::J ----. 

+ • 

• 

• 2 

'2 

1.5 0 

~ • ~ 

0 .. + ... 0 

-

X 

~ 

0.5 

0 +-------.,-------.,-------.,-------+0 

0 0.1 

113°15' 

R.IOW. 

SCALE 1: 100 000 

0 

0.2 

Ag (oz/ton) 

R.9W. 

2 MILES 

0.3 0.4 

and Condie, 1987; Gustin, 1988a, 1990; also, specific items 

of interest are in Graton, 1908; Provot, 1916; Finlay, 

1918a,b; Rice, 1920; Smith and Sirdevan, 1921; Mills, 1925, 

1934; Alenius, 1930, 1968; Barker, 1930; Hansen, 1930; 

Keefe, 1930; Lindgren, 1930; Ralston, 1930a,b; Ralston and 

Hunter, 1930; Slavin, 1930; Tenney, 1935; Pullen, 1943; 

Yeats, 1946; Storms, 1955; Kothavala, 1963; Nash, 1973; 

Stacey and others, 1976; Norman, 1977; DeWitt, 1983; 

Vance and Condie, 1985, 1986; Armstrong and Handverger, 

1986; Gustin, 1986, 1987, 1988b; Lesher and others, 1986; 

Lindberg, 1986d; O'Hara and Armstrong, 1986; Eastoe and 

others, 1987; Lindberg and Gustin, 1987; Lindholm, 1989, 

1991 ). The deposit is localized at the top of the lower part of 

the Cleopatra Member of the Deception Rhyolite, a very 

thick metarhyolite complex. Ore minerals are pyrite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, galena, arsenopyrite, and minor tennantite. Base and precious metals in the deposit are zoned, from 

(1) a precious-metal-poor stringer zone at the base that contains only copper, through (2) overlying lenses of massive 

sulfide ore containing average copper, high zinc, and average precious metal concentrations, to (3) siliceous massive 

sulfide lenses containing average to high copper and zinc 

concentrations and average to high precious-metal concentrations, to (4) the capping chert and siliceous massive sulfide ore that contains lower copper and zinc concentrations, 

but the highest concentrations of precious metals (De Witt 

and Waegli, 1989). This zonation is typical for those 

deposits in Arizona having well developed chlorite alteration 

pipes, stringer ore, and overlying stratiform lenses of 

massive sulfide ore. 

Figure 24. Location map of mines in the Old Dick district. Base 

from U.S. Geological Survey, Bagdad 1:100,000, 1979, and Alamo 

Lake 1:100,000, 1979. 

During 87 years of production (fig. 33), gold grade consistently declined and Ag/ Au increased. Most of the increasing Ag/ Au through time is due to silver grades decreasing 

less than gold grades during that time (DeWitt and Waegli, 

1989, fig. D2). Major mining terminated in 1953 (fig. 34); 

lower-than-average gold grades and higher-than-average 
SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 

0.8 16 

0 

1?0.6 

0 

~ -.£, 

12 X 

.0 

p.. 

00 

< 0.4 8 

::I 

4 

~++;l;b f ·~.~ [g O+---------,-----~X-.-~~~~~~~L0~~~-----+o 

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 

Year 

400 ,---------------------------~0.02 

• 19 years production 

300 • • • u • u ... 1194 7-1966 1 .. 0.015 

~200 

< ~··· 

I Ag/~ 

0.01 

100 ···························-[~·· 0.005 

I 

.•....•. ·•· ······•············· 0 +----------,----------,-~·~·----~----------~---------+0 

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 

Year 

0.6 -r------;========::::;------------------, 12 

0.5 

I 

-.£, 0.4 0 

0 

...... 

X 

~ 0.3 

I? 

.8 "N 0.2 

-.£, 

~ 0.1 

__ .0 --llnl ~-- ~ 

uh • ............. 1968 1977 1.... ,'G'' ··_- e' ,·' 

8

,c-e e~ 

l~l---~ -~ [~ 

1 0 years production 

··················'····· .... ::.:::x. 

.X 

•······ •·· ······•··;· ···IIi 

····;;c~~J 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 +----------X==···~-X~···=··~~------------~~~-~--~---------+0 

1965 1970 1975 1980 

Year 

I? 

0 

~ 

~ 

~ 

-

e 

~ 

;::f 

u 

19 

Figure 25. Plot of year of production 

vs. silver, copper, zinc, and lead in the 

Old Dick Mine, 1947-66. Symbols that 

plot on the x-axis indicate no data for 

lead. 

Figure 26. Plot of year of production 

vs. Ag/Au and gold in the Old Dick 

Mine, 1947-66. 

Figure 27. Plot of year of production 

vs. silver, gold, copper, zinc, and lead in 

the Bruce Mine, 1968-77. Symbols that 

plot on the x-axis indicate no data for 

lead. 
20 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

~ -.3-

00 

< 

.-. 

~ ..0 

~ 

;::f 

u 

I? 

0 

'% 

-.3-

00 

< 

.-. 

~ ..0 

~ 

;:::f 

u 

10 ------------------------------------------------------~50 

7 years production 

8 ..................... 9. ........ o ... . 

0 0 

........... 

1

1917-1927 r ....... 0 -----~ .. ~ .. ~-- 42 

6 ............. 0 .... 34 0 .-. 

--5J ~ 

0 !:::: 

N 

0 0 

4 ................. 0 ... 26 

X x-@] 

2 ..... .;x ········x··· ················x···· 18 + + --------[B X + + 

+ 

0 10 

1915 1920 1925 1930 

Year 

10 40 

11 years production 

8 ............... 11942-19521·· .. 30 

6 I .-. I 

I 

I 

X \ ~ 

············-~·-·· 

~ 20 ~ !:::: 

4 

2 

.' . .\ ... .\.... /_/. "' \ \ I I I\ 

\ .. \1 // ,' '·\ \\ ·-x \ ["] / "I 

\\ 

.... + · ... : ················'~~?~, ___ +···!Pbl • .. "• "·+"..... '-

~ x_'-

N 

10 

0 +---~~~--------~------------------~~~-------------+0 

1940 1945 1950 1955 

Year 

10.----------------------------------------------------.100 

I Ag/Au I --l\ 11 years production 

8 .. ............ """""""11942-19521·· 80 

.. 0 

60 X 

I ....... """ .. .:. 

:..-··· .................. ~::·_····· 6 

< 

40 ,........ 

~ ~ !:::: I 

I N I 

I 

I 

20 .... ./ ... 

I 

I 

I 

/, 

I 

0 

4 ····················==="·""'---· /1\, ............ ··r!L. ·················)·····\ I I 

/'X....._ / 1 I \ 

/ 1/ '');( \ \ 

2 ··········-~·-·············/~---·············· --~·-·····················-\ ..... I ~ ~ .j ~ "·,,\,i 

// ~ ':t~" 0 +-----~~/-~--------,------------------,-~~~-------------+ 

1940 1945 1950 1955 

Year 

Figure 28. Plot of year of production 

vs. copper, lead, silver, and zinc in the 

Copper King Mine, 1917-27. Symbols 

that plot on the x-axis indicate no data 

for copper. 

Figure 29. Plot of year of production 

vs. copper, lead, silver, and zinc in the 

Copper King Mine, 1942-52. Symbols 

that plot on the x-axis indicate no data 

for lead. 

Figure 30. Plot of year of production 

vs. lead, zinc, and Ag/ Au in the Copper 

King Mine, 1942-52. Symbols that plot 

on the x -axis indicate no data for lead . 
SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 21 

0.5 -,------------------------------.-15 Figure 31. Plot of year of production 

vs. silver, gold, copper, zinc, and lead in 

the Copper Queen Mine, 1960-66. 16 years production 

i04 .......... • m mmmml1960-19661••• 

~ 5:]~ g 0.3 --j-----------------------------------------"'"·-----------;' --·-o:-~----- ------0-'----

12 

--e. __ 

>< -- o· 

~ 

EJ·······························································································································~······ 

~ ~/Cu 

I0.2 

~ 

00 

< 0.1 mm••••••••• m~~mmmm••••• X :, m~ -:~~~~m~m· 3 

0 T------,--------~----------~--------~---------+0 

1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 

Year 

R. 2E. R. 2 ~ E. R. 3 E. 

SCALE 1: 100 000 

0 2MILES 

Figure 32. Location map of mines in the Verde district. Base 

from U.S. Geological Survey, Prescott 1:100,000, 1981. Mine 

names in italics are massive sulfide deposits for which production 

data are not available. Mines having questionable location are 

shown with a query (?). 

Ag/Au after 1953 are partially accounted for by leaching of 

high-grade copper ore during that period (fig. 34 ). Part of the 

peak in Ag/Au from about 1918 through 1924 (fig. 33) can 

be attributed to mining of low-grade gold ore during open-pit 

production (fig. 34 ). Some additional lowering of gold grade 

resulted from preferential mining of low-grade stringer ore 

both in the open pit and underground (P.A. Lindberg, written 

commun., 1993) compared to earlier and later time periods 

(fig. 33). 

The United Verde was a copper-rich deposit (4.36 percent Cu) and had copper grades higher than other districts 

(all except the Kay district are less than 3.3 percent Cu; table 

1). Silver and gold grades for the deposit are similar to the 

average for other districts (except Agua Fria) in the Prescott-Jerome area, but substantially higher than in the Old 

Dick and Hualapai districts. When recovered, zinc averaged 

1-4 percent (fig. 35). However, much of the massive sulfide 

ore in the mine averaged 5-10 percent Zn, but this zinc-rich 

ore was not mined (Mcilroy and others, 1974; DeWitt and 

Waegli, 1989, table 12). Data for lead grades are minimal; 

when produced, lead averaged 0.02 percent. Undoubtedly, 

the lead grade of much of the ore was higher. 

Gold and silver grades are as high or higher in zinc-rich 

ore as in copper-rich ore at the United Verde (fig. 35). 

DeWitt and Waegli (1989, table 13) determined that the best 

statistical correlation of gold with base metals was with combined copper and zinc from siliceous massive sulfide ore 

(correlation coefficient of 0.61 for 14 samples) and combined massive sulfide and siliceous massive sulfide ore (correlation coefficient of 0.57 for 106 samples). No lead 

analyses were available to test the correlation of precious 

metals with lead. 

