Questa Baseline and Pre-mining 

Ground Water Investigation:11. 

Geochemistry of Composited Material 

from Alteration Scars and Mine-Waste 

Piles 

Performed in Cooperation with the New 

Mexico Environment Department 

By P.H. Briggs, S.J. Sutley, and K.E. Livo 

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological 

Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-458 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

1
Contents 

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

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

Site Overview.................................................................................... 1 

Methods........................................................................................... 2 

Composite Sampling Method......................................................... 2 

Laboratory Methods.................................................................... 5 

Results and Discussion......................................................................... 6 

Conclusion....................................................................................... 7 

Acknowledgements.............................................................................. 7 

References....................................................................................... 8 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Map displaying composite sample traverses..................................... 3 

Figure 2a. Photo of Hottentot Ck. alteration scar............................................3 

Figure 2b. Photo of Hansen Ck. alteration scar...............................................4 

Figure 3a. Photo of upper bench of Sugar Shack South waste pile........................4 

Figure 3b. Photo of waste piles from highway near the Red River........................ 5 

List of Tables 

Table 1. ICP-AES and Total S results of alteration scar composites.....................10 

Table 2. Quantitative XRD results of alteration scar composites........................ 11 

Table 3. ICP-AES and Total S results of waste pile composites......................... 12 

Table 4. Quantitative XRD results of waste pile composites............................. 13 

Table 5. Summary of analysis results for quality control standard...................... 14 

2 
Questa Baseline and Pre-mining Ground-water Quality Investigation: 11. Geochemistry 

of Composited Material from Alteration Scars and Mine-waste Piles. 

By P.H. Briggs, S.J. Sutley and K.E. Livo 

Abstract 

Composited, surficial material was collected from alteration scars, a less intensely 

altered site, and mine-waste piles. All samples were analyzed for forty elements by 

inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry, total sulfur and quantitative 

X-ray diffraction. This work was performed in cooperation with the New Mexico 

Environment Department. 

Introduction 

The Questa molybdenum mine, located in the southern Sangre de Cristo Range in 

north central New Mexico, is in the process of developing a mine-closure plan. This 

report is one of a series of reports that is being published by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) to evaluate the geochemical baseline and pre-mining ground-water quality of the 

Red River Valley Basin, New Mexico. As part of this study, composite samples of solid 

materials were collected from nine natural alteration scars both proximal to and on the 

Questa Molybdenum mine site in September 2001 and September 2002. For comparison 

with the alteration scar samples, a composite sample was collected from a less intensely 

altered (dominantly propylitic alteration) site in September 2001. Samples of solid 

composite materials were also collected from five of the major mine-waste piles on the 

Questa Molybdenum mine site property in September and November 2002. A 

topographic map shows the sampling site locations in figure 1. 

Site Overview 

The relief of the study area in the southern Sangre de Cristo Range in north 

central New Mexico is characterized as steep, ranging from approximately 2400 m on the 

Red River to over 2900 m at the higher elevations on the mine site. There are numerous 

intermittent tributaries including Hansen, Straight and Hottentot Creeks that drain into the 

Red River. The Red River Valley between the towns of Red River and Questa is 

vegetated with a mix of cottonwood trees (at the river’s edge) and piñon pine, juniper, 

ponderosa pine and Douglas fir forest depending on slope aspect and elevation. 

The climate of the area is semi-arid with hot summer days, localized, heavy 

thundershowers (especially in the months of July and August), and cool summer nights. 

Winters are mild with the higher elevations, receiving the over 600 cm of snowfall per 

year (there is even a small ski resort in the town of Red River). 

The geology of the area is complex and best described by numerous authors that 

have studied and written the geological history (see for example Carpenter, 1968, Reed 

and others, 1983, Lipman, 1988, Meyer and Leonardson, 1990 and Czamanske and 

others, 1990, to name a few). As a result of the intense hydrothermal alteration and 

weathering, unique alteration scars have developed on the landscape. The majority of the 

alteration scars are located north of the Red River both on and off the mine site and east 

3
of the mine site toward the town of Red River, New Mexico (see fig.1). These scars are 

characterized by deep incised valleys that developed as a result of high rates of 

weathering and erosion during snowmelt in the spring and intense thunderstorms in the 

summertime (Meyer and Leonardson, 1990; Shaw and others, 2002). 

