U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District and the Valles Mines, Washington, Jefferson, and 

St. Francois Counties, Missouri

Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5173
Cover photograph. Family digging for barite (Witman, 1941), National Archives Catalog. 
Geology and Mining History of the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and the 

Valles Mines, Washington, Jefferson, and 

St. Francois Counties, Missouri

By Douglas N. Mugel

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5173

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov/.

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

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Mugel, D.N., 2017, Geology and mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, 

Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2016–5173, 61 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20165173.

ISSN 2328-031X (print)

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

ISBN 978-1-4113-4103-6 
iii

Contents

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

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................4

Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................4

Definition of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines ................................4

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................8

Geology of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines..........................................11

General Geologic Setting ..................................................................................................................11

Structure......................................................................................................................................11

Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................................12

Geology of the Ore Deposits .............................................................................................................15

Mineralogy and Paragenesis...................................................................................................15

Location and Description of the Ore Deposits......................................................................16

Mineral Zoning and Structural and Stratigraphic Controls of Mineralization.................21

Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines ..............................21

Lead Mining .........................................................................................................................................21

Development of Lead Mining...................................................................................................25

Lead Mining, Processing, and Smelting Methods ...............................................................30

Lead and Zinc Production and Losses During Processing.................................................37

Barite Mining.......................................................................................................................................41

Development of Barite Mining.................................................................................................41

Barite Mining and Processing Methods................................................................................44

Barite Production, Losses During Mining and Processing, and Potential Reserves .....51

Summary........................................................................................................................................................54

References....................................................................................................................................................56
iv

Figures

1. Map showing location of study area, Southeast Missouri Barite District, Valles

Mines, Franklin County Mines, and subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri Lead

District ...........................................................................................................................................3

2. Map showing the study area, Southeast Missouri Barite District, Valles Mines,

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sites in Washington and Jefferson

Counties..........................................................................................................................................5

3. Stratigraphic column of the study area and vicinity, showing formations that host

ore deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite District, Valles Mines, and

Southeast Missouri Lead District...............................................................................................7

4–8. Map showing 

4. Geology of the study area and vicinity...........................................................................13

5. The relation of Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines ore

mineralization to bedrock geology, and locations in the study area of ore

deposits of the Indian Creek Subdistrict, Irondale Subdistrict, and Viburnum

No. 29 Mine in the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict in the Southeast Missouri

Lead District .......................................................................................................................17

6. The distribution and types of Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles

Mines ore mineralization, and locations in the study area of ore deposits of

the Indian Creek Subdistrict, Irondale Subdistrict, and Viburnum No. 29

Mine in the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict in the Southeast Missouri Lead

District .................................................................................................................................19

7. Locations of mines of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles

Mines where lead, zinc, or copper was the primary metal recovered;

locations of mines of the Indian Creek Subdistrict, Irondale Subdistrict, and

Viburnum No. 29 Mine in the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict in the Southeast

Missouri Lead District within the study area; and locations of iron mines

within the study area.........................................................................................................22

8. Locations of lead furnaces, zinc furnaces, and lead mills of the Southeast

Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines, and locations in the study area of

the Indian Creek Subdistrict and tailings pond, Irondale Subdistrict, and

Viburnum No. 29 Mine in the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict in the Southeast

Missouri Lead District and the Pea Ridge Iron Mine tailings pond ..........................31

9. Drawings showing log and ash furnaces...............................................................................33

10. Map showing locations and types of mineralization of Southeast Missouri Barite

District and Valles Mines barite mines ...................................................................................42

11. Map showing locations of Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines

barite processing plants and tailings ponds ..........................................................................43

12–16. Photographs showing:

12. Barite diggings...................................................................................................................46

13. Hoisting barite ore to the surface, and cleaning and sorting the barite ..................47

14. Stockpiles of cleaned barite............................................................................................48

15. Mechanized surface barite mining.................................................................................49

16. A barite mill.........................................................................................................................50

17. Aerial photographs showing an open-pit barite mine and tailings pond..........................52

18. Graph showing cumulative Missouri barite production, 1872–1998 ..................................53
v

Tables

1. Chemical formula, physical properties, and chemical composition of barium,

lead, zinc, and copper ore minerals in the Southeast Misouri Barite District and

Valles Mines ................................................................................................................................16

2. Lead and zinc mine names, districts, and references for mine information and

location in the Southeast Missouri Barite District, Valles Mines, and the

Southeast Missouri Lead District.............................................................................................23

3. Furnace name, commodity smelted, type of furnace, and furnace references..............34

4. Estimates of combined lead and zinc production from the Southeast Missouri

Barite District and Valles Mines, and the Southeast Missouri Lead District ...................38

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3) 

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

cubic yard (yd3) 0.7646 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

Mass

ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 28.35 gram (g) 

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) 

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 metric ton (t) 

Density

pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3) 16.02 kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3)

pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3) 0.01602 gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm3)
vi

International System of Units to U.S. customary units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

Volume

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

liter (L) 61.02 cubic inch (in3) 

Flow rate

Mass

microgram (ug) 0.00000003527 Ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Datum

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Abbreviations and Symbols

Ba barium

BaO barium oxide

C carbon

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO3 carbonate

Cu copper

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Fe iron

GIS geographic information system

IMOP Inventory of Mines, Occurrences and Prospects 

MGS Missouri Geological Survey

NPL National Priorities List

O oxygen

Pb lead

PbO lead oxide

S sulfur

SO3 sulfur trioxide

SO4 sulfate

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

Zn zinc

ZnO zinc oxide
Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District and the Valles Mines, Washington, 

Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri

By Douglas N. Mugel

Abstract

The Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles 

Mines are located in Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois 

Counties, Missouri, where barite and lead ore are present 

together in surficial and near-surface deposits. Lead mining in 

the area began in the early 1700’s and extended into the early 

1900’s. Hand mining of lead in the residuum resulted in widespread pits (also called shafts or diggings), and there was some 

underground mining of lead in bedrock. By the 1860’s barite 

was recovered from the residuum by hand mining, also resulting in widespread diggings, but generally not underground 

mines in bedrock. Mechanized open-pit mining of the residuum for barite began in the 1920’s. Barite production slowed 

by the 1980’s, and there has not been any barite mining since 

1998. Mechanized barite mining resulted in large mined areas 

and tailings ponds containing waste from barite mills.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

determined that lead is present in surface soils in Washington 

and Jefferson Counties at concentrations exceeding healthbased screening levels. Also, elevated concentrations of 

barium, arsenic, and cadmium have been identified in surface 

soils, and lead concentrations exceeding the Federal drinkingwater standard of 15 micrograms per liter have been identified 

in private drinking-water wells. Potential sources of these 

contaminants are wastes associated with barite mining, wastes 

associated with lead mining, or unmined natural deposits of 

barium, lead, and other metals. As a first step in helping EPA 

determine the source of soil and groundwater contamination, 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with 

the EPA, investigated the geology and mining history of the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines.

Ore minerals are barite (barium sulfate), galena (lead sulfide), cerussite (lead carbonate), anglesite (lead sulfate), sphalerite (zinc sulfide), smithsonite (zinc carbonate), and chalcopyrite (copper-iron sulfide). The Cambrian Potosi Dolomite is 

the most important formation for the ore deposits, followed by 

the Eminence Dolomite. Because galena, sphalerite, and barite 

are less soluble than dolomite, chemical weathering of the orebearing dolomite bedrock resulted in the concentration of ore 

minerals in the residuum. Most of the barite and lead mining 

was in the residuum, which averages 10 to 15 feet thick. 

Lead mining by French explorers may have begun in 

1719 along Old Mines Creek at Cabanage de Renaudiere, 

which was followed shortly by the discovery of lead and 

the development of lead mines at Mine Renault (also called 

Forche a Renault Mine), Old Mines, and at other places along 

the Big River, Mineral Fork, and Forche a Renault Creek. 

Lead mining began sometime between 1775 and 1780 at Mine 

a Breton, the name of which was later changed to Potosi. 

Other mining areas were developed in the early part of the 

19th century, including Fourche a Courtois (Palmer Mines), 

the French Diggings, and the Richwoods Mines. Zinc became 

a valuable resource after the Civil War, and the Valles Mines 

was an important supplier of zinc as well as lead, with at least 

some production up until the 1920’s. Lead mining declined in 

the early part of the 20th century as mining in the Old Lead 

Belt, Mine La Motte, and the Tri-State District expanded.

The earliest lead mines were diggings in the residuum 

and were round holes (shafts) about 4 feet in diameter dug 

with pick and shovel about 15–20 feet deep, with drifts dug 

a short distance laterally from the bottom of the shafts. This 

mining process was repeated a short distance away until a 

large area was covered with pits. Some mining in bedrock 

began by about 1800, with shafts as deep as 170 feet and as 

much as several hundred feet of lateral drifts.

Smelting of the lead ore to elemental lead was first done 

using a log furnace, which was inefficient; estimates have been 

made that only about 50 percent of the lead was recovered, 

and the remainder was lost to the ashes (slags) and to volatilization. Starting in 1798, ash furnaces were used to smelt the 

ashes from the log furnaces. These two furnaces were worked 

in tandem for many years but were gradually replaced by other 

furnaces, including the Scotch hearth. Estimates of lead recovery as high as 80–90 percent have been made for the Scotch 

hearth. By the mid-1870’s the air furnace was being used, also 

with estimated lead recovery as high as 80–90 percent. Zinc 

furnaces were built when zinc became a valuable commodity, 

but much of the zinc ore was shipped out of the area, either to 

a smelter in St. Louis, Missouri, or to other smelters. 
2 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

The total lead and zinc production from the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated at 

180,000 tons of lead and 60,000 tons of zinc. An estimated 

97,000 tons of lead and an estimated 120,000 tons of zinc 

were lost during smelting. The estimated losses do not include 

losses at the mine site during mining and preparation for 

smelting, such as the loss of fine-grained galena during hand 

cleaning or the discarding of zinc ore before its value was 

known, for which no estimates are available.

Hand mining for barite in the residuum was active by 

at least the 1860’s and peaked from 1905 to the 1930’s when 

several thousand people were engaged in barite mining. Hand 

mining (diggings) and cleaning of the ore was done in much 

the same way as earlier lead mining, with the additional use 

of a rattle box to further clean the barite. Mechanized open-pit 

mining of old barite diggings began in 1924 to recover barite 

left behind by hand mining, and washing plants were used to 

clean the clay from the barite. Hand mining, however, continued to thrive, and washer plants began to close temporarily 

in 1931; nearly all of the barite produced before 1937 was by 

hand mining. By the 1940’s, however, all barite mining was 

mechanized. 

Mechanized mining used shovels powered by steam, 

gasoline, or electricity (and by the 1950’s draglines and frontend loaders) to mine the residuum. The ore was loaded onto 

rail cars (and by the 1940’s, trucks) for shipment to washer 

plants. Clay was removed from the barite using a log washer, 

and a jig was used to concentrate the barite. Overflow from 

the log washers was waste and went to a mud (tailings) pond. 

The coarse jig tailings went to tailings piles or were used as 

railroad ballast and, later, to create roads within the mine pit. 

Some barite was ground, depending on its final use, and some 

ground barite was bleached using a hot solution of sulfuric 

acid to remove impurities such as iron minerals and lead 

sulfide (galena). An earlier bleaching process used lead-lined 

tanks. 

Large quantities of water were required for milling the 

barite; some was recirculated water and the remainder came 

from dammed streams or was pumped from wells. Tailings 

and wastewater were impounded behind dikes that were built 

across small valleys and were increased in height as necessary using washer waste and any overburden that had been 

stripped. In some cases, dikes were built across valleys that 

had already been mined for barite. 

The total production of barite from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated to have 

been about 13.1 million tons. Most of the barite production 

was from Washington County. Hand mining and processing of 

barite was inefficient. Estimates of barite recovery range from 

less than one-fourth to about one-half because pillars between 

the shafts in the residuum needed to be left unmined for stability. With mechanized mining, large amounts of barite were lost 

during the milling process. It has been estimated that about 

30 percent of the barite was lost and that about two-thirds of 

the lost barite was fine-grained and was discharged to the tailings ponds. Some galena was lost to the tailings ponds.

A 1972 inventory of tailings ponds by the Missouri 

Geological Survey identified 67 ponds in the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District (there are more than this currently 

documented). Results from samples from four ponds that 

were drilled were used to estimate that the 67 ponds contained 

almost 39 million tons (or cubic yards) of tailings averaging 

about 5 percent barite, for a potential reserve of 1.935 million 

tons of barite. 

It is not known how much lead was removed during barite mining, either by hand or mechanized mining and processing, how much lead was recovered, or how much lead went as 

fines to the tailing ponds or as coarse material to mine roads or 

was otherwise lost. 

Introduction

The Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles 

Mines are located in Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois 

Counties, Missouri (fig. 1), where barite and lead ore are 

present together in surficial and near-surface deposits. Lead 

mining in the area began in the early 1700’s and extended 

into the early 1900’s. Lead minerals were recovered by hand 

and although hand mining was carried out on a small scale 

compared to modern mining, the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District was the most important lead-producing district in the 

United States for a number of years (Ball, 1916). Although 

lead and barite were recovered, the Valles Mines was better 

known for zinc production. Lead mining in residuum (residual 

soil) resulted in widespread pits (also called shafts or diggings), and there was some underground mining of lead in 

bedrock. 

Barite was discarded with other waste material during 

lead mining until the mid-1860’s when it became valuable. 

For many years, barite was recovered from the residuum by 

hand mining, which also resulted in widespread diggings. 

Some barite is present in bedrock but was not mined except in 

cases where accompanying lead made the operation profitable. Mechanized open-pit mining of the residuum for barite 

began in the 1920’s, and by the 1940’s all barite mining was 

mechanized. Barite continued to be mined after lead mining 

had ceased, and more barite was produced than lead. Barite 

production slowed by the 1980’s, and there has not been any 

barite mining since 1998. Missouri led the United States in 

barite production in most years from 1885 to 1971 (Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, 2012). Mechanized barite 

mining resulted in large mined areas and tailings ponds containing waste from barite mills. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

determined that lead is present in surface soils in Washington 

and Jefferson Counties at concentrations exceeding healthbased screening levels. Also, elevated concentrations of 

barium, arsenic, and cadmium have been identified in surface 

soils, and lead concentrations exceeding the Federal drinkingwater standard of 15 micrograms per liter (μg/L) have been 
Introduction 3

ILLINOIS

100

50

47

185

47

30

185 47

21

21

100

67

8 19

21

49

32

19 49

110

32

72

72

49

49

21

72 72

21

67

67

19 106 49 34

51

32

143

30

8

§ ̈¦55

§ ̈¦44

91°00' 90°30' 90°00'

38°30'

38°00'

37°30'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Southeast Missouri Lead District subdistricts modified from Schott (2012) and 

Leach and others (2010). Franklin County Mines modified from Rueff (2003)

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION

Southeast Missouri Barite District

Franklin County Mines

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District

Valles Mines

Study area

Cuba

Sullivan

Union

Eureka

Pacific

Herculaneum

De Soto

Hillsboro

Steelville

Bonne Terre

Park Hills

Viburnum

Bunker

Ironton

Farmington

Ste. Genevieve

Fredericktown

Ellington

Marble Hill

Arnold

St. Clair

Cuba

Sullivan

Union

Eureka

Pacific

Herculaneum

De Soto

Hillsboro

Steelville

Bonne Terre

Park Hills

Viburnum

Bunker

Ironton

Farmington

Ste. Genevieve

Fredericktown

Ellington

Marble Hill

Arnold

Potosi

VIBURNUM TREND

OLD LEAD BELT

INDIAN CREEK 

SUBDISTRICT

ANNAPOLIS 

SUBDISTRICT

MINE LA MOTTE SUBDISTRICT

IRONDALE SUBDISTRICT

VIBURNUM TREND SUBDISTRICT

OLD LEAD BELT SUBDISTRICT

INDIAN CREEK 

SUBDISTRICT

ANNAPOLIS 

SUBDISTRICT

MINE LA MOTTE SUBDISTRICT

IRONDALE SUBDISTRICT

IRON

FRANKLIN

REYNOLDS

JEFFERSON

CRAWFORD

DENT

WASHINGTON

MADISON

BOLLINGER

ST. FRANCOIS

WAYNE

STE. GENEVIEVE

SHANNON

PERRY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

IRON

FRANKLIN

REYNOLDS

JEFFERSON

CRAWFORD

DENT

WASHINGTON

MADISON

BOLLINGER

ST. FRANCOIS

WAYNE

STE. GENEVIEVE

SHANNON

PERRY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY St. Louis

Big River

Meramec River

Meramec River

Mississippi River

Missouri River

Map area

MISSOURI

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 1

Tri-State

Mining

District

Ozark

Dome

Central Missouri

Barite District

St. Francois

Mountains

Figure 1. Location of study area, Southeast Missouri Barite District, Valles Mines, Franklin County Mines, and 

subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri Lead District.
4 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

identified in private drinking-water wells (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). Potential sources of 

these contaminants are wastes associated with barite mining, 

wastes associated with lead mining, or unmined natural deposits of barium, lead, and other metals. As a first step in helping 

EPA determine the source of soil and groundwater contamination, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with 

the EPA, investigated the geology and mining history of the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the geology and 

mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and 

the Valles Mines (fig. 1), focusing on information that may 

help the EPA determine the source of soil and groundwater 

contamination in mine-impacted areas in Washington and 

Jefferson Counties. Included in the mining history are mining 

methods and mine production because these may be important 

factors for soil and groundwater contamination. 

The main focus of this report is the widespread surficial 

or near-surface ore deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District. The Valles Mines receives less attention because of its 

smaller size but is still an important subject of this report. Three 

subdistricts of the geologically distinct Southeast Missouri 

Lead District—the Irondale and Indian Creek Subdistricts and 

the Viburnum No. 29 Mine of the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict 

(figs. 1 and 2)—are in Washington County, and these subdistricts also are described, although in less detail. The underground Pea Ridge Iron Mine (fig. 2) and tailings pond in northwestern Washington County are not described in this report.

Although barite and lead commonly are present together 

as part of the same ore deposit, the mining history of each 

commodity is different. Included in the discussion of lead mining is zinc, which was also recovered from some lead mines 

but was generally secondary in importance to lead. An exception to this is the Valles Mines where early lead mining was 

followed by substantial mining of zinc. This report is based on 

a literature review; no field investigation was carried out. 

Description of the Study Area

The study area includes all of Washington and Jefferson 

Counties, and northern St. Francois County in southeastern 

Missouri (fig. 1). The study area contains the ore deposits 

and historic mines of the Southeast Missouri Barite District, 

the Valles Mines, and the Irondale and Indian Creek Subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri Lead District (fig. 2). It also 

contains the Viburnum No. 29 Mine of the Viburnum Trend 

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District, and the 

Pea Ridge Iron Mine (fig. 2). 

The EPA refers to the mining areas of Washington 

County as the Washington County Lead District and divides 

the county into four National Priorities List (NPL) Superfund sites: Old Mines, Richwoods, Potosi, and Furnace 

Creek (fig. 2; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016b, 

2016c). The EPA Southwest Jefferson County site also is an 

NPL Superfund site. Although the focus of this site is the 

approximate southwestern quarter of Jefferson County, the 

entire county is part of the site, with the exception of the lead 

smelter at Herculaneum (fig. 2; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016a). Ore deposits of the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District are not present everywhere in Washington and 

Jefferson Counties, but because the deposits are widespread 

and the EPA NPL Superfund sites cover all of Washington and 

Jefferson Counties, both of these counties are included in the 

study area. Northern St. Francois County is included in the 

study area because ore deposits of the Valles Mines and the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District are close to the Jefferson 

County border, and, in the case of the Valles Mines, overlap 

both counties such that production figures for the two counties cannot be separated. Ore deposits of the Old Lead Belt 

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District are present 

in St. Francois County southeast of the study area (fig. 1). 

The study area is mostly rural with only a few small 

towns (fig. 2). Potosi in Washington County was the center 

of much of the historic barite and lead mining in the region. 

De Soto is the closest town to most of the mining in Jefferson 

County. Bonne Terre is the closest town in St. Francois County 

to the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 

but is not in the study area; it was the site of important mines 

of the Old Lead Belt Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri 

Lead District.

Mine diggings are present throughout the study area and 

are a legacy of early barite and lead hand mining. Large areas 

of mine waste, including tailings dams and ponds, which 

contain material from more recent mechanized barite mining, 

are present in the study area. A mine waste pile and tailings 

pond of the closed Indian Creek Mine of the Indian Creek 

Subdistrict, the mine site of the underground Viburnum No. 29 

Mine of the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict, and the mine site and 

tailings pond of the underground Pea Ridge Iron Mine are also 

present in the study area (fig. 2). 

Definition of the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District and the Valles Mines

The geologic and mining literature contains various 

formal and informal names for the surficial and near-surface 

barite-lead deposits of Washington, Jefferson, and northern 

St. Francois Counties, which are the subject of this report. 

Mining district and subdistrict names were not formalized 

at the time of writing of the earliest authors. Areas of early 

lead mining have been informally called the “lead mines of 

Missouri” (Schoolcraft, 1819), the “lead mines of Washington County” (Ball, 1916; Swallow, 1855), the “lead mines of 

Jefferson County” (Swallow, 1855), and more formally the 

“Washington-Jefferson County Subdistrict of the Southeastern District” (Winslow, 1894). When referring predominantly 

to barite mining, the area has been called the “Washington 
Introduction 5

91°00' 90°30'

38°30'

38°00'

Palmer

Richwoods

Fertile

Arnold

Herculaneum

Selma

Bonne Terre

Park Hills

Farmington

Shirley

Old Mines

Mineral

Point

De Soto

Valles Mines

Potosi

Hopewell

Cadet

Hillsboro

Eureka

Pacific

Union

St. Clair

INDIAN CREEK

SUBDISTRICT

VIBURNUM NO. 29 MINE

IRONDALE SUBDISTRICT

Big River

Meramec River

Fourche a Renault Creek

Mineral Fork

Mine Breton Creek

Old Mines Creek

Mill Creek

Big River

Mississippi River

Furnace Creek

 site

Old Mines site

Potosi site

Richwoods site

Southwest Jefferson

County site

WASHINGTON COUNTY

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

FRANKLIN COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

8

185

47

30

47

100

50

30

21

67

67

21

110

8

47

32

32

§ ̈¦55

§ ̈¦44

PEA RIDGE IRON MINE

ILLINOIS

Study area

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency site boundary

Southeast Missouri Barite District boundary

EXPLANATION

Valles Mines boundary

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 2

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District (fig. 1)

Figure 2. Study area, Southeast Missouri Barite District, Valles Mines, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sites in 

Washington and Jefferson Counties.
6 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

County Barite District” (Seeger, 2008; Brobst and Wagner, 

1967; Brobst, 1958; Tarr, 1918; Wharton, 1972, 1986; Wagner, 

1973), or the “Southeast Missouri Barite District” (Kaiser 

and others, 1987; Wharton, 1986). Snyder (1968a) describes 

the “Southeast Missouri Barite-Lead Deposits” as a baritelead district, referring to the barite-lead deposits mostly in 

Washington and Jefferson Counties, but also minor deposits in 

adjacent counties.

The term “Southeast Missouri Barite District” is used 

in this report although it makes no mention of the lead that 

was mined starting about 150 years before barite was mined. 

The term “Southeast Missouri Barite-Lead District” would 

better describe the resources that were mined, but “Southeast 

Missouri Barite District” is the accepted term (Cheryl Seeger, 

Missouri Geological Survey, oral commun., May 16, 2016) 

and is more easily distinguished from the Southeast Missouri 

Lead District.

Ore deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite District are 

present throughout Washington County, Jefferson County, and 

extreme northern St. Francois County. It was difficult to draw 

a district boundary for this report because the deposits are so 

widespread; the boundary shown in figures 1 and 2 encompasses areas where the ore deposits are most concentrated and 

where they are mostly in the residuum derived from the Potosi 

or Eminence Dolomites or in the formations themselves, the 

most important hosts for the deposits (fig. 3). The mostly 

scattered deposits in the study area outside this boundary are 

still considered part of the district; these deposits are mostly in 

formations younger than the formations that host the deposits 

within the boundary of the district.

The Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles 

Mines have some similarities but they are different primarily 

in two ways: (1) most of the mining at the Valles Mines was in 

bedrock, which is in contrast to the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District where most of the mining was in the residuum; and 

(2) the Valles Mines was an important zinc-producing area, 

and barite was not as important of a product as in the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District (Cheryl Seeger, Missouri Geological 

Survey, oral commun., July 7, 2016). For this reason, the Valles 

Mines is considered a separate entity by the Missouri Geological Survey (MGS) and in this report. The Valles Mines (also 

spelled Valle) was sometimes referred to as the Valles Mines 

Group (Winslow, 1894) and consists of several mines in southern Jefferson and northern St. Francois Counties, near the town 

of Valles Mines (fig. 2). One of these mines is the Valles (or 

Valle) Mine, also called the Big Lode (Litton, 1855; Winslow, 

1894; Valles Mines, Missouri, USA, 2016). Like most other 

mines in the study area, this mine consists of several shafts, 

and for this reason the plural of “mine” commonly is used, and 

the mine is called the Valles Mines. To avoid confusion with 

the Valles Mines Group, the term “Valles Mines (proper),” 

instead of the term “Valles Mines,” is used in this report for the 

collection of shafts of the Valles Mine; this term was used by 

Winslow (1894) and Parizek (1949). For this report, the term 

“Valles Mines” is reserved for the Valles Mines Group because 

this is the term commonly used in the literature.