The United Verde Extension Mine, which had the highest copper grade of any deposit in the state (10.2 percent Cu, 

table 1 ), also produced the second largest amount of copper 
22 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

87 years production 

60 __ j1884-1975[ __ 0.15 

Ag/Au 

;:I 

~40 

< ~- ---------;--- 0.1 

-

<l:l 

I=! 

il 

T .j.l 

::,. ~ . 20 ------ -------------·---i-1-JL--r'--- -~~- ---/-\--- _______ '11/j~ ~I : 

1

1 :: : ~~ \ I \ !II .. " I \ !p 

I 1\ ::::: ..... 1-... . . 1\ Ill 1 I I 8 __).... \ 'I ~\ tl. I 1\: d ~: Au ------------- ......... ' • I 111111\1 .... ill\ I\ 

0.05 

:: :,. \1 1: w ~..,.,. ..... 0 +-----~~~~~~~~.,-----------,------------,------------.----------~0 

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 

Year 

2 .--+~~--------------------------------------------------~15 

1.6 

I 

I 

: r I II 

--- -------~ --------iL 

: :: I II 

: 1\-;- +7'--+-t- :I,\ 

87 years production 

-11884-19751-- -- 12 

B 1.2 

+ \ 1+--t;- -------1++ II + ---------------------------------------------------+--9 

II 't- Il \ 

II \ + + ~ g : : -If"\ t;/\ 

~ 0.8 :: \ ,'++ 

----n- --1 II 

II 

6 

0.4 3 

0 +-~~~--,---------,---------,-----~~~~~~r-+0 

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 

Year 

6 ,--------------------------------------------------------.5 

5 

4 

2 

------------EJ 

---------:::·---

'" _______ \. 

-- --------

14 years production 

--- --------11940-19531" 

---~ 

·----------·--- ____ _ • 

• 

0 

/ 

______ -_-_:-_-_, ____ / __ _ 

I - -~t~F'-"-~---D1 o'" 

. • •. -:1· ~~Gr·-[3··· /r-~"~~c~~.c"\•·"···•.;< .. o .. ·.>fAQl· I \ I L..::_J I \ I 

~ 1/ \ /1 

0 $---e---w-~&---~------,-----~~----~------~-------+0 

1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 

Year 

-

~ ;:I 

u 

Figure 33. Plot of year of production 

vs. Ag/Au and gold in the United Verde 

Mine, 1884-1975. Symbols that plot on 

the x-axis indicate no data for Ag/Au. 

Figure 34. Plot of year of production 

vs. ore and copper in the United Verde 

Mine, 1884-1975. 

Figure 35. Plot of year of production 

vs. copper, zinc, silver, and gold in the 

United Verde Mine, 1940-53. Symbols 

that plot on the x-axis indicate no data 

for zinc. 
SUMMARY OF MINES BY DISTRICT 23 

and the third largest amounts of silver and gold (Rickard, 

1918; Mitke, 1919; Lindgren, 1926; D' Arcy, 1930; 

Schwartz, 1937, 1938; Anderson and Creasey, 1958; Handverger, 1975; White, 1986a,b; Lindberg, 1989). The deposit 

is localized in metarhyolite thought to be equivalent to the 

lower part of the Cleopatra Member of the Deception Rhyolite. Ore minerals are chalcocite, tennantite, cuprite, and 

minor pyrite. Although the deposit was originally thought to 

be the downfaulted top of the United Verde deposit, recent 

workers consider the United Verde Extension to be a separate deposit (White, 1986a; Lindberg and Jacobsen, 1974; 

Lindberg, 1986a,c, 1989). Base- and precious-metal concentrations in the deposit are consistent with either 

interpretation. 

Gold and silver grades in the United Verde Extension 

reveal that in its early history the deposit had anomalously 

high silver grades and low gold grades (fig. 36). The peak in 

silver grades correlates, in part, with exceptionally 

high-grade copper ore, exceeding 10 percent Cu (fig. 37). 

Silver was preferentially enriched in this chalcocite-rich 

material (Anderson and Creasey, 1958; White, 1986a). The 

peak in both silver and gold grades from 1936 through 1940 

coincides with mining of the "gold stope," a chert-rich ore 

horizon at or slightly above the massive sulfide ore (Anderson and Creasey, 1958; White, 1986a,b; Lindberg, written 

comm., 1990). 

Data for other mines in the Verde district exhibit some 

peculiar features. The anomalously high Ag/Au of 232 for 

the Cleopatra Mine and 419 for the Verde Central Mine 

(Willis, 1922; Benedict, 1923; Fearing and Benedict, 1925; 

Lindgren, 1926; Dickson, 1931; Reber, 1938; Anderson and 

Creasey, 1958) (table 1) are unusual. The Cleopatra ore is 

contained within the Cleopatra Member of the Deception 

Rhyolite, not at its top as is the United Verde ore. Semi-massive to massive sulfide ore of the Verde Central is beneath 

the Cleopatra Member (Lindberg, written comm., 1990). 

Ore minerals are only pyrite and chalcopyrite. In both cases, 

the high Ag/ Au is a reflection of anomalously low gold 

grades recorded for fewer than three years of production 

data. These data could be wrong or incomplete or the deposits may be similar to other precious-metal-poor deposits in 

the Agua Fria district, especially the Binghampton and 

Copper Queen mines. 

The Copper Chief (also known as "Iron King-Equator") Mine is localized at the top of a thin metarhyolite flow 

that overlies metabasalt flows (Lindgren, 1926; Reber, 1938; 

Anderson and Creasey, 1958; Rogers, 1979; Johnson, 

1986a,b; Lindberg, 1986b ). Ore minerals are pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, and minor sphalerite. The deposit has 

metal ratios similar to those at the Iron King and Hackberry 

mines, in the Big Bug district, and the Copper King Mine, in 

the Old Dick district. A low copper grade (0.39 percent average), moderate to high lead grade when produced (0.04-0.7 

percent), and a high gold grade (0.13 oz/ton average; range 

from 0.3 to 0.7 oz/ton) for the Copper Chief are similar to 

metal ratios and concentrations of the Big Bug district (table 

1). Both silver and gold correlate negatively with copper 

(fig. 38), a relationship that suggests that both precious metals are probably associated with galena or are not preferentially associated with any sulfide minerals. Care must be 

exercised in the interpretation of data from the Copper Chief, 

because much precious-metal-rich gossan ore was mined in 

preference to massive sulfide ore (Lindberg, written comrn., 

1990). Even considering this complication, lead and 

gold-rich, copper-poor massive sulfide deposits, although 

the norm in the Big Bug district, are present in other districts 

as well. 

Production attributed to the Florentia Mine (also 

spelled "Florencia") during its lifetime includes metals produced by leaching high-grade copper ore from the United 

Verde Extension dumps. This mining practice may account 

for the apparently anomalously low silver and gold grades 

(0.009 oz/ton Ag and 0.0008 oz/ton Au) associated with Florentia ore. Data for the Green Monster and Galveston Mines 

possibly should be combined, because ore may have come 

from the same deposit. Metal ratios for the Galveston are 

highly skewed by 1936 data, having a Ag/ Au of 500. 

ZONIA DISTRICT 

As mentioned in the overall district summary, data for 

the Zonia district, located southwest of Prescott (figs. 1, 39), 

are difficult to compare to data from other districts because 

open-pit mining of relatively low grade ore took place at the 

Zonia Mine during the 1960's and 1970's (Lundin, 1986). 

Because the Zonia Mine accounts for 99 percent of the tonnage from the district (table 10), pre-1960 data must be used 

to compare the Zonia district to other districts whose 

production was entirely from underground mines. 

The Zonia deposit is localized within metarhyolite tuff, 

but very little massive sulfide ore is present (Anonymous, 

1943; Kumke, 1947; DeWitt, 1983, 1987). Ore minerals are 

malachite, chrysocolla, minor galena, and minor cuprite. 

Pre-1960 production from the Zonia Mine consisted of copper-rich ore (2-10 percent) having unusually low silver 

grades (most less than 0.4 oz/ton) and moderate to slightly 

high gold grades (0.1-0.15 oz/ton). Silver and gold correlate 

well with each other for this period (fig. 40), but the resulting 

Ag/ Au of 1-2 is anomalously low compared to the average 

for the state of 36. Lead, when produced, was between 0.03 

and 0.20 percent. A block of about 400,000 tons of ore 

defined by diamond drilling and trenching (Kumke, 194 7) 

averaged about 1.0-1.15 percent Cu, 0.2 oz/ton Ag, and 

0.015 oz/ton Au. A much larger block of ore, perhaps an 

order of magnitude larger, averaged about 0.5 percent Cu. 

The Ag/Au of this larger block of ore was 13. These metal 

ratios are similar to those for some of the small deposits in 

the Agua Fria district, especially the Bigbug (also spelled 

"Big Bug"), Stoddard, and Yallar Kid Mines (table 1). 
24 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

--"' § 

'"d 

4 -.-----------------------------------.-0.16 

29 years production 

3 n __ _j1915-19451 0.12 

__ 9 0.08 

0.04 

A-~---······ EJ 0 +-------~------~------~------~------~------~~~~·0 

1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 

Year 

400 ,--------------------------------------------.40 

300 ----------0----\\/ 0 

~ [ 25 years production 

[1 91 s-1 94 o 1 

~ 200 ;:::l 

________ q __ _ 

0 

2, 

~ 

100 10 

0 

1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 

Year 

10 0.5 

8 

~~0 0 

21 years production 0.4 

• 

'2 6 0 

'% I 

~ 

EJ 0 

0 11901-19481 

\ 0 

• 0.3 \ 

0 

0 

~ 4 • 0 

------------ ·--- ----------0 0.2 

cP 

• 

2 ~ ~ --

J --------•- • 0.1 

• [~ • 

0 I 0 

0 0.5 1.5 2 

Cu(%) 

'2 

0 

'% 

~ 

~ 

--e 

8 

'2 

0 

'% 

~ 

~ 

Figure 36. Plot of year of production 

vs. silver and gold in the United Verde 

Extension Mine, 1915-45. Symbols that 

plot on the x-axis indicate no data for 

silver or gold. 

Figure 37. Plot of year of production 

vs. ore, copper, and silver in the United 

Verde Extension Mine, 1915-40. 

Figure 38. Plot of copper vs. silver 

and gold in the Copper Chief Mine, 

1901-48. Symbols that plot on the 

y-axis indicate no data for copper. 
METAL ZONATION PATTERNS AND PROVINCES 25 

112°40' 

T. 

12 t---.......... ~~-~...;..:-.:~~:..-.:..~..:,.,...:.~,..--.:.c.:.,;;__~j;..:,\.:-::.........__:,;.:.;.....;;1;,c~ N. 

R.4W. R.3W. 

SCALE 1:100 000 

0 2 MILES 

Figure 39. Location map of mines in the Zonia district. Base from 

U.S. Geological Survey, Bradshaw Mountains 1:100,000, 1981. 

Production data for the Zonia Mine from 1966 through 

1974 are not particularly illuminating (fig. 41), because gold 

and silver were not recovered from the heap-leaching operations. Copper grade shows a reasonable correlation with tonnage mined, but copper concentrates having grades in excess 

of 80 percent Cu for 1971 and later years are obviously 

related to lifetime of the cyanide cycle for copper recovery 

and shutdown of the mine, not to mineralogic features. Significant amounts of precious metals could have been recovered from this oxidized ore, as suggested by metallurgical 

tests ·(Kumke, 194 7). 