Methods 

Composite Sampling Method 

The sampling strategy for collecting surficial material was modified from a 

method developed by Smith and others, 2000. To get a representative sample for this 

study, a composite from each site consisting of a minimum of thirty subsamples or 

intervals of surficial material was taken from the surface to no deeper than 15 cm using a 

common stainless steel garden trowel. Because a complete sampling of an alteration scar 

or mine-waste pile was physically impossible, a strategy was adapted. In drainages, a 

subsample was collected from the creek bottom, and on alteration scars and mine-waste 

piles, samples were collected along -traverses - (see fig. 1). Each subsample was taken 

randomly every 20 paces and particles greater than pebble size (approximately 1 cm) 

were not collected. Approximately 100 g of material were taken at each interval and 

placed in a five gallon plastic bucket. The composite samples were brought back to the 

USGS offices in Denver, air dried, mixed and dry sieved to less than 2 mm. The final 

composite sample of less than 2 mm weighed at least 1 kg. 

Nine alteration scar composites were collected from the following sites: SW 

Hansen, Hansen Creek, Straight Creek, SE Straight, Hottentot Creek, June Bug, Goat 

Hill, Sulphur Gulch and W Goat Hill. One less intensely altered composite was collected 

in the next drainage (unnamed) west of SW Hansen Creek. . Figures 2a and 2b are 

representative photos of two alteration scars that were sampled in this study. 

Five mine-waste pile composites, were collected from the following sites: Sugar 

Shack West, Sugar Shack South, Sugar Shack Middle, Old Sulphur Gulch and Capulin A 

single traverse of the top bench was sampled for the composite taken from Capulin waste 

pile. A single traverse along the base of Sugar Shack West waste pile was sampled for the 

composite. Three traverses were sampled (the base and two benches) for the Sugar Shack 

South, Sugar Shack Middle and Old Sulphur Gulch composites. The three traverse 

composites were combined to make one representative composite for each of these waste 

piles. These composite samples are representative of 72% of the total waste rock 

produced at the mine site. Figures 3a and 3b are photos of the mine waste piles closest to 

the Red River. 

4
Figure 2a. Photo of Hottentot Ck. alteration scar. 

5
Figure 2b. Photo of the upper reach of Hansen Ck. alteration scar. 

Figure3a. Photo of upper bench of Sugar Shack South waste pile. 

6
Figure 3b. Photo of Sugar Shack South, Sugar Shack Middle and Sulphur Gulch waste 

piles taken from highway near the Red River. 

Laboratory Methods 

Prior to laboratory analysis, a Braun vertical pulverizer equipped with ceramic 

plates pulverized the dried, less than 2 mm samples to 0.15 mm (100 mesh). The 

composite samples were decomposed in a four-acid mixture of hydrochloric, nitric, 

perchloric and hydrofluoric acids (Crock and others, 1983) and analyzed for forty major, 

minor and trace elements by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry 

(ICP-AES; Briggs, 2002). Standard reference materials were prepared along with 

composite samples as a measure of quality control of the analysis. Total sulfur was 

determined on the composite samples directly on approximately 200 mg of ground 

material by combustion at 1370° C in an oxygen atmosphere with infrared detection of 

evolved SO2 (Brown and Curry, 2002) using a LECO Model SC-132. Composite samples 

were further prepared for X-ray diffraction mineralogy (XRD) in a micronizing mill to an 

average grain size of about 5 μm. An internal standard of Al2O3 with an average grain 

size of 1 μm was added (15% by weight) to help in the quantification of amorphous 

material. The XRD patterns were collected on a Scintag X-1 theta-theta diffractometer 

(Cu K-alpha radiation, Peltier counter) with 2mm divergence slit and 4mm scatter slit for 

the tube and 0.5mm scatter slit and 0.2mm receiving slit for the detector. Patterns were 

scanned from 4 –75 degrees 2-theta with a step size of 0.02 degrees 2-theta and a 

counting time of 2 s per step with a sample spinner to reduce preferred orientation. The 

subsequent quantitative refinements were carried out using the SIROQUANT Rietveld 

full-profile phase quantification program v.2, 1997 (Taylor, 1991). 