The Southeast Missouri Barite District does not include 

small lead-zinc-barite and local copper deposits that are 

present along and near the Meramec River, mostly in Franklin County but also in Crawford County, most of which are 

in formations younger than most Southeast Missouri Barite 

District deposits. These deposits are probably what Snyder 

(1968a) referred to as minor deposits in adjacent counties. 

Winslow (1894) describes the deposits in Franklin County as 

the “Franklin County Subdistrict of the Southeastern District”. 

Park (2006) describes these as the “Franklin County Lead District.” Wharton (1986) describes these as the “Franklin County 

Mines,” and this term is used in this report (fig. 1).

Zinc commonly is present with lead in ore deposits in 

Missouri and elsewhere. Zinc is present in the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District but it is not as common as in other 

lead-mining areas. Conversely, zinc was the most important 

resource at the Valles Mines. Zinc was not recovered during 

the early years of lead mining in the study area because it was 

not a valuable commodity at that time. Later, after the value 

of zinc was recognized, the metal was recovered at some 

mines and was the primary target at a few mines, particularly 

the Valles Mines. Because zinc was generally of secondary 

importance or no importance, the term “lead mining” is used 

in this report to imply recovery of lead, zinc, and in some 

cases, copper.

Ore deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite District 

and the Valles Mines differ from the ore deposits of the 

Southeast Missouri Lead District, although Wharton (1972, 

1986) considered the Washington County barite deposits to 

be part of the Southeast Missouri Lead District. The lead-zinc 

deposits of the Southeast Missouri Lead District are present 

in stratigraphically lower formations (mostly the Cambrian 

Bonneterre Formation, and less commonly in the upper part 

of the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone or the lower part of the 

Cambrian Davis Formation; fig. 3), are larger, and are leadzinc deposits that do not contain barite (Snyder, 1968a, Snyder 

and Gerdemann, 1968; Seeger, 2008). The Southeast Missouri Lead District has four large subdistricts (the Old Lead 

Belt, the Viburnum Trend, Mine La Motte [also called Mine 

La Motte-Fredericktown], and Indian Creek) and the smaller 

Irondale and Annapolis Subdistricts (Snyder and Gerdemann, 

1968; fig. 1). Some of these ore subdistricts (for example, the 

Old Lead Belt and Mine La Motte) have some exposure at the 

surface (the deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite District 

and Valles Mines have surficial exposure), but can extend to 

greater depths, up to a few hundred feet. Other subdistricts (for 

example, Viburnum Trend and Indian Creek) have no surficial 

expression and are several hundred to more than 1,000 feet 

(ft) deep. The Palmer area in Washington County (also called 

the Shirley-Palmer area, or the Fourche a Courtois Mines) and 

the Valles Mines (fig. 2) also have been included as subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri Lead District in some reports 

(Snyder and Gerdemann, 1968; Seeger, 2008). This inclusion 

may be because of a relatively large amount of lead and zinc 

production or because of noneconomic mineralization in the 

Bonneterre Formation, as is the case at least in the Palmer area 
Introduction 7

ERA SYSTEM

BARITE, LEAD, or ZINC MINERALIZATION

PALEOZOIC

ORDOVICIAN

DEVONIAN

MISSISSIPPIAN

PENNSYLVANIAN

CAMBRIAN

Jefferson City Dolomite

Roubidoux Formation

Gasconade Dolomite

Cotter Dolomite

Eminence Dolomite

Potosi Dolomite

Elvins

Group

 Derby-Doerun Dolomite

 Davis Formation

PRECAMBRIAN

TIME-STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT ROCK-STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT

Bonneterre Formation

Contains most of the lead-zinc mineralization 

 of the Southeast Missouri Lead District

Lamotte Sandstone

Undifferentiated for this report

Undifferentiated Intrusive 

and Volcanic Igneous Rocks

The upper part of the Lamotte Sandstone contains 

 some lead-zinc mineralization of the 

 Southeast Missouri Lead District, particularly in the

 Mine La Motte and Indian Creek Subdistricts

The lower part of the Davis Formation locally 

 contains lead-zinc mineralization 

 of the Southeast Missouri Lead District

The most important host of barite-lead-zinc deposits 

 of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles 

 Mines is in the Potosi Dolomite and its residuum

The second-most important host of barite-lead-zinc 

 deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite

 District and Valles Mines is in the Eminence Dolomite 

 and its residuum 

Contains a small number of barite-lead-zinc deposits 

 of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and 

 deposits in adjacent counties, particularly the 

 Franklin County Mines

Contains a small number of barite-lead-zinc deposits 

 of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and 

 deposits in adjacent counties

Undifferentiated for this report

Undifferentiated for this report

Undifferentiated for this report

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 3

NOTE: Geologic names follow the nomenclature 

of the Missouri Geological Survey.

Figure 3. Stratigraphic column of the study area and vicinity, showing formations that host ore deposits of the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District, Valles Mines, and Southeast Missouri Lead District.
8 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

(Snyder and Gerdemann, 1968). Because the only mining that 

has taken place in these areas has been in the residuum and in 

the Potosi Dolomite and younger formations, and not the Bonneterre Formation, these mining areas are considered, in this 

report, to not be part of the Southeast Missouri Lead District. 

Previous Investigations

A large number of publications were reviewed for this 

report. Cited publications are listed in the “References” section of this report; the more notable publications are described 

here, in mostly chronological order.

The first known published description of the lead mines 

of Missouri is a report by Moses Austin, one of the early leadmine owners in Missouri, on the lead mines of Upper Louisiana. This report was delivered to the U.S. Congress in 1804 

by Amos Stoddard, Captain and First Civil Commandant of 

Upper Louisiana (Stoddard, 1804). Ten mines were described, 

some of which are in the Southeast Missouri Barite District 

(this or any other district term was not in use at that time and 

would not be for many years). General mining and smelting methods were mentioned, as well as some basic geologic 

descriptions. The report also provided estimates of the area 

population and number of miners employed at the mines, as 

well as production estimates, both in terms of pounds of lead 

produced and dollar values.

Henry Rowe Schoolcraft traveled through the States and 

territories west of the Appalachian Mountains and lived for 

a year in the Missouri Territory where he observed mining 

practices first hand. Schoolcraft (1819) described the landscape of the mining area, including its soils and streams, and 

provided a history of mining up to 1819, including some of the 

early exploration for gold and silver and the eventual development of lead mining. Schoolcraft (1819) listed 45 of the 

more notable past and present (as of 1819) lead mines, 39 of 

which were in Washington County and 2 in Jefferson County; 

gave a general description of the ore deposits; and described 

several mines in detail. He also described mining and smelting practices, and gave a detailed description of a log furnace, 

an ash furnace, and an estimate of the percentage of lead 

recovered from each. Production figures for individual mines 

and the collective production from mines of the area (including some mines from outside the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District) were estimated, and several recommendations were 

given for more efficient operations and improved production. 

Schoolcraft (1819) also noted the presence of barite in the ore 

deposits, though barite was not recovered at that time.

In 1855, George C. Swallow, Missouri State Geologist, 

delivered the second annual report of the Geological Survey of 

Missouri to the Missouri Secretary of State (Swallow, 1855). 

One of the chapters of the report is “A Preliminary Report of 

Some of the Principal Mines in Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, St. Francois, and Madison Counties, Missouri,” by 

Dr. A. Litton, M.D. (Litton, 1855), which includes lead mines 

inside and outside the Southeast Missouri Barite District and 

a brief history of lead mining in Missouri, which began about 

135 years earlier, in 1719. Descriptions were given for many 

mines, by county, which generally consist of the public land 

survey location, a description of the ore deposits, the history and production of the mine, and, for several mines, a 

cross section showing shafts. The information was obtained 

either by direct observation or from a reliable source such as 

the present or previous owner when direct observation was 

not possible. A general description of lead furnaces and their 

operation was given, by county, and several furnaces were 

described in more detail, including the public land survey 

location and historic lead production. No mention of barite 

mining was made.

A geological survey was done of counties along and adjacent to the Southwest Branch of the Pacific Railroad (Swallow, 

1859), including the mining areas of the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District. Brief descriptions were given of a number of 

mines in Jefferson County, some of which were also described 

by Litton (1855). A table in Swallow (1859) lists 86 mines and 

17 furnaces in Jefferson and Washington Counties.

Pulsifer (1888) traced the history of world lead mining, as 

well as the processing and manufacture of white lead (hydrous 

lead carbonate commonly used as a paint pigment). Chapters 

on mining, and smelting and refining in the United States 

describe the early history of lead mining in Missouri, including the Southeast Missouri Barite District.

Winslow’s (1894) three-part report is the definitive report 

on lead and zinc mining as of 1894. Part One gives an overview of world lead and zinc mining, a more detailed description of United States lead and zinc mining, and a chapter by 

Robertson (1894a) on worldwide industries and production 

statistics of lead and zinc, including the metallurgy of lead 

and zinc. Details of several types of lead furnaces are given, 

including drawings and histories of different furnaces, with 

improvements in lead recovery and reductions in lead losses 

to the environment through improvements in technology. Zinc 

furnaces are also described. Part Two contains a history of lead 

mining in Missouri, including the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District and the Valles Mines, with a section on early development (from discovery in 1719 until 1800), and subsequent 

sections covering periods of one or two decades. The development of different mines throughout Missouri is presented, and 

mining and metallurgy practices at various mines and some 

production and employment figures are given. General descriptions of the lead-ore deposits of Missouri are given, including 

the form, mineralogy, structure, and genesis. Also in Part Two 

is a chapter by Robertson (1894b) describing the lead smelting and manufacturing industries in Missouri in 1894, including a description of the different furnaces in use at the time, 

and a series of tables giving production statistics by county. 

Part Three contains detailed geologic descriptions of the more 

important lead and zinc mines in Missouri, including a section 

on the “Washington County Subdistrict” (Washington, Jefferson, Crawford, and extreme northern St. Francois Counties) of 

the “Southeastern District.” These descriptions include maps, 

cross sections, some photographs, and some individual mine 
Introduction 9

production figures. Barite, which by then had some commercial 

value, is described as being of such quantity as to be an “object 

of independent search” (Winslow, 1894, p. 677). 

Ingalls (1908) presented a history of lead and zinc mining 

and smelting in the United States through 1908. A chapter 

describes the history of mining and smelting in Missouri, 

including mines of the Southeast Missouri Barite District. 

Descriptions of smelting methods, including production and 

losses to the environment, and drawings of furnaces are given.

Buckley (1908) described the geology and mines of the 

“Disseminated Lead Deposits of St. Francois and Washington Counties.” Although the lead deposits of the Southeast 

Missouri Lead District were Buckley’s (1908) main focus, 

descriptions also were given of the geology of the barite-lead 

deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite District so a comprehensive theory of the genesis of southeastern Missouri lead 

ores could be proposed. Buckley (1908) also provided some 

production figures that demonstrate the growth and prominence of the Southeast Missouri Lead District and the relative 

decline of the “Washington County Subdistrict.” He described, 

and located on an accompanying map, 33 barite diggings in a 

portion of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and implied 

that by 1908 barite had replaced lead as the primary resource 

of interest in the district.

Steel (1910) described the geology, mining, and processing of barite in Washington County. The geology was described 

in some detail, though generally not for individual deposits. 

The geologic history of Washington County was summarized, 

and a genetic model for the barite deposits was proposed. Mining methods were described in detail, including the process 

of digging shafts, drifting from the shafts, and cleaning of the 

ore at the mine site, and other mining practices were described 

such as prices paid per ton of ore and payment of royalties. One 

barite mill process was described in detail, from raw feed to 

finished product, and a flow diagram was given.

Ball (1916) described the geology and mining of lead in 

Washington County in 1916. Mechanized mining was by then 

producing large tonnages of lead ore in other parts of Missouri, but “mining methods of a century ago prevail” (Ball, 

1916, p. 807), and these were described, including the activities that filled a miner’s workday and other aspects of the life 

of a lead miner. A sketch map of Washington County shows 

the location of numerous lead diggings.

Hill (1917) gave an account of the barite industry in the 

United States in 1915 and described the general geology of 

barite deposits, mining and processing methods, production by 

State (Missouri ranked first), marketing and prices of barite, 

several barium products and their manufacturing processes, 

and the uses of barium products. A list of suppliers of crude 

barite was given, 18 of which were located in Missouri, and 

a list of manufacturers of ground barite is given, 3 of which 

were located in Missouri.

Tarr (1918) provided a comprehensive description of the 

geology of Missouri barite deposits as of 1918, particularly 

those of the Southeast Missouri Barite District (the Central 

Missouri Barite District [fig. 1], a lesser but still important 

district, also was described). The general geology of Washington County was given, including stratigraphy, structure, 

and geologic history; and the barite deposits were described, 

including mineralogy, and concentration by weathering of 

the barite deposits. Different ideas regarding the genesis of 

the deposits were discussed, and an ore genesis model was 

proposed. Mining and processing methods were described, and 

39 uses of barite were listed. Tarr (1919) described the barite 

deposits of Missouri in a more condensed report.

Weigel (1929) described the barite industry in the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Central Missouri Barite 

District. The geologic setting and economic geology of the 

districts were described, and the genesis of the ore deposits 

was considered. By 1929, mining and processing methods had 

become mechanized with steam shovels and mechanical washing and concentrating, although hand methods continued. The 

marketing and uses of barite also were described.

Dake (1930) reported on the stratigraphy, structure, 

and geologic history of the Potosi and Edgehill 15-minute 

quadrangles, which are mostly south of Washington County; 

however, central and south-central Washington County is in 

the Potosi quadrangle, and because of the importance of barite 

mining in Washington County in 1930 and the importance 

of lead mining at an earlier time in Washington County, the 

economic geology of the deposits was described, including the 

Palmer, Potosi, and Old Mines areas. Lines of evidence supporting barite and lead deposited by descending, rather than 

ascending, waters were given.

Harness and Barsigian (1946) described barite mining and marketing throughout the United States and briefly 

described the geology of the barite deposits of southeastern 

Missouri. Different mining and processing methods employed 

in 1946 in different parts of the country were described, 

including Missouri. Older hand-mining methods were 

described, and legal and economic factors contributing to the 

decline of hand mining and the rise of mechanized mining 

were discussed. Also described were the process of grinding 

and bleaching barite, and various barite uses.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines examined the Krueger zinc 

deposit, which lies about 6 miles (mi) west of Potosi and 

was the site of earlier lead mining to a depth of about 100 ft 

(Ballinger, 1948). Twenty-four holes were drilled as deep 

as 259 ft; 13 of the holes intersected what was termed either 

“good” ore or “low-grade” ore. Several years later, Ligasacchi 

(1959) reported on the Krueger zinc deposit and nearby barite 

deposits in bedrock. Several forms of ore, including barite in 

a dolomite breccia matrix, were described and illustrated in 

photographs. 

Chaney (1949) described the barite industry in the United 

States, including the geographic distribution of ore deposits, 

geology, mining methods, processing, production, and uses 

of barite. He described the barite industry in the important 

barite producing States of Arkansas, Georgia, and Missouri, 

as well as in other States of lesser importance. He described 

the geology of the barite deposits of the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District and summarized evidence and conclusions from 
10 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

previous authors regarding the genesis of the ores. A history 

of barite mining methods in the district was given, from older 

hand mining to mechanized mining in 1949, and processing 

methods in use in 1949 were described, including flow sheets 

for two different mining operations.

Muilenburg (1954, 1957) provided descriptions of the 

barite industry in Missouri in the 1950’s. The geology of 

both the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Central 

Missouri Barite District, and mining and milling practices 

in the 1950s were described. Some production figures were 

provided.

Thompson (1955) provided a series of articles that 

described the development of lead mining in southeastern 

Missouri. Both the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the 

Southeast Missouri Lead District were covered. Descriptions 

were given of early exploration for metals, mines, and mineral 

processing, in large part citing previous reports, including 

Schoolcraft (1819). 

Brobst (1958) reviewed the history of the barite industry 

in the United States, the geochemistry of barium, and the mineralogy of barite deposits. He reviewed the geology of several 

districts in different States, including the “Washington County 

District.” Mining and benefication (processing) methods were 

briefly described, exploration methods were explained, domestic production and consumption figures were given, and barite 

resources were described.

In a publication prepared for the 200th anniversary of 

founding of the city of Potosi, Showalter (1963) traced the history of lead and barite mining in southeastern Missouri, with 

an emphasis on mining in the Potosi area. Profiles of several 

historical figures important to mining in the Potosi area were 

given. Mining methods were described, and descriptions of the 

life of a miner were given. 

A report on the water and mineral resources of Missouri published jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the 

Missouri Division of Geological Survey and Water Resources 

contains a chapter on barite (Brobst and Wagner, 1967). The 

history and uses of barite were described, annual production 

of barite in Missouri since 1900 was given, the geology of the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District was described, and projections of barite reserves and future production were given. 

Another chapter in the same report described the lead and zinc 

industry in Missouri (Kiilsgaard and others, 1967). The history 

and production of lead mining in Missouri was described, and 

although much of the chapter discussed the large lead districts 

in Missouri, the history, production, and geology of the PotosiPalmer mining area in Washington County and the Valles 

Mines in Jefferson and St. Francois Counties were briefly 

described.

Snyder (1968a) briefly described different types of mineral deposits throughout the midcontinent United States. He 

provided separate discussions of the “Southeast Missouri Barite-Lead Deposits” and the Southeast Missouri Lead District, 

and provided criteria for defining each and distinguishing one 

from the other. Results of seven lead isotope analyses from the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District were summarized; galena 

from the district is described as overlapping but being slightly 

more radiogenic than galena from the “Lead Belt” (Old Lead 

Belt Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District).

Wharton (1972) made an inventory of barite tailings 

ponds, mostly in Washington County, for the purpose of 

determining tonnage and grade of potential barite reserves in 

the ponds. Four ponds were drilled and core samples were collected and analyzed for barium concentrations using x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. The lead content of the tailing ponds 

was not reported. Metallurgical tests were run to determine 

barite grain size. A map showing the location of 67 inventoried 

tailings ponds was given, and detailed maps and cross sections 

were given for each of the 4 ponds that were drilled, showing 

locations of drill holes, barite grade and thickness at each drill 

location, and areas of different grades of barite in each pond. 

The report also briefly described the geology of the district and 

the history of mining and milling methods and current (1972) 

methods, and discussed mill recovery and losses. 

Wagner’s (1973) Ph.D. dissertation is an important contribution to the understanding of the geology of the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District. The study area covered a large part of 

the district, about 160 square miles (mi2), but did not include 

some mining areas such as the Richwoods area in northeastern 

Washington County, the Palmer area in southwestern Washington County, and the Valles Mines in southern Jefferson and 

northern St. Francois Counties (fig. 2). Barite-lead deposits 

were examined in detail both in the field and in the laboratory 

(thin and polished sections were studied, and x-ray diffraction tests were done) for the purpose of understanding the 

mineralogy of the deposits, the types of mineralization in the 

residuum and bedrock, the stratigraphic and structural controls on mineralization, and the development a genetic model 

for the district. Research focused on the original sedimentary 

lithologies and their influence on mineralization, particularly 

algal stromatolites; the relation of the deposits to geologic 

structure, including faults; and different types of barite mineralization and their relation to other mineralization, including 

lead mineralization. Also studied were wall rock alteration, the 

relation between ore minerals and drusy quartz in the Potosi 

Dolomite, mineral and textural zoning of the deposits, mineral 

paragenesis, fluid inclusions, and bedrock mercury anomalies. 

The physical and chemical controls on mineralization that 

help explain the environment of deposition and genesis of the 

deposits were discussed. A detailed stratigraphic section and 

several maps of the study area were included: a geologic map, 

a map of trends of fractures and faults, maps showing joint 

patterns along Mill Creek and Mine Breton Creek, a map of 

barite mines and tailings ponds in 1973, and a barite deposit 

textural-zoning map. The same information was summarized 

several years later in Kaiser and others (1987; Wagner was a 

co-author), who also used more recent sulfur and oxygen isotope data to interpret the genesis of the barite-lead deposits. 

Burford (1978) summarized the history of mining in 

Missouri from the earliest explorer days until 1978. Although 

many resources were described, including barite, particular 

attention was given to lead because of its importance to the 
Geology of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 11

economy of Missouri for many years. The history of lead mining throughout Missouri was given, beginning with settlers in 

southeastern Missouri in the early 1700’s. 

Wharton (1986) summarized the development of barite 

mining in Washington County and current (1986) mining and 

processing methods; this was toward the end of the period of 

barite mining. A brief history of geologic investigations of the 

deposits also was given.

Park (2006) provided descriptions of many abandoned 

mines in Missouri, including mines in the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines. The descriptions have 

the form of a travel guide for exploring old mining areas in 

Missouri, with brief, but in some cases detailed accounts of 

mining areas and individual mines, mining methods, production data, and descriptions of historical mining figures. Sketch 

maps show old mines and furnaces. More emphasis was given 

to lead mines than barite mines. A historical account of the 

development of mining in Missouri also was given.

Seeger (2008) reviewed the mine facilities and environmental effects of mining in the Viburnum Trend, and also presented the early history of lead mining in Washington County. 

As mentioned in the “Description of the Study Area” section, 

Seeger (2008) and Snyder and Gerdemann (1968) regarded the 

Shirley-Palmer area and the Valles Mines (fig. 2) as subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri Lead District, along with the 

Viburnum Trend and other subdistricts. The Shirley-Palmer 

area and the Valles Mines, however, as stated in the “Definition of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles 

Mines” section, are not included in the Southeast Missouri 

Lead District for this report.

Blount [1950?] compiled video clips of barite mining 

from what is reported to be the 1930’s. This compilation, 

which may have been produced about 1950, has no audio but 

contains grainy black and white video clips of hand mining 

and processing of barite and early mechanized barite mining 

and processing. Wood (1963) produced a grainy color video 

showing mechanized mining of barite and a barite processing 

plant.

The MGS compiled a Mined Lands geographic information system (GIS) shapefile for the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources Division of Environmental Quality showing locations of mechanized surface barite mining and tailings 

ponds (Cheryl Seeger, Missouri Geological Survey, written 

commun., October 27, 2015). The MGS also maintains an 

Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, and Prospects (IMOP; Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a). The following description of the IMOP database is mostly from Cheryl 

Seeger (Missouri Geological Survey, written commun., June 

14, 2016): The IMOP database contains information, including 

location data, for all mineral resource types (lead, coal, limestone, and so forth) in Missouri, categorized as mines (active 

or past producer), occurrences, and prospects. The database is 

based on the original U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry 

Location System database; however, the database and data 

have been extensively updated (additional fields have been 

added and more than 11,000 additional sites have been added). 

The IMOP database is continually being revised and additional mines sites are being added. Data were compiled by the 

MGS from historical references, from in-house unpublished 

documents, correspondence, maps and field notes unavailable 

elsewhere, as well as from topographic and geologic maps, 

Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads, and aerial photographs. 

This database has location and other data, including some 

brief descriptions of barite and lead mines, occurrences and 

prospects in the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles 

Mines, and references for the information in the database. 

Geology of the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District and the Valles Mines

The geology of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and 

the Valles Mines is given in two sections. The section on the 

general geologic setting describes the structure and stratigraphy of the study area. The section on the geology of the ore 

deposits provides more specific geologic descriptions of the 

ore deposits.

General Geologic Setting

The study area is located within the Salem Plateau of the 

Ozarks Plateaus Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938), 

also referred to simply as the Ozarks. The Salem Plateau is a 

large area in southern Missouri and northern Arkansas consisting of Cambrian and Ordovician sedimentary rocks that have 

been uplifted and dissected by erosion. The topography of 

the study area is one of rolling hills with incised valleys that 

are partially wooded. The Big River and its tributaries drain 

eastern Washington County, western Jefferson County, and 

northwestern St. Francois County (fig. 2). Western Washington 

County is drained by tributaries of the Meramec River. Northeastern St. Francois County and eastern Jefferson County are 

drained by tributaries of the Mississippi River.

Structure

The Ozarks Plateaus Physiographic Province is the 

physiographic expression of the Ozark Dome, one of several 

domes and arches which, with intracratonic basins, define the 

structural framework of the United States midcontinent. The 

core of the Ozark Dome is the St. Francois Mountains (fig. 1) 

in southeastern Missouri, an area of exposed Precambrian 

rocks that also underlie Paleozoic sedimentary rocks throughout the Ozarks (fig. 3). Following an extensive period of igneous activity, the Precambrian rocks were subjected to a long 

period of erosion, which produced a rugged topography with 

up to 2,000 ft of relief in the St. Francois Mountains (Thacker 

and Anderson, 1977). The area slowly subsided during Late 

Cambrian and Early Ordovician time (Snyder, 1968b) during which the Precambrian terrain stood as an island complex 
12 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

surrounded by a dominantly transgressive shallow sea. Sediments filled valleys and covered all but the highest hills. Later, 

tectonic uplift resulted in widespread erosion followed by 

subsidence and deposition of more sediment. This sequence of 

uplift followed by erosion, subsidence, and sedimentation happened repeatedly throughout the Paleozoic until the end of the 

Pennsylvanian period (Snyder, 1968b) when the Ozark Dome 

became a positive topographic feature for the last time. 