METAL ZONATION PATTERNS AND 

PROVINCES 

Base- and precious-metal concentrations in most Early 

Proterozoic massive sulfide deposits in Arizona are comparable to those in Archean massive sulfide deposits in Canada 

(Sangster, 1980; Franklin and others, 1981), in Cambrian 

deposits in Tasmania (Large and others, 1989), and inTertiary massive sulfide deposits in Japan (Ishihara, 1974; 

Ohmoto and Skinner, 1983). Modem-day deposits along the 

mid-ocean-ridge systems have similar, but variable, baseand precious-metal concentrations (Hannington and Scott, 

1989b). Although most deposits in Arizona cluster near the 

average of 3.6 percent Cu, 2-6 percent Zn, 1.3 oz/ton Ag, 

and 0.04 oz/ton Au, significant departures exist. Metal concentrations in the unusual deposits may reflect both 

first -order differences in tectonic setting of these deposits 

and second-order thermochemical conditions under which 

they were formed. 

BASE-METAL CONCENTRATIONS 

Most deposits in Arizona averaged between 2 and 6 

percent Cu (fig. 42). Notably, however, deposits containing 

greater than 20,000 tons of ore in the Big Bug district averaged less than 2 percent Cu; the entire district averaged only 

0.11 percent Cu. Of mines producing more than 20,000 tons 

of ore, only the United Verde Extension averaged greater 

than 4.4 percent Cu; its 10.2 percent Cu grade was largely a 

function of extreme supergene enrichment, which Lindberg 

(1986c, 1989) believed may be partly Tertiary in age. Such 

extreme enrichment is not representative of most deposits in 

the State. Importantly, low copper grades are not restricted 

to deposits in the Big Bug district, but are represented in the 

Old Dick district by the Copper King Mine (CK, fig. 42), in 

the Verde district by the Copper Chief (CC, fig. 42), Green 

Monster, and Galveston Mines, and in the Agua Fria district 

by the Pocahontas and Copper Dome Mines. 

Variations in lead and zinc grades are more difficult to 

assess because of the sporadic nature of the production of 

those metals. When produced, zinc averaged 3-10 percent 

in the Agua Fria, Big Bug, Hualapai, Old Dick, and Verde 

districts. No zinc has been produced from the Kay, Mayer, 

New River, or Zonia districts. However, samples of pyritic 

ore from the Kay, Mayer, and New River districts contain 

minor, but visible sphalerite (Lindgren, 1926; Arizona Geological Survey, unpub. file data, 1984; DeWitt, unpub. data, 

1988). Lead, when produced in seven of the nine districts 

(table 1), averaged between 0.02 and 1.8 percent. Notably, 

the Big Bug district had the highest grade (1.84 percent Pb) 

and a very low copper grade. Most of the other copper-poor 

deposits in the Old Dick, Agua Fria, and Verde districts also 

had elevated lead concentrations compared to the deposits 

having average copper grades. 

PRECIOUS-METAL CONCENTRATIONS 

The average gold and silver production grades of all 

deposits in Arizona were 0.037 oz/ton Au and 1.360 

oz/ton Ag (table 1). Gold concentrations ranged from 

less than 0.001 oz/ton to 0.44 oz/ton (figs. 42 and 43); 

deposits producing more than 20,000 tons of ore ranged 

from less than 0.001 oz/ton Au to almost 0.12 oz/ton Au. 

Silver concentrations ranged from 0.009 oz/ton to 5.15 

oz/ton; deposits producing more than 20,000 tons of ore 
26 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

10 ~--------~----------------+-----------------------,0.5 Figure 40. Plot of silver vs. copper 

and gold in the Zonia Mine, 1901-51. 

Symbols that plot on the x-axis indicate 

no data for gold and on the y-axis no 

data for silver. 

8 ------ u unu u 112 years production 1--- 0.4 

+---~ 11901-1951 1 

-

~ ;:::l 

u 

-rJl 

~ 

.8 

~ 

6 --+----- --

+ + + 

4 

• • • ·---EJ + 2 -------------------------------------------•----- 0.1 

0 --~.-----~--~----~--------~--------~----------0 

0 0.2 0.4 

Ag (oz/ton) 

2 

9 years production, 

1.5 .. 11966-1974 f __ 

0.6 0.8 

0.5 Figure 41. Plot of year of production 

vs. ore and copper in the Zonia Mine, 

1966-7 4. Symbols that plot on the x -axis 

0.4 indicate no data for ore. 

0.3 

;.§ - uu -- uunu I Ore I ]_ / 

~ ;:::l 

u <I) 0.2 1-< 

0 

0.5 

~ 0.1 

0 +---------~--------~--------~--------~----.----+0 

1965 1967 1969 1971 

Year 

ranged from 0.009 oz/ton Au to 3.56 oz/ton Ag (fig. 43). 

Deposits having the highest overall gold and silver grades 

are concentrated in the Big Bug district (figs. 42 and 43), 

but include copper-poor deposits in the Agua Fria and 

Verde districts that contain elevated concentrations of 

lead, as discussed above. Deposits having anomalously 

low precious-metal grades are restricted, in large part, to 

the Old Dick and Hualapai districts (figs. 42 and 43.) 

The Ag/ Au for all deposits averages 37, but ranges from 

1 to 462 (fig. 43). Deposits in the Old Dick and Hualapai districts and gold-poor deposits such as the Binghampton Mine, 

in the Agua Fria district (B, figs. 42, 43), and the Verde Central Mine, in the Verde district (VC, figs. 42, 43), have a 

Ag/Au greater than 100. These ratios are probably strongly 

affected by mining of small amounts of ore enriched in gold 

from small deposits that have. a Ag/ Au less than 10. 

1973 1975 

FACTORS CONTROLLING ORE 

DEPOSITION 

Anomalously low copper grades (less than 1 percent 

Cu) and anomalously high lead grades (greater than 1 percent Pb) characterize the Big Bug district (figs. 42, 44) and 

set it apart from all other massive sulfide districts in Arizona. 

Importantly, deposits having the same characteristics as 

those in the Big Bug district (low copper, high lead) are also 

present in the Old Dick, Verde, and Agua Fria districts. 

Metavolcanic strata that host deposits in the Big Bug district 

are no different chemically (Anderson, 1989b; De Witt, 

unpub. data, 1989) or by virtue of their age (Anderson and 

others, 1971; Karlstrom and others, 1987) or tectonic setting 

(Anderson, 1989b) from those in other districts in the 

Prescott-Jerome area. Therefore, processes responsible for 
FACTORS CONTROLLING ORE DEPOSITION 27 

the low copper and high lead grades must be related to local, 

not regional, conditions of ore deposition. 

Very low silver and gold grades and a high Ag/ Au characterize the westernmost two districts, Hualapai and Old 

Dick (figs. 43, 44). Deposits in these districts are hosted by 

thin metavolcanic sequences that are interbedded with (Hualapai) and overlain by (Old Dick) extensive metapelitic strata 

(Anderson and others, 1955; More, 1980; Stensrud and 

More, 1980; Wooden and DeWitt, 1991). These metavolcanic sequences may be 20 m.y. or more younger than those in 

the Prescott-Jerome area (Chamberlain and Bowring, 1990) 

and were probably formed in arcs or back-arcs immediately 

adjacent to or overlying Mojave-type continental crust 

(Wooden and DeWitt, 1991). Processes that caused the low 

gold and silver grades are probably controlled by major 

regional, not local, differences in the crust underlying 

western Arizona. 

The Agua Fria district has abnormally low concentrations of precious metals, but has a Ag/ Au similar to other districts in the Prescott-Jerome area. Deposits in this district 

that have low concentrations of precious metals are hosted 

within thick metarhyolite sequences (Anderson and Blacet, 

1972b; Brook, 1974; O'Hara, 1986; Anderson, 1986b; 

DeWitt, 1987), not at the tops of such sequences, as are most 

deposits in the Prescott-Jerome area. The processes 

responsible for this precious-metal depletion are probably 

controlled by unique factors related to the depositional environment of massive sulfide deposits in the Agua Fria district. 

CRUSTAL CONTROLS OF METALLOGENESIS 

The existence of Mojave-type continental crust in the 

subsurface in western Arizona beneath the Hualapai and Old 

Dick districts at the time of volcanism and formation of the 

massive sulfide deposits (Wooden and DeWitt, 1991) is 

believed to be the first-order phenomenon that controlled the 

precious-metal-poor nature of deposits in these districts. 

Compared to central and southeastern Arizona, Early Proterozoic supracrustal rocks of the Mojave Desert region contain very few base- or precious-metal deposits that are of 

Early Proterozoic age (Fife and Brown, 1980; De Witt, 

1987). Therefore, Mojave-type continental crust in the subsurface of western Arizona may be impoverished in base and 

precious metals compared to Early Proterozoic volcanic 

strata characteristic of central Arizona. Because both 

metavolcanic strata and some of the younger pre- and 

post-tectonic plutons in western Arizona appear to have been 

derived, in large part, from partial melting of Mojave-type 

continental crust (Wooden and DeWitt, 1991), those rocks 

and their associated massive sulfide deposits carry the characteristic signature of a high Ag/ Au and low precious-metal 

concentrations. 

This precious-metal-poor nature of the Early Proterozoic Mojave-type crust in the Mojave Desert region and 

western Arizona should not be confused with the gold-rich 

nature and the low Ag/Au characteristic of -1,730-Ma and 

younger Proterozoic, and all Phanerozoic, vein deposits 

noted by Titley (1985, 1987, 1989) for his domain II, which 

corresponds to central and western Arizona. The southeastem boundary ofTitley's (1987, 1989) domain II (high gold, 

low Ag/Au) is largely coincident with the southeastern 

boundary of 1,690- to 1,740-Ma pre-, syn-, and post-tectonic 

plutons (DeWitt, unpub. data, 1988; Anderson, 1989a) that 

increase in abundance to the northwest in Arizona and into 

the Mojave Desert, where they constitute 98 percent or more 

of the Early Proterozoic outcrops (DeWitt and others, 1984; 

DeWitt, 1987; Miller and Wooden, 1988; Wooden and others, 1988; Wooden and Miller, 1990). Titley's (1987, 1989) 

domain I is virtually lacking in these rocks and, instead, is 

characterized by the monotonous pelite and psammite rock 

types of the Pinal Schist. The model suggested by this paper, 

and outlined by the data of Titley, is that the gold-rich nature 

and the low Ag/ Au characteristic of domain II in central and 

western Arizona is a consequence of emplacement of enormous amounts of plutonic material from 1,690 to 1,740 Ma 

and recycling of precious metals from the plutonic material 

(and, to a lesser extent the pre-existing basement) throughout 

subsequent geologic time. 

The depositional environment during formation of massive sulfide deposits is slightly different in the westernmost 

two districts as compared to all districts in central Arizona. 

In both the Hualapai and Old Dick districts, massive sulfide 

deposits are localized in relatively thin, laterally restricted 

volcanic piles that interfinger with or are overlain by pelitic 

metasedimentary rocks. This sediment-dominated tectonic 

environment rimy have had a second-order control on the 

concentration of precious metals in the deposits, but is not 

believed to be as significant as the first-order control discussed above. Also, most sediment-hosted massive sulfide 

deposits (Beshi-type deposits) do not, on average, have 

lower gold and silver concentrations than volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits (Franklin and others, 1981). Some 

Beshi-type deposits, such as Geco and Ducktown, do have 

lower concentrations of gold and silver (R.W. Hutchinson, 

written commun., 1993). Deposits having anomalously high 

gold and silver concentrations compared to the average for 

their districts are present in the Old Dick district; their 

significance is discussed next. 