Quality control for the ICP-AES technique used NIST 2711 standard reference 

material. NIST 2711 is a moderately contaminated soil from Montana that is a good 

proxy for the composited material. NIST 2711 was digested and analyzed along with the 

7 
composite samples. Table 5 shows the tabulated results from two analyses of NIST 2711. 

All elements reported by the technique are generally within 10 % recovery from the 

certified value reported for the reference material and these results are deemed 

acceptable. 

Results and Discussion 

The scar material is comprised of pyrite-enriched rocks, varying amounts of 

kaolinite, sericitic mica, jarosite, gypsum and other water-soluble sulfo-salts that are 

sources of acid rock drainage. Many of these mineral assemblages have also been 

identified using airborne visible-infrared imaging spectroscopy (Livo and Clark, 2002). 

Table 1 presents the ICP-AES and total sulfur analyses of the nine alteration scar 

composites and one less intensely altered composite sampled in this study. The XRD 

confirms that the sulfate minerals gypsum and jarosite are present in quantifiable 

amounts. More than 75% of the quantitative mineralogy in the alteration scar composites 

is made up of amorphous material, quartz and mica (probably sericite). Table 2 shows the 

results of the alteration scars quantitative XRD mineralogy. 

The XRD showed that gypsum is more prevalent (10-12%) in Sulphur Gulch, 

Little Hansen Creek and Hansen Creek relative to the other scars (2-8%). The less 

intensely altered sample and Hottentot Creek samples showed no detectable gypsum. 

Similarly, Livo and Clark, 2002, reported gypsum was most abundant spectrally, in SW 

Hansen Creek. Jarosite was identified at 2-7% in all the scar composites, including the 

less intensely altered site. This is not surprising because the scars appear to be 

overprinted by supergene weathering as shown by the minerals gypsum, kaolinite and 

jarosite (Livo and Clark, 2002). Four to five percent of the scar composites are made up 

of the mineral kaolinite in Hansen Creek, Straight Creek and Goathill Gulch. Again, 

these results are consistent with Livo and Clark (2002). 

The ICP-AES data of the alteration scar samples show very little chemical 

variation between the composites samples. Barium and Mn concentrations are 

approximately two times higher in the less altered sample than in the alteration scar 

composites. There is no conclusion to be made from this observation other than Ba and 

Mn are anomalous. Despite having the lowest total S concentration of 0.21 %, jarosite 

was detected by XRD in the less intensely altered sample. 

The five mine waste piles that were sampled on the mine site are representative of 

72% of the total waste rock produced (328 million tonnes). The waste piles adjacent to 

the Red River are up to 490 m high and are at the angle of repose (Shaw and others, 

2002). Tables 3 and 4 contain the ICP-AES and XRD results of the waste pile composite 

samples. There is a great deal of pyrite oxidation to jarosite that can be observed by the 

straw-yellow color of the piles. The younger the pile (i.e., less pyrite oxidation) the more 

gray in color it appears. The XRD identified over 70% of quantifiable material as quartz, 

amorphous material and sericite (see table 4). The XRD results from the five waste piles 

shows that the piles are generally made up of similar minerals and in similar quantities. 

The amount of amorphous material is slightly lower in Sugar Shack South, Sugar Shack 

Middle and Sulphur Gulch than Capulin and Sugar Shack West. Also, these three piles 

have mixed-layer clay minerals (smectite/muscovite, smectite/illite, or montmorillonite) 

that is not observed in the other piles. One possible explanation for this mixed layer effect 

8 
is these piles were sampled following a storm cycle. Because sampling took place on 

traverses of benches and at the base, new “clay” material was transported down from the 

storm event. These clays are not easily differentiated by XRD due to their nondistinct, 

broad shaped X-ray pattern. 