Bedrock formations generally dip gently away from the 

St. Francois Mountains, and erosion has resulted in an outcrop 

pattern of progressively younger formations away from the 

St. Francois Mountains. The Southeast Missouri Barite District 

and the Valles Mines are north of the St. Francois Mountains, 

and the study area displays this outcrop pattern in a general 

way, with bedrock formations becoming younger toward the 

northwest, north, and northeast, away from the Precambrian 

core of the St. Francois Mountains (figs. 1 and 4). This outcrop 

pattern is not simple, however, because of numerous faults 

that offset geologic formations and juxtapose formations of 

different ages. Although some areas are more faulted than 

others, the greater density of faults shown in figure 4 in the 

northern part of Washington County and in southern Jefferson and northern St. Francois Counties is partly the result of 

more detailed geologic mapping at 1:24,000 scale in these 

areas. The geology shown in figure 4 is from the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources (2015b) and reproduces the 

geology shown in the “Geologic Map of Missouri” (Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, 2003). The geologic structures shown in figure 4 also are from the Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources (2015b) and are revised slightly from 

what are shown in the “Geologic Map of Missouri.”

Most of the ore deposits in the study area are present 

in a structural block bounded by three fault systems, or in 

the fault systems themselves: the Palmer fault system to the 

southwest, the Big River fault system to the southeast, and the 

Vineland fault system to the northeast (fig. 4; Wagner, 1973). 

The Palmer fault system trends northwest-southeast in southeastern Washington County and changes to trend east-west in 

southwestern Washington County and Crawford County, and 

consists of subparallel high-angle normal faults with a total of 

200 to 1,200 ft of downward displacement to the northeast or 

north (McCracken, 1971). The northwest-trending Vineland 

fault system is sometimes called the Valles Mines-Vineland 

fault zone, and is regarded as a northwest extension of the 

Ste. Genevieve fault system (fig. 4; McCracken, 1971; Nelson 

and Lumm, 1985). The Vineland fault system is a zone of 

high-angle normal faults with downward displacement to the 

northeast of as much as 800 ft (McCracken, 1971). The northeast-trending Big River fault system is a high-angle normal 

fault or set of en echelon faults with up to 120 ft of downward 

displacement to the northwest, and is regarded as a southwest 

branch of the Ste. Genevieve fault system (McCracken, 1971). 

Other faults are present in the study area besides the 

three bounding fault systems. The Berryman fault (fig. 4) 

extends northwest from the Palmer fault system and has a 

downward displacement to the southwest (McCracken, 1971). 

The Shirley fault zone trends northwest (fig. 4) and consists of 

several faults with about 300 ft of step-down displacement to 

the southwest (McCracken, 1971). Wagner (1973) describes 

the Mineral Point fault system, the Fertile-Cruise Mill fault 

system, and the Racola fault (not labeled on figure 4) and 

other unnamed faults and fault systems. Near-vertical joints 

commonly form two perpendicular joint sets. A third and, less 

commonly, a fourth joint set can be present (Wagner, 1973). 

Wagner (1973) and Kaiser and others (1987) recognized a 

structural pattern, or structural grain, in the Southeast Missouri Barite District. This structural grain is defined by faults 

and joints that trend northwest-southeast in the northwestern 

part of the district and east-west in the southeastern part of the 

district (Kaiser and others, 1987). The greatest displacement 

within the structural block is on the bounding Palmer and 

Vineland fault systems, with less displacement along the Fertile-Cruise Mill fault system, Shirley fault zone, and Mineral 

Point fault system in the interior of the structural block, which 

form horst and graben structures (Wagner, 1973). More details 

regarding the geologic structure of the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District, the relation to regional structural patterns, and 

possible stress patterns that produced these geologic structures, including tensional stresses responsible for the horst and 

graben structures, are found in Wagner (1973).

Stratigraphy

Precambrian rocks are exposed in southeastern Washington County and to a lesser extent in west-central Washington 

County. More extensive exposures of Precambrian rocks are 

present south and southeast of the study area (fig. 4). The 

Precambrian basement in southeastern Missouri consists of 

rhyolitic porphyries intruded by granites and diabase dikes and 

sills (Snyder and Gerdemann, 1968; Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources, 2003; fig. 3).

The Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone (fig. 3) is the oldest 

Paleozoic formation in southeastern Missouri. It is predominantly a quartzose sandstone but is locally arkosic or conglomeratic and can contain siltstone or dolomite beds (Snyder and 

Gerdemann, 1968; Thompson, 1995; Thompson and others, 

2013). The formation is present in the subsurface throughout 

most of the study area and is exposed in a small area in southeastern Washington County. It is absent where it pinches out 

against Precambrian knobs and is up to 500 ft thick elsewhere 

in the St. Francois Mountains (Thompson, 1995). An isopach 

map of the Lamotte Sandstone (Thacker and Anderson, 1979a) 

approximately covers the southern two-thirds of Washington 

County; the formation has a maximum thickness of about 

350 ft in this area. The Lamotte Sandstone locally contains 

lead-zinc ore in southeastern Missouri and was mined in the 

Mine La Motte, Indian Creek, and to a lesser extent Old Lead 

Belt Subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri Lead District 

(fig. 1).

The Cambrian Bonneterre Formation (fig. 3) is predominantly dolomite in the mining areas of southeastern Missouri 

(Snyder and Gerdemann, 1968) and contains some shale beds. 
Geology of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 13

IRON

FRANKLIN

JEFFERSON

WASHINGTON

CRAWFORD

MADISON

REYNOLDS

ST. FRANCOIS

DENT

STE. GENEVIEVE

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

SHANNON

PERRY

Study area

91°00' 90°30'

38°30'

38°00'

37°30'

 SYSTEM

VINELAND FAULT SYSTEM

SHIRLEY FAULT ZONE

BERRYMAN FAULT

PALMER FAULT 

 RIVER 

BIG 

FAULT

SYSTEM

 SYSTEM

VINELAND FAULT SYSTEM

SHIRLEY FAULT ZONE

BERRYMAN FAULT

PALMER FAULT 

 RIVER 

BIG 

FAULT

SYSTEM

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

Pennsylvanian, undifferentiated

EXPLANATION

[Bedrock geology modified from Missouri Department of Natural Resources (2015b)]

Alluvium

Mississippian, undifferentiated

Devonian, undifferentiated

Ordovician, undifferentiated

Jefferson City and Cotter Dolomites

Roubidoux Formation

Gasconade Dolomite

Eminence and Potosi Dolomites

Elvins Group and Bonneterre Formation

Lamotte Sandstone

Precambrian, undifferentiated

Fault

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 4

STE. GENEVIEVE

FAULT SYSTEM

Figure 4. Geology of the study area and vicinity.
14 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

An isopach map of the southern two-thirds of Washington 

County (Thacker and Anderson, 1979a) shows that the thickness of the formation ranges from zero to about 400 ft in this 

area and that it is exposed in parts of southeastern Washington 

County. The Bonneterre Formation is the host rock for the 

lead-zinc deposits of the Viburnum Trend, Old Lead Belt, 

Irondale, and Annapolis Subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri 

Lead District, and is also mineralized at the Indian Creek and 

Mine La Motte Subdistricts where the Lamotte Sandstone is 

the main ore host.

The Cambrian Elvins Group (fig. 3) consists of the 

Davis Formation and the overlying Derby-Doerun Dolomite. 

The Elvins Group is exposed in small areas in southeastern 

Washington County, northern St. Francois County, and along 

the Big River and its tributaries in northeastern Washington 

County and southwestern Jefferson County. An isopach map 

of the southern two-thirds of Washington County (Thacker 

and Anderson, 1979c) shows that the thickness of the formation ranges from zero to about 300 ft in this area; the unit 

thickens to about 450 ft in northwestern Washington County 

and central Jefferson County (Imes, 1990). The Davis Formation conformably overlies the Bonneterre Formation and 

consists of interbedded shale, dolomitic limestone, siltstone, 

and sandstone (Snyder and Gerdemann, 1968; Wagner, 1973). 

An isopach map of the southern two-thirds of Washington 

County (Thacker and Anderson, 1979b) shows that the Davis 

Formation thickness ranges from zero to about 180 ft in this 

area; Wagner (1973) states that the average thickness is 165 ft 

in the Southeast Missouri Barite District. The Davis Formation is conformably overlain by the Derby-Doerun Dolomite, 

which consists of a lower, argillaceous dolomite and an upper, 

massive oolitic or algal-reef dolomite (Snyder and Gerdemann, 1968). An isopach map of the southern two-thirds of 

Washington County (Thacker and Anderson, 1979c) shows 

that the Derby-Doerun Dolomite thickness ranges from zero 

to about 150 ft in this area. The Elvins Group generally has 

low permeability compared to formations above and below it 

and is considered a regional confining unit (St. Francois confining unit) by the U.S. Geological Survey (Imes and Emmett, 

1994). 

The Cambrian Potosi Dolomite (fig. 3) conformably 

overlies the Derby-Doerun Dolomite. The Potosi Dolomite 

is the most important formation in the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District and the Valles Mines because the residual soil 

(residuum) derived from it hosts most of the barite and lead in 

the Southeast Missouri Barite District, and ore also is present in the formation, particularly at the Valles Mines. The 

Potosi Dolomite is exposed in a large part of the study area. 

The bedrock geologic map of the study area (fig. 4), however, shows the Potosi Dolomite and Eminence Dolomite as 

a single mapped unit because the source of the mapping for 

figure 4 (Missouri Department of Natural Resources (2015b) 

groups the two formations as a single mapped unit. Recent 

revisions to the Cambrian stratigraphy in Missouri (Thompson and others, 2013) name the Potosi-Eminence Dolomite 

as a formal rock unit in addition to the Potosi Dolomite and 

the Eminence Dolomite, recognizing the difficulty in picking the contact between these two formations in some areas. 

Geologic maps at a 1:24,000 scale that show the Potosi and 

Eminence Dolomites as two separate mapped units are available for northeastern Washington County and for Jefferson 

County (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015b). 

Wagner (1973) published a geologic map that shows the two 

formations as separate units, but this map covers only a portion of the Southeast Missouri Barite District. Wagner (1973) 

stated that the Potosi Dolomite is exposed in the major valleys 

and lower hills in about 50 percent of his study area, ranges 

from about 215 to about 390 ft thick, and appears to thin to 

the north. Thacker and Anderson’s (1979d) isopach map of 

the southern two-thirds of Washington County shows that 

the Potosi Dolomite ranges in thickness from zero to about 

375 ft. Generally, the Potosi Dolomite is a medium crystalline, massive bedded dolomite with abundant quartz druse 

that is associated with chalcedony and chert (Wagner, 1973; 

Thompson, 1995; Thompson and others, 2013). Because of the 

economic importance of the Potosi Dolomite in the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District, Wagner (1973) described the Potosi 

Dolomite in detail, including descriptions of three lithologic 

types (calcarenite, algal-stromatolite biostrome, and carbonate 

muds); diagenesis, including the development of drusy quartz; 

weathering characteristics; and the relation between lithologic 

characteristics and ore deposits.

The Cambrian Eminence Dolomite (fig. 3) conformably overlies the Potosi Dolomite and is the second most 

important ore-bearing formation in the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District, after the Potosi Dolomite. It is exposed in 

much of the study area and is combined with the underlying 

Potosi Dolomite as a single mapped bedrock unit in figure 

4. Wagner (1973) estimated that the formation is exposed 

in about 35 percent of his study area and that it varies from 

about 120 to 195 ft thick. Thacker and Anderson (1979d) 

estimated that the formation ranges in thickness from zero to 

about 250 ft in the southern two-thirds of Washington County 

and thins to the north. Generally, the Eminence Dolomite is 

a medium to massive bedded, medium to coarsely crystalline 

dolomite with small amounts of chert (mostly in the upper 

one-half of the formation), small amounts of quartz druse, 

and local thin seams of green clay (Wagner, 1973; Thompson, 

1995;Thompson and others, 2013). Because of the economic 

importance of the Eminence Dolomite in the district, Wagner 

(1973) described the Eminence Dolomite in detail, delineating five lithologic types (calcarenite, algal-stromatolite 

biostrome, carbonate muds, green clay seams, and a recrystallized dolomite without recognizable structure that makes up 

about 75 percent of the formation, termed cryptalgal lithology), diagenesis of these lithologies, weathering characteristics, and the relation between lithologic characteristics and 

ore deposits.

The Gasconade Dolomite (fig. 3) is the oldest Ordovician formation in Missouri. Thompson (1995) states that 

the Cambrian-Ordovician contact is conformable in parts 

of Missouri and unconformable elsewhere; Wagner (1973) 
Geology of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 15

stated that an unconformity marks this contact in his study 

area. The Gasconade Dolomite is exposed in a large part 

of western and northwestern Washington County and small 

parts of southwestern and southeastern Jefferson County; 

in some places, this is the result of faulting that has downdropped the Gasconade Dolomite relative to adjacent 

Cambrian formations (fig. 4). Wagner (1973) stated that it is 

the bedrock formation in about 10 percent of his study area, 

where it is present on most of the higher ridges, and that it 

is about 220 ft thick in the district. The Gasconade Dolomite is mostly medium to coarsely crystalline dolomite with 

abundant chert. Thompson (1995) divides the formation into 

three units: the upper Gasconade, which contains relatively 

small amounts of chert; the lower Gasconade, which may be 

up to 50 percent chert; and beneath that a basal unit called 

the Gunter Sandstone Member, which varies regionally 

from sandstone up to about 30 ft thick to a sandy dolomite. 

Wagner (1973) described the Gunter Sandstone Member in 

his study area as coarsely crystalline dolomite interbedded 

with finely crystalline argillaceous dolomite with scattered 

sand grains. A small number of ore deposits are present in 

the Gasconade Dolomite in the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District and in adjacent counties.

The Ordovician Roubidoux Formation (fig. 3) overlies the Gasconade Dolomite; the contact is conformable in 

Wagner’s (1973) study area. The formation consists of cherty 

dolomite, sandy dolomite, dolomitic sandstone, and sandstone 

(Thompson, 1995). The Roubidoux Formation is exposed 

in parts of western and northwestern Washington County 

and small parts of southwestern and southeastern Jefferson 

County; in some places, this is the result of faulting that has 

down-dropped the Roubidoux Formation relative to other 

formations (fig. 4). A small number of ore deposits are present 

in the Roubidoux Formation in the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District and in adjacent counties.

The Ordovician Jefferson City Dolomite and the overlying Ordovician Cotter Dolomite (fig. 3) are mapped together 

as a single unit on figure 4 and are exposed in most of the 

southwestern two-thirds of Jefferson County on the northeast, 

down-dropped side of the Vineland fault system. The Jefferson 

City Dolomite is predominantly medium to finely crystalline 

dolomite and argillaceous dolomite (Thompson, 1995). The 

Cotter Dolomite is predominantly medium- to finely crystalline cherty dolomite (Thompson, 1995). A small number of 

ore deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite District are 

present in the Jefferson City and Cotter Dolomites. Younger 

Ordovician, Devonian, and Mississippian formations form the 

bedrock in northern and southeastern Jefferson County (figs. 3 

and 4). 

Clayey residuum overlies carbonate formations in Missouri, including the Cambrian and Ordovician formations in 

the study area. The residuum is the insoluble residue from 

weathering. Residuum is mostly clay but also contains chert, 

sand and sandstone, and drusy quartz and chalcedony, particularly where the residuum is developed from the Potosi Dolomite. The bedrock surface is sometimes pinnacled (that is, the 

surface is irregular because of weathering along fractures). 

Early miners noted that the bedrock surface was locally soft 

and friable and called this sand rock; this was not quartz sand 

but instead was loosely consolidated dolomite rhombohedra 

resulting from the solution and recrystallization of the dolomite bedrock (Muilenburg, 1957; Tarr, 1918). 

Geology of the Ore Deposits

This section describes the various characteristics of the 

ore deposits, such as ore and gangue mineralogy, paragenesis, location and types of mineralization, zoning, and the 

structural and stratigraphic controls of mineralization, as well 

as how they acted together to affect ore deposition. These 

characteristics, including their variability, not only describe 

an ore district or subdistrict but also lead to hypotheses of 

the genesis of the ore deposits. Although these characteristics 

have genetic implications, ore genesis of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is beyond the scope 

of this report.

Mineralogy and Paragenesis

Minerals of an ore deposit are described as primary, 

which are minerals deposited by the ore fluids, and secondary, 

which are minerals that form later as an alteration of the primary minerals as a result of a change in environmental conditions, such as a change to an oxidizing and lower temperature 

environment. Primary minerals are commonly described as 

hypogene, which means they were deposited by warm ascending ore fluids; secondary minerals are commonly supergene, 

which means they are formed by cooler, descending fluids. 

Minerals are further described as ore minerals, which are 

recovered for their economic value, and gangue minerals, 

which have no economic value. 

Barite (barium sulfate; table 1) is a primary ore mineral; however, some barite is secondary (Wagner, 1973). 

The primary, and most important lead-ore mineral, is galena 

(lead sulfide; table 1). Secondary lead minerals are cerussite 

(lead carbonate; also called dry bone by the early miners; 

table 1) and anglesite (lead sulfate; table 1). These secondary 

lead minerals commonly are present as alteration products 

of galena and were locally important ore minerals, despite 

being discarded during the early lead-mining years before 

their value was realized (Litton, 1855). The primary zinc ore 

mineral is sphalerite (zinc sulfide; table 1); smithsonite (zinc 

carbonate; table 1) is a secondary mineral that also was mined 

as an ore mineral and was more important than sphalerite in 

some deposits, including the Valles Mines (Kiilsgaard and 

others, 1967). Chalcopyrite (copper-iron sulfide; table 1) also 

is present in the ore deposits as a primary mineral; the IMOP 

database (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a) 

indicates that copper was recovered as the primary resource in 

a few mines (chalcopyrite was also mined in some deposits in 

the nearby Franklin County Mines; fig. 1). 
16 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Table 1. Chemical formula, physical properties, and chemical composition of barium, lead, zinc, and copper ore minerals in the 

Southeast Misouri Barite District and Valles Mines.

[Ba, barium; S, sulfur; O, oxygen; SO4, sulfate; BaO, barium oxide; SO3, sulfur trioxide; Pb, lead; C, carbon; CO3, carbonate; PbO, lead oxide; CO2, carbon 

dioxide; Zn, zinc; ZnO, zinc oxide; Cu, copper; Fe, iron; physical and chemical data from Hurlbut (1971)]

Mineral Description Chemical formula Specific gravity Hardnessa Chemical composition when pure

Barite Barium sulfate BaSO4 4.5 3.0–3.5 65.7% BaO; 34.3% SO3

Galena Lead sulfide PbS 7.4–7.6 2.5 86.6% Pb, 13.4% S

Cerussite Lead carbonate PbCO3 6.55 3.0–3.5 83.5% PbO, 16.5% CO2

Anglesite Lead sulfate PbSO4 6.2–6.4 3.0 73.6% PbO, 26.4% SO3

Sphalerite Zinc sulfide ZnS 3.9–4.1 3.5–4.0 67% Zn, 33% S

Smithsonite Zinc carbonate ZnCO3 4.35–4.40 4.0–4.5 64.8% ZnO, 35.2% CO2

Chalcopyrite Copper-iron sulfide CuFeS2 4.1–4.3 3.5–4 34.6% Cu, 30.4% Fe, 35.0% S

a

Hardness is referenced to Mohs scale of relative hardness from 1 (softest) to 10 (hardest; Hurlbut, 1971).

Some gangue minerals were pre-ore-stage (that is, they 

were deposited before barium, lead, or zinc mineralization); 

these include the silica minerals (quartz, chalcedony, and 

chert), possibly marcasite (iron sulfide), and some dolomite 

(calcium-magnesium carbonate; Wagner, 1973; Kaiser and 

others, 1987). Primary gangue minerals are dolomite and 

pyrite (iron sulfide). Secondary gangue minerals are malachite (copper carbonate), aurichalcite (copper-zinc carbonate), 

melanterite (iron sulfate), gypsum (calcium sulfate), limonite 

(hydrous iron oxide), and jarosite (potassium-iron hydrous 

sulfate) (Wagner, 1973).

The general order (paragenesis) of ore-stage mineralization is pyrite, galena and sphalerite, white barite, chalcopyrite (rare to minor), clear barite, and calcite (rare to minor) 

(Kaiser and others, 1987; Wagner, 1973; Tarr, 1918). Not all 

minerals are present at all locations, and overlapping periods 

of deposition of minerals was common. For example, most 

of the sulfide mineralization pre-dates barite mineralization, 

but small amounts of sulfides were deposited throughout the 

period of barite deposition (Kaiser and others, 1987). The 

sulfide minerals are, in decreasing order of abundance, pyrite, 

galena, sphalerite, and chalcopyrite (Wagner, 1973). Alteration 

of minerals to secondary minerals happened after ore-stage 

mineralization. 

Location and Description of the Ore Deposits

Ore deposits of the Southeast Missouri Barite District are 

present mostly in the clayey residuum that overlies bedrock 

and, to a lesser extent, in bedrock beneath the residuum. Most 

deposits are present in the residuum overlying the Potosi 

Dolomite, followed in importance by residuum overlying the 

Eminence Dolomite. Lesser ore is present in the residuum 

overlying younger formations and in the Gasconade Dolomite, 

Roubidoux Formation, Jefferson City Dolomite, and Cotter 

Dolomite. In addition to mineralogical differences, the ore 

deposits of the Valles Mines differ from the ore deposits of the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District by being present more in 

the bedrock and less in the overlying residuum (Cheryl Seeger, 

Missouri Geological Survey, oral commun., July 7, 2016). The 

Cambrian Potosi and Eminence Dolomites form the bedrock 

in the Valles Mines area. Outside the study area, the Gasconade Dolomite and Roubidoux Formation host the ore deposits 

of the Franklin County Mines (fig. 1). To illustrate the relation 

between bedrock formations and ore mineralization, figure 5 

shows mines, prospects, and occurrences in the study area and 

bedrock age in three groupings: combined Cambrian Potosi 

and Eminence Dolomites, older than the Potosi Dolomite, and 

younger than the Eminence Dolomite. Sites of mineralization 

are from the MGS IMOP database (Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources, 2015a). All resources (lead, zinc, barite, 

mixed barite and lead, and so forth) are grouped together, and 

two types of sites are shown: past producers, and prospects 

and occurrences grouped. Although the information for some 

sites may be limited and some sites may not be precisely 

located because of the age or quality of the reference for the 

site (which may be as old as the early 1800’s), or because of 

conflicting location data from different sources, figure 5 serves 

to illustrate the widespread nature of barite, lead, and zinc 

mineralization in the study area, and that most mineralization 

is present where the bedrock formation is the Potosi Dolomite 

or Eminence Dolomite. Brobst and Wagner (1967) stated that 

about 95 percent of the deposits are present in the upper onehalf of the Potosi Dolomite and the lower two-thirds of the 

Eminence Dolomite. Also, the stratigraphic column in figure 3 

describes the relative amounts of ore in the different formations in the study area and vicinity, including the Southeast 

Missouri Lead District.

Although barite and lead commonly are present together 

in the Southeast Missouri Barite District, the degree to 

which they are present together does not seem to be the same 

everywhere because occurrence was characterized differently by different authors. Winslow (1894), describing lead 

mines at a time when barite also was mined, stated that the 

quantity of barite associated with galena was such that it 

often was an object of independent search. Dake (1930, p. 

211), also describing lead mines, stated that barite was an 

“almost universal accompaniment.” Tarr (1918), describing 
Geology of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 17

# # #

#

# ##

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

# #

###

###

#

#

#

##

#

##########

### # ##

#

##

## # ###

# #

#

## #

#

##

###

#

##

#

# ###

#

### ### #

#

#

##

#

# # #

# # # #

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

##

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

###

#

#

##

#

#

#

### ####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

####

##

#

# #

## # #

#

# #

#

# # #

# # #

#

##

##

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

# #

## # #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

###

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

# #

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

####

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

# #

#

# #

#

# # #

## # ##

#

# #

#

#

###

#

#

##

##

#

# ### # ####

##

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# # # #

# #

# #

###

##

## # ## #

#

##

# # #

#

#

#

##

#

#

## # ####### #

#

### # #

# #

#

# # #

# # #

# # # #

# ##

# # # #

#

# ## #

# #

# # ##

#

#

# # ## #

#

#

# # # #

# ### #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#####

##

##

#

### #

#

#

# # # #

#

# ## #

##

#

# ## # # ##

#

#

## ### # # #

# #

#

#

#

#

## ##

### # # # ###

##

####

####

# # # #

## #

#

###

#

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

##

# #

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # ##

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#########

#

#

#

## #####

##

#

##

#

##

#####

### #

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # # # #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

# #

# #

# # #

#

# #

###

##

#

#

#

#

# # # #

#

#

#

#

## # # # # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# # #

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

# ##

#

#

# ######

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

## #

#

#

#

# #

# ##

#

# #

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

## ##

###

# # ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ### # # #

## # #

#

#

#

#

###

# ##

#

###

# ##

### #

##

# # # #

#

# # #

## #

#

#

#

## #

#

# ## # # ## #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

##

#

# # # ##

#

#

# #

# # ##

#

# ## # #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ## # #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

# # #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

# # # # #

#

# #

#

# # #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

# #

#

#

#

##

######### ####

#######

###

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

# # #

# ## #

##

## ## #

#

# #

##

# #

## # #

# #

#

#

# #

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

###

#

## #

# #

#

## ### ### #

#

# #

# #

##

#### #

#

#

#

# #

#

# ##

##

#

## # #

### #

#

#

# ##

#

#

# #

#

# # #

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

91°00' 90°30'

38°30'

38°00'

Big River

Meramec River

Big River

Mississippi River

INDIAN CREEK

SUBDISTRICT

VIBURNUM NO. 29 MINE

IRONDALE

SUBDISTRICT

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY

FRANKLIN COUNTY JEFFERSON COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Study area

ILLINOIS

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Bedrock geology—Modified from Missouri Department

of Natural Resources (2015b) 

EXPLANATION

Formations younger than the Eminence Dolomite

Potosi Dolomite and Eminence Dolomite

Formations older than the Potosi Dolomite

Fault

Lead, zinc, copper, barite mineralization—Missouri 

Geological Survey Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, 

and Prospects (Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, 2015a) 

#

#

Prospects and occurrences

Past producers

Southeast Missouri Barite District boundary

Valles Mines boundary

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 5

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District (fig. 1)

Figure 5. The relation of Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines ore mineralization to bedrock geology, and 

locations in the study area of ore deposits of the Indian Creek Subdistrict, Irondale Subdistrict, and Viburnum No. 29 Mine in 

the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict in the Southeast Missouri Lead District.
18 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

barite deposits, stated that although some barite diggings do 

not contain any galena, most contain at least a specimen of 

galena, and that the major part of the district is covered by 

old abandoned holes of the lead mines (diggings). Kaiser and 

others (1987) stated that minor amounts of sulfides accompany 

barite, and Wagner (1973) stated that galena and sphalerite 

tend to be present together and are more restricted in areal 

distribution than barite. Rueff (2003) showed generalized 

areas where barite and lead mining took place; although the 

two areas overlap to a large extent, the area of lead mining is 

about twice the size of the area of barite mining, and a large 

part of southern Washington County is shown as having had 

lead mining only. Barite, though present, was not an important 

resource at the Valles Mines, where zinc was the most important resource (Cheryl Seeger, Missouri Geological Survey, oral 

commun., July 7, 2016).