THERMOCHEMICAL CONTROLS OF 

METALLOGENESIS 

Why does the Big Bug district contain much higher 

concentrations of gold, silver, and lead than other districts in 

the Prescott-Jerome area? Distal versus proximal volcanic 

setting of the deposits in the district has been suggested as a 

possible control of metallogenesis (Bouley and Hodder, 

1976, 1977; Lindberg, 1989), but was rejected by Anderson 
1.0 r---------------------------, 

+ 0 

0 

z o H 0 X )( 0 

+ 

uvx 

• 

0.1 D 

,.-.., 

§ 0 

..:t::: 

BB K 

t3 n•• uv + [:, .... • 

"-.._/ 

•• ~ 

+ + 

Z' 

+s + + 

.... .... 

0.01 0 

CK ~A+ • 6 

CW 6BR 

0.001 I 

0 6 0D 

~c ~B 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

Cu(%) 

Figure 42. Plot of copper vs. gold for all massive sulfide deposits, Arizona. Large symbols indicate deposits that produced more than 20,000 tons of ore~ small symbols indicate 

deposits that produced less than 20,000 tons of ore. Plus sign, deposits in Agua Fria district; 

open square, deposits in Big Bug district; open circle, deposits in Hualapai district~ open triangle, deposits in Kay district~ filled square, deposits in Mayer district; filled upside-down 

triangle, deposits in New River district~ filled triangle, deposits in Old Dick district~ filled 

circle, deposits in Verde district~ cross, deposits in Zonia district~ A, Antler Mine~ B, Binghampton; BB, Bluebell; BR, Bruce, CC, Copper Chief; CK, Copper King; CW, Copper 

World~ D, DeSoto~ H, Hackberry; IK, Iron King; K, Kay; 0, Orizaba (gold, when produced, 

was 0.02 oz/ton); OD, Old Dick; S, Stoddard; UV, United Verde; UVX, United Verde Extension; VC, Verde Central; Z, Zonia (pre-open pit mining; Z' is location of major ore 

blocked out by Kumke, 1947) 

= 0 

~ 0 

"-.._/ 

~ 

1.0 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 

0.1 

+ Q,JIV/ 

0 

z 

X .. ~-~ ~-~c- ~--~~--6~- 'o 

D 6 J3B- _- D!__ 

+ ~··/·· e UVX IK 

+ s 

+ /+ 

-f>/ uv 

---z· of:.-/ [:, 

0 

"Y _.----6A 

B ~--BR 

vc/\·C)~ 61\ o cw 

_-' "" \ 6 ~ 

1.0 

Ag (oz/ton) 

• CK 

6 

10 

Figure 43. Plot of silver vs. gold for all massive sulfide deposits, Arizona. Large symbols 

indicate deposits that produced more than 20,000 tons of ore; small symbols indicate deposits that produced less than 20,000 tons of ore. Plus sign, deposits in Agua Fria district; open 

square, deposits in Big Bug district; open circle, deposits in Hualapai district; open triangle, 

deposits in Kay district; filled square, deposits in Mayer district; filled upside-down triangle, 

deposits in New River district; filled triangle, deposits in Old Dick district; filled circle, deposits in Verde district; cross, deposits in Zonia district; A, Antler Mine; B, Binghampton; 

BB, Bluebell; BR, Bruce, CC, Copper Chief; CK, Copper King; CW, Copper World; D, 

DeSoto; H, Hackberry; IK, Iron King; K, Kay; 0, Orizaba (gold, when produced, was 0.02 

oz/ton); OD, Old Dick; S, Stoddard; UV, United Verde; UVX, United Verde Extension; VC, 

Verde Central; Z, Zonia (pre-open pit mining; Z' is location of major ore blocked out by 

Kumke, 1947). Uppermost diagonal line is Ag/Au = 10; middle diagonal line is Ag/Au=40; 

lowest diagonal line is Ag/Au = 100. 

N 

00 

trl 

~ t"""' 

>-< 

;g 

0 

~ 0 

N 

0 

n 

~ 

> en 

en 

~ trl 

en 

c 

tTl 

~ 0 

~ 0 

en 

....... 

>-j 

en 

z 

> :::0 

N 

0 

z 

> 
FACTORS CONTROLLING ORE DEPOSITION 29 

113° 

34° 

Area of figure~ 

~ 

0 10 

Low-Cu 

High-Pb 

20 MILES 

Verde 

/o4o 

/ 1·.459 

\) 

37 

New River 

Figure 44. Massive sulfide metallic mineral districts and metal zonation patterns in central and northwestern Arizona. Location of Pittsburg-Tonto, Pranty' s Cabin, Gray's Gulch, and Bronco Creek districts indicated, but district names are not shown. Numbers beneath district 

name are (top) Au (oz/ton) and (bottom) Ag (oz/ton); number to right of Au and Ag grades is Ag/Au; area in western Arizona underlain by 

Mojave-type crust shown by stipple pattern. 

( 1977) and is not favored by this author. Deposits suggested 

by Bouley and Hodder (1976) to be distal because of their 

metal ratios are, in fact, within thick accumulation of basaltic 

to rhyolitic flows. Therefore, the deposits were not formed 

in distal volcanic settings. Deposits, however, may have 

been distal or proximal with regard to localized feeder zones 

and hydrothermal centers. Thermochemical controls of ore 

deposition (Eldridge and others, 1983; Huston and Large, 

1989; Large and others, 1989), and specifically, temperature 

and sulfur fugacity of hydrothermal solutions responsible for 

ore deposition (Hannington and Scott, 1989a) may have 

been the principal factor for the differences in metal concentrations and ratios. From their study of Archean through 

modem volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits from various 

submarine tectonic environments, Hannington and Scott 

( 1989a) presented both theoretical and empirical evidence 

for precious-metal enrichment in low-temperature ( <300°C), 

sulfur-rich deposits characterized by lack of pyrrhotite and 

low iron content of coexisting sphalerite. 

Much of the data from Arizona deposits supports this 

model. Pyrrhotite is lacking at the Iron King Mine in the Big 

Bug district. An analysis of brown sphalerite, which 

accounts for more than 90 percent of the sphalerite in the 

deposit, contained 3.2 percent Fe, which amounts to 5.5 

mole percent FeS (Anderson and Creasey, 1958, p. 167). 

Iron concentrations of sphalerite that are this low are associated with gold grades of about 2-5 ppm for selected Archean 

massive sulfide deposits in eastern Canada (Hannington and 

Scott, 1989a, table 1). Analytical data are lacking for the 

temperature of deposition of ore minerals in the Big Bug district, but the above observations suggest that the gold-, silver-, and possibly lead-rich nature of the ore in this district is 

a function of low temperature ( <300°C and possibly as low 

as 250°C) deposition of gold- and silver-rich brines in a sulfur-rich, proximal volcanic setting. By comparison, pyrrhotite is a typical ore mineral at the Antler Mine, in the 

Hualapai district, and the Old Dick Mine in the Old Dick district. Sphalerite is rich in iron in both deposits, and gold 

grades at the two deposits are among the lowest in the State. 

Therefore, the model that is favored to explain those 

deposits that were previously interpreted to have formed in a 

distal volcanic setting is one that has low-temperature hydrothermal fluids depositing gold-, silver-, and possibly 

lead-rich minerals in a proximal volcanic setting. The presence of Big Bug-like deposits in the Old Dick, Verde, and 

Agua Fria districts (figs. 42 and 43) is further evidence that 
30 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

distal volcanic setting is not the cause of these apparently 

anomalous metal ratios and concentrations. The Copper 

King deposit, in the Old Dick district, is within metabasalt 

flows of the Bridle Formation and is as proximal as other 

massive sulfide deposits in the district (Anderson and others, 

1955; Conway and others, 1986b), but it is rich in gold, silver, and lead compared to surrounding deposits. The Copper 

Chief, Green Monster, and Galveston deposits in the Verde 

district (fig. 32), are localized at the upper contact of thick 

metabasalt sequences that have minor metarhyolite components, but have anomalously low copper, gold, and silver 

concentrations. Similarly, the Pocahontas and Copper Dome 

deposits, in the Agua Fria district, are in settings that are as 

proximal as other massive sulfide deposits in the district, but 

have the characteristic metal ratios of the Big Bug district. 

Individual deposits within the proximal volcanic terrane, 

however, may have been distal to local vents. 

Remaining to be explained are the anomalously 

precious-metal-poor deposits of the Agua Fria and Verde 

districts (figs. 42 and 43) that have otherwise normal 

base-metal concentrations. The Verde Central and Cleopatra 

deposits in the Verde district and the Binghampton deposit in 

the Agua Fria district are hosted within thick metarhyolite 

units, not at the contacts of metarhyolite with more mafic 

rocks. As one possibility, deposits of this type may be 

related to high-temperature (>350°C) hydrothermal fluids 

that were not capable of transporting and depositing precious 

metals in elevated concentrations. Such deposits may have 

been short-lived hydrothermal systems developed within 

actively erupting rhyolitic complexes (Lindberg, 1986c; 

DeWitt, 1987; O'Hara, 1987b). 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This study would not have been possible without the 

initial compilation of production data by S.B. Keith and the 

staff of the Arizona Geological Survey. Discussions with 

P.F. O'Hara, Philip Anderson, and, especially, P.A. Lindberg greatly aided the author in preparing the paper. The 

manuscript was reviewed by P.J. Modreski, David Frishman, 

P.A. Lindberg, S.R. Titley, R.W. Hutchinson, and an anonymous Economic Geology reviewer, and benefited from their 

constructive remarks. The author's perceptions of ore controls for Arizona deposits, however, are not necessarily 

shared by all reviewers. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Alenius, E.M.J., 1930, Methods and costs of stripping and mining 

at the United Verde open-pit mine, Jerome, Arizona: 

U.S.Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6248, 33 p. 

---1968, A brief history of the United Verde open pit, Jerome, 

Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Mines Bulletin 178, 34 p. 

Anderson, C.A., 1950, Lead-zinc deposits, Bagdad area, Yavapai 

County, Arizona, in Arizona zinc and lead deposits, Part 1: 

Arizona Bureau of Mines Bulletin 156, p. 122-138. 

Anderson, C.A., and Blacet, P.M., 1972a, Geologic map of the 

Mount Union quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-997, scale 

1:62,500. 

---1972b, Precambrian geology of the northern Bradshaw 

Mountains, Yavapai County, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1336, 82 p. 

---1972c, Geologic map of the Mayer quadrangle, Yavapai 

County, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-996, scale 1:62,500. 

Anderson, C.A., Blacet, P.M., Silver, L.T., and Stern, T.W., 1971, 

Revision of the Precambrian stratigraphy in the Prescott-Jerome 

area, Yavapai County, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1324-C, p. C1-C16. 