The ICP-AES results are similar for Sugar Shack South, Sugar Shack Middle and 

Sulphur Gulch and different from Capulin and Sugar Shack West, which are similar (see 

table 4). The variability between the two sets can most likely be explained by varying 

sources of waste material as the open pit was deepened and widened. Molybdenum 

concentrations are 30 times higher on Sugar Shack South, Sugar Shack Middle and 

Sulphur Gulch than Capulin and Sugar Shack West. Again, different source areas of 

waste material from the open pit can best explain this anomoly. 

. 

Conclusion 

The composite surficial sampling of alteration scar and mine-waste pile material, 

represents the average properties of the area sampled. Chemical analysis by ICP-AES and 

quantitative XRD were performed on these samples. There are distinct chemical 

differences between Sugar Shack South, Sugar Shack Middle and Sulphur Gulch and 

Capulin and Sugar Shack West mine-waste piles. These differences can best be explained 

by different source rock locations within the open pit. As the pit was developed, different 

material was encountered and end-dumped on the various waste piles during its lifetime. 

Chemical distinction is not so defined between the alteration scars. The ICP-AES 

analysis of the nine scars showed little difference between the sample sites suggesting the 

scars were formed contemporaneously from similar rock types within the caldera’s 

alteration zone. The XRD analysis is consistent with the ICP-AES results and found 

basically the same percentage of identified minerals in all of the scar sample composites. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge the contributions by 

Molycorp personnel and especially Bruce Walker who gave so freely of his busy time to 

share his knowledge of the geology and history of the area. We would also like to thank 

Sara LoVetere and Phil Verplanck for lending a hand in the sampling of the mine-waste 

piles. Thanks to Zoe Ann Brown and Cyrus Berry for providing the total sulfur analyses. 

Lastly, thank you to Rich Wanty and Phil Verplanck (again) for their timely reviews and 

constructive comments to this report. 

9
References 

Briggs, P.H., 2002, The determination of forty elements in geological and botanical 

samples by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry, in Taggart, 

J.E., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other 

materials, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-223, p. G1-20. 

Brown, Z.A. and Curry, K.J., 2002, Total Sulphur by combustion, in Taggart, J.E., ed., 

Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials, U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-223, p. R1-6. 

Carpenter, R.H., 1968, Geology and Ore Deposits of the Questa Molybdenum Mine Area, 

Taos County, New Mexico: Ore Deposits of the United States, 1933-1967,vol. 2, 

AIME Graten-Sales, p.1328-1350. 

Crock, J.C., Lichte, F.E., and Briggs, P.H., 1983, Determination of elements in National 

Bureau of Standards geological reference materials SRM 278 obsidian and SRM 

basalt by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry: 

Geostandards Newsletter, v.7, no.2, p. 335-340. 

Czamanske, G.K., Foland, K.A., Hubacher, F.A. and Allen, J.C. 1990,The 40Ar/39Ar 

Chronology of Caldera Formation, Intrusive Activity and Mo-ore Deposition near 

Questa, New Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 41st Field 

Conference, Southern Sangre de Christo mountains, New Mexico, p. 355-358. 

Lipman, P.W., 1988, Evolution of Silicic Magma in the Upper Crust: the Mid-Tertiary 

Latir Volcanic Field and its Cogenetic Granitic Batholith, Northern New Mexico, 

USA: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, vol.79, p. 

265-288. 

Livo, K.E. and Clark, R.N., 2002, Mapped minerals at Questa, New Mexico, using 

Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) data – Preliminary 

Report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0026, p. 1-13. 

Meyer, J. and Leonardson, R., 1990, Tectonic, hydrothermal and geomorphic controls on 

alteration scar formation near Questa, New Mexico: New Mexico Geological 

Society Guidebook, 41st Field Conference, Southern Sangre de Christo mountains, 

New Mexico, p. 417-422. 