A more detailed depiction of barite and lead distribution 

in the study area using the MGS IMOP database is shown in 

figure 6. Four categories of mineralization are shown: barite 

only, without lead, zinc, or copper; lead, zinc, or copper but 

not with barite (less commonly zinc, and sometimes with other 

metals such as copper or nickel); lead or zinc with barite (and 

in some cases with copper or nickel); and a few occurrences 

of iron, with or without lead, zinc, or barite, including the Pea 

Ridge Iron Mine (fig. 2). These four categories are simplified 

from the many groupings of resources in the IMOP database, 

such as lead, zinc, lead with zinc, zinc with lead, lead with 

copper, barite, barite with lead, lead with barite, and many 

other combinations, including some with other metals. Also, 

some resources are listed in the IMOP database as questionable, for example, “Barium; Lead?,” which means that barium 

(meaning barite) is present and lead was strongly suggested by 

sources but not definitively specified (Cheryl Seeger, Missouri Geological Survey, oral commun., August 13, 2014). 

This listing is simplified for this report by dropping the query 

and referring to this category as “lead or zinc with barite” 

in figure 6. Although barite and lead commonly are present 

together or in close proximity to each other, there are areas 

where mostly lead is reported or, conversely, where mostly 

barite is reported (fig. 6); however, because some of the IMOP 

data sources may list only the principal metal that was present 

and not accessory metals that also were present, the number of 

sites in figure 6 where lead or zinc is present with barite may 

be underrepresented.

Descriptions of ore in bedrock (lode deposits) by different authors were mostly for the purpose of describing ore 

in lead mines (or zinc, especially in the case of the Valles 

Mines), because barite was never the focus of bedrock mining. Although barite is present in bedrock with lead and zinc, 

mining of barite only extended into bedrock when there was 

enough lead or zinc ore to justify the expense, with barite 

being a byproduct (Tarr, 1918). 

Most of the ore of the Southeast Missouri Barite District 

that is present in bedrock is one of two types of ore: (1) runs 

or channels described by Dake (1930), and also described by 

Buckley (1908) and Ball (1916) using different terminology; 

or (2) vertical crevice ore described by Ball (1916), and also 

described by Buckley (1908), Dake (1930), Weigel (1929), 

and Tarr (1918) using different terminology. Ore in bedrock 

at the Valles Mines seems to be similar to ore in bedrock in 

the Southeast Missouri Barite District, except for mineralogy. 

Winslow (1894) described ore in bedrock at several mines of 

the Valles Mines.

The runs, or channels, described by Dake (1930) are 

deposits with a greater horizontal than vertical extent, with the 

vertical extent ranging from 1 to 6 ft, and sometimes present 

in different levels. Dake (1930) stated that these were solution 

channels, sometimes called caves, that were rarely entirely 

filled and were presumably controlled by intersecting joints, 

and that most of the ore was this type. Buckley (1908) and 

Ball (1916) described these deposits as pipes or pipe veins. 

Ball (1916) stated that these are semi-cylindrical in form, 

follow horizontal bedding planes, and are 3 to 8 ft wide and 

average 6 inches (in.) thick. The semi-cylindrical form is 

the result of ore deposited at the intersection of a joint and a 

favorable bed (Ball, 1916). Minor pipes can lead off of main 

pipes at or close to a right angle, and systems of pipe veins can 

be present at several horizons. Winslow (1894) also used the 

term channel to describe horizontally aligned ore deposits at 

the Valles Mines. Kiilsgaard and others (1967) state that these 

deposits are relatively flat lying but thin, and extend over a 

large horizontal area.

The vertical crevice ore described by Ball (1916) consists 

of vertical, tabular deposits that pinch out with depth and 

form along joints. Cross-veinlets of ore form along secondary 

joints and cross the main joint at right angles; east-west and 

north-south crevices are the most common and can be present 

as sets along parallel joints. Buckley (1908) described these 

crevices as vertical channels (using the term channel differently than Dake [1930]) with a larger vertical than horizontal 

extent. Buckley (1908) states that the upper 100 to 150 ft of 

bedrock, particularly the Potosi Dolomite, was characterized 

by channels and other openings; the depth of mining, however, 

is reported to locally have been as deep as 250 ft, with barite 

present with galena (Tarr, 1918). This type of ore is probably 

what Dake (1930) described as fissures that are traceable for 

one-half of a mile or more, but are less important than the 

channel ore he described. The vertical crevice deposits are 

probably what Weigel (1929) and Tarr (1918) described as 

barite in veins; Tarr (1918) stated that most of the veins strike 

north-south. Winslow (1894) described vertical chimneys of 

ore at the Valles Mines.

Ball (1916) also described breccia-filling ore, which 

consists of vertical tabular masses of ore cementing either 

fault or solution breccia. Tarr (1918) also stated that barite 

cements breccia. Ore in bedrock is mostly open-space filling 

(Kaiser and others, 1987) and less commonly a replacement 

of the host dolomite (Buckley, 1908). In addition to the openspace mineralization in channels, crevices, and breccia, some 

disseminated mineralization is present in the host dolomite. 

Tarr (1918) described small masses of barite up to about 2 in. 

in size that fill vugs in the dolomite or replace it, and stated 
Geology of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 19

91°00' 90°30'

38°30'

38°00'

! ! !

!

! !!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!

!! !! !!

!

!!

!! ! !!!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

! !!!

!

!

!! !!! !

!

!

!!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!!!

!!

!

! !

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!!

##

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

! !

!

! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! ! !! ! !!!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

!!

!! !

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!!

!

!! ! !!! !!!! !

!

!! !

! !

! !

!

! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!!

! ! ! !

!

! !! !

! !

! ! !!

!

!

! ! !! !

!

!

! ! ! !

! !!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!!!!!

!

!!

!

!! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !!

!

!!

!

!

!! ! ! !!

!

!

!! !!! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!! !!

!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!

!!!!

! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !!!!!!!

!

!

!

!! !!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!! ! !

!!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

#

!

!

#

!

#

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

#

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!!!

! !

!

#

#

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

! !

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! ! !

!!!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

! !!

!!! !

!!

! ! ! !

!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !! ! ! !! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

! !

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !!

!

! !! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!!!! !!!

!

!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

#

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!!

!! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

!

!

! !

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

#

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

! !!

!

!! !

! !

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!!! !

!

!

! !!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

Meramec River

Big River

Big River

Mississippi River

INDIAN CREEK

SUBDISTRICT

VIBURNUM NO. 29 MINE

IRONDALE SUBDISTRICT

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

FRANKLIN COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Study area

ILLINOIS

! Barite without lead, zinc, or copper

! #

!

EXPLANATION

Lead, zinc, or copper without barite

Lead or zinc with barite

Iron with or without lead, zinc, or barite

[Mineralization shown in Missouri Geological Survey Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, 

and Prospects (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a)]

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Southeast Missouri Barite District boundary

Valles Mines boundary

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 6

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District (fig. 1)

Figure 6. The distribution and types of Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines ore mineralization, and 

locations in the study area of ore deposits of the Indian Creek Subdistrict, Irondale Subdistrict, and Viburnum No. 29 Mine in 

the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict in the Southeast Missouri Lead District.
20 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

that this is more abundant near the veins, which indicates a 

genetic relation to the veins. Some of this may be what Kaiser 

and others (1987) referred to when describing a preference 

for barite to fill vugs along stromatolite structures in the 

dolomite. 

Because galena, sphalerite, and barite are less soluble 

than dolomite, chemical weathering of the dolomite bedrock 

resulted in the concentration of ore minerals in the residuum, 

and most of the barite and lead mining was in the residuum. 

Some particularly early studies, for example Buckley (1908) 

and Dake (1930), suggested that there was not enough ore in 

the bedrock to account for the ore in the residuum and that the 

ore was therefore deposited by descending groundwater. At 

the time of writing, exposures of the bedrock were limited to 

natural outcroppings along streams, the bottom of barite and 

lead shafts in the residuum (many of which had been filled and 

were not accessible for study), and the small number of lead 

mines in bedrock (many of which were not accessible). Later 

open-pit mining of the residuum for barite resulted in better 

exposures of the bedrock surface and more observation of ore 

minerals in the bedrock, which has been judged to be abundant enough to account for the ore in the residuum (Wharton, 

1986). 

Various estimates of the thickness of the ore-bearing 

residuum have been made. Muilenburg (1957) estimated 

that the residuum ranges in thickness from a few inches to 

40 or 50 ft, with an average of 10 to 15 ft, whereas Schoolcraft (1819) stated that the earliest lead mines were normally 

15–20 ft deep in the residuum. Weigel (1929), describing 

the geology of barite deposits, stated that the richest barite is 

found on gentle slopes rather than at the top of hills, and that 

barite is seldom found in valleys. Barite and lead concentrations can be randomly distributed in the clay residuum or 

evenly distributed from top to bottom, but usually the richest 

ore was found at the bottom of the residuum near the bedrock surface (Muilenburg, 1957; Dake, 1930). Early miners 

recognized rich runs or leads of irregular shape and extent 

alternating with less rich or barren ground. These alterations 

have been interpreted, for example by Muilenburg (1957), 

as representing original concentrations in fractures or solution channels—removal of the dolomite by solution left the 

relatively insoluble ore in roughly the same position as it was 

in the dolomite. Hillside creep and slumping further distributed the ore over a somewhat wider area. Mechanical removal 

and distribution of ore minerals by erosion of the residuum is 

evidenced by the fact that some placer galena was recovered 

from streambeds in the early days of mining (Ball, 1916; Stoddard, 1804).

Drusy quartz is nearly always present in the Potosi Dolomite bedrock and its residuum, and is present as 0.5-millimeter 

(mm) to 5-centimeter (cm) quartz crystals on numerous thin 

layers of chalcedony (Wagner, 1973). Barite miners referred 

to drusy quartz as moory (Tarr, 1918) or mineral blossom 

(Thompson, 1995). It is widespread throughout Missouri in 

the Potosi Dolomite; was interpreted by Wagner (1973) and 

Kaiser and others (1987) to have been deposited following 

karstification that accompanied the development of unconformities, probably in Ordovician time; and is unrelated to baritelead mineralization. Chert replacement of dolomite is another 

form of silicification (Wagner, 1973).

Barite, known as tiff to the miners, varies in size from 

minute grains to large masses of as much as several hundred 

pounds but is more commonly in pieces from about 1 to about 

10 in. in size, with much of the finer material lost during 

processing (Dake, 1930; Weigel, 1929). Barite is present in a 

variety of forms for which a variety of local descriptive terms 

were used (Muilenburg, 1957). Ball tiff is a botryoidal form of 

barite with a radiating, bladed structure (Muilenburg, 1957). 

Chalk tiff is a finely crystalline aggregate of barite (Ball, 

1916). Other terms used are dry bone, sheep nose tiff, split tiff, 

spar, rock tiff, gravel tiff, and clay tiff (Muilenburg, 1957). 

Wagner (1973) described two major types of barite: white 

barite and clear barite. The white barite was deposited during 

the main stage of ore mineralization and forms fine to coarsely 

crystalline aggregates of blade-like crystals. The white color 

is the result of an abundance of fluid inclusions. Clear barite 

lacks fluid inclusions. Kaiser and others (1987) stated that 

clear barite was also known as glass tiff, but spar is the term 

Washington County miners used for clear barite, according to 

Muilenburg (1957); glass tiff was used by Central Missouri 

Barite District (fig. 1) miners to describe clear barite and was 

used by Washington County miners to describe calcite. The 

clear barite was both a late-stage hypogene mineral and a 

supergene mineral (Wagner, 1973; Kaiser and others, 1987).

Galena is present as cubes or aggregates of cubes, known 

as block mineral (Buckley, 1908) or cog lead (Dake, 1930); 

a lesser amount of octahedral galena is present. Ball (1916) 

stated that galena usually is present as small cubes disseminated in chalk tiff, and less so in ball tiff; however, galena was 

sometimes found in masses as large as several hundred pounds 

(Winslow, 1894). Wagner (1973) stated that galena is present 

in some areas and that sphalerite without galena is rare. He 

described sphalerite as layers and isolated clusters of black, 

greenish-black, light red, and tan crystals. Dake (1930) stated 

that sphalerite is not common and that there was not much 

recovery of sphalerite because it was difficult to separate from 

barite.

Oxidation of sulfide minerals to secondary minerals is 

mentioned in numerous places in the literature. Wagner (1973) 

stated that nearly all the sulfides in the residual deposits were 

weathered to some degree, and that fresh sulfides can be found 

10–15 ft into the underlying bedrock. Kaiser and others (1987) 

stated that that the district contains minor sulfides that are 

largely oxidized. Tarr (1918, p. 56) stated that galena “always 

shows evidence of attack by ground water,” that galena in 

residuum rarely shows crystal faces, and that there was a layer 

of gray or white cerussite in one-half of the specimens he 

observed. Ball (1916) stated that galena cubes commonly have 

rounded corners and corroded surfaces (evidence of leaching), 

and galena cubes are commonly partly altered to cerussite, 

which can be white and crystallized or a gray powder. He 

further stated that cerussite was for many years not recognized 
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 21

as an ore mineral and was thrown out on the mine dump. Dake 

(1930, p. 211), however, described cerussite as being present 

sparingly and stated that anglesite has been reported. Wagner 

(1973) stated that anglesite is widespread as thin, gray, earthy 

coatings on galena. Sphalerite is oxidized to smithsonite, 

which forms crusts on sphalerite, barite, and dolomite (Tarr, 

1918). Dake (1930) stated that most of the zinc production 

was from smithsonite. Zinc-ore minerals at the Valles Mines 

are mostly smithsonite (Kiilsgaard and others, 1967). Limonite 

is abundant as an alteration product of marcasite and pyrite, 

commonly coats barite and other minerals (Weigel, 1929), 

and may be pseudomorphous after marcasite or pyrite (Dake, 

1930; Wagner, 1973). 

Mineral Zoning and Structural and Stratigraphic 

Controls of Mineralization

 Wagner (1973) recognized barite textural zoning and 

mineralogic zoning in large, linear ore runs from about 1 to 

at least 6 mi long and from 200 yards (yd) to about 2.5 mi 

wide in the Southeast Missouri Barite District. Barite textural 

zoning consists of a central zone of coarsely crystalline barite 

that grades (or sometimes more abruptly changes) outward to 

a zone of finely crystalline barite. Mineralogic zoning coincides spatially with the barite-textural zoning, with sulfides 

concentrated mostly in the center of runs. Sphalerite is present 

in the central parts of runs; galena is more widespread but is 

more concentrated in the central parts of runs and is present in minor amounts in the outer parts of the runs. Zoning is 

centered on a controlling structure (a fault or concentration of 

joints) and complex zoning patterns may result from mineralization along intersecting structures. Wagner (1973) also 

recognized that individual ore deposits are not geologically 

isolated but are parts of ore runs. Residual ore deposits that 

were once part of a continuous ore run are isolated from each 

other by topographic lows where the ore deposit was removed 

by erosion. Also, an ore run may be longer than its surficial 

expression in the case where it extends in the subsurface, 

where it remains unweathered with no surficial expression.

Wagner (1973) interpreted the distribution of barite 

textural zones and mineralogic zones around faults and zones 

of joints as indicating structural and stratigraphic controls of 

mineralization, the combination of which created a plumbing system for the ore fluids. Ore fluids would have moved 

up from depth along faults and joints until they intersected 

permeable rock and migrated laterally. The zoning is a result 

of changing geochemical conditions with increasing distance 

from the controlling structures. The stratigraphic controls of 

ore mineralization were the unconformity-related open spaces 

in the dolomite that developed during an earlier dissolution 

(karstification) event (Kaiser and others, 1987; Wagner, 1986). 

These open spaces are solution vugs along stromatolite structures or laterally connected networks of fractures and solution 

cavities along bedding planes (Kaiser and others, 1987), where 

in many cases silica minerals had already been deposited. 

Mining History of the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District and the Valles 

Mines

Lead mining commenced in the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District and the Valles Mines before barite mining, and 

the production history of the two commodities is presented in 

this order. Lead-ore minerals and barite commonly are present 

together, and some deposits that were first mined for lead were 

later mined for barite, with lead sometimes recovered as a 

byproduct of barite mining. Zinc also was recovered at some 

mines but was mostly less important than lead. Zinc mining, 

processing, and production are discussed in the section on 

lead mining. Zinc was the most important commodity at the 

Valles Mines. Copper was recovered in a few mines. In the 

following review, each section has three subsections: (1) the 

development of mining, (2) mining and processing methods, 

and (3) mine production and losses during processing. Most 

of this section concerns the Southeast Missouri Barite District, 

but mention is made of the Valles Mines where appropriate. 

In addition, brief mention is made of the mining history at the 

Irondale, Indian Creek, and Viburnum Trend Subdistricts of 

the Southeast Missouri Lead District.

Lead Mining

Early lead mining in Missouri was by shallow diggings 

in surficial deposits, mostly in the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District and the Southeast Missouri Lead District, and later 

in central and southwestern Missouri. Because the development of mining in the Southeast Missouri Barite District is 

part of the broader development of mining in Missouri, limited 

mention is made in this report of mining in these other areas, 

particularly at Mine La Motte (fig. 1) of the Southeast Missouri Lead District, where some of the earliest mining took 

place. The distinction between the two districts is relevant for 

this report but was not during the time of early lead mining 

and early reports on lead mining because definitions of mining 

districts and subdistricts did not evolve until much later. 

The names of the early lead mines may be singular, such 

as Mine Renault, or plural, such as Old Mines, but both cases 

generally refer to multiple diggings (shafts). Most of the lead 

and zinc mines discussed in this section are shown in figure 7, 

and in most cases these are actually groups of mines covering 

several acres to several thousand acres (Dake, 1930). These 

mines are listed in table 2, which also shows the primary 

sources of information. Because reliable location data for 

some mines are not available, either because of the age of the 

mines or because different sources give different locations or 

no locations, some mines discussed in this section are shown 

in figure 7 only approximately or not at all.

There were many more lead mines than are described in 

this section. This section describes only those mines that seem 

to be the principal mines by virtue of production or longevity 
22 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

91°00' 90°30'

38°30'

38°00'

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

# #

#

#

#

######

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

## ##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# #

# #

#

# #

#

#

# # # # #

##

# ### #

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

## #

# #

# ##

# # #

#

# # ## #

#

##

#

#

##

# #

## # # # #

#

# ##

# #

#

#

# #

#

# # # # ##

#

#

##

# ##

## # #

#

#

#

##

#

### # ##

# ##

#

# #

#

# ## #

# # ## # ## #

#

#

# #

#

#####

# #

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# # # #

#

#

#

# # #

##

#

#

# #

#

# #

# # # # #

# # # #

##

#

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

## # # # ##

#

#

# #

###

#

#

#

#

### # ##

# # # ## # # #

# # #

# ##

# # #

##

###

# #

##

#

##

##

# #

## #

#

#

#

# ### ## ####

# ##

# #

#

# # # # # ## #

#

# # ####

#

# #

# # #

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

###

## #

#

####

# ##

##

#

##

## #

#

#

# #

# # #

# # #

#

#

#

### #

#

#

# ###

# #

#

#

#

# #

# ##

## #

##

# # ##

#

#

#

## #

# ##

# # ## # #

##

### ## #

#####

###

# #

# ###

# ## # #

# #

#

##

#

#

## # #

## #

## # #

#

#

# #

###

# # # #

#

#

# #

#

##

#

# ## #

# # # ## # # #

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

! ! !

!

! !!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!

!! !! !!

#

!!

!! !!

!

!

!

!! !

!!!! !!

!!

! !

!!

!

!! !!!

!

!

!

!!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !!!!

!

!

"

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

" "

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!!!!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

" "

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

" !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

"

!

#

! !

!

#

#

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

!!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !!!!!!!

!

!

!

!! !!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!! ! !

!!! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

#

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

# !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!!!

! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!!

! !!

!

!

!

! !!

!!! !

!!

! ! ! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !! ! ! !! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!!!!!!!! !!!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

# !

!

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!! !

!

#

!

!

! !

!!

!

! !!

!

!! !

! !

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!!! !

!

! !!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

(

INDIAN CREEK

SUBDISTRICT

VIBURNUM NO. 29 MINE

IRONDALE SUBDISTRICT

1

2

4

9

6

7

5

8

3

81

49

59

53

48

58

51

42

52

56

10

54

16

30 39

20

71 79

69

77

61

45

70

60

41

73

11

13

72

66

24

50

21 33

55

40

62

64

29

78

76

18

12

44

36

27

65

46

25

67

37

68

47

22

15

14

80

34

35

17

75 32

28

31

43

57

74

19

23

63

38

26

Palmer Mines

Richwoods 

 Mines

Valles Mines

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

FRANKLIN COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Study area

ILLINOIS

Big River

Meramec River

Big River

Mississippi River

Lead

EXPLANATION

Zinc

Copper

Iron

Primary metal mined—Missouri Geological Survey 

Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, and Prospects 

(Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a)

#

!

!

"

#

!(

Lead mine (Washington County 

only) shown in Ball (1916)

Mine and mine number (table 2), 

described in this report

2

0 5 10

0 5 10 MILES

KILOMETERS

Southeast Missouri Barite District boundary

Valles Mines boundary

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 7

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead 

District (fig. 1)

Figure 7. Locations of mines of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines where lead, zinc, or copper was the 

primary metal recovered; locations of mines of the Indian Creek Subdistrict, Irondale Subdistrict, and Viburnum No. 29 Mine 

in the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict in the Southeast Missouri Lead District within the study area; and locations of iron mines 

within the study area.
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 23

Table 2. Lead and zinc mine names, districts, and references for mine information and location (described or mentioned in this report) 

in the Southeast Missouri Barite District, Valles Mines, and the Southeast Missouri Lead District.

[Mine references are for mine information or location; IMOP, Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, and Prospects (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 

2015a)]

Mine 

number 

(fig. 7)

Mine name Mining district or area Mine reference

1 Austin’s Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Stoddard (1804); Hearthstone Legacy Publications (2004); Showalter 

(1963); Gracy (1992); Park (2006)

2 Bellefontaine Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Showalter (1963); Winslow (1894); IMOP

3 Benning’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930)

4 Bisch’s Mines Valles Mines Litton (1855); Winslow (1894); Parizek (1949); Park (2006); IMOP

5 Bisch and Daly Mines Valles Mines Swallow (1859); IMOP

6 Bit Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Dake (1930); IMOP

7 Bluff Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Dake (1930); IMOP

8 Bogy’s Diggings Valles Mines Swallow (1855); Winslow (1894); IMOP

9 Brock Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

10 Cannon’s Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Park (2006); IMOP

11 Casey and Clancey’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855)

12 Coffee-Pot Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Dake (1930); IMOP

13 Cook’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855)

14 Corn Stalk Diggings Valles Mines Winslow (1894); Parizek (1949); Park (2006); IMOP

15 Darby Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Winslow (1894); IMOP

16 Elliot’s Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Showalter (1963); IMOP

17 Eversole Mine Southeast Missouri Lead District IMOP

18 Flint Hill Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Dake (1930); IMOP

19 Forker Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930); IMOP

20 French Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Park (2006); Winslow (1894); Burford (1978)

21 Frissel’s Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); IMOP

22 Frumet Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Winslow (1894); IMOP

23 Furnace Creek Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930); IMOP

24 Garatee Mines Valles Mines Winslow (1894); Parizek (1949); IMOP

25 Garrity and Butcher’s Diggings Valles Mines Swallow (1859); IMOP

26 Goose Creek Mine Southeast Missouri Lead District Hagni (1995); Kiilsgaard and others (1967); IMOP

27 Gopher Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859)

28 Grainger Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930); IMOP

29 Grave-Yard Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Dake (1930)

30 Gray’s Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); Burford (1978); IMOP

31 Gulf Prospect Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930); IMOP

32 Heffner Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930); IMOP

33 Howe’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); IMOP

34 Indian Creek Mine Southeast Missouri Lead District Hagni (1995); Kiilsgaard and others (1967); IMOP

35 Irondale Mine Southeast Missouri Lead District Buckley (1908); IMOP

36 Ismael Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Dake (1930)

37 Kelly’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); IMOP

38 Krueger Mine Southeast Missouri Barite District Ballinger (1948); Ligasacchi (1959); IMOP

39 La Beaume Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Winslow (1894); Burford (1978); IMOP

40 Lee’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); IMOP

41 Lupton Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

42 Mammoth Mine Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); State Historical Society 

of Missouri (2013); Park (2006); IMOP

43 Masson Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930); IMOP

44 Maury Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855)

45 McCormack Diggings Valles Mines Litton (1855);Winslow (1894); IMOP

46 McCormick’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); IMOP

47 Miller’s Diggings Valles Mines Swallow (1859); IMOP
24 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Table 2. Lead and zinc mine names, districts, and references for mine information and location (described or mentioned in this report) 

in the Southeast Missouri Barite District, Valles Mines, and the Southeast Missouri Lead District.—Continued

[Mine references are for mine information or location; IMOP, Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, and Prospects (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 

2015a)]

Mine 

number 

(fig. 7)

Mine name Mining district or area Mine reference

48 Mine a Breton Southeast Missouri Barite District Stoddard (1804); Schoolcraft (1819); Dake (1930); Winslow (1894); 

Showalter (1963); Hearthstone Legacy Publications (2004); Park 

(2006); Carrollscorner.net (n.d.)