Anderson, C.A., and Creasey, S.C., 1958, Geology and ore deposits 

of the Jerome area, Yavapai County, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 308, 185 p. 

---1967, Geologic map of the Mingus Mountain quadrangle, 

Yavapai County, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Map 

GQ-715, scale 1:62,500. 

Anderson, C.A., and Nash, J.T., 1972, Geology of the massive sulfide deposits at Jerome, Arizona-A reinterpretation: Economic Geology, v. 67, p. 845-863. 

Anderson, C.A., Scholz, E.A., and Strobell, J.D. Jr., 1955, Geology 

and ore deposits of the Bagdad area, Yavapai County, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 278, 103 p. 

Anderson, C.A., and Silver, L.T., 1976, Yavapai Series-A greenstone belt: Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. 10, p. 13-26. 

Anderson, Phillip, 1977, Massive sulfide deposits applied to problems of Precambrian stratigraphy, Arizona-A discussion: 

Economic Geology, v. 72, p. 110-111. 

---1978, The island arc nature of Precambrian volcanic belts in 

Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 10, no. 3, p. 156. 

---1986a, Summary of the Proterozoic plate tectonic evolution 

of Arizona from 1900 to 1600 Ma, in Beatty, Barbara, and 

Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds, Frontiers in geology and ore deposits 

of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society 

Digest 16, p. 5-11. 

----1986b, Geologic overview of the transect from the Iron 

King Mine to the Copper Queen Mine, in Beatty, Barbara, and 

Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in geology and ore deposits 

of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society 

Digest 16, p. 365-369. 

---1987, The Proterozoic tectonic evolution of Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation, 416 p. 

---1989a, Proterozoic plate tectonic evolution of Arizona, in 

Jenney, J.P., and Reynolds, S.J., eds, Geologic evolution of 

Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest 17, p. 17-55. 

---1989b, Stratigraphic framework, volcanic-plutonic evolution, and vertical deformation of the Proterozoic volcanic belts 

of central Arizona, in Jenney, J.P., and Reynolds, S.J., eds, 

Geologic evolution of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society 

Digest 17, p. 57-148. 

Anderson, Phillip, and Guilbert, J.M., 1979, The Precambrian massive sulfide deposits of Arizona-A distinct metallogenic 

epoch and province, in Ridge, J.D., ed., Papers on mineral 
REFERENCES CITED 31 

deposits of western North America, International Association 

of the Genesis of Ore Deposits, Fifth Quadrennial Symposium 

Proceedings (Volume II): Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Report 33, p. 39-48. 

Anonymous, 1919, Kay Copper Company plans expenditure of 

$1,000,000: Arizona Mining Journal, v. 5, p. 64. 

---1924, Kay Copper finds new ore body: Arizona Mining 

Journal, v. 8, no. 11, p. 7-9. 

---1925, Kay Copper no longer a prospect: Arizona Mining 

Journal, v. 12, p. 7-8, 39. 

---1926, Kay Copper shows great improvement: Arizona Mining Journal, v. 13, p. 9. 

---1943, Zonia Mine, Yavapai County, Arizona: U.S. Department of the Interior-Bureau of Mines War Minerals Report 

120, 7 p. 

---1962, How HMS raises grade of Old Dick's copper-zinc 

ore: Mining World, v. 24, no. 8, p. 12-17. 

---1973, Cyprus Company, Bruce Mine: Mining Engineering, 

v.25,no.4,p.39,42. 

Argenbright, D.N., and Karlstrom, K.E., 1986, Revised structural 

and stratigraphic interpretation of the Proterozoic Yavapai 

Supergroup, Crazy Basin, Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society 

of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 338. 

Armstrong, D.G., and Handverger, P.A., 1986, Recent geological 

investigations of the Jerome massive sulfide camp, Verde mining district, north-central Arizona, a background review, in 

Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in 

geology and ore deposits of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p. 326329. 

Baker, Arthur III, and Clayton, R.L., 1968, Massive sulfide deposits of the Bagdad district, Yavapai County, Arizona, in Ridge, 

J.D., ed., Ore deposits of the United States, 1933-1967 (Graton-Sales volume), Vol. II: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York, p. 

1311-1327. 

Barker, L.M., 1930, Concentrating plant of the United Verde Copper Company: Mining Congress Journal, v. 16, p. 363. 

Benedict, P.C., 1923, Geology of Deception Gulch and the Verde 

Central Mine: Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S. thesis. 

Bischoff, J.L., Rosenbauer, R.J., Aruscavage, P.J., Baedecker, 

P.A., and Crock, J.G., 1983, Sea-floor massive sulfide deposits 

from 21° N East Pacific Rise, Juan de Fuca Ridge, and Galapagos Rift; bulk chemical composition and economic implications: Economic Geology, v. 78, p. 1711-1720. 

Blacet, P.M., 1968, Precambrian geology of the southeast quarter of 

the Mount Union quadrangle, Bradshaw Mountains, central 

Arizona: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University, Ph.D. dissertation, 244 p. 

---1985, Proterozoic geology of the Brady Butte area, Yavapai 

County, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1548, 55 p. 

Bouley, B.A., and Hodder, R.W., 1976, Massive sulfide deposits 

applied to problems of Precambrian stratigraphy, Arizona: 

Economic Geology, v. 71, p. 817-820. 

---1977, Massive sulfide deposits applied to problems of Precambrian stratigraphy, Arizona-A reply: Economic Geology, 

v. 72, p. 111-112. 

Bowring, Sam, Karlstrom, K.E., and Chamberlain, K., 1986, U-Pb 

zircon constraints on Proterozoic tectonic evolution in central 

Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 18, no. 5, p. 343. 

. Brook, D.K., 1974, Relative ages of strata-form suifide ore and wall 

rocks determined by structural analysis of the Copper Queen 

Mine, Yavapai County, Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 60 p. 

Bryant, Bruce, and Wooden, J.L., 1986, Early and Middle Proterozoic history of the Poachie Range, Arizona [abs.]: Geological 

Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, no. 5, p. 

344. 

Chamberlain, K.R., and Bowring, S.A., 1990, Proterozoic geochronology and isotopic boundary in NW Arizona: Journal of Geology,v.98,p.399-416. 

Clayton, R.L., 1978, The Bruce mine-A case for metamorphic 

remobilization of Precambrian massive sulfides: Society of 

Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining and 

Metallurgical Engineers Preprint, 78-1-49, 18 p. 

Clayton, R.L., and Baker, Arthur III, 1973, Pb-ages of a galena 

sample from the Bruee mine, Yavapai County, Arizona: Isochron!West, no. 6, p. 35. 

Connelly, T.J., and Conway, C.M., 1983, Relation of Proterozoic 

massive sulfide deposits to contemporaneous volcanic activity, 

Bagdad area, Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 15, no. 5, p. 298. 

---1987, Massive sulfide deposits at Bagdad, Arizona; 

end-products of a recurrent Early Proterozoic volcanic hydrothermal system, in DeWitt, Ed, ed., Proterozoic ore deposits of 

the southwestern U.S.: Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 1, p. 116-123. 

Connelly, T.J., Conway, C.M., and Robison, L.C., 1986, An early 

Proterozoic volcano-hydrothermal system, Bagdad, Arizona 

[abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, no. 5, p. 348. 

Conway, C.M., 1976, Petrology, structure, and evolution of a Precambrian volcanic and plutonic complex, Tonto Basin, Gila 

County, Arizona: Pasadena, California Institute of Technology, Ph.D. dissertation, 460 p. 

---1986, Field guide to Early Proterozoic strata that host massive sulfide deposits at Bagdad, Arizona, in Nations, J.D., Conway, C.M., and Swan, G.A., eds., Geology of central and 

northern Arizona: Geological Society of America Field Trip 

Guidebook, Rocky Mountains Section, 27th Annual Meeting, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., 1986, p. 140-157. 

Conway, C.M., Connelly, T.J., and Robison, L.C., 1986a, An Early 

Proterozoic volcanic-hydrothermal-exhalative system at 

Bagdad, Arizona, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, P.A.K., 

eds., Frontiers in geology and ore deposits of Arizona and the 

Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p. 24-34. 

---1986b, Volcanic and hydrothermal systems; Early Proterozoic massive sulfide deposits, Bagdad, Arizona, in Krafft, K., 

ed., U.S.G.S. Research on Mineral Resources-1985, Program 

and A..,stracts, V.E. McKelvey Forum on Mineral and Energy 

Resources: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 949, p. 8-9. 

Conway, C.M., Hassamer, J.F., Knepper, D.H. Jr., Pitkin, J.A., 

Jachens, R.C., and Chatman, M.L., 1990, Mineral resources of 

the Wabayuma Peak Wilderness Study Area, Mohave County, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-0518, 

73 p. 
32 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

Conway, C.M., and Karlstrom, K.E., 1986, Early Proterozoic geology of Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Fieldnotes, v. 16, no. 2, p. 10-11. 

Conway, C.M., and Silver, L.T., 1986, Early Proterozoic metallogenic provinces in Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of 

America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 348. 

---1989, Early Proterozoic rocks (1710-1615 Ma) in central to 

southeastern Arizona, in Jenney, J.P., and Reynolds, S.J., eds, 

Geologic evolution of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society 

Digest 17, p. 165-186. 

Creasey, S.C., 1950, Iron King Mine, Yavapai County, Arizona-Chapter IX, in Arizona zinc and lead deposits: Arizona 

Bureau of Mines Bulletin 156, Part I, p. 112-122. 

---1952, Geology of the Iron King Mine, Yavapai County, Arizona: Economic Geology, v. 47, p. 24-58. 

D' Arcy, RL., 1930, Mining practices and methods at the United 

Verde Extension Mining Company, Jerome, Arizona: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6250, 31 p. 

DeWitt, Ed, 1976, Precambrian geology and ore deposits of the 

Mayer-Crown King area, Yavapai County, Arizona: Tucson, 

University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 150 p. 

---1978, Massive sulfide deposits and Proterozoic volcanism 

in north-central Arizona-A major revision of existing structure and stratigraphy [abs.]: Geological Society of America 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 10, no. 3, p. 102. 

---1979, New data concerning Proterozoic volcanic stratigraphy and structure in central Arizona and its importance in massive sulfide exploration: Economic Geology, v. 74, p. 

1371-1382. 

---1983, Precious metal content of Proterozoic massive sulfide 

deposits in Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America, 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 15, p. 298. 

De Witt, Ed, ed., 1987, Proterozoic ore deposits of the southwestern 

U.S.: Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 1, 

189 p. 

De Witt, Ed, Armstrong, R.L., Sutter, J.F., and Zartman, R.E., 1984, 

U-Th-Pb, Rb-Sr, and Ar-Ar mineral and whole-rock isotopic 

systematics in a metamorphosed granitic terrane, southeast 

California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 95, p. 

723-739. 

DeWitt, Ed, and Waegli, Jerome, 1986, Gold in the United Verde 

massive sulfide deposit, Jerome, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 86-0585, 41 p. 