Reed, J.C. Jr., Lipman, P.W. and Robertson, J.R.M., 1983, Geological Map of the Lir 

Peak and Wheeler Peak Wildernesses and Columbine-Honeo Wilderness Study 

Area, Taos County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field 

Studies, Map MF-157B, Scale 1:50,000. 

Shaw, S., Wels, C., Robertson, A. and Lorinczi, G., 2002, Physical and geochemical 

characterization of mine rock piles at the Questa mine, New Mexico: An 

overview: in proceedings, Tailings and mine waste ’02, Ft. Collins, CO, Jan. 

2002: Swelts and Zeitlinger, publisher, p. 447-458. 

Smith, K.S., Ramsey, C.A. and Hageman, P.L., 2000, Sampling strategy for rapid 

screening of mine-waste dumps on abandoned mine lands: in proceedings, Fifth 

International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Denver, CO, May 21-24, 2000: 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., v. II, p. 1453-1461. 

10
Taylor, J.C. 1991, Computer programs for the standardless quantitative analysis of 

minerals using the full powder diffraction profile: Powder Diffraction, 6, p. 2-9. 

11
Table 1. ICP-AES and Total S results of alteration scar composites 

Hansen SW Straight 

Ck. Hansen Ck. Ck. 

==================================== 

Al % 6.3 6.4 6.1 

Ca % 0.62 0.93 0.57 

Fe % 3.4 5.1 3.6 

K % 3.0 2.7 2.8 

Mg % 0.58 1.3 0.96 

Na % 0.41 0.88 0.49 

P % 0.11 0.19 0.12 

Ti % 0.23 0.15 0.12 

Ag ppm < 2 < 2 < 2 

As ppm < 10 15 < 10 

Au ppm < 8 < 8 < 8 

Ba ppm 396 226 336 

Be ppm 2.5 1.6 1.9 

Bi ppm < 10 < 10 < 10 

Cd ppm < 2 < 2 < 2 

Ce ppm 82 62 56 

Co ppm 10 9.0 7.0 

Cr ppm 50 74 58 

Cu ppm 22 25 42 

Eu ppm < 2 < 2 < 2 

Ga ppm 23 18 18 

Ho ppm < 4 < 4 < 4 

La ppm 39 34 32 

Li ppm 21 21 26 

Mn ppm 299 417 373 

Mo ppm 4.8 9.7 16 

Nb ppm 19 11 12 

Nd ppm 36 28 22 

Ni ppm 22 18 15 

Pb ppm 44 72 173 

Sc ppm 6.4 8.6 6.4 

Sn ppm < 5 8.1 6.9 

Sr ppm 199 626 121 

Ta ppm < 40 < 40 < 40 

Th ppm 5.8 5.4 7.2 

U ppm < 100 < 100 < 100 

V ppm 65 91 66 

Y ppm 10 6.3 7.0 

Yb ppm < 1 < 1 < 1 

Zn ppm 72 50 84 

S % 1.39 1.92 1.15 

SE Straight Ck Hottentot June Bug W Goat Hill Goat Hill Sulphur Less Intensely 

Ck. Gulch Gulch Altered Site 

==================================================================================== 