49 Mine a Liberty Southeast Missouri Barite District Schoolcraft (1819); Winslow (1894); Park (2006)

50 Mine a Martin Southeast Missouri Barite District Schoolcraft (1819); Winslow (1894)

51 Mine a Robina Southeast Missouri Barite District Stoddard (1804); Schoolcraft (1819); Winslow (1894); Park (2006)

52 Mine a Straddle Southeast Missouri Barite District Winslow (1894); Showalter (1963); Park (2006)

53 Mine Renault Southeast Missouri Barite District Stoddard (1804); Schoolcraft (1819); Winslow (1894); Ekberg and others 

(1981); Showalter (1963); Park (2006); IMOP

54 Mine Silvers Southeast Missouri Barite District Schoolcraft (1819); Park (2006)

55 Nashville Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); IMOP

56 New Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Schoolcraft (1819); Litton (1855); Park (2006); IMOP

57 N. Wool Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930); IMOP

58 Old Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Stoddard (1804); Winslow (1894); Showalter (1963); Park (2006); Dake 

(1930); Burford (1978)

59 Parole Mine Southeast Missouri Barite District Winslow (1894); IMOP

60 Pierce and Willoughby’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

61 Perry’s Mine Valles Mines Litton (1855); Winslow (1894); Parizek (1949); IMOP

62 Pigeon Roost Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

63 Plaffy Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Dake (1930); IMOP

64 Polecat Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

65 Poston and Tyler’s Mines Valles Mines Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); IMOP

66 Prairie Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

67 Robinson’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); IMOP

68 Rocky Diggings Valles Mines Swallow (1859); IMOP

69 Sandy Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); IMOP

70 Scott and Bee Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

71 Shibboleth Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Schoolcraft (1819); Litton (1855); Winslow (1894); Burford (1978); 

Showalter (1963); Park (2006); IMOP

72 Shore’s Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Winslow (1894); IMOP

73 Sixteenth Section Mines Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

74 Smith Diggings (1 of 2) Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

75 Smith Diggings (2 of 2) Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

76 Strawberry Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); Park (2006); IMOP

77 Tarpley Mines Valles Mines Litton (1855); Swallow (1859); Winslow (1894); Parizek (1949); Park 

(2006); IMOP

78 Trash Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Litton (1855); IMOP

79 Valles Mines (proper) Valles Mines Litton (1855); Winslow (1894); Valles Mines, Missouri, USA (2016); Park 

(2006); State Historical Society of Missouri (2013); Parizek (1949); 

Kiilsgaard and others (1967)

80 Viburnum No. 29 Mine Southeast Missouri Lead District Seeger (2008)

81 Yankee Diggings Southeast Missouri Barite District Swallow (1859); IMOP
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 25

or by being described in the literature rather than just mentioned, and most of the literature references state that there 

were more mines than they could mention. To present a more 

comprehensive, yet still incomplete, portrayal of the scope 

of lead mining in the study area, figure 7 also shows lead and 

zinc mines that are in the MGS IMOP database and the mines 

shown in Ball’s (1916) sketch map of lead mines, which he 

stated shows many but not all mines. The IMOP database is 

not complete, given the age of the mining and incomplete 

record keeping, and there are some mines listed in literature sources that have not yet been examined for the IMOP 

database (Cheryl Seeger, Missouri Geological Survey, written 

commun., June 14, 2016).

Development of Lead Mining

French missionaries and explorers were the first to 

encounter lead mines in Missouri, when the region was part 

of the French-controlled Louisiana Territory. Father James 

Gravier, a missionary priest, wrote an account of his voyage 

in 1700 and mentioned a rich lead mine along the Meramec 

River (Burford, 1978). At about the same time, Pierre Charles 

LeSeur led the first mineral exploration of the Mississippi 

River valley and learned of lead mines along the Meramec 

River that were worked by Native Americans. Although lead 

deposits are present along the Meramec River and its tributaries in Franklin, Crawford, and Washington Counties, these 

reports may have been referring to the Big River (Park, 2006), 

which is a major tributary of the Meramec River and drains 

parts of the Southeast Missouri Barite District, the Valles 

Mines, and the Southeast Missouri Lead District (fig. 1).

In 1712, King Louis XIV granted a royal charter to 

Anthony Crozat, giving him exclusive rights to commerce, 

including minerals, and appointed Sieur Antoine de La Motte 

Cadillac Governor of the Territory (Park, 2006). Claude 

DuTisne followed a Native American trail through Washington 

County in 1714 and returned with samples of lead ore, but 

mine development did not immediately follow. In 1715, La 

Motte led an expedition into Madison County that resulted 

in the discovery of lead ore at what would become Mine La 

Motte (fig. 1), one of the major subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri Lead District where lead ore was mined from 

the lower Bonneterre Formation and locally from the upper 

Lamotte Sandstone (fig. 3) until 1959; however, Crozat went 

bankrupt and relinquished his charter, La Motte returned to 

France, and the lead ores at Mine La Motte were not developed until several years later (Park, 2006).

Following Crozat’s bankruptcy, the Company of the West 

was formed in 1717 to promote the development of the Louisiana Territory, and claims were made of the mineral wealth 

in the Territory to encourage emigration from France. Lead 

was mined by Sieur de Renaudiere in 1719 along Old Mines 

Creek (fig. 2) where cabins were built, known as Cabanage 

de Renaudiere (not shown in figure 2; Burford, 1978; Showalter, 1963). This prompted further immigration to the Territory, including a prospecting expedition in 1719–20 by the 

Company of St. Philippe, a subsidiary of the Royal Company 

of the Indies, which was formed by the merger of the Company of the West with the Company of the Indies (Park, 2006). 

This expedition was led by Philippe Francois Renault, who 

left France with workmen and reportedly purchased slaves 

in Santo Domingo (Showalter, 1963), although this has been 

disputed (Ekberg and others, 1981). Prospecting parties, led by 

Renault and La Motte, who had prospected the Territory earlier, were sent out from the French settlement of Kaskaskia (in 

what is now Illinois) on the Mississippi River. The result was 

the discovery of lead and the development of lead mines in the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District at Mine Renault (fig. 7 and 

table 2; also called Forche a Renault Mine, located somewhere 

near the headwaters of Mineral Fork, perhaps along Fourche 

a Renault Creek [Ekberg and others, 1981; Park, 2006]) and 

at Old Mines (together, these two are sometimes called the 

Meramec Mines or the Mineral Fork Mines [Park, 2006]); at 

other places along the Big River, Mineral Fork, and Forche a 

Renault Creek (Showalter, 1963); in the Southeast Missouri 

Lead District at Mine a Gerbora (Winslow, 1894; Burford, 

1978; not shown on fig. 7); and at the previously discovered 

Mine La Motte (fig. 1). The development of these mines, 

which consisted of shallow diggings in the surficial residuum, 

began the first period of sustained lead mining in Missouri 

(Burford, 1978). Referring to Old Mines, Dake (1930, p. 215) 

stated “The area embraced in this group...covers several 

square miles, and the number of individual shafts and pits 

was very great.” By 1725, about 1,500 pounds (lb) per day 

of lead were smelted into pigs and carried by pack horses 

from mines in Washington County to Ste. Genevieve on the 

Mississippi River for shipment to France (Showalter, 1963). 

Permanent settlements were not established at these mines at 

this time, but a settlement was established at Ste. Genevieve 

(Burford, 1978). Although the Royal Company of the Indies 

was bankrupt by 1731 and lost its charter, Renault continued 

to mine until 1744 when, because of lack of funds and attacks 

by Native Americans, he returned to France with most of his 

workers. 

Lead mining continued sporadically after the closure of 

Renault’s mines until the end of the 18th century (Winslow, 

1894). Some miners remained after Renault’s departure, particularly at Old Mines and Ste. Genevieve, and probably operated farms during the growing season and worked the mines 

at other times at the already developed mining areas of Old 

Mines, Mine La Motte, and Mine a Gerbora (Winslow, 1894); 

and at Bonne Terre (fig. 2) and Mine a Joe (Park, 2006; Mine 

a Gerbora, Bonneterre, and Mine a Joe are located in what 

would become the Old Lead Belt and are not shown in fig. 7). 

Park (2006) stated that 100,000 lb of lead were produced from 

the Meramec Mines in 1752. In 1762, France ceded land holdings on the east side of the Mississippi (not including New 

Orleans, Louisiana) to England and ceded land holdings on 

the west side of the Mississippi to Spain. Many French settlers 

east of the Mississippi migrated west to what is now Missouri, 

preferring Spanish rule to British rule. Mining by the French 

continued under Spanish rule, including renewed mining at 
26 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Mine La Motte by Francois Valle in about 1763 (Park, 2006). 

Valle had migrated from Quebec to Kaskaskia and later built 

a cabin at what is now Valles Mines (figs. 2 and 7) in 1749 to 

buy lead from Native Americans who mined it in the area. The 

Valles Mines would later become an important zinc and lead 

mining area. 

As early as 1760 but perhaps between 1775 and 1780 

(Park, 2006), Francis Azor, called The Breton because of his 

birthplace in Brittany, France, and Peter Boyer discovered lead 

at the surface at what would become known as Mine a Breton 

(fig. 7 and table 2; sometimes written as Mine a Burton), but 

the name later changed to Potosi (Showalter, 1963; Carrollscorner.net, n.d.; Hearthstone Legacy Publications, 2004; Park, 

2006). Other settlers came and a mining camp developed along 

the south side of what would be named Mine Breton Creek, 

which flows through Potosi, and on the hill known as The Citadel. Mine a Breton became a larger center of mining activity 

than Mine La Motte, covered an area of several thousand acres 

with many shafts (Dake, 1930), and a road was built from Mine 

a Breton to Ste. Genevieve in 1791 (Park, 2006) to transport 

lead for shipment to New Orleans. Ore was discovered at Mine 

a Robina (fig. 7 and table 2) at about the same time as the 

discovery at Mine a Breton (Winslow, 1894). Winslow (1894) 

stated that Mines a Layne and Mine a Maneto in St. Francois 

County and Mine a La Platte in southeastern Washington 

County, all of which are probably in the Southeast Missouri 

Lead District and are not shown in figure 7 or listed in table 2, 

were started in the last few years of the 19th century.

A major advancement in lead mining in Missouri happened with the arrival of Moses Austin, an American, who 

transformed lead mining from a seasonal endeavor carried 

out between the end of the harvest and winter to a year-round 

industry (Burford, 1978; Gracy, 1992). Austin was originally from Connecticut and had been operating lead mines in 

Virginia, when he heard of the rich lead deposits in Missouri. 

He visited Missouri in 1797, obtained a land grant from the 

Spanish Government of more than 6,000 acres northwest 

of Potosi, including a large part of Azor’s previous grant at 

Mine a Breton, moved his family to Mine a Breton in 1798 

to become the first permanent white settlers in Potosi (still 

called Mine a Breton at that time), and built a large home there 

in 1799 (Showalter, 1963; Hearthstone Legacy Publications, 

2004). In describing Mine a Breton, Austin stated “The mines 

may be said to extend over two thousand acres of land; but the 

principal workings are within the limits of one hundred and 

sixty acres; and perhaps no part of the world furnishes lead 

ore in greater quantities and purity” (Stoddard, 1804, p. 189). 

Until this time, most of the ore in the district was dug from 

shallow diggings, usually only 10 ft deep or less (Winslow, 

1894). A shaft was sunk to a depth of 80 ft in 1799 at Austin’s 

Mines (fig. 7 and table 2) and a shot tower was erected about 

1 mi northwest of Potosi (Hearthstone Legacy Publications, 

2004; a shot tower is a tall structure from which molten lead 

was dropped into a pool of water, forming spheres of lead that 

were used as shot in firearms). Austin also established the port 

town of Herculaneum on the Mississippi River in 1809 (fig. 2) 

and built a shot tower there. Most of the lead produced in 

Potosi and surrounding areas was shipped over a newly built 

road to Herculaneum for shipment down the Mississippi River 

(Park, 2006). 

Spain transferred ownership of the Louisiana Territory 

back to France in 1801, who shortly thereafter sold the Territory to the United States in 1803 as the Louisiana Purchase. 

This prompted Austin’s 1804 report to Congress on the 

condition of mining in the area (Stoddard, 1804) in which 

four mines of the Southeast Missouri Barite District (Mine 

a Breton, Mine a Robina [referred to as Robuna in Stoddard, 1804], Old Mines, and Mine Renault; fig. 7 and table 2) 

and six mines of the Southeast Missouri Lead District are 

described. A leasing system was instituted by the U.S. Government in 1807 by which land was leased for as many as 3 years 

with a 10-percent royalty paid to the Government. This system 

was not welcomed by those with previously valid mining 

claims, and others ignored both property rights and government regulations, with the result that mine productivity lagged 

for several years (Park, 2006; Burford, 1978). Still, other 

mines in the Southeast Missouri Barite District were developed in the early part of the 19th century, including mines at 

Fourche a Courtois in southwestern Washington County (also 

known as the Palmer Mines or the Shirley-Palmer area); the 

French Diggings and La Beaume Mines at what would become 

known as the Richwoods Mines in northeastern Washington 

County; the Shibboleth Mines, Mine a Straddle, Bellefontaine 

Mines, Elliot’s Mines, Cannon’s Mines, and Mine a Martin in 

Washington County; Gray’s Mines in Jefferson County; and 

others (Burford, 1978; Showalter, 1963; Winslow, 1894; fig. 7 

and table 2).

In describing the state of the lead mines of the region (all 

of southeastern Missouri, but particularly Washington County) 

in 1819, Schoolcraft (1819, p. 21) stated that the mines were 

“worked in a more improved manner than at any former 

period,” “are more extensive than when the country came into 

the hands of the United States,” that “every season is adding 

to the number of mines,” that “the ores may be considered of 

the richest kind,” that “we cannot resist the belief that in riches 

and extent, the mines of Missouri are paralleled by no other 

mineral district of the world,” and describes the region as 

“the land of ores—the country of minerals.” He listed 39 lead 

mines in Washington County as of 1819, of which the most 

noted and extensive mines are Mine a Burton (Breton; apparently this includes Moses Austin’s mines), Shibboleth Mines, 

La Beaume Mines (Richwoods Mines), Old Mines, Mine a 

Robina, Mine a Straddle, Mine Renault, New Diggings, Mine 

a Liberty, Cannon’s Mines, Mine Silvers, and Mine a Martin 

(fig. 7 and table 2). Schoolcraft (1819) included the Palmer 

(Forche a Cortois) mines (fig. 7) in his list of 39 mines in 

Washington County, but did not include them in his list of 

the most noted and extensive mines in Washington County. 

There had been a rush to the Palmer area in 1814 and dozens 

of small lead mines were opened over a large area. Schoolcraft 

(1819) noted the presence of zinc ore and tiff (barite) in some 

of these 39 mines. 
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 27

Winslow (1894) stated that lead production in the years 

from 1820 to 1830 was probably about the same as in the 

preceding years, with some increase in the latter part of the 

decade because of an increase in the import duty for lead. 

Deposits were discovered and mining was initiated at Sandy 

Mines in Jefferson County and at mines of the Valles Mines 

(Bisch’s Mine, Perry’s Mine, and the Valles Mines [proper]) 

in northern St. Francois County (fig. 7 and table 2; Winslow, 

1894). The literature on the Valles Mines is unclear—the mining area is named after Francois Valle who came to the area in 

1749 to buy lead from Native Americans, but it is unclear if 

any mines were operated at that time. Instead, Valle operated 

the Mine La Motte mines about 30 mi to the south (fig. 1). 

Although Litton (1855) and Winslow (1894) stated that the 

first mining at Valles Mines (probably meaning the Valles 

Mines [proper]) began in 1824, the Valles Mining Company 

records state that there was earlier mining followed by the 

sinking of a shaft in about 1819, that a major discovery of lead 

there and at the Mammoth Mine (fig. 7 and table 2) several 

miles to the northwest led to the sinking of other shafts, and 

that “Valles Mines became one of the most significant areas 

of lead production in the state, as well as one of the most 

long-lived” (State Historical Society of Missouri, 2013). Zinc 

became a valuable resource after the Civil War, and the Valles 

Mines became an important supplier of zinc as well as lead, 

with at least some production up until the 1920’s. Other mines 

that began production in the 1820’s are the McCormick Mines 

(McCormick’s Diggings) and Nashville Mines in Jefferson 

County (Winslow, 1894; fig. 7 and table 2). The Palmer Mines 

had grown into an important mining area and by 1831 Palmer 

was a community of 200 miners (Winslow, 1894). Mining 

continued there into the early 1900’s, including the mining 

of zinc ore in the latter years after the value of zinc had been 

realized.

The period from 1830 to 1850 was a period of increased 

lead production in the Southeast Missouri Barite District and 

elsewhere in southeastern Missouri, and saw the discovery 

of lead and initiation of lead mining in southwestern Missouri (Tri-State District) in 1848 (Winslow, 1894; Park, 2006; 

fig. 1). Winslow (1894) stated that new mines in Jefferson 

County include Howe’s Diggings, Frissel’s Mines, Tarpley 

Mines (of the Valles Mines), Lee’s Diggings, and Mammoth 

Mines (the Valles Mining Company records place the initiation 

of mining at the Mammoth Mines several years earlier [State 

Historical Society of Missouri, 2013]; fig. 7 and table 2). 

Winslow (1894) also mentioned several other mines that were 

being worked during that period: Perry’s Mine and Bisch’s 

Mine, both of the Valles Mines, in St. Francois County; and 

Old Mines, Shibboleth Mines, the Casey and Clancey’s Diggings, Shore’s Diggings, La Beaume Mines, French Diggings 

(fig. 7 and table 2), and the Fourche a Courtois Mines (Palmer 

Mines) in Washington County (fig. 7). 

During the period from 1850 to 1860 lead mining activity 

increased in the Tri-State District and continued in the southeastern part of the State (Winslow, 1894). The status of lead 

mining in Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties in 

the mid-1800’s is provided by Litton (1855), who visited and 

described many, but not all, of the mines in the district, and by 

Swallow (1859), who compiled data from Litton (1855) and 

others. Litton (1855) and Swallow (1859) described the depths 

of shafts at some mines, apparently using the term shaft to 

include a range of depths, from shallow pits (diggings) a few 

feet deep to shafts in rock more than 100 ft deep. 

Litton (1855) described the lead mining in Washington 

County to have been almost uninterrupted since it began and 

to have taken place throughout most of the county. He stated 

that it would not be possible to describe all of the mining up to 

that time, that Washington County “may be considered as one 

extensive lead diggings,” and that “there is scarcely a township 

on which there has not been, at some period, more or less mining and, perhaps, scarcely a section on which mineral has not 

been actually found” (Litton, 1855, p. 41). He provided brief 

descriptions of a number of mines that he visited or for which 

he could obtain reliable information, and stated that it is was 

just a small list of the places where mining had taken place. 

Litton (1855) also gave some production figures. Most of the 

mines that he described are located on figure 7 and listed in 

table 2. The Old Mines concession (Old Mines) was one of the 

first mining areas in Missouri, dating back to the early 1700’s. 

Mining was still active in 1854, with about 20 shafts as deep 

as 60 ft. The Shibboleth Mines, which had first been worked in 

the early 1800’s, were still being worked in 1854 with shafts 

as deep as 50 ft over an area about 0.75 mi long northwest to 

southeast and about 0.25 mi wide. The Bellefontaine Mines, 

which also began in the early 1800’s, were in an area of about 

40 acres with shafts as deep as 75 ft, although most of the 

mining may have been in the residuum. The Cannon Mines, 

which also date back to the early 1800’s, extended for about 

1.5 mi north-south by about 0.75 mi east-west, with most of 

the ore coming from the residuum at depths up to 15 ft. The 

Scott and Bee Diggings covered about 160 acres, with shafts as 

deep as 65 ft. Litton (1855) stated that there was little mining 

being done at that time in the immediate vicinity of Potosi, 

but the Potosi Lead Company began a mining operation for a 

short time in 1853, consisting of an open cut and several shafts. 

Previous mining at Burt’s Diggings west of Potosi (not on fig. 7 

or listed in table 2) left an area covered with holes; a little mining was still being done in 1855 from two shafts in the rock, 

as much as 55 ft deep. A short distance southwest of Potosi 

was the Pierce and Willoughby’s Diggings, on about 10 acres 

of Moses Austin’s original land grant. Mining had taken place 

over the years and was being conducted in 1855 from a 110-ftdeep shaft. Mining at New Diggings, previously described by 

Schoolcraft (1819), was over an area of about 0.25 mi eastwest by about 0.5 mi north-south and was still active in 1854. 

Lupton Diggings extended about a 0.5 mi north-south by about 

150 yd wide, with the deepest shaft being 79 ft deep (fig. 7 and 

table 2). Adjacent to this was mining in the Sixteenth Section 

Mines, which consisted of 7 shafts an average of about 64 ft 

deep and with drifting up to 300 ft, described by Litton (1855) 

as more extensive than at most points in Washington County. 

Casey and Clancey’s Diggings, which extended over an area 
28 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

about 0.5 mile east-west by a 0.25 mi north-south, previously 

had two shafts that were 90 ft deep, but mining was being 

conducted at shallower depths in 1855. To the east was Cook’s 

Diggings, with shafts just 20 ft deep. The Brock Diggings, 

which covered about 10 acres and had not been worked since 

1841, were in the residuum only. Shore’s Diggings consisted 

of several shafts as deep as 100 ft, with drifts up to 160 ft long. 

The Prairie Diggings consisted of five or six shafts from 28 to 

40 ft deep. Shafts of the Elliot’s Mines were up to 60 ft deep, 

and at least some of the mining was in rock. Litton (1855) 

mentioned, but did not describe, that there were several mines 

along both sides of Forche a Renault Creek and that two sections were covered with shafts, but more precise locations are 

lacking. 

Litton (1855) listed 23 mines of the Fourche a Courtois 

(Palmer) Mines over a large area in the southwestern part 

of Washington County (fig. 7) and provides descriptions of 

several of these: the Ismael Diggings (the most productive in 

recent years), the Pigeon Roost Diggings and Trash Diggings 

(also very productive), the Strawberry Diggings (on the same 

ridge as the Pigeon Roost and Trash Diggings), the Flint Hill 

Diggings and Bit Diggings (on the same ridge as each other), 

Bluff Diggings, Polecat Diggings, Coffee-Pot Diggings, 

Maury Diggings, and Grave-Yard Diggings (fig. 7 and table 2). 

The Palmer area in southwestern Washington County was 

an important mining area for a number of years, mentioned 

first by Schoolcraft (1819) and continued to be important 

for many more years. The MGS IMOP database lists about 

180 lead, zinc, or lead and zinc past producers in the Palmer 

area (fig. 7), exceeding the 23 mines listed by Litton (1855). 

Dake (1930) presented a map showing the location of 94 lead 

diggings (these locations also are in the MGS IMOP database) 

and several barite mines in the Palmer area. Although there 

were as many as 200 miners in the Palmer area in 1831, there 

were only about 30 miners employed in 1855 (Litton, 1855). 

Mining was in the residuum and rock, and shafts were as deep 

as 146 ft (Winslow, 1894). 

Litton (1855, p. 53) stated that lead mining had been 

active at the Richwoods Mines for the previous 40 years and 

that “the points at which mining has been carried on are very 

many.” Included in this is the La Beaume Mines (fig. 7 and 

table 2), active since the early 1800’s and covering an area of 

about 30 acres; mining was as deep as 80 ft, although most 

of the mining was from 6 to 20 ft deep. Also included in the 

Richwoods Mines is the French Diggings (fig. 7 and table 2), 

also dating back to the early 1800’s. Litton (1855) stated 

that these mines had not been worked in recent years but 

had yielded abundantly from shallow diggings prior to 1843. 

Other diggings in the area are briefly mentioned. The mines 

described by Litton (1855) were listed, without description, by 

Swallow (1859). 

Three mines were described by Litton (1855) as being the 

principal mines in Jefferson County: Sandy Mines, Mammoth 

Mine, and Tarpley Mines (of the Valles Mines) (fig. 7 and table 

2). Mining at the Sandy Mines was along a line nearly 1 mi 

in length, first as diggings in the clay residuum and later in 

the rock. A cross section of the Sandy Mines in Litton (1855) 

shows several shafts, and the depth of mining was as great 

as 115 ft. The MGS IMOP database indicates that there were 

more than 100 shafts by 1863. This mine is an outlier with 

respect to most of the mines of the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District; it is in the Jefferson City or Cotter Dolomites or both 

(fig. 3), rather than the Potosi or Eminence Dolomites, which 

host most of the ore. Litton (1855) showed a cross section of 

the Mammoth Mine with a single shaft that is over 60 ft deep, 

and the length of the mining was given as more than 530 ft. 