---1989, Gold in the United Verde massive sulfide deposit, 

Jerome, Arizona; Part I of Gold deposits in metamorphic rocks, 

in Shawe, D.R., and Ashley, R.P., eds., Geology and resources 

of gold in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

1857-D, p, D1-D26. 

Dickson, R.R, 1931, Mining methods and costs of mining copper 

ore at the Verde Central Mines, Inc., Jerome, Arizona: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6464, 14 p. 

Donnelly, M.E., and Conway, C.M., 1988, Metallogenic map of 

volcanogenic massive-sulfide occurrences in Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF-1853-B, scale 1:1,000,000. 

Donnelly, M.E., and Hahn, G.A., 1981, A review of the Precambrian volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits in central Arizona 

and the relationship to their depositional environment, in Dickinson, W.R., and Payne, W.D., eds., Relations of tectonics to 

ore deposits in the southern Cordillera, Arizona: Geological 

Society Digest 14, p. 11-21. 

Douglas, D.A., 1982, Lithogeochemistry as a guide to volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits: Tucson, University of Arizona, 

M.S. thesis, 84 p. 

Eastoe, C.J., Gustin, M.S., Hurlbut, D.F., and Orr, R.L., 1987, Sulfur isotopes in Proterozoic syngenetic sulfide deposits, Arizona; implications for geochemistry of seawater-rock interaction 

[abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 19, p. 650. 

Eldridge, C.S., Barton, P.B., Jr., and Ohmoto, Hiroshi, 1983, Mineral textures and their bearing on the formation of the Kuroko 

orebodies, in Ohmoto, Hiroshi, and Skinner, G.J., eds., The 

Kuroko and related volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits: 

Economic Geology Monograph 5, p. 241-281. 

Evensen, J.M., 1969, Geology of the central portion of the Agua 

Fria mining district, Yavapai County, Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation, 121 p. 

---1980, A structural interpretation of a portion of the Big Bug 

Group near Mayer, Arizona, in Jenney, J.P., and Stone, Claudia, eds., Studies in western Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest 12, p. 167-176. 

Fearing, J.L., and Benedict, P.C., 1925, Geology of the Verde Central Mine: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 119, p. 609-611. 

Fife, D.L., and Brown, A.R., eds., 1980, Geology and mineral 

wealth of the California Desert (Dibblee Volume): Santa Ana 

Calif., South Coast Geological Society, 560 p. 

Finlay, J.R., 1918a, The Jerome district of Arizona, part 1: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 106, p. 557-562. 

---1918b, The Jerome district of Arizona, part 2: Engineering 

and Mining Journal, v. 106, p. 605-610. 

Franklin, J.M., Lyndon, J.W., and Sangster, D.J., 1981, Volcanic-associated massive sulfide deposits: Economic Geology 

75th Anniversary Volume, p. 485-627. 

Gastil, R.G., 1958, Older Precambrian rocks of the Diamond Butte 

quadrangle, Gila County, Arizona: Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, v. 69, p. 1495-1514. 

Gilmour, Paul, and Still, A.R., 1968, The geology of the Iron King 

Mine, in Ridge, J.D., ed., Ore deposits of the United States, 

1933-1967 (Graton-Sales Volume), Vol. II: New York, American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, p. 

1238-1257. 

Graton, L.C., 1908, United Verde Mine: Mining and Scientific 

Press, v. 96, p. 171. 

Gustin, M.S., 1986, A preliminary report on a petrological, 

geochemical, and stable-isotope study of the orebody and associated alteration, United Verde volcanogenic massive sulfide 

deposit, Jerome, Arizona, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, 

P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in geology and ore deposits of Arizona 

and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p. 

339-342. 

---1987, Geochemistry and mineralogy of alteration associated with the United Verde syngenetic massive sulfide, Jerome, 

Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 19, p. 688. 

---1988a, A petrographic, geochemical and stable isotope 

study of the United Verde orebody and its associated alteration, 

Jerome, Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation, 261 p. 
REFERENCES CITED 33 

---1988b, Isotope evidence for fluid-rock interaction and fluid 

mixing at the United Verde volcanogenic massive sulfide 

deposit, Jerome, Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 20, no. 7, p. A303. 

---1990, Stratigraphy and alteration of the host rocks, United 

Verde massive sulfide deposit, Jerome, Arizona: Economic 

Geology, v. 85, p. 29--49. 

Handverger, P.A., 1975, Geology and alteration of the United Verde Extension Mine, Jerome, Arizona: American Institute of 

Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers Preprint, September, 1975, 26 p. 

Hannington, M.D., Peter, J.M., and Scott, S.D., 1986, Gold in 

sea-floor polymetallic sulfide deposits: Economic Geology, v. 

81, p. 1867-1883. 

Hannington, M.D., and Scott, S.D., 1989a, Sulfidation equilibria as 

guides to gold mineralization in volcanogenic massive sulfides; evidence from sulfide mineralogy and composition of 

sphalerite: Economic Geology, v. 84, p. 1978-1995. 

---1989b, Gold mineralization in volcanogenic massive sulfides; implications of data from active hydrothermal vents on 

the modem sea-floor, in Keays, R.R., Ramsay, W.R.H., and 

Groves, D.I., eds., The geology of gold deposits-The perspective in 1988: Economic Geology Monograph 6, p. 491-507. 

Hansen, M. G., 1930, Geology and ore deposits of the United Verde 

Mine: Mining Congress Journal, v. 16, p. 306-311. 

Hendricks, H.R., 1947, Milling lead-zinc ores at the Iron King 

Mine, Prescott, Arizona: American Institute of Mining and 

Metallurgical Engineers, Mining Technology, v. 11, no. 4, 

technical presentation 2191. 

Higgins, R.E., 1986, Geology of the Copper Queen Mine, Mayer, 

Arizona, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., 

Frontiers in geology and ore deposits of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p. 377-379. 

Hurlbut, D.F., 1986, The geology and mineralization at the Boggs 

Mine, Yavapai County, Arizona, in Beatty, Barbara, and 

Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in geology and ore deposits 

of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society 

Digest 16, p. 374-376. 

Hurlbut, D.F., O'Hara, P.F., and Higgins, R.E., 1986, Univariate 

and multivariate statistical analysis used in the preliminary 

stages of property evaluation, Copper Queen Mine, Yavapai 

County, Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 363. 

Huston, D.L., and Large, R.R., 1989, A chemical model for the concentration of gold in volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits: 

Ore geology reviews, v. 4, no. 3, p. 171-200. 

Hutchinson, R.W., 1973, Volcanogenic sulfide deposits and their 

metallogenic significance: Economic Geology, v. 68 p. 

1223-1246. 

Ishihara, S., ed., 1974, Geology of the Kuroko deposits: Society of 

Mining Geologists of Japan Special Issue 6, 437 p: 

Jerome, S.E., 1956, Reconnaissance geologic study of the Black 

Canyon schist belt, Bradshaw Mountains, Yavapai and Maricopa Counties, Arizona: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, 

Ph.D. dissertation, 115 p. 

Johnson, N.A., 1986a, Geochemistry of exhalites, Copper Chief 

Mine, Jerome, Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 354. 

---1986b, Preliminary discussion of the geochemistry of some 

exhalites from the Copper Chief Mine, Jerome district, 

Arizona, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., 

Frontiers in geology and ore deposits of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p 350-354 

Karlstrom, K.E., Bowring, S.A., and Conway, C.M., 1987, Tectonic significance ofan Early Proterozoic two-province boundary 

in central Arizona: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 

99, p. 529-538. 

Karlstrom, K.E., Doe, M.F., Wessels, R.L., Bowring, S.A., Dann, 

J.C., and Williams, M.L., 1990, Juxtaposition of Proterozoic 

crustal blocks; 1.65-1.60 Ga Mazatzal orogeny, in Gehrels, 

G.E., and Spencer, J.E., eds., Geologic excursions through the 

Sonoran Desert region, Arizona and Sonora: Arizona Geological Survey Special Paper 7, p. 114-123. 

Keefe, P.C., 1930, Smelter crushing plant: Mining Congress Journal,v. 16,no.4,p.361-363. 

Keith, S.B., Gest, Donald, DeWitt, Ed, Woode-Toll, Netta, and 

Everson, B.A., 1984, Metallic mineral districts and production 

in Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Bulletin 194, 58 p., 1 map, scale 1:1,000,000. 

Keith, S.B., Schnabel, Lorraine, DeWitt, Ed, Gest, D.E., and Wilt, 

Jan, 1983, Map, description, and bibliography of the mineralized areas of the Basin and Range Province in Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-0086, 129 p., 1 map, 

scale 1:500,000. 

Koski, R.A., Clague, D.A., and Oudin, E., 1984, Mineralogy and 

chemistry of massive sulfide deposits from the Juan de Fuca 

Ridge: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 95, p. 

930-945. 

Koski, R.A., Lonsdale, P.F., Shanks, W.C., Bemdy, M.E., and 

Howe, S.S., 1985, Mineralogy and geochemistry of a sediment-hosted hydrothermal sulfide deposit from the southern 

trough of Guaymas Basin, Gulf of California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 90, p. 6695-6707. 

Kothavala, R.Z., 1963, Wall rock alteration at the United Verde 

Mine, Jerome, Arizona: Cambridge, Harvard University, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 112, p. 

Kumke, C.A., 1947, Zonia copper mine, Yavapai County, Arizona: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 4023, 6 p. 

Kumke, C.A., and Mills, H.F., 1950, Mining methods and practices 

at the Iron King Mine, Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation, 

Yavapai County, Arizona: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information 

Circular 7539, 17 p. 

Large, R.R., Huston, D.L., McGoldrick, P.J., Ruxton, P.A., and 

McArthur, Garry, 1989, Gold distribution and genesis in Australian volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits and their significance for gold transport models, in Keays, R.R., Ramsay, 

W.R.H., and Groves, D.l., eds., The geology of gold deposits-The perspective in 1988: Economic Geology Monograph 

6, p. 520-536. 

Larson, P.B., 1976, The metamorphosed alteration zone associated 

with the Bruce Precambrian massive sulfide deposit, Yavapai 

County, Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 

99p. 

---1977, The chemistry and mineralogy of the alteration 

"pipe" of the Precambrian Bruce volcanogenic massive sulfide 

deposit, Yavapai County, Arizona [abs.]: Geological Association of Canada Abstracts with Programs, v. 2, p. 31. 

---1984, Geochemistry of the alteration pipe at the Bruce 

Cu-Zn volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit, Arizona: Economic Geology, v. 79, p. 1880-1896. 
34 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

---1987, Geology and oxygen isotope geochemistry of the 

Bruce volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit, Bagdad, Arizona 

labs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 19, p. 740. 

Lawrence, J.R., and Dixon, R.L., 1986, Geology of the Spud Mountain tuff in the vicinity of the Iron King Mine, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in geology and ore 

deposits of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological 

Society Digest 16, p. 370-373. 

Lesher, C.M., Lindberg, P.A., and Cambell, I.H., 1986, Trace element mobility in the Cleopatra crystal tuff, Jerome, Arizona 

[abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 672. 