6.4 6.5 6.9 7.1 5.7 6.7 6.4 

0.53 0.05 0.56 0.13 0.14 0.82 0.69 

4.4 3.3 5.0 4.8 4.7 5.6 3.5 

2.9 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.6 2.9 3.2 

1.0 0.58 1.1 0.64 0.38 1.0 0.91 

0.79 0.19 0.52 0.6 0.38 0.84 0.81 

0.17 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.099 0.16 0.12 

0.15 0.11 0.13 0.2 0.12 0.19 0.31 

< 2 < 2 < 2 2.6 2.0 < 2 < 2 

< 10 12 < 10 32 14 < 10 < 10 

< 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 

419 699 585 286 435 258 1050 

1.5 2.0 2.6 3 2.9 2.2 3.1 

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 

< 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 

63 63 48 112 89 79 88 

7.1 5.0 15 8.5 6.7 12 18 

54 38 61 68 23 83 72 

39 20 159 99 62 100 36 

< 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 

20 22 19 22 22 21 20 

< 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 

36 32 23 63 50 42 44 

19 19 24 30 18 28 19 

441 152 455 802 261 408 925 

13 32 31 29 27 12 18 

12 15 12 32 15 11 16 

26 30 20 38 33 36 37 

12 7.4 22 19 8.0 29 39 

213 141 190 416 265 58 41 

7.4 6.6 8.4 8.3 5.5 9.7 8.1 

< 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 14 5.2 < 5 

228 99 304 125 101 311 213 

< 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 

7.7 7.4 7.4 28 12 6.2 5.4 

< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 

80 71 85 72 50 95 85 

4.9 5.4 4.9 12 5.2 8.2 12 

< 1 < 1 < 1 1.8 < 1 < 1 < 1 

65 35 117 130 40 55 104 

1.15 .84 .89 1.29 1.28 1.67 .21 

12
Table 2. Quantitative XRD results of the alteration scar composites (all results in weight percent). -, 

mineral not detected by XRD. 

Hansen SW Straight SE Straight Hottentot June Bug W Goat Hill Goat Hill Sulphur Less Intensely 

Ck. Hansen Ck. Ck. Ck Ck. Gulch Gulch Altered Site 

========== =========== ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ============ 