Mining had been inactive there since 1852. The Mammoth 

Mine plots in the outcrop area of the Gasconade Dolomite 

and is therefore also in rocks younger than most Southeast 

Missouri Barite District ore deposits. The Tarpley Mines had 

several shafts, the deepest of which was 180 ft. Lead mining 

was more widespread in Jefferson County than is indicated 

by the three principal mines described by Litton (1855). The 

MGS IMOP database has many more lead mines, and Swallow 

(1859) listed 42 mostly previously worked mines in Jefferson 

County, including the three described by Litton (1855), and 

provided brief descriptions of 19 of these mines: the Gopher 

Mines, Mammoth Mine, Sandy Mines, Howe’s Diggings, Yankee Diggings, McCormick’s Diggings (different than nearby 

McCormack Diggings in St. Francois County), Lee’s Diggings, Robinson’s Diggings, Kelly’s Diggings, Frissel’s Mines, 

Nashville Mines, Gray’s Mines, and the following mines of the 

Valles Mines: Poston and Tyler’s Mines, Tarpley Mines, Garrity and Butcher’s Diggings, Bisch and Daly Mines (different 

than the nearby Bisch’s Mines in St. Francois County), Bogy’s 

Diggings, Rocky Diggings, and Miller’s Diggings (fig. 7 and 

table 2). In addition to these mines, Parizek (1949) included 

the Garatee Mines and the Corn Stalk Diggings in Jefferson 

County as part of the Valles Mines (fig. 7 and table 2). Winslow 

(1894) also described the Garatee Mines.

The principal mines in St. Francois County described by 

Litton (1855) are mines of the Valles Mines: the Valles Mines 

(proper), Perry’s Mine, Bisch’s Mines, and the McCormack 

Diggings (fig. 7 and table 2). The Valles Mines (proper), Perry’s Mine, and Bisch’s Mines were on contiguous properties 

in northern St. Francois County, apparently mining the same 

deposit on about 50 acres. There were at least 30 shafts at 

these 3 mines by 1855, the deepest of which was 170 ft. Litton 

(1855, p. 34) described the Valles Mine (proper) and Perry’s 

Mine as “more generally known than any other lead mines in 

Missouri; known, not only on account of the length of time 

during which mining has been carried on, but also by the large 

amount of ore which has been obtained.” The McCormack 

Diggings (different than McCormick’s Diggings in Jefferson 

County) consisted of 65-ft- and 85-ft-deep shafts in 1855. 

Referring to Missouri in general, Litton (1855) stated 

that zinc is found with lead, particularly at Perry’s Mine, and 

that zinc is the most abundant ore metal at many localities. 

The potential for zinc had not yet been fully realized, although 

Litton (1855) speculated that the use of zinc oxide as a paint 

pigment and other emerging uses of zinc could create greater 

demand for the metal. 
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 29

The lead mines in southeastern Missouri continued to 

operate during the Civil War, though at reduced production. 

Winslow (1894) specifically mentioned the Valles Mines 

(proper) in St. Francois County and the Darby Mines in Jefferson County as having continued to operate during this period, 

along with some other mines. The state of lead mining in the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District for the next 30 or 40 years 

is uncertain. Showalter (1963) stated that surface lead deposits 

in Washington County ran out at the close of the Civil War and 

that lead mining and smelting declined as the barite industry 

began to develop. Buckley (1908) stated the production in 

Washington County decreased from 1869 to 1906. Winslow 

(1894, p. 677), however, referring to the “Washington-Jefferson County Sub-District” in which he includes northern 

St. Francois County and Crawford County, stated that lead 

production had been “uniformly large for the past hundred 

years, and is maintained up to the present time.” Although 

production may not have diminished during the post-Civil War 

years, the importance of the Southeast Missouri Barite District 

did diminish because of increased production from other 

districts in Missouri. The organization of the St. Joseph Lead 

Company in 1864 and the introduction of the diamond drill 

in 1869 led to the discovery and large-scale mining of buried 

lead and zinc deposits of the Southeast Missouri Lead District. 

Also, large-scale mining in the Tri-State District in southwestern Missouri, northeastern Oklahoma, and southeastern Kansas began in the 1870’s (small scale mining had been active 

for about 20 years) as the use of zinc expanded (Tri-State was 

a zinc-dominant district rather than a lead-dominant district). 

Winslow (1894) provided little information about mines of the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines that 

operated during the last 20 or 30 years of the 19th century, 

but does mention the Perry’s Mine and the Valles Mines 

(proper) in St. Francois County (which produced much zinc), 

the Frumet Mines in Jefferson County (fig. 7 and table 2), and 

the McArthur Mines (not shown on fig. 7 or listed in table 2), 

which Winslow (1894) described as an area of 10,000 acres 

that includes Mine a Breton and other mines in the Potosi 

area. The Tenth Census in 1880 (Winslow, 1894) showed 

14 mines in Washington County, 4 in Jefferson County, and 3 

in St. Francois County (this includes the St. Joseph Lead Company Bonne Terre Mine of the Old Lead Belt of the Southeast 

Missouri Lead District). Dake (1930) stated that the maximum 

production of the Palmer Mines was in 1873. 

Lead mining in the Southeast Missouri Barite District 

declined in the early part of the 20th century as mining in 

the Old Lead Belt, Mine La Motte, and the Tri-State District 

expanded. Dake (1930) stated that the last important operations at Old Mines were during about 1901–2, and that shallow lead was picked up occasionally. Kiilsgaard and others 

(1967) stated that a few carloads of zinc carbonate ore were 

shipped from the Palmer area in 1915 and 1916, but that no 

lead mines in the Potosi-Palmer area had been productive in 

prior decades. Dake (1930) stated that there was no systematic 

lead production from the Palmer Mines during his field work 

in 1922–28. The Valles Mines operated into the early part of 

the 20th century. Kiilsgaard and others (1967) stated that the 

Valles Mines were most active in the late 1800’s and 1909–17 

and, except for some mine dump material that was shipped 

during World War II, the area had been inactive since 1917; 

however, Park (2006) stated that zinc was intermittently mined 

until 1948. There was some production from the Krueger Mine 

(fig. 7 and table 2) in 1917, where lead had been previously 

mined at shallow depths (Ballinger, 1948). A shaft was sunk 

to 112 ft, some drifting was performed at this depth, and about 

100 tons of lead ore was shipped. Exploration drilling for zinc 

was conducted at that time and again in 1930 and 1947, but 

no additional ore was mined. Dake (1930) described several 

mines that were inactive: two Smith Diggings (two mines with 

the same name), Heffner Diggings, Grainger Diggings, Gulf 

Prospect, Masson Diggings, Benning’s Diggings, N. Wool 

Diggings, Forker Diggings, Furnace Creek Diggings, and 

Plaffy Diggings (fig. 7 and table 2). Lead was recovered from 

some barite diggings and, apparently, the practice of digging 

for lead also continued, at least to some extent. In describing the lead mines of Washington County, Ball (1916, p. 807) 

stated that “mining methods of a century ago prevail” and that 

although many miners had left Washington County to work in 

the large underground mines in the Southeast Missouri Lead 

District in St. Francois County, others did not leave, preferring 

to work for themselves in the diggings.

In an attempt to supply lead and zinc for the war effort 

during World War II, mine waste was transported to what was 

called the Chat Pile at Valles Mines for processing (Valles 

Mines, Missouri USA, 2015). This washer operation was not 

very successful, and fine-grained lead, zinc (in the form of 

smithsonite), and barite were washed with the clay waste into 

a stream. Later, the feasibility of processing old mine dumps 

in the Valle Mines area for lead, zinc, and barite was evaluated 

(Weigel, 1977). The estimated ore grades were 1–2 percent 

galena, trace to 0.5 percent anglesite, trace to 0.5 percent 

cerussite, 5–8 percent smithsonite, trace to 1 percent sphalerite, and 10–15 percent barite.

There is little information in the literature on the Irondale 

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District in southeastern Washington County (fig. 2). The MGS IMOP database 

shows two underground lead mines—the Irondale Mine and 

the Eversole Mine (fig. 7 and table 2). The ore deposits were 

small concentrations of sulfides around igneous knobs (Snyder 

and Gerdemann, 1968), and the period of underground mining 

in the subdistrict may have been brief. Buckley (1908) showed 

production by the Irondale Lead Company only for 1902. 

Surface mining probably preceded underground mining, which 

was the pattern in the Old Lead Belt and Mine La Motte Subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri Lead District where, beginning in 1869, diamond core drilling showed that the surficial 

deposits extended to greater depths.

Exploration by the St. Joseph Lead Company to replace 

depleting lead reserves in the Old Lead Belt resulted in the 

discovery in 1948 of the Indian Creek Subdistrict of the 

Southeast Missouri Lead District in Washington County 

(figs. 1 and 2). The Indian Creek Subdistrict consists of two 
30 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

underground mines where ore in the lower Bonneterre Formation and upper Lamotte Sandstone was mined: the Indian 

Creek Mine and the nearby Goose Creek Mine (fig. 7 and 

table 2). The mines, which were accessed from a 950-ft-deep 

shaft, were operated from 1953 to 1982 (Hagni, 1995; Kiilsgaard and others, 1967) and were collectively called the Indian 

Creek Mine. 

Continued exploration resulted in the discovery of the 

Viburnum Trend Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead 

District. Several mines were developed, including the Viburnum No. 29 Mine (fig. 7 and table 2), which is the northernmost mine of the Viburnum Trend and is in southwestern 

Washington County. Mine production began in 1964 from a 

595-ft-deep shaft (Kiilsgaard and others, 1967).

Lead Mining, Processing, and Smelting Methods

In the earliest days of mining, lead ore was simply 

removed from the soil surface. In his 1804 report to the 

U.S. Congress describing lead mines in Upper Louisiana, 

Moses Austin stated that ore was present within 2 ft of the surface at Mine a Breton, and “In short, the country for twelve or 

fifteen miles round the Mine a Burton exhibits strong appearances of mineral. In all the small creeks mineral is found 

washed down from the hills, and it is not uncommon to find 

in the draughts leading to creeks and rivers, and in the gulleys 

made by the spring rains, mineral in pieces from ten to fifty 

pounds weight brought down by the torrents. Some hundreds 

have been collected in this way” (Stoddard, 1804, p. 190). Ball 

(1916) described these as galena pebbles which, along with 

blossom rock (drusy quartz), were used as prospecting guides 

to upstream sources.

Lead mining in the Southeast Missouri Barite District 

and the Valles Mines was primitive by modern standards, and 

production from individual mines was small compared to 

future production from underground mines of the Old Lead 

Belt and Viburnum Trend. Still, lead mining was widespread 

and extended from the early 18th century into the early 20th 

century (Ball, 1916). Mines were commonly seasonal, active 

when men were not farming. Others mines, particularly the 

later, larger, and deeper operations, employed a larger number 

of men and probably operated continuously. Slaves were used 

in some mines before the Civil War.

The earliest lead mines were diggings (also called pits or 

shafts) in the residual soil and were normally 15–20 ft deep 

(Schoolcraft, 1819). Round holes about 4 ft in diameter were 

dug with pick and shovel, and a hand windlass and bucket 

were used to hoist material to the surface. Two men normally 

worked a digging, one in the shaft and the other at the surface 

hoisting the ore and separating the ore minerals from clay and 

other gangue. Some of the deeper shafts employed a horse 

whim or a steam-powered windlass to hoist the ore to the 

surface (Ball, 1916). The shafts were normally dug to bedrock 

where the ore commonly was concentrated, and drifts about 

4 ft by 4 ft were dug a short distance laterally from the bottom of the shafts, undermining the residuum. When it became 

too dangerous to drift any farther, the shaft was abandoned 

and the process was repeated a short distance away, until a 

large area was covered with pits (Ball, 1916). Not all shafts 

were productive; sometimes prospect shafts were dug following a fissure or some other surficial feature that might indicate 

ore at depth (Ball, 1916). Pumps were uncommon for many 

years, so work normally stopped if groundwater was encountered. Although there were sometimes indications that the ore 

continued into the bedrock, mining normally stopped at the 

bedrock surface and a new shaft was started. Digging with 

pick and shovel was apparently practiced into the early 20th 

century, as this method was described in the present tense by 

Ball (1916).

The first shaft that resembled a modern shaft was dug 

reportedly to 80 ft at Mine a Breton by Moses Austin in 1799 

(Winslow, 1894; fig. 7 and table 2). Schoolcraft (1819) stated 

that the ore was in crevices in rock, which he described as 

both compact and locally friable (weathered). Thompson 

(1955) maintained that Austin’s shaft went only to about 40 ft 

depth and stopped at bedrock, although the mining did follow 

deeper ore in crevices or soft rock. Winslow (1894, p. 284) 

mentioned that “deep shafting was undertaken” in Missouri 

during the period from 1830 to 1850. From Litton’s (1855) 

descriptions of some mines, with shafts as deep as 170 ft 

(Valles Mines) and up to several hundred feet of lateral drifting, mining had progressed into the rock by that time. Litton 

(1855) estimated that three-fourths of the mineral mined 

in Missouri up to that time had come from diggings in the 

residuum, inferring that the balance had come from mining 

in rock. Although there were many diggings at Potosi, more 

mining had been done in rock during later years, with shafts 

100 ft or more deep (Winslow, 1894). The Jumbo shaft at the 

Parole Mine (fig. 7 and table 2) of the Palmer Mines was 146 

ft deep (Winslow, 1894). The depths of many other shafts that 

were deep enough to have gone into bedrock and descriptions 

of lateral drifting are given by Litton (1855) and Winslow 

(1894).

The material brought to the surface consisted of lead ore, 

which was mostly galena, with lesser cerussite and anglesite mixed with clay, dolomite, druzy quartz, zinc minerals, 

and barite. Galena was cleaned by cobbing with a hammer 

to remove clay and other gangue prior to smelting. Waste, 

which included cerussite, anglesite, zinc ore, and barite, was 

discarded in dumps until the value of these minerals increased 

sufficiently to warrant recovery. Winslow (1894) reported that 

cerussite was first recovered in 1838. Jigs also were used to 

concentrate or clean the ore of waste material. Winslow (1894) 

stated that crude hand jigs were universally used by the 1860’s 

and were still common as of 1894 but provides no further 

details such as when they were first used or how efficient they 

were. Park (2006) also described the use of hand jigs and the 

Parson’s mechanical jig, which was introduced later and was 

used at least at Old Lead Belt mines. The IMOP database 

(Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a) mentions five locations where there were mills, two of which were 

called Joplin-type mills (fig. 8).
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 31

91°00' 90°30'

38°30'

38°00'

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

# #

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

) )

)

*

)

#

VIBURNUM NO. 29 MINE

INDIAN CREEK SUBDISTRICT

IRONDALE SUBDISTRICT

Indian Creek Mine tailings pond

Pea Ridge Mine tailings pond

3 2

7

6

4

5

9

1

8

27

37

22

31

30

20

24

18

15

23

25

34 14

17

40

26

36 35

19 21

10

16

29

39

33

12

13

2

28

32

38

11

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

FRANKLIN COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Study area

ILLINOIS

Big River

Meramec River

Big River

Mississippi River

)

*

!

#

#

#

Lead

Zinc

Lead mill

Furnaces and mills—Missouri Geological Survey 

Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, and Prospects 

(Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a) 

Furnace and furnace number (table 3), 

described in this report

Iron

Lead mill and furnace

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Southeast Missouri Barite District boundary

Valles Mines boundary

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig8

Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead 

District (fig. 1)

Figure 8. Locations of lead furnaces, zinc furnaces, and lead mills of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines, and 

locations in the study area of the Indian Creek Subdistrict and tailings pond, Irondale Subdistrict, and Viburnum No. 29 Mine in the 

Viburnum Trend Subdistrict in the Southeast Missouri Lead District and the Pea Ridge Iron Mine tailings pond.
32 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Smelting of the lead ore to elemental lead was first 

done using a log hearth, also called a log furnace, which was 

described by Schoolcraft (1819) and Winslow (1894) and is 

shown in figure 9. The log furnace was an inclined hearth on 

a sloped hill with stone walls on the front and the sides. Logs 

were placed in the furnace, a charge of lead ore consisting of 

about 5,000 lb of galena in pieces averaging 15 lb in weight 

was placed on the logs, more logs were placed over the ore, 

and a fire was started. The ore was roasted at a low temperature for several hours to remove the sulfur by oxidizing the 

galena to lead oxide, and then the temperature was raised for 

several hours to reduce the lead oxide to elemental lead in a 

molten state. The molten lead fell through the wood and ashes 

to a groove in the floor of the hearth, through which it flowed 

downslope to an iron mold where the lead was formed into 

pigs. The entire process took 24 hours or more. After smelting 

the ore, the furnace was cooled, the ashes removed, and the 

furnace was charged again. A log furnace was inexpensive to 

build and could be built almost anywhere; this was the only 

type of furnace used until 1798 (Winslow, 1894). Log furnaces 

do not seem to have been permanent structures like the Scotch 

hearths and air furnaces that would later be built, so they were 

probably built wherever there was mining and replaced as 

they wore out. For this reason, and the fact that these were 

used during the early years of mining when records generally 

were not kept, the numbers and locations of these furnaces are 

not known and a map showing the locations of these furnaces 

is not given in this report. Considering that mining locations 

were widespread and that mining had been ongoing since 

about 1720, there probably were many log furnaces in the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines.

Log furnaces were inefficient. Robertson (1894b, p. 

199) described them as an “improved form of campfire” and 

estimated that only about 50 percent of the lead was recovered 

and the remainder was lost to the ashes (slags) and to volatilization. Given that galena is about 87 percent lead (table 1), 

that equates to about 43 lb of lead recovered per 100 lb of 

galena smelted. Using percentage recovery in a different way, 

Park (2006) stated that recovery was 35 percent, which means 

that 35 lb of lead was recovered per 100 lb of galena ore. 

Ingalls (1908) estimates that the grade of ore fed to the log 

furnaces was about 80 percent lead, or 1,600 lb of lead per ton 

of ore, and that the yield of the log furnace was only 700 to 

800 lb of lead (less than 50 percent). 

About 20 log furnaces were in operation near Potosi 

when Moses Austin arrived in 1798 (Burford, 1978). Austin 

was attracted to the area not only because of the richness of 

the ore but also because of the abundance of ashes from the 

log furnaces that the French had been using, which contained 

lead and could be smelted for a profit. Austin built two moreefficient reverbatory furnaces, one for smelting primary ore 

and the other for smelting ashes (called an ash furnace; Park, 

2006; fig. 9). The ashes from the log furnace, which contained 

lead already in an oxidized form, were crushed, washed, 

and placed in layers alternating with crushed sand or chert 

(Robertson, 1894a). A wood fire was started, and after about 

2 hours the slag was tapped and the molten lead was recovered, which was about 15 percent of the original concentration of the ore (Schoolcraft, 1819), bringing the recovery up 

to about 65 percent (65 lb of lead per 100 lb of galena; Park, 

2006). An ash furnace thus supplemented the log furnace 

(Ingalls, 1908) and could be operated continuously for about 

15 to 20 days, but wore out rapidly and needed to be rebuilt. 

By 1802 all but one of the log furnaces at Potosi had been 

closed, and Austin was smelting almost all the ore produced in 

the area. Just how much of the ashes were processed by Austin 

is unknown because one of his partners may have removed 

much of the ash prior to Austin’s arrival (Park, 2006). 

Log furnaces and ash furnaces, sometimes collectively 

termed a log and ash furnace when they worked in tandem, 

were used in Missouri for many years but were gradually 

replaced by other furnaces. The locations of most of the later 

furnaces described in this report are shown in figure 8, but 

many locations are imprecise. The furnaces identified by number in figure 8 are listed in table 3, which shows principal references. Furnaces in the IMOP database are also shown on figure 

8; many of these correspond to furnaces described in this report 

and are identified by number in figure 8 and listed in table 3.

Litton (1855) stated that the log and ash furnaces were 

replaced by the Scotch hearth or by the reverbatory furnace; 

Robertson (1894a) classified the ash furnace as a type of 

reverbatory furnace, and Garlichs (1918) called the ash furnace 

a crude type of reverbatory furnace, so Litton (1855) may have 

been referring to the ash furnace being replaced by another type 

of reverbatory furnace such as an air furnace. Without stating 

the type of furnace, Park (2006) stated that there were 38 lead 

furnaces in Washington County in 1819. The Scotch hearth 

may have been in use in Washington County before 1819, 

but the first known Scotch hearth in Missouri was Manning’s 

furnace at Webster (the name of this town was later changed to 

Palmer), which was built in 1836 (fig. 8 and table 3). Three log 

and ash furnaces operated at Webster previous to 1837 (Litton, 

1855; Ingalls, 1908). Litton (1855) stated that there was only 

one log and ash furnace in southeastern Missouri in 1855 (Higginbotham’s Furnace; fig. 8 and table 3), although Robertson 

(1894b) reported that a log and ash furnace was still in use at 

Cadet in Washington County in 1864 (fig. 2). 

The Scotch hearth, more properly called the AmericanScotch hearth (Ingalls, 1908) and sometimes called a blast 

furnace, used a blast of hot air, which was powered either by 

water, steam, or horse power (Litton, 1855). The roasting and 

reduction of the ore was simultaneous rather than in two steps, 

as with the log furnace (Robertson, 1894a). Robertson (1894a) 

estimated that the recovery of lead by a Scotch hearth was 

80–90 percent with 10–20 percent loss to slag and volatilization, 

but Winslow (1894) quoted estimates of 67- and 70-percent 

recovery. Ingalls (1908) stated that the Scotch hearth did not 

immediately replace the log and ash furnace and suggested that 

the reason is that they did not provide a large advantage. Slag 

was at least sometimes re-smelted in a slag furnace. This type of 

furnace is not described; it may have been a Scotch hearth (or 

later, an air furnace) that was dedicated to smelting slag.
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 33

Robertson, Missouri Geological Survey, (1894a)

Robertson, Missouri Geological Survey, (1894a)

A. Log furnace

B. Ash furnace

Figure 9. Log and ash furnaces.
34 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Table 3. Furnace name, commodity smelted, type of furnace, and furnace references (described or mentioned in this report).

[Furnace references are for furnace information or location; most furnaces are only approximately located; unless noted, log and ash furnaces are not shown; iron 

furnaces not shown unless lead also was smelted; IMOP, Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, and Prospects (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a)]

Furnace 

number 

(fig. 8)

Furnace name Resource 

smelted Type of furnace Furnace reference

1 Abbyville Mining Company Furnace Iron, Lead Unspecified Robertson (1894b); IMOP

2 Bisch’s Mine Furnace Lead Scotch hearth ? Park (2006); Litton (1855); Winslow (1894); IMOP

3 C. White’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855)

4 Casey and Clasey’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855); IMOP

5 Charles Moran Furnace Lead Air furnace Robertson (1894b)

6 Cresswell’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855); Park (2006); IMOP

7 Deane’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855)

8 Deggendorf Zinc Works Zinc Unspecified Winslow (1894)

9 Edmonds and Wilcox Furnace and 

Mill

Unspecified Unspecified Park (2006)

10 Flynn’s Furnace Lead Air furnace Robertson (1894b)

11 Frumet Mine Furnace Lead Flintshire furnace Robertson (1894b)

12 Herculaneum Smelter Lead Unspecified Park (2006)

13 Hesselmeyer Furnace Zinc Unspecified Ingalls (1908); Winslow (1894)

14 Higgenbotham’s Furnace Lead Log furnace/Scotch hearth/Air 

furnace

Litton (1855); Robertson (1894b); Park (2006); IMOP

15 Hopewell Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855); Park (2006);

16 J.P. and R.M. Bugg Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Robertson (1894b); IMOP

17 James Long Furnace Lead (and zinc?) Air furnace Robertson (1894b)

18 Kennett’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth (probably) Litton (1855); Park (2006)

19 L.J. White Furnace Lead Air furnace Robertson (1894b)

20 Long’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855)

21 M. and S. Union Company Furnace Lead Air furnace Robertson (1894b)

22 Mammoth Mines Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855); IMOP

23 Manning’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855); Park (2006)

24 McIlvaine’s (Dunklin) Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855); IMOP

25 P.E. Blow Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855)

26 Palmer Lead Company Furnace Lead Air furnace Robertson (1894b); Park (2006); IMOP

27 Perry’s Mine Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Park (2006); Litton (1855); Winslow (1894); IMOP

28 Prairie Diggings Furnace Lead Unspecified IMOP

29 Renault Lead Company Furnace Lead Unspecified Park (2006); IMOP

30 Roussin Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855)

31 Sandy Mines Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855)

32 Shibboleth Lead Company Furnace Lead Air furnace Robertson (1894b)

33 Smith Furnace Zinc Unspecified IMOP

34 T & W Murphey’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Litton (1855); Park (2006); IMOP

35 Unknown Lead Air furnace Park (2006)

36 Unknown Lead Air furnace Park (2006)

37 Valles Mines Furnace Lead Scotch hearth Valles Mines, Missouri, USA (2014); Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (2005); Litton 

(1855); Robertson (1894b); Park (2006)

38 Walton’s Furnace Lead Scotch hearth (probably) Litton (1855); Park (2006)

39 Washington County Zinc Works Zinc Sorting plant for Hopewell 

Furnace

IMOP

40 Willian Long Furnace Lead Air furnace Robertson (1894b)
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 35

Litton (1855) listed 3 furnaces in Jefferson County, 2 furnaces in St. Francois County, and 14 furnaces in Washington 

County that were operating in 1855. Most were specified as 

Scotch hearths, one a log and ash furnace, and a few were 

unspecified, but most of these likely were Scotch hearths. 