Lindberg, P.A., 1986a, An overview of Precambrian ore deposits of 

southwestern United States, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, 

P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in geology and ore deposits of Arizona 

and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p. 

343-349. 

---1986b, Geology of the Copper Chief Mine, Jerome district, 

Arizona, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., 

Frontiers in geology and ore deposits of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p. 343-349. 

---1986c, A brief geologic history and field guide to the Jerome district, Arizona, in Nations, J.D., Conway, C.M., and 

Swan, G.A., eds., Geology of central and northern Arizona: 

Geological Society of America Field Trip Guidebook, Rocky 

Mountains Section, 27th Annual Meeting, Flagstaff, Ariz., 

1986, p. 127-139. 

---1986d, Genesis of Proterozoic massive sulfide deposits and 

structural geology of the Jerome district, Arizona [ abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 

390. 

---1989, Precambrian ore deposits of Arizona, in Jenney, J.P., 

and Reynolds, S.J., eds, Geologic evolution of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest 17, p. 187-210. 

Lindberg, P.A., and Gustin, M.S., 1987, Field trip guide to the geology, structure and alteration ofthe Jerome, Arizona ore deposits, in Davis, G.H., and VandenDolder, E.M., eds., Geologic 

diversity of Arizona and its margins; 25 excursions to choice 

areas: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology 

Special Paper 5, p. 176-181. 

Lindberg, P.A., and Jacobson, H.S., 1974, Economic geology and 

field guide of the Jerome district, Arizona, {n Karlstrom, 

T.N.V., Swann, G.A., and Eastwood, R.L., eds., Geology of 

northern Arizona with notes on archeology and paleoclimate; 

Part II, Area studies and field guides: Geological Society of 

America Guidebook, Cordilleran Section Annual Meeting, 

Trip #8, p. 794-804. 

Lindgren, Waldemar, 1926, Ore deposits of the Jerome and Bradshaw Mountains quadrangles, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 782, 192 p. 

---1930, The Pre-Cambrian greenstone complex of the Jerome 

quadrangle-A discussion: Journal of Geology, v. 38, p. 

460-465. 

Lindholm, M.S., 1989, A new interpretation of the major structure 

controlling massive sulfide distribution at Jerome Arizona 

[abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 21, no. 5, p. 106-107. 

---1991, Evolution ofthe major structure that controls massive 

sulfide distribution at Jerome, Arizona, in Karlstrom, K.E., ed., 

Proterozoic geology and ore deposits of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest 19, p. 261-270. 

Loghry, J.D., and Heinrichs, W.E. Jr., 1980, Geologic evaluation of 

uranium in plutonic rocks, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Department of Energy Open-File Report GJBX-213(80), 207 p. 

Ludwig, K.R., 1973, Precambrian geology of the central Mazatzal 

Mountains, Arizona (part I) and lead isotope heterogeneity of 

Precambrian igneous feldspars (part II): Pasadena, California 

Institute of Technology, Ph.D. dissertation, 363 p. 

Lundin, R.L., 1986, The Zonia Mine area: Prescott, Ariz., Central 

Arizona Geological Society Field Guide, 8 p. 

Mauger, R.L., 1973, A geologic interpretation and sulfur isotope 

study of the Old Dick and Copper Queen massive sulfide 

deposits, Bagdad area, Arizona [abs.]: Economic Geology, v. 

68, p. 1208. 

Mauger, R.L., Damon, P.E., and Giletti, B.J., 1965, Isotopic dating 

of Arizona ore deposits: Transactions, Society of Mining 

Engineers, v. 232, p. 81-87. 

Maynard, Steve, 1986, Precambrian geology and mineralization of 

the southwestern part of the New River Mountains, Maricopa 

and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Albuquerque, University of 

New Mexico, M.S. thesis, 155 p. 

Mcilroy, P., Coffman, J.S., and Rice, W.L., 1974, Availability of 

U.S. primary lead resources: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8646, 46 p. 

Miller, D.M., and Wooden, J.L., 1988, An Early Proterozoic 

batholithic belt in the northern New York Mountains area, California and Nevada [abs.]: Geological Society of America 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 20, p. 215. 

Mills, C.E., 1925, Mining methods of Verde district, Arizona: 

American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers 

Transactions, v. 72, p. 381-423. 

---1934, Ground movement and subsidence at the United Verde Mine: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers Transactions, v. 109, p. 153-172. 

Mills, H.F., 1941, Ore occurrence at the Iron King Mine: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 142, no. 10, p. 56-57. 

---1944, Mining at the Iron King, Arizona: Mining World, v. 

6, no. 3, p. 13-16. 

---1946, Iron King obtains fill by block-caving waste: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 147, no. 10, p. 68-69. 

---1947, Occurrence of lead-zinc ore at the Iron King Mine, 

Prescott, Arizona: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Mining Technology, v. 11, no. 4, technical 

presentation 2190. 

Mitchell, R.J., 1964, Shattuck Denn goes deeper for lower grade 

ores: Metal Mining and Proceedings, v. 1, no. 10, p. 3033. 

Mitke, C.A., 1919, Mining methods of United Verde Extension 

Mining Co.: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical 

Engineers Transactions, v. 61, p. 188-200. 

More, S.W., 1980, The geology and mineralization of the Antler 

Mine and vicinity, Mohave County, Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 148 p. 

Nash, J.T., 1973, Microprobe analyses of sericite, chlorite, and epidote from Jerome, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Journal of 

Research, v. 1, p. 673-678. 

Norman, G.W.H., 1977, Proterozoic massive sulfide replacements 

in volcanic rocks at Jerome, Arizona: Economic Geology, v. 

72, p. 642-656. 
REFERENCES CITED 35 

O'Hara, P.F., 1980, Metamorphic and structural geology of the 

northern Bradshaw Mountains, Yavapai County, Arizona: 

Tempe, Arizona State University, Ph.D. thesis, 117 p. 

---1986, Stratigraphy and structural geology in the Prescott-Mayer area, Arizona, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, 

P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in geology and ore deposits of Arizona 

and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p. 

358-364. 

---1987a, Early Proterozoic gold mineralization, alteration 

assemblages, and geochemistry of the Huron-Montezuma 

prospect, Yavapai County, Arizona, in DeWitt, Ed, ed., Proterozoic ore deposits of the southwestern U.S.: Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 1, p. 161-166. 

---1987b, Geochemistry of Early Proterozoic felsic metavolcanic rocks associated with gold mineralization at the Bell 

Ranch prospect, Yavapai County, Arizona, in De Witt, Ed, ed., 

Proterozoic ore deposits of the southwestern U.S.: Society of 

Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 1, p. 167-168. 

O'Hara, P.F., and Armstrong, Dale, 1986, Proterozoic greenstone 

belts and mineral deposits, central Arizona; Jerome camp and 

Bradshaw Mountains; road log and trip guide, in Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in geology and ore 

deposits of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological 

Society Digest 16, p. 319-325. 

O'Hara, P.F., and Long, R.C., 1991, Geology of Early Proterozoic 

gold mineralization, alteration assemblages, and geochemistry 

of the Huron-Victor-Swindler-Montezuma prospects, Yavapai 

County, Arizona, in Karlstrom, K.E., ed., Proterozoic geology 

and ore deposits of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society 

Digest 19, p. 271-278. 

Ohmoto, Hiroshi, and Skinner, B. J., eds., 1983, The Kuroko and 

related volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits: Economic 

Geology Monograph 5, 604 p. 

Provot, F.A., 1916, Jerome mining district geology: Engineering 

and Mining Journal, v. 102, p. 1028-1031. 

Pullen, J.B., 1943, Modified mining methods in the United Verde 

copper mine, Jerome, Arizona: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6440, 31 p. 

Ralston, O.C., 1930a, Research at the United Verde: Mining Congress Journal, v. 16, no. 4, p. 384-385. 

---1930b, Possibilities of zinc production in Arizona: Mining 

Journal, v. 14, p. 11. 

Ralston, O.C., and Hunter, W.C., 1930, Activation of sphalerite for 

flotation: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical 

Engineers Transactions, v. 87, p. 411-416. 

Reber, L.E., Jr., 1922, Geology and ore deposits of Jerome district: 

American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers 

Transactions, v. 66, p. 3-26. 

---1938, Jerome district, in Some Arizona ore deposits: Arizona Bureau of Mines Bulletin 145, p. 41-65. 

Rice, Marion, 1920, Petrographic notes on the ore deposits of Jerome, Arizona: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical 

Engineers Transactions, v. 61, p. 60-65. 

Rickard, T.A., 1918, The story of the U.V.X. bonanza: Mining and 

Scientific Press, v. 116, p. 9-17, 47-52. 

Robison, L.C., 1987, Geology and geochemistry of Proterozoic 

volcanic rocks bearing massive sulfide ore deposits, Bagdad, 

Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 142 p. 

Robison, L.C., and Conway, C.M., 1987, Major- and trace-element 

distributions in hydrothermally altered volcanic rocks; a model 

for Early Proterozoic massive sulfide deposition near Bagdad, 

Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 19, p. 823. 

Robison, L.C., Conway, C.M., and Connelly, T.J., 1986, Geochemistry of altered volcanic strata that host Early Proterozoic massive sulfide deposits, Bagdad, Arizona [abs.]: Geological 

Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 407 

Rogers, Thornwell, 1979, The geology of the Copper Chief mine 

area, Yavapai County, Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona 

University, M.S. thesis, 102 p. 

Romslo, T.M., 1948, Antler copper-zinc deposit, Mohave County, 

Arizona: U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 4214, 

14 p. 

Sangster, D.F., 1980, Distribution and origin of Precambrian massive sulphide deposits of North America: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 20, p. 723-740. 

---1984, Grade-tonnage summaries of massive sulfide deposits 

relative to paleotectonic settings in the Appalachian-Caledonian 

orogen: Economic Geology, v. 79, p. 1479-1482. 

Schwartz, G.M., 1937, Oxidized copper ores of the United Verde 

Extension mine [abs.]: Economic Geology, v. 32, p. 

1070-1071 

---1938, Oxidized copper ores of the United Verde Extension 

Mine: Economic Geology, v. 33, p. 21-33. 

Silver, L.T., 1968, U-Pb isotope relations and their historical implications in Precambrian zircons from Bagdad, Arizona [abs.]: 

Geological Society of America Special Paper 101, p. 420. 

Silver, L.T., Conway, C.M., and Ludwig, K.R., 1986, Implications 

of a precise chronology for Early Proterozoic crustal evolution 

and caldera formation in the Tonto Basin-Mazatzal Mountains 

region, Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, no. 5, p. 413. 

Slavin, Morris, 1930, Ore-dressing microscopy at United Verde: 

Mining Congress Journal, v. 16, p. 386-387. 

Smith, H.D., and Sirdevan, W.H., 1921, Mining methods and costs 

at the United Verde Mine: American Institute of Mining and 

Metallurgical Engineers Transactions, v. 65, p. 127-181. 