Amorphous 34 21 28 20 37 28 34 21 35 31 

Quartz 35 26 34 30 30 35 27 36 24 38 

Mica 5 10 10 13 15 10 10 18 6 9 

Jarosite 3 5 3 5 5 3 8 7 6 2 

Gypsum 10 12 8 9 - 8 1 2 12 -

Pyrite <1 - - - - - - - - -

Hematite - - - - - - - - - 2 

Plagioclase 5 9 7 10 3 6 5 7 6 5 

K-spar 2 - 1 - 1 3 3 3 - 2 

Chlorite 1 9 3 8 7 4 10 <1 3 2 

Montmorill 

onite 1 8 2 5 1 1 - 2 8 2 

13
Table 3. ICP-AES and Total S results of waste pile composites 

Sugar Shack 

South 

============ 

Al % 7.4 

Ca % 2.3 

Fe % 4.2 

K % 3.2 

Mg % 1.3 

Na % 1.4 

P % 0.16 

Ti % 0.22

Ag ppm < 2 

As ppm < 10 

Au ppm < 8 

Ba ppm 704

Be ppm 3.2

Bi ppm < 10 

Cd ppm < 2 

Ce ppm 67

Co ppm 15

Cr ppm 92

Cu ppm 143

Eu ppm < 2 

Ga ppm 13

Ho ppm < 4 

La ppm 37

Li ppm 35

Mn ppm 781

Mo ppm 338

Nb ppm 11

Nd ppm 28

Ni ppm 41

Pb ppm 118

Sc ppm 10

Sn ppm 5 

Sr ppm 560

Ta ppm < 40 

Th ppm 11

U ppm < 100 

V ppm 95

Y ppm 14

Yb ppm 1.3

Zn ppm 124

S % 2.31 

Sugar Shack Old Sulphur 

Middle Gulch 

============ ============ 

6.9 7.1

1.9 2.1

4.3 3.6

2.8 3.3

1.5 1.3

1.4 1.3

0.16 0.15

0.23 0.25

< 2 < 2 

< 10 < 10 

< 8 < 8 

684 680

3.2 3.6

< 10 < 10 

< 2 < 2 

87 85

17 14

100 87

129 153

< 2 < 2 

12 14

< 4 < 4 

47 48

39 38

751 816

207 389

9.9 10

38 34

45 39

67 89

12 10

5 5.9 

477 505

< 40 < 40 

8.5 10

< 100 < 100 

103 92

16 16

1.3 1.4

83 114

2.08 1.82 

Capulin Sugar Shack 

West 

======================== 

6.8 6.9

0.41 0.39

2.9 2.3

3.2 3.4

0.51 0.42

0.92 0.73

0.055 0.046

0.16 0.12

< 2 < 2 

< 10 < 10 

< 8 < 8 

447 397

2.5 2.4

< 10 < 10 

< 2 < 2 

98 52

6.4 4.2

29 32

43 31

< 2 < 2 

26 23

< 4 < 4 

53 30

18 14

561 261

18 12

40 27

38 22

12 8.3

135 71

4.9 5.4

< 5 < 5 

142 142

< 40 < 40 

13 8.4

< 100 < 100 

44 52

31 17

3.7 2.3

78 35

.78 1.18

14
Table 4. Quantitative XRD results of the waste pile composites (all results in weight percent). -, 

mineral not detected by XRD. 

Sugar Shack 

South 

============ 

Amorphous 17 

Quartz 32 

Mica 12 

Jarosite 5 

Gypsum 6 

Pyrite 1 

Plagioclase 7 

K-spar 6 

Chlorite 8 

Smectite 2 

Smectite/Mica 3 

Sugar Shack Old Sulphur Capulin Sugar Shack 

Middle Gulch West 

================================================ 

20 21 26 23 

25 27 35 40 

10 11 12 13 

5 6 4 6 

8 7 5 3 

<1 1 <1 <1 

10 9 6 6 

5 5 3 4 

11 10 8 3 

1 2 - -

3 2 - -

15 
Table 5. Summary of analysis results for quality control standard. 

NIST NIST 

2711 2711 Average1 sd2 % R3 NIST value4 

============ ============ ============ ============ ============ ============ 

Al % 6.5 6.5 6.5 0.0 100 6.53 

Ca % 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0 101 2.88 

Fe % 2.9 2.8 2.85 0.1 99 2.89 

K % 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.0 102 2.45 

Mg % 1.0 1.0 1 0.0 95 1.05 

Na % 1.2 1.1 1.15 0.1 101 1.14 

P % 0.085 0.081 0.083 0.0 - .086 

Ti % 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.0 87 0.306 

Ag ppm 5 5 5 0.0 108 4.63 

As ppm 100 89 94.5 7.8 90 105 

Au ppm < 8 < 8 - - - -

Ba ppm 730 720 725 7.1 100 726 

Be ppm 2 2 2 0.0 - -

Bi ppm < 10 < 10 - - - -

Cd ppm 42 42 42 0.0 101 41.7 

Ce ppm 79 69 74 7.1 107 (69) 

Co ppm 12 10 11 1.4 110 (10) 

Cr ppm 45 41 43 2.8 91 (47) 

Cu ppm 110 110 110 0.0 96 114 

Eu ppm < 2 < 2 - - - (1.1) 

Ga ppm 16 13 14.5 2.1 97 (15) 

Ho ppm < 4 < 4 - - - -

La ppm 42 38 40 2.8 100 (40) 

Li ppm 27 26 26.5 0.7 - -

Mn ppm 660 640 650 14 102 638 

Mo ppm < 2 4 4 - 250 (1.6) 

Nb ppm 21 17 19 2.8 - -

Nd ppm 33 29 31 2.8 100 (31) 

Ni ppm 21 19 20 1.4 97 20.6 

Pb ppm 1100 1000 1050 71 90 1162 

Sc ppm 10 10 10 0.0 111 (9) 

Sn ppm 5 < 5 5 - - -

Sr ppm 250 240 245 7.1 100 245 

Ta ppm < 40 < 40 - - - -

Th ppm 13 14 13.5 0.7 99 13.6 

U ppm < 100 < 100 - - - -

V ppm 82 80 81 1.4 99 81.6 

Y ppm 27 27 27 0.0 108 (25) 

Yb ppm 3 3 3 0.0 111 (2.7) 

Zn ppm 350 320 335 21 96 350.4 

1

 Arithmetic average of two analyses.

2

 Sample standard deviation. 

3

 Percent difference from certified value. 

4

 NIST values from Certificate of Analysis; values in parentheses are non-certified 

values. 

16
17