The furnaces in Jefferson County were a Scotch hearth and 

slag furnace that smelted ore from the Valles Mines (proper?) 

in nearby St. Francois County (Litton [1855] did not give a 

precise location of the furnace; Valles Mines, Missouri, USA, 

2014; Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, 

2005; Robertson, 1894b), a Scotch hearth at the Mammoth 

Mine, and a furnace (probably a Scotch hearth) at the Sandy 

Mines (fig. 8 and table 3). The furnaces in St. Fancois County 

were the Perry’s Mine Furnace (a Scotch hearth) and the 

Bisch’s Mine Furnace (Litton [1855] stated that this was a 

reverbatory furnace, which could mean an ash furnace or an 

early air furnace; Park [2006] stated that this was a Scotch 

hearth; fig. 8 and table 3). These two plus the Valles Mines 

(proper?) furnace in Jefferson County make three furnaces at 

the Valles Mines. The furnaces in Washington County (located 

approximately on fig. 8 and listed in table 3) were Higginbotham’s Furnace at Fertile (Litton [1855] and Park [2006] 

stated that this was a log and ash furnace, and Park [2006] 

also stated that a Scotch hearth was built there in 1837); T&W 

Murphey’s Furnace, a Scotch hearth; Long’s Furnace at Old 

Mines, a Scotch hearth; C. White’s Furnace at Old Mines, a 

double Scotch hearth; McIlvaine’s Furnace (previously known 

as Dunkiln’s furnace), a Scotch hearth; Deane’s Furnace near 

of Potosi, a Scotch hearth; Kennett’s Furnace at Shibboleth 

(probably a Scotch hearth but this could have been the log 

and ash furnace that Robertson [1894b] stated was operating 

at nearby Cadet in 1864); Boase’s Furnace on Mill Creek (not 

located on fig. 8 because of the unspecific location, and not 

listed in table 3), a Scotch hearth which replaced an earlier 

furnace; Hopewell Furnace, also known as Evan’s Furnace 

(Park, 2006), a Scotch hearth and slag furnace; Manning’s 

Furnace, a Scotch hearth at Webster (Palmer) that smelted ore 

from Fourche a Courtois (Palmer) mines beginning in 1837; 

Walton’s Furnace, unspecified but probably a Scotch hearth, 

which smelted ore and slag from the Fourche a Courtois 

(Palmer) mines beginning in 1841; Cresswell’s Furnace, 

a Scotch hearth; Casey and Clancey’s Furnace, a Scotch 

hearth; and two furnaces at Richwoods, both probably Scotch 

hearths—one operated at that time by Mr. P.E. Blow, and 

one formerly belonging to Mr. Roussin (unclear if it was still 

operating in 1855). Annual production statistics dating back 

a few years to as far back as 1837 were given for most of the 

furnaces Litton (1855) listed, and further descriptions of these 

furnaces indicate that smelting had been active at some of 

these locations for a longer period (for example, one furnace 

had been active since 1819). The descriptions of the furnaces 

listed several mines that supplied ore to each furnace, indicating that these were larger and more permanent structures than 

the earlier log and ash furnaces. Litton (1855) stated that log 

and ash furnaces previously had been used at the location of 

one of the Scotch hearth furnaces; log and ash furnaces may 

have been used earlier at two other locations where smelting is 

recorded as having been active before 1836, which is the first 

year the Scotch furnace is known to have been used in Washington County. Although Litton (1855) described the location 

of Walton’s Furnace only by saying that ore from Forche a 

Cortois Mines (a large area) was smelted, Park (2006) implied 

that it was near Manning’s Furnace, and Robertson (1894b) 

listed two probable Scotch hearths at Webster (Palmer). 

At least three types of reverbatory furnaces were used 

in Missouri: the previously described ash furnace; the Drummond furnace, also called the air furnace (Robertson, 1894b); 

and the Flintshire furnace, which was described by Ingalls 

(1908) as a more developed form of reverbatory furnace. 

The ore charge and fuel are not in contact in a reverbatory 

furnace, and a blast of air is not required. The ore is smelted 

by the heat that reflects, or reverberates, off the walls of the 

furnace. The reverbatory furnace ran continuously rather than 

intermittently, as was the case of the Scotch hearth, was more 

economical, and produced more lead than the Scotch hearth 

(Park, 2006), although the recovery of lead by an air furnace 

was estimated by Robertson (1894a) and Ingalls (1908) to 

have been 80–90 percent, similar to that of the Scotch hearth. 

Winslow (1894) quoted an estimate of 63 percent. Although 

the amount of slag produced was small (Robertson, 1894a), 

Ingalls (1908) estimated that the slag, which was generally 

thrown away, contained from 40 to 55 percent lead; Robertson 

(1894a) stated that the loss of lead to the slag and by volatilization was 10 to 20 percent. 

The Scotch hearths were replaced by (or converted to) 

air furnaces in Missouri starting about 1874 (Park, 2006), 

although Litton’s (1855) mention of a reverbatory furnace at 

Bisch’s Mine may indicate that this was an early air furnace. 

Robertson (1894b) stated that there were two Scotch hearths 

and a slag furnace at the Valles Mines (for the Valles Mines 

[proper]?) at that time, indicating that some Scotch hearths 

were still operating in 1894. Several air furnaces were in 

operation in Missouri by 1876, particularly in central Missouri 

(Robertson, 1894b), but apparently not yet in Washington 

County. Without giving locations, Winslow (1894) quoted an 

estimate of no air furnaces and two Scotch hearths operating 

in Washington County in 1876, one air furnace and two Scotch 

hearths in Jefferson County in 1876, and nine air furnaces 

and zero Scotch hearths in St. Francois County in 1876 (it is 

unclear if any of the air furnaces in St. Francois County were 

at the Valles Mines). Robertson (1894b) listed, with only 

approximate locations, eight air furnaces operating in 1894 in 

Washington County and one in St Francois County (with no 

specific location information, it is unclear if this furnace was 

at the Valles Mines). The air furnaces in Washington County 

were Higgenbotham’s Furnace at Fertile, which replaced 

a previous furnace at that location; James Long Furnace 

at Potosi; William Long Furnace at Potosi; Charles Moran 

Furnace at Richwoods; Palmer Lead Company Furnace (the 

Palmer furnace, or Hazel Creek Furnace; Park [2006]) at 

Palmer; Shibboleth Lead Company Furnace at Cadet; M. and 

S. Union Company Furnace at Old Mines; and L.J. White 
36 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Furnace at Old Mines (fig. 8 and table 3). These eight furnaces 

are located only approximately on figure 8 using information 

from Robertson (1894b). 

In addition to the mostly Scotch hearth furnaces listed 

by Litton (1855) and the air furnaces listed by Robertson 

(1894b), a few other furnaces are mentioned in various 

sources. Some of these sources provide good location data, 

others are ambiguous, and a few furnace locations in the 

IMOP database (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 

2015a) are at different locations than what was given in cited 

references or were not found in references. Winslow (1894) 

and Litton (1855) stated that furnaces were operated by 

George Cresswell beginning in 1828 at two other locations 

prior to his construction of a Scotch hearth on Mineral Fork 

in 1838 (Cresswell’s Furnace; fig. 8 and table 3); the locations of these two other locations were not given accurately 

enough to show on figure 8, but given the early period of 

operation, these early furnaces were probably log and ash 

furnaces. Robertson (1894b) provided a cumulative lead 

production figure through early 1874 for two furnaces at or 

near Webster (Palmer). Given that air furnaces were probably 

not being operated in Washington County until 1876, these 

may be Scotch hearths at Manning’s Furnace, and Walton’s 

Furnace (Litton, 1855; fig. 8 and table 3). Park (2006) stated 

that three air furnaces were operating at Palmer by 1887. 

One of these likely is the Palmer Lead Company Furnace 

listed by Robertson (1894b), the location of which is well 

established (fig. 8 and table 3); the locations of the other two 

are not known and are shown on figure 8 and listed in table 3 

as having unknown furnace names near the town of Palmer. 

Robertson (1894b) provided some late 1870’s lead production figures for Flynn’s Furnace at Richwoods, an air furnace 

(fig. 8 and table 3). Robertson (1894b) mentioned and provided a late 1870’s lead-production figure for a Scotch hearth 

owned by J.P. and R.M. Bugg at Potosi (fig. 8 and table 3). 

Winslow (1894) provided data for a small amount of cumulative lead production from 1872 to 1891 from the Abbyville 

Mining Company Furnace in northwestern Washington 

County (fig. 8 and table 3; the IMOP database shows this as 

primarily an iron furnace but the type of furnace is unspecified). Winslow (1894) also provided data for a small amount 

of cumulative lead production from 1872 to 1891 from the 

Kingston Furnace in Washington County but did not describe 

the type of furnace or its location (because the IMOP database shows two furnaces called the Kingston Furnace at different locations, this furnace is not shown in figure 8 or listed 

in table 3). Park (2006) mentioned and located on a map the 

Edmonds and Wilcox Furnace and Mill near Richwoods (fig. 

8 and table 3), but it is not clear if this was a lead furnace, 

and no dates of operation are given. Park (2006) mentioned a 

Cannon Creek Mine Furnace but provided no other information except that it may be the same as Murphey’s Furnace 

(probably T & W Murphey’s Furnace; fig. 8 and table 3). 

A Flintshire furnace was operated for several years at the 

Frumet Mine in Jefferson County beginning in 1870 (Robertson, 1894b; fig. 8 and table 3). The IMOP database lists 

a furnace at the Prairie Diggings (fig. 8 and table 3), but the 

type of furnace is not given. The IMOP database lists a furnace of the Renault Lead Company and locates it about 3 mi 

northeast of the Palmer Lead Company furnace (fig. 8 and 

table 3). The only other available reference to this company 

is Park (2006) who stated that the company operated in the 

Palmer area from 1898 until about 1907 but did not mention a furnace. The IMOP database also lists another possible furnace near the Renault Lead Company Furnace. The 

IMOP database shows a log furnace at Gray’s Mines (fig. 7 

and table 2) and what is probably a log furnace at Forche a 

Renault Mine (Mine Renault). 

Winslow (1894) is the most recent report that discussed 

lead mining in the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the 

Valles Mines in a comprehensive manner, and information 

regarding the smelting of lead ores since then is not available. 

Air furnaces were being used in 1894, but it is not known 

if any other type of furnace was used in the district later. 

Winslow (1894) described the Cupola, or stack furnace, which 

Ingalls (1908) described as a blast furnace, but no mention is 

made of its use in the Southeast Missouri Barite District or at 

the Valles Mines. The Cupola furnace, which required large 

and constant supplies of ore and could smelt lower grade ore 

economically (Robertson, 1894a), was used to smelt ore from 

Mine La Motte and the Old Lead Belt. Beginning in 1892, a 

large lead smelter operated for more than 100 years at Herculaneum, Jefferson County (fig. 8 and table 3), smelting lead 

concentrate from the Old Lead Belt, Mine La Motte, and later, 

the Viburnum Trend Subdistricts of the Southeast Missouri 

Lead District. 

The first zinc furnace in Missouri was the Hesselmeyer 

furnace built in Potosi in 1867 to smelt ore from the Valles 

Mines (Winslow, 1894; Ingalls, 1908; Park, 2006; fig. 8 and 

table 3). Zinc was more profitable than lead at the Valles 

Mines, but the furnace did not operate for very long (Ingalls, 

1908). Much of the zinc ore was shipped out of the area, either 

to a smelter in St. Louis (Park, 2006; Winslow, 1894) or to 

other smelters; Robertson (1894b) listed several in Illinois, 

southwestern Missouri, and Kansas. Processing of zinc to zinc 

white (a paint pigment) was done at the Hopewell Furnace 

(fig. 8 and table 3), Washington County, beginning in the 

mid-1870’s, where lead was already being smelted in a Scotch 

hearth (Winslow, 1894). The IMOP database shows a furnace 

at the Washington County Zinc Works and also describes it 

as a sorting plant near Hopewell. The IMOP database identifies Smith’s Furnace (fig. 8 and table 3) at Evans Mine about 

2 miles to the south of the Hopewell Furnace and shows it as a 

zinc smelter. Winslow (1894) mentioned surface diggings near 

Irondale and stated that the Deggendorf Zinc Works (fig. 8 and 

table 3) was built in 1870 about 2 miles north of Irondale; this 

is shown on figure 8 at the IMOP location of the Deggendorf 

and Wills Mine (not identified on fig. 7). In 1915–16, 15 carloads of zinc carbonate ore were shipped from the Strawberry 

Diggings in the Palmer Mines area (Park, 2006; Kiilsgaard 

and others, 1967; fig. 7 and table 2), but it is not stated where 

the ore was smelted.
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 37

For many years lead was transported by pack horses 

or wagons to ports on the Mississippi River for shipment to 

various markets. These ports were Ste. Genevieve in the early 

years (fig. 1), Herculaneum beginning in about 1808, and 

Selma (fig. 2) also in the early 1800’s, for which the Selma 

Road was built (not shown on figures). The road ran from 

the Shibboleth Mines at first, then was extended through Old 

Mines to Cresswell’s Furnace, and connecting roads were built 

to Potosi, Cadet, Hopewell Furnace at Hopewell, Higgenbotham’s Furance at Fertile, and to the Palmer, Frumet, and 

Valles Mines (Park, 2006; figs. 2, 7 and 8; tables 2 and 3). 

Shipment of lead by wagon on the Selma Road and other 

roads continued for decades, and by the late 1840’s there were 

several other shipping ports on the Mississippi River (Winslow, 1894). Shipment of lead by railroad began in the 1850’s 

with the construction of the Iron Mountain Railroad from 

St. Louis to the Pilot Knob iron mine in Iron County, south of 

the Southeast Missouri Barite District (Winslow, 1894). Other 

railroads were built beginning in the late 1870’s to ship lead 

concentrate from the mines of the Old Lead Belt, but may also 

have shipped some lead from the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District and the Valles Mines. A rail spur was built in 1969 

from Cadet to the Indian Creek Mine and later the Pea Ridge 

iron mine in northwestern Washington County (fig. 2).

Underground room and pillar mining methods were 

employed at lead mines in Washington County at the Indian 

Creek Subdistrict, the Viburnum No. 29 Mine of the Viburnum 

Trend Subdistrict, and probably the Irondale Subdistrict of 

the Southeast Missouri Lead District (fig. 7 and table 2). The 

Indian Creek Subdistrict consisted of two mines (Indian Creek 

Mine and Goose Creek Mine), which operated from 1953 to 

1982, with a shared lead concentrating mill and tailings pond 

but not a smelter. The Viburnum No. 29 Mine in southwestern 

Washington County began operations in 1964. It is one of 

three mines centered on the city of Viburnum in Iron County 

(fig. 1) with a central concentration mill but not a smelter. The 

mill’s tailings pond is outside the study area in Iron County 

on Indian Creek, a tributary of Courtois Creek that flows 

northward through southwestern Washington County. The 

Viburnum No 29 Mine is located along Indian Creek downstream from the tailings pond. The IMOP database shows that 

there was a blast furnace at the Irondale Mine in the Irondale 

Subdistrict.

Lead and Zinc Production and Losses During 

Processing

Lead and zinc production from the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District and the Valles Mines is poorly documented 

but some data and estimates are available. Most production 

figures in the literature are for specific mines, mining areas, 

or furnaces at various points in time (rather than for the entire 

history of a mine or furnace, though some data of this type are 

available); are different types of production (mine ore production or furnace metal production); and are of variable quality 

depending on the age of the mine or furnace and the type of 

source (recorded, or reported by a mine owner or another 

person). There are many mines for which no production data 

or estimates are available. 

The most comprehensive estimates of lead and zinc 

production through the late 1800’s are in Winslow (1894); 

Wharton (1975) provided more recent production estimates 

that capture the entire period of mining. Winslow (1894) has 

tabulated estimates of tons of lead produced and tons of lead 

in the ore that was fed to the furnaces, and the same for zinc 

and zinc ore, by decade or longer period of time and with 

cumulative production through 1893 for Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties. In most cases, Winslow 

(1894) first estimated lead or zinc metal production and 

then applied an estimated furnace recovery rate to calculate 

the tons of lead or zinc in ore that was fed to the furnaces. 

In some cases he started with tons of metal in the ore and 

applied the furnace recovery rate to calculate metal production. The Valles Mines are in both Jefferson and St. Francois 

Counties, so it was not possible for Winslow (1894) to differentiate production from these mines by county; Winslow 

(1894) arbitrarily credited St. Francois County with all the 

Valles Mines production through 1879 and credited Jefferson County with all the Valles Mines production after that 

(table 4). Also, Winslow’s (1894) tabulated production estimates for St. Francois County include production from early 

diggings in areas that would become the Old Lead Belt, and 

beginning in the 1860’s, production from larger scale mines 

of the Old Lead Belt. Because Winslow (1894) also included 

some details of production from specific mines in St. Francois 

County, it was possible to estimate for this report approximately how much of the St. Francois County lead production was from the Valles Mines. Winslow’s (1894) estimates 

were used to construct table 4, which shows estimated lead 

content of the ore (tons of lead in the ore that was fed to the 

furnaces), tons of lead produced, zinc content of the ore (tons 

of zinc in the ore that was fed to the furnaces), and tons of 

zinc produced, by decade or longer period of time and with 

cumulative production through 1893 for the combined Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines, by county. The 

production estimates for Washington County probably include 

the Irondale Subdistrict of the Southeast Missouri Lead District (fig. 1); Winslow (1894) described these mines as surface 

diggings, so production through 1893 would not have been 

large and any larger-scale underground mine production from 

the Irondale Subdistrict would have been after 1894. Buckley (1908) showed that 790 tons of lead concentrate were 

produced by the Irondale Lead Company in 1902, after which 

the company was purchased by the Federal Lead Company, 

which operated mines in the Old Lead Belt; it is not possible 

to determine how much of the production of the Federal Lead 

Company in subsequent years came from the Irondale Subdistrict. Production data for the Indian Creek Subdistrict and 

the Viburnum No. 29 Mine of the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict 

are not included for Washington County, as these mines came 

into production much later than 1893. 
38 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri Table 4. Estimates of combined lead and zinc production from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines, and the Southeast Missouri Lead District. [Lead or zinc content of ore is the tons of lead or zinc in the ore fed to the furnaces; lead or zinc produced is the tons of lead or zinc produced from the furnaces; these estimates do not include lead recovered during barite mining since 1948, the amount of which is unknown; --, no production or no production figure available] Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines Washington Countya Jefferson Countya St. Francois Countyb Southeast Missouri Barite District Lead content of ore (tons) Lead produced (tons) Zinc content of ore (tons) Zinc produced (tons) Lead content of ore (tons) Lead produced (tons) Zinc content of ore (tons) Zinc produced (tons) Lead content of orec (tons) Lead produced (tons) Zinc content of ore (tons) Zinc produced (tons) Lead content of ore (tons) Lead produced (tons) Zinc content of ore (tons) Zinc produced (tons) Winslowa,b (1894), modified to 1799 19,000 9,500 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 -- -- 19,000 9,500 -- -- 1800–19 28,500 17,100 -- -- 333 200 -- -- 0 0 -- -- 28,833 17,300 -- -- 1820–29 16,130 10,000 -- -- 2,420 1,500 -- -- 4,842 3,000 -- -- 23,392 14,500 -- -- 1830–49 38,460 25,000 -- -- 7,200 4,680 -- -- 26,154 17,000 -- -- 71,814 46,680 -- -- 1850–59 18,555 13,000 -- -- 4,500 3,150 -- -- 11,428 8,000 -- -- 34,483 24,150 -- -- 1860–69 4,285 3,000 -- -- 2,000 1,400 -- -- 5,286 3,700 200 67 11,571 8,100 200 67 1870–79 13,000 9,100 10,000 3,333 4,000 2,800 3,000 1,000 4,286 3,000 26,512 8,837 21,286 14,900 39,512 13,170 1880–d93 23,000 16,100 4,000 1,333 6,210 4,347 31,561 10,520 1,820 1,274 -- -- 31,030 21,721 35,561 11,853 Total for Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines through 1893e 161,000 103,000 14,000 4,700 27,000 18,000 35,000 12,000 54,000 36,000 27,000 8,900 241,000 157,000 75,000 25,000 Wharton (1975) Total for Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines through 1948 180,000 54,000 Wharton (1975), modifiedf Total for Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines through 1948 180,000 60,000 Total for history of Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines g277,000 180,000 g180,000 60,000
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 39

Table 4. Estimates of combined lead and zinc production from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines, and the Southeast Missouri Lead District.—Continued[Lead or zinc content of ore is the tons of lead or zinc in the ore fed to the furnaces; lead or zinc produced is the tons of lead or zinc produced from the furnaces; these estimates do not include lead recovered during barite mining, the amount of which is unknown; --, no production or no production figure available]

Southeast Missouri 

Lead District 

(through 2011)h

Period of 

production Tons of ore Percent lead

Lead 

content of 

ore

(tons)

Percent 

zinc

Zinc 

content of 

ore

(tons)

Old Lead Belt Subdistrict 1864–1972 263,000,000 2.9 7,600,000 0.3 800,000

Viburnum Trend Subdistricti 1960–i2011 300,000,000 5.8 17,400,000 1.1 3,300,000

Mine La Motte Subdistrict 1720–1961 15,000,000 3.9 600,000 -- --

Indian Creek Subdistrict 1954–85 32,000,000 3.6 1,200,000 0.4 100,000

Annapolis Subdistrict 1915–31 1,200,000 2.3 30,000 -- --

Total production from Southeast Missouri Lead District (through 2011)h 611,200,000 4.4 26,830,000 0.7 4,200,000

aData for Washington and Jefferson Counties are from Winslow (1894).bData for St. Francois County through 1893 are modified from Winslow (1894) by removing estimated production from the Old Lead Belt. cThe lead content of the ore for St. Francois County was estimated by applying the lead recovery percentage in Winslow (1894) for all of St. Francois County to the estimated lead produced in St. Francois 

County after removing estimated lead production from the Old Lead Belt.

d1892 for Jefferson County.eTotal production data are rounded.fAdds 6,000 tons of zinc production to Wharton’s (1975) zinc production; Winslow (1894) estimated 5,666 tons of zinc production that was not included in Wharton’s (1975) estimate from the Valles Mines.gMetal content of furnace feed was calculated by applying Winslow’s (1894) percentage of metal recovered by furnaces (65 percent for lead, 33 percent for zinc) to the tons of metal produced.hData from Schott (2012); production from the Irondale Subdistrict is not included.iData are through 2011; production from the Viburnum Trend continues to the current time (2016).
40 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Estimated lead and zinc production from the combined 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines are 

shown on table 4, by county, through 1893 (1892 for Jefferson 

County), modified from Winslow (1894). Most of the lead produced through 1893 came from Washington County, but there 

was more zinc produced in each of Jefferson and St. Francois 

Counties than Washington County. Table 4 shows that an 

estimated 103,000 tons of lead and 4,700 tons of zinc were 

produced in Washington County through 1893; 18,000 tons 

of lead and 12,000 tons of zinc were produced in Jefferson 

County through 1892; and 36,000 tons of lead and 8,900 tons 

of zinc were produced in St. Francois County through 1893, 

for a total of 157,000 tons of lead and 25,000 tons of zinc 

through 1893 (but not including production from Jefferson 

County in 1893; also, in addition to being just estimates, the 

figures for Jefferson and St. Francois Counties are inaccurate 

to the extent that Winslow [1894] was unable to split production from the Valles Mines by county and allocated all the 

production to one or the other county for different periods of 

time).

Lead and zinc mining continued after 1893, so Winslow’s 

(1894) estimates do not show total production from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines but capture 

most of the lead production; mining in the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District was declining as larger-scale underground 

mining in the Old Lead Belt increased. Ball (1916, p. 807) 

described lead mining in 1916 by stating that “mining methods of a century ago prevail,” so at least some lead mining 

continued into the 1900’s, and lead was sometimes recovered 

as a byproduct of barite mining (which continued into the 

1980’s). Also, there was substantial zinc production after 

1893, particularly from the Valles Mines in St. Francois and 

Jefferson Counties. Wharton (1975) used Winslow’s (1894) 

data and other data to provide estimates of cumulative lead 

and zinc production through 1948 from Potosi-Eminence Mineralization in what he called the “Potosi-Palmer-Richwoods 

Subdistrict,” which includes parts of Washington, Jefferson, 

and St. Francois Counties (exclusive of the Valles Mines), 

and, separately, from the Valles Mines. Although there may be 

some production from outlier mines that is not included, production from the “Potosi-Palmer-Richwoods Subdistrict” and 

the Valles Mines essentially is production from the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines. Wharton (1975) 

estimated that 150,000 tons of lead were produced from the 

“Potosi-Palmer-Richwoods Subdistrict” through 1945, and 

30,000 tons of lead and 54,000 tons of zinc were produced 

from the Valles Mines through 1948. Combining these two, 

Wharton’s (1975) estimate of total production from the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines through 

1948 is 180,000 tons of lead and 54,000 tons of zinc (table 4), 

23,000 tons more lead and 29,000 tons more zinc than the estimate of 157,000 tons of lead and 25,000 tons of zinc produced 

through 1893 (table 4). Wharton (1975) included zinc production only for the Valles Mines; Winslow (1894) estimated 

5,666 tons of zinc production that was not from the Valles 

Mines. These 5,666 tons of zinc are probably a minimum 

amount not included by Wharton (1975), so if 6,000 tons are 

added to his 54,000 tons of zinc, then the estimated zinc production from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles 

Mines through 1948 is 60,000 tons (table 4). Except for some 

lead recovered during barite mining since 1948 (for which no 

estimate is available), the production of lead and zinc through 

1948 is essentially all of the lead and zinc produced during the 

history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles 

Mines (table 4). Although most of the lead was produced 

before 1893, there was more zinc produced after 1893 than 

before 1893. These figures are only rough estimates, but give 

an approximation of the lead and zinc production from the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines. 