Southwest Mining News Service, 1925, One more mine [Kay Copper]: Special Bulletin No.6, 11 p. 

Stacey, J.S., Doe, B.R., Silver, L.T., and Zartman, R.E., 1976, 

Plumbotectonics IIA, Precambrian massive sulfide deposits: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-476, 26 p. 

Stensrud, H.L., and More, Syver, 1980, Precambrian geology and 

massive sulfide environments of the west-central Hualapai 

Mountains, Mohave County-A preliminary report, in Jenney, 

J.P., and Stone, Claudia, eds., Studies in western Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest 12, p. 155-165. 

Storms, W.R., 1955, Selenium samples from the United Verde 

Branch, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Jerome, Arizona: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Open-File report, 55 p. 

Swan, M.M., 1987, Geology and gold mineralization at the Early 

Proterozoic Bell Ranch prospect, Yavapai County, Arizona, in 

DeWitt, Ed, ed., Proterozoic ore deposits of the southwestern 

U.S.: Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 1, 

p. 169-173. 

Swan, M.M., Hausen, D.M., and Newell, R.A., 1981, Lithological, 

structural, chemical and mineralogical patterns in a Precambrian stratiform gold occurrence Yavapai County, Arizona, in 

Hausen, D.M., and Park, W.C., eds., Process Mineralogy 

[Extractive Metallurgy, Mineral Exploration, Energy 
36 EARLY PROTEROZOIC MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS IN ARIZONA 

Resources]: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical 

Engineers, 110th Annual Meeting, p. 143-157. 

Tenney, J.B., 1935, The copper deposits of Arizona; Jerome district, in Copper resources of the world, volume 1: International 

Geological Congress, 16th, Washington, D.C., p. 179-189. 

Titley, S.R., 1985, Gold and silver production in Arizona and its 

relationship to geologic setting-Implications [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 17, p. 268. 

---1987, Crustal heritage of silver and gold ratios in Arizona 

ores: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 99, p. 

814--826. 

---1989, Regional variation of silver and gold ratios in vein 

ores of Arizona, in Keays, R.R., Ramsay, W.R.H., and Groves, 

D.l., eds., The geology of gold deposits-The perspective in 

1988: Economic Geology Monograph 6, p. 626-636. 

Vance, R.K., 1987, Geochemistry and tectonic setting of the Yavapai Supergroup, west-central Arizona: Socorro, New Mexico 

Institute of Mining and Technology, Ph.D. dissertation. 

Vance, R.K., and Condie, K.C., 1985, Geochemical variation in the 

footwall alteration zone of the United Verde massive sulfide 

deposit of Early Proterozoic age, west-central Arizona [abs.]: 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 17, 

p. 269. 

---1986, Geochemistry and tectonic setting of the early Proterozoic Ash Creek Group, Jerome, Arizona [abs.]: Geological 

Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 419. 

---1987, Geochemistry of footwall alteration associated with 

the early Proterozoic United Verde massive sulfide deposit, 

Jerome, Arizona: Economic Geology, v. 82, p. 571-586. 

Vrba, S.L., 1980, Precambrian geology of the Cleator area, Yavapai 

County, Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, M.S. 

thesis, 96 p. 

Webb, W.F., 1979, Precambrian geology and ore deposits near 

Poland Junction, Yavapai County, Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 112 p. 

Welty, J.W., Reynolds, S.J., Keith, S.B., Gest, D.E., Trapp, R.A., 

and De Witt, Ed, 1985, Mine index for metallic mineral districts 

of Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Bulletin 196, 92 p. 

Published in the Central Region, Denver, Colo. 

Manuscript approved for publication May 2, 1995 

Edited by Diane E. Lane 

Graphics prepared by Ed De Witt and Patricia L. Wilber 

Photocomposition by Patricia L. Wilber 

f:r U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 673-046 / 20005 REGION NO. 8 

White, Don, 1986a, Gold distribution at the United Verde Extension, a massive base-metal sulfide deposit, Jerome, Arizona, in 

Beatty, Barbara, and Wilkinson, P.A.K., eds., Frontiers in 

geology and ore deposits of Arizona and the Southwest: Arizona Geological Society Digest 16, p. 330-338. 

---1986b, Gold exploration at the United Verde Extension 

Mine, Jerome, Arizona [abs.]: Geological Society of America 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 422. 

Willis, C.F., 1920a, Kay Copper Company: Arizona Mining Journal, v. 6, p. 16-17, 66. 

---1920b, Mines of tomorrow-No: 11, the Howard Copper 

Company: Arizona Mining Journal, v. 4, no. 6, p. 15, 33. 

---1922, Jerome Grande copper between Verde Central and 

United Verde: Arizona Mining Journal, v. 6, no. 5, p. 46. 

---1924, Kay hits original ore at 1,200 feet depth: Arizona 

Mining Journal, v. 10, p. 5-7. 

Wilson, E.D., 1939, Pre-Cambrian Mazatzal revolution in central 

Arizona: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 50, p. 

1113-1164. 

Winn, P.S., 1982, Structure and petrology of Precambrian rocks in 

the Black Canyon area, Yavapai County, Arizona: Salt Lake 

City, University of Utah, M.S. thesis, 101 p. 

Wooden, J.L., and DeWitt, Ed, 1991, Pb isotopic evidence for the 

boundary between the Early Proterozoic Mojave and Central 

Arizona crustal provinces in western Arizona, in Karlstrom, 

K.E., ed., Proterozoic geology and ore deposits of Arizona: 

Arizona Geological Society Digest 19, p. 27-50. 

Wooden, J.L., and Miller, D.M., 1990, Chronologie and isotopic 

framework for Early Proterozoic crustal evolution in the eastern Mojave Desert region, SE California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 95, p. 20,133-20,146. 

Wooden, J.L., Stacey, J.S., Doe, Bruce, Howard, K.A., and Miller, 

D.M., 1988, Pb isotopic evidence for the formation of Proterozoic crust in the southwestern United States, in Ernst, W.G., 

Metamorphism and crustal evolution of the western United 

States (Rubey Volume II): Prentice-Hall, p. 68-86. 

Yeats, P.F., 1946, Bottoming of the United Verde sulfide pipe: 

American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 

Arizona Section, Preprint, 20 p. 
SELECTED SERIES OF U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PUBLICATIONS 

Periodicals 

Earthquakes & Volcanoes (issued bimonthly). 

Preliminary Determination of Epicenters (issued monthly). 

Technical Books and Reports 

Professional Papers are mainly comprehensive scientific reports 

of wide and lasting interest and importance to professional scientists and 

engineers. Included are reports on the results of resource studies and of 

topographic, hydrologic, and geologic investigations. They also include 

collections of related papers addressing different aspects of a single scientific topic. 

Bulletins contain significant data and interpretations that are of 

lastin~ scientific interest but are generally more limited in scope or geographic coverage than Professional Papers. They include the results of 

resource studies and of geologic and topographic investigations; as well 

as collections of short papers related to a specific topic. 

. W~ter-Su~ply Papers are comprehensive reports that present sigmficant mterpretlve results of hydrologic investigations of wide interest 

to professional geologists, hydrologists, and engineers. The series covers 

investigations in all phases of hydrology, including hydrology, availability of water, quality of water, and use of water. 

Circulars present administrative information or important scientific information of wide popular interest in a format designed for distribution at no cost to the public. Information is usually of short-term interest. 

Water-Resources Investigations Reports are papers of an interpretive nature made available to the public outside the formal USGS 

publications series. Copies are reproduced on request unlike formal 

USGS publications, and they are also available for public inspection at 

depositories indicated in USGS catalogs. 

Open-File Reports include unpublished manuscript reports, maps, 

and other material that are made available for public consultation at depositories. They are a nonpermanent form of publication that may be cited in other publications as sources of information. 

Maps 

Geologic Quadrangle Maps are multicolor geologic maps on topographic bases in 7 112- or 15-minute quadrangle formats (scales mainly 1:24,000 or 1 :62,500) showing bedrock, surficial, or engineering 

geology. Maps generally include brief texts; some maps include structure and columnar sections only. 

Geophysical Investigations Maps are on topographic or planimetric bases at various scales, they show results of surveys using geophysical. techniques, such as gravity, magnetic, seismic, or radioactivity, 

~htch reflect subsurface structures that are of economic or geologic sigmficance. Many maps include correlations with the geology. 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Maps are on planimetric or 

topographic bases of regular and irregular areas at various scales; they 

present a wide variety of format and subject matter. The series also includes 7 1/2-minute quadrangle photogeologic maps on planimetric 

bases which show geology as interpreted from aerial photographs. The 

series also includes maps of Mars and the Moon. 

Coal Investigations Maps are geologic maps on topographic or 

planimetric bases at various scales showing bedrock or surficial geology, 

stratigraphy, and structural relations in certain coal-resource areas. 

Oil and Gas Investigations Charts show stratigraphic information for certain oil and gas fields and other areas having petroleum potential. 

Miscellaneous Field Studies Maps are multicolor or black-andwhite maps on topographic or planimetric bases on quadrangle or irregular areas at various scales. Pre-1971 maps show bedrock geology in relation to specific mining or mineral-deposit problems; post-1971 maps 

are primarily black-and-white maps on various subjects such as environmental studies or wilderness mineral investigations. 

Hydrologic Investigations Atlases are multicolored or black-andwhite maps on topographic or planimetric bases presenting a wide range 

of geohydrologic data of both regular and irregular areas; the principal 

scale is 1:24,000, and regional studies are at 1:250,000 scale or smaller. 

Catalogs 

Permanent catalogs, as well as some others, giving comprehensive 

listings of U.S. Geological Survey publications are available under the 

conditions indicated below from USGS Map Distribution, Box 25286, 

Building 810, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. (See latest 

Price and Availability List.) 

"Publications of the Geological Survey, 1879-1961"may be purchased by mail and over the counter in paperback book form and as a set 

microfiche. 

"Publications of the Geological Survey, 1962-1970"may be purchased by mail and over the counter in paperback book form and as a set 

of microfiche. . 

"Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1971-1981"may be 

purchased by mail and over the counter in paperback book form (two 

volumes, publications listing and index) and as a set of microfiche. 

Supplements for 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and for subsequent years since the last permanent catalog may be purchased by mail 

and over the counter in paperback book form. 

State catalogs, "List of U.S. Geological Survey Geologic and Water-Supply Reports and Maps For (State)," may be purchased by mail and 

over the counter in paperback booklet form only. 

"Price and Availability List of U.S. Geological Survey Publications," issued annually, is available free of charge in paperback booklet 

form only. 

Selected copies of a monthly catalog "New Publications of the 

U.S. Geological Survey" is available free of charge by mail or may be 

obtained over the counter in paperback booklet form only. Those wishing a free subscription to the monthly catalog "New Publications of the 

U.S. Geological Survey" should write to the U.S. Geological Survey, 582 

National Center, Reston, VA 22092. 

Note.-Prices of Government publications listed in older catalogs, 

announcements, and publications may be incorrect. Therefore, the prices 

charged may differ from the prices in catalogs, announcements, and publications. 
..