Although the mines of the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District and Valles Mines were small compared to the mines of 

the Old Lead Belt and the Viburnum Trend, they were widespread, and mining throughout the district lasted for many 

years, from the early 1700’s to at least the early 1900’s (and 

later, if lead as a byproduct of barite mining is considered). 

Production was not evenly distributed throughout the area; 

Ball (1916) estimated that about 55 percent of the lead production in Washington County was from mines around Potosi, 

and about 35 percent was from mines around Palmer (without 

defining these areas any further).

Using a density of lead of 709 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3), 

the volumetric equivalent of the estimated 180,000 tons of 

lead produced in the Southeast Missouri Barite District and 

Valles Mines through 1948 is a cube of lead about 80 ft on a 

side, or a football field covered with lead to a height of 10.6 ft. 

Using a density of zinc of 445 lb/ft3, the volumetric equivalent 

of the estimated 60,000 tons of zinc produced in the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines is a cube of zinc 

about 65 ft on a side, or a football field covered with zinc to a 

height of 5.7 ft.

Considerable amounts of lead were lost during smelting. The difference between the estimated total tons of lead 

in the furnace feed (241,000 tons) and the total tons of lead 

produced (157,000 tons) through 1893 (table 4) is 84,000 tons 

of lead lost to ashes, volatilization, or some other process; 

65 percent of the lead in the furnace feed was recovered 

and 35 percent was lost. These percentages applied to the 

estimated 180,000 tons of lead produced through 1948 

yield 277,000 tons of lead in the furnace feed (table 4) and 

97,000 tons of lead lost. The unrecovered lead has a volumetric equivalent of a cube of lead about 65 ft on a side, or a 

football field covered with lead to a height of 5.7 ft. 

Considerable amounts of zinc were also lost during 

processing. The difference between the estimated total tons of 

zinc in the furnace feed (75,000 tons) and the total tons of zinc 

produced (25,000 tons) through 1893 (table 4) is 50,000 tons 

of zinc; 33 percent of the zinc in the furnace feed was recovered and 67 percent was lost, about twice as large a loss percentage as for lead. These percentages applied to the estimated 

60,000 tons of zinc produced through 1948 yield 180,000 tons 

of zinc in the furnace feed (table 4) and 120,000 tons of zinc 

lost. The unrecovered zinc has a volumetric equivalent of a 
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 41

cube of zinc about 81 ft on a side, or a football field covered 

with zinc to a height of about 11 ft. It is interesting to note that 

although the estimated lead produced (180,000 tons) exceeded 

the estimated zinc produced (60,000 tons) by a factor of 3, the 

estimated zinc lost (120,000 tons) exceeded the estimated lead 

lost (97,000 tons) by a factor of about 1.2 because of the larger 

percentage loss of zinc than lead. Also, the volumetric equivalent of zinc lost was larger than the volumetric equivalent of 

lead lost by a factor of about 2 because the density of lead is 

greater than that of zinc. The loss of zinc during smelting was 

likely not as widespread in the study area as that of lead. There 

were fewer zinc furnaces than lead furnaces, and most of the 

zinc smelting seems to have been outside the study area (Park, 

2006; Robertson,1894b). 

The estimated lead and zinc losses presented above are 

losses during smelting, based on Winslow’s (1894) estimates 

of the metal content of the feed to furnaces and the metal 

produced through 1893, and assuming that the percentage 

of metal lost, particularly zinc, was the same after 1893 as 

before 1893. The estimated losses do not include losses at the 

mine site during mining and preparation for smelting, such 

as the loss of fine-grained galena during hand cleaning or the 

discarding of zinc ore before its value was known, for which 

no estimates are available.

The amount of rock and residuum that was mined for 

lead and zinc from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and 

Valles Mines is not known but is more than the amount of 

ore that was fed to the furnaces. The mined material that was 

brought to the surface consisted of ore and gangue minerals, 

dolomite, and clay, and was hand cleaned to provide as pure a 

feed for the furnaces as possible. The estimated lead and zinc 

content of the ore fed to the furnaces through 1893 (not the 

amount of ore fed to the furnaces), by county, modified from 

Winslow (1894), is shown in table 4. Ingalls (1908) estimated 

that the grade of ore fed to the log furnaces was about 80 percent lead; pure galena is about 87 percent lead (table 1). This 

contrasts with larger-scale underground disseminated-lead 

mines of, for example, the Viburnum Trend, where most of the 

material that goes to the mills is dolomite, which contains only 

a small percent of lead and zinc. 

The estimated production from the Southeast Missouri Lead District also is shown in table 4 for comparison 

with the combined production from the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District and Valles Mines. Schott (2012) estimated that 

263 million tons of ore containing 2.9 percent lead (7.6 million tons of lead) and 0.3 percent zinc (800,000 tons of zinc) 

were mined from the Old Lead Belt, and 300 million tons of 

5.8 percent lead (17.4 million tons of lead) and 1.1 percent 

zinc (3,300,000 tons of zinc) were mined from the Viburnum Trend through 2011 (table 4). Production from other 

subdistricts also is shown in table 4, and the total of these 

subdistricts (but not including what was a small amount of 

production from the Irondale Subdistrict) is 611,200,000 tons 

of ore containing 26,830,000 tons of lead and 4,200,000 tons 

of zinc. The estimated 180,000 tons of lead produced from the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines is small 

compared with the Southeast Missouri Lead District. The lead 

content of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles 

Mines furnace feed (277,000 tons) was only about 1 percent 

of the lead content of the Southeast Missouri Lead District 

ore through 2011 (26,830,000 tons), but was still substantial. 

The estimated 180,000 tons of lead produced in the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines is about 1.5 times 

the estimated 118,000 tons of lead produced in 2013 by the 

Doe Run Resources Corporation Herculaneum, Mo., lead 

smelter, which was supplied by six mines in the Viburnum 

Trend (Guberman, 2014). In earlier years, when richer ore was 

being mined in the Viburnum Trend and when mine production was greater, a single, large mine might produce about 

1,800,000 tons of ore containing about 10 percent lead in one 

year, with a lead content roughly equivalent to the estimated 

180,000 tons of lead produced in all years from the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines. 

Barite Mining

Although barite was produced from the Valles Mines, 

its production was small compared to the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District, and barite mining at the Valles Mines was 

not as important as zinc or lead. For this reason, this section 

focuses mostly on barite mining in the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District. 

Early barite hand mining was widespread but the locations of barite diggings are not well documented. Areas of 

later, mechanized open-pit mining (fig. 10) and barite tailings ponds (fig. 11) are better documented; both are from the 

Missouri Geological Survey Mined Land Coverage (Cheryl 

Seeger, Missouri Geological Survey, written commun., October 27, 2015). It is possible that some of the tailing ponds are 

also sites of barite mining before mine tailings were placed 

there. The locations of barite mines (with or without lead or 

zinc) in the IMOP database are also shown on figure 10. The 

locations of barite tailings ponds and processing plants in 

the IMOP database, and the locations of processing plants in 

Washington County given in Park (2006), are also shown on 

figure 11. Although not capturing all barite mines, particularly 

the early diggings, figures 10 and 11 illustrate how widespread 

barite mining was in the Southeast Missouri Barite District. 

All barite occurrences in the study area included in the IMOP 

database (prospects and occurrences in addition to mines) are 

shown on figure 6.

Development of Barite Mining

Schoolcraft’s (1819, p. 70) description of the early lead 

mines in Missouri included the observation that barite “may 

be considered the proper matrix of the lead ore, as it is found 

imbedded in, and often completely enveloped by it.” Although 

Schoolcraft (1819) stated that barite was used as a chemical 

reagent and a flux for iron-ore smelting, it had no value to the 

early lead miners. The barite, or tiff as the miners called it, 
42 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

91°00' 90°30'

38°30'

38°00'

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! ! !!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

!!

!! !

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

! ! ! !!

!! !!! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

! !

!!

!

!

! ! !! !

!

!

! !

! !

! ! !!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !!

!

!!

!

!

!! ! ! !!

!

!

!! ! !!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!! !!

! !!

! ! ! !!!!!

!!! !

!!!!

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!!!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!! ! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

Big River

Meramec River

Big River

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

FRANKLIN COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Study area

ILLINOIS

Mississippi River

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

!

!

Barite without lead, zinc, or copper

Barite with lead, zinc, or copper

Barite mines—Missouri Geological Survey

Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, and Prospects 

(Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a)

Barite mines—Missouri Geological Survey Mined Lands 

Coverage (Cheryl Seeger, Missouri Geological Survey, 

written commun., October 27, 2015)

Open-pit barite mine

EXPLANATION

Southeast Missouri Barite 

District boundary

Valles Mines boundary

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 10

Figure 10. Locations and types of mineralization of Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines barite mines.
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 43

91°00' 90°30'

38°30'

38°00'

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

( (

(

(

(

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

#

# #

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

# #

##

## #

#

# #

# # #

#

#

#

#

Big River

Meramec River

Big River

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY

FRANKLIN COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

Study area

ILLINOIS

Mississippi River

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Barite processing plant

Tailings pond

Barite processing plants and tailings ponds—Missouri 

Geological Survey Inventory of Mines, Occurrences, 

and Prospects (Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, 2015a) Tailings ponds—Missouri Geological Survey Mined Lands 

Coverage (Cheryl Seeger, Missouri Geological Survey, 

written commun., October 27, 2015)

EXPLANATION

Processing plants (Park, 2006)

Barite tailings pond

#

)

Southeast Missouri Barite (

District boundary

Valles Mines boundary

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1995

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 11

Figure 11. Locations of Southeast Missouri Barite District and Valles Mines barite processing plants and tailings ponds.
44 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

was extracted from the residuum during lead mining and for 

many years was tossed aside or back in the pit (Tarr, 1918). 

Mining for barite in the United States began in Virginia and 

Connecticut in about 1845 (Brobst and Wagner, 1967), as 

barite was by then being used as a paint pigment. Mining for 

barite in Missouri may have started in about 1850 (Brobst 

and Wagner, 1967), but Litton (1855) did not describe barite 

as an economically important resource in southeastern Missouri, so the barite mining referred to by Brobst and Wagner 

(1967) may have been in central Missouri, where a barite mill 

reportedly was operating by 1866 (Tar, 1919). Barite mining 

in southeastern Missouri was active by at least the 1860’s, as 

Showalter (1963) states that barite mining near Potosi began 

near the end of the Civil War. Without saying where in Missouri, Tarr (1918) suggested that barite mining was well established in Missouri by the 1870’s. Showalter (1963) describes 

barite mining from the 1860’s to about 1905 as carried out on 

a small scale because there were few buyers. Mining was by 

hand; production increased after 1905 as more uses for barite 

were developed. Tarr (1918) listed 39 uses of barite, including 

paint pigment, lithopone (a white pigment made from barite 

and zinc sulfide), putty, rubber (for added weight), and linoleum (also for added weight). The peak of hand mining was 

from 1905 to the 1930’s, when several thousand people were 

engaged in barite mining (Showalter, 1963). 

Because barite and lead commonly are present together, 

the existence of large amounts of barite was known by the lead 

miners. For this reason, many of the barite diggings were on 

land previously mined for lead, and waste from lead diggings 

was picked through to recover barite that had been left behind. 

New areas of barite were found when barite float was turned 

up by plowing (Harness and Barsigian, 1946) and from prospecting. A common prospecting practice was to drive a steel 

bar into the ground, withdraw it, and inspect the tip of the bar 

for white barite residue, which would indicate the presence of 

barite in the subsurface (Park, 2006; Showalter, 1963). Barite 

was hand mined over a large area, especially in Washington 

County. Tarr (1918) estimated that the area of the barite-lead 

district as of 1918 was about 250 mi2, mostly in Washington 

County but also in Jefferson County. Buckley (1908) described 

and showed on a map 33 areas of barite diggings within a few 

miles of Mineral Point in Washington County. It was estimated 

that good productive land produced 2,000–6,000 or more tons 

of barite per acre, that the ore (barite) grade was 4–7 percent 

and as much as 25 percent in pockets, and that clay containing 

125 lb of barite per cubic yard (yd3) could be mined profitably 

(Park, 2006).

An important development happened around 1926 when 

barite began to be used as a weighting agent (drilling mud) 

for oil well drilling, leading to increased demand for barite; 

eventually 80–85 percent of the barite produced in Missouri 

was marketed as drilling mud, the remainder going to the 

chemical grade market (Wharton and others, 1969). Burford 

(1978, p. 29) stated that when the drilling mud market was 

realized, “Outsiders pushed in, corporations were formed, 

residents and speculators alike bought up thousands of acres of 

barite-bearing land in hopes of getting a quick profit. Farmers marked off sections to be mined.” Mechanized open-pit 

mining of old barite diggings began at Mineral Point in 1924 

(fig. 2; Dake, 1930) to recover barite left behind by hand mining, and large-scale washing plants were used to clean the clay 

from the barite. Hand mining, however, continued to thrive; 

Weigel (1929), describing mining practices in 1929, stated that 

hand mining still accounted for well over one-half of the barite 

production. Washer plants closed beginning in 1931 (Showalter, 1963), unable to compete with the cheap labor of hand 

digging during the Great Depression (Park, 2006). Muilenburg 

(1954) stated that nearly all of the barite produced before 

1937 was by hand mining. Mechanized mining and washing 

returned in the 1940’s, in large part because of a 1939 Federal 

court affirmation of a National Labor Relations Board’s decision that hand miners were employees of the landowner rather 

than independent contractors (Harness and Barsigian, 1946). 

Miners had been permitted to live in cabins on the land and 

pay the landowner a mining royalty, but following this decision landowners became reluctant to continue this practice, 

fearing higher labor costs, already high because nearby war 

industries were employing some workers. By the late 1960’s 

there were 25–30 washer plants in Washington County owned 

by 10 companies, and most of the concentrates were processed 

at 4 grinding plants near Mineral Point (Wharton and others, 

1969). Park (2006) provided the locations of 30 processing 

plants (washer plants and grinding plants) in operation in the 

late 1960’s (fig. 11). Wharton (1972) stated that 8 companies 

operated 15 mines and washer plants in Washington County in 

1971, a smaller number of plants than just a few years earlier. 

Muilenburg (1954) estimated that the barite-mining areas of 

Washington and adjacent counties constitute about 75 mi2 (of 

which he forecast 15,000 acres [23.4 mi2] would be productive 

and available for mining), an area smaller than the 250 mi2

estimated by Tarr (1918), probably indicating that mechanized 

mining, although concentrated where it did take place, was 

not as widespread as hand mining. The mechanized surfacemined areas shown in figure 10 have a combined area of about 

26.3 mi2. The area of mechanized mining is actually somewhat 

larger because at least some of what is shown on figure 11 as 

tailings ponds (about 4.7 mi2) had been mined and later used 

to store tailings; the combined area of mechanized surface 

mining and tailings ponds is about 31 mi2.

Barite was last mined in Missouri in 1998 (Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, 2012). Searls (2000) stated 

that a grinding plant operated in Missouri in 2000 using 

stockpile from an idle mine, and Rueff (2003) showed a barite 

grinding plant in Washington County. This may be the same 

grinding plant that operated in 2009 in Washington County 

(Miller, 2011). 

Barite Mining and Processing Methods

Most of the barite that was mined in the Southeast Missouri Barite District was from the residuum, and for many 

years the mining method was hand digging in the same way as 
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 45

earlier lead mining. Landowners leased their property to miners, or tiff diggers as they were known (Chaney, 1949), who 

paid a royalty to the landowner for the barite they mined. Miners commonly lived with their families on the land they were 

mining, living rent free in small houses built by the landowner 

(Weigel, 1929).

A small pit, or shaft, was dug with pick and shovel from 

4 to about 30 ft deep (Tarr, 1918), often going to bedrock. 

The shafts were 3 to 5 ft in diameter but were square on top if 

cribbing was used (Weigel, 1929); cribbing seems to generally 

have not been necessary because the pits remained open for 

years despite rains (Steel, 1910). The shafts were widened out 

at depth, undercutting the upper few feet of residuum, such 

that the shafts resembled an inverted mushroom (fig. 12A). 

Instead of widening the bottom of the shaft in all directions, 

drifts were sometimes dug in the directions of the richest 

ore as far as the miner felt was safe, usually 4 to 8 ft. (Steel, 

1910). Three drifts might be dug and intersect drifts from adjacent shafts to create pillars and aid in ventilation. Ventilation 

could be improved by starting a fire or placing heated rocks in 

one shaft, causing an updraft in that shaft and a downdraft in 

an intersecting shaft (Tarr, 1918). Once the upper ore had been 

mined to the extent possible the shaft would be deepened; 

alternately, sometimes the shaft would be dug to its total depth 

at first and then the upper ore would be mined by stoping a 

drift upward, allowing the roof of the drift to collapse (Steel, 

1910). 

When one shaft was completed, a second was started in 

the most favorable direction, and then a third and so on. Eventually the shafts would be spread out over the field as a series 

of holes with accompanying mounds of red clay (McQueen 

and Grohskopf, 1933; fig. 12B) and might have a regular pattern like a checkerboard (Steel, 1910). Each miner was generally allotted an area 60 ft square (Tarr, 1918) in which they 

tried to maximize the amount of ore removed. A large part of 

the ground was necessarily left behind as pillars and was not 

mined; Steel (1910) estimated that only about one-half of the 

barite was recovered. 

Barite mining sometimes extended into the bedrock, but 

this required explosives and was more expensive, and the 

bedrock was mined only when enough lead ore was present 

to justify the added expense (Steel, 1910). Shafts followed a 

vertical fissure until a “cave” containing ore was reached, and 

drifts were mined following horizontal stringers of barite and 

galena, which sometimes led to more ore.

Miners commonly worked with one or more partners, 

including family members (Chaney, 1949). The miner dug for 

barite while their partner operated the windlass to hoist ore 

and waste material to the surface in a bucket, and processed 

the raw ore (figs. 12 and 13). Generally, all of the excavated 

material was removed from the shaft, but sometimes the material was sorted in the shaft and the waste was left behind in an 

abandoned drift, and only the sorted ore was removed from the 

shaft. The barite was spread out on the ground or on boards 

to dry, or dried over an open fire (Showalter, 1963). Once 

dried, the barite was cleaned by cobbing to remove clay and 

other impurities (Tarr, 1918; fig. 13B) in much the same way 

as clay was separated from galena during lead mining. The 

barite was then placed in a rattle box shaped somewhat like 

a baby’s cradle, which, when rocked back and forth, forced 

the barite against metal spikes inside the rattle box, further 

cleaning the barite (fig. 14A). Fine-grained material, consisting 

of waste such as clay and iron oxides (Harness and Barsigian, 

1946) and other materials but also fine-grained barite, passed 

through holes in the bottom of the rattle box. Although galena 

was sometimes recovered as a byproduct, fine-grained galena 

also would have passed through the rattle box onto the ground 

(Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2013).

The cleaned barite passed through several hands after 

processing. The barite was hauled by a mule-drawn wagon or 

cart to merchants such as country stores where the barite was 

weighed and sold in exchange for other commodities (Tarr, 

1918). The barite was stockpiled there and sold to a buyer with 

access to the railroad (fig. 14B), who then sold it to a customer 

or to a larger selling company (Hill, 1917). Hill (1917) lists 

16 individuals or companies with offices in Washington, Jefferson, or St. Francois Counties or in St. Louis that sold barite. 

One of these was the Point Milling and Manufacturing Company that, beginning in 1904 (Steel, 1910), operated a mill in 

Mineral Point (fig. 2) for manufacturing ground barite. The 

barite was crushed and ground to minus 200 mesh, washed 

to remove clay, treated in lead-lined tanks with sulfuric acid 

to remove iron oxide (bleaching process), washed again to 

remove the acid, dried, and packed in barrels and sacks (Steel, 

1910; Tarr, 1918). Additional details of the operation of this 

mill and the bleaching process, using lead-lined tanks, lead 

pipes, lead-lined tank cars, and sulfuric acid, are given in 

Steel (1910). This may be the same company, called the Point 

Mining and Milling Co. by Wharton (1972), that experimented 

with steam shovels at Mineral Point in 1904. This experiment 

was apparently short-lived, and it was not until about 1924 

that mechanized mining became important.

Early mechanized mining techniques are described by 

Weigel (1929). Shovels with 3⁄4 to 11⁄2 yd3 dippers and powered by steam, gasoline, or electricity were used to mine the 

residuum to a depth of 12 to 15 ft (fig. 15). The entire thickness of residuum was processed without setting aside any 

nonbarite-bearing overburden that might be present. Because 

the ground was relatively soft, blasting was not necessary. The 

shovels were not able to mine cleanly to the bedrock because 

of its uneven surface, so any barite remaining in the low spots 

between bedrock pinnacles was mined by hand. Shovels 

loaded ore onto 5 yd3 rail cars, which were hauled as far as 

2,500 ft to washer plants by gasoline-powered locomotives 

on rail lines that were extended into the mine pit as mining 

progressed. 

The processing (milling) of barite ore was a matter of 

washing the barite to remove the clay, breaking the pieces of 

ore to reduce their size and remove coarse waste material, 

and then concentrating the barite. Weigel (1929) described 

small, combined hand and mechanical washers that were 

portable and could be operated by two men. Ore was fed by 
46 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Rothstein (1939a), Library of Congress

A. Miner digging laterally at bottom of shaft

B. Miner using windlass to hoist ore from shaft; abandoned shaft and waste piles nearby

Werner (1937), National Archives Catalog

rol17-EMSG00-0006fig 12

Figure 12. Barite diggings.
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 47

Rothstein (1939b), Library of Congress

B. Miner sorting and cleaning barite ore next to shaft and windlass

A. Miner operating windlass to hoist barite ore to the surface

U.S. Department of Agriculture (1937), National Archives Catalog

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 13

Figure 13. Hoisting barite ore to the surface, and cleaning and sorting the barite.
48 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Buckley (1908), Missouri Geological Survey

Buckley (1908), Missouri Geological Survey

A. Cleaned barite stockpiled at mine site, rattle box in lower right

B. Barite stockpiled along rail line

rol17EMSG000006fig 14

Figure 14. Stockpiles of cleaned barite.
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 49

A. Mining barite with a power shovel

B. Open-pit barite mine

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 15

Dake (1930), Missouri Geological Survey

Dake (1930), Missouri Geological Survey

Figure 15. Mechanized surface barite mining.
50 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

hand from a barrow or wagon to a single gasoline-powered 

log washer where clay was removed, and a jig was then used 

to concentrate the barite. These washers could be moved from 

site to site as mining operations moved. Larger, more elaborate permanent washer plants were located at Mineral Point, 

Old Mines, Cadet (figs. 2 and 16), and Fountain Farm (not 

shown on fig. 2) during these early years of mechanized mining (Weigel, 1929). Weigel (1929) described two plants near 

Cadet where ore was dumped from elevated rail cars through 

grizzlies (which retained oversized boulders) into 30-ft-long 

double log washers. Log washers consisted of paddles rotating 

around an axis (log) that, with the addition of water, removed 

clay from the ore. Overflow from the log washers went to a 

mud (tailings) pond. The washed ore was crushed to about 

3⁄4 in., and the barite was concentrated in jigs. The coarse jig 

tailings went to tailings piles or were used as railroad ballast, 

and the jig fines (middlings) went to gravity tables for further 

concentration (Weigel, 1929; Dake, 1930). The table concentrates typically had a higher grade (about 98 percent barite) 

than the jig concentrates. Weigel (1929) also described the 

operations at another plant at Cadet where a somewhat different process was used, including the use of trommels for concentration before the ore went to jigs, a drag dewaterer, and 

other processes. Limonite, which can coat the barite, presented 

a problem because even after crushing its specific gravity is 

similar to that of barite, and much of the barite shipped from 

the district contained limonite. The limonite did not affect 

oil-well drilling applications but was a problem for some other 

applications. 

This period of early mechanized barite mining was shortlived, and some hand mining continued during this time. By 

the early 1930’s, the washer plants had closed and all barite 

mining was done again by hand. This situation lasted only a 

few years and by the 1940’s barite mining and processing were 

again mechanized, this time at a larger scale, and hand mining 

accounted for only a small percentage of the barite production from the district. In describing mining practices at the 

time, Chaney (1949) stated that power shovels removed the 

ore, which now was loaded onto trucks rather than rail cars. 

Barite-free overburden was sometimes stripped. Trucks hauled 

the ore to washer plants that were normally located within 

about 2 mi of the mine. These washer plants were temporary 

and were moved as necessary to remain within a reasonable 

distance of the mine site. Chaney (1949) stated that the ore 

was fed from hoppers to a primary crusher before going to 

the washer, or breaker, a step not described for earlier washer 

plants (Weigel, 1929; Dake, 1930), where a strong jet of water 

was used to remove clay from the barite. Most of the breakers 

were a rotating grizzly, or squirrel cage, of rails into which the 

ore was fed. The relatively soft barite (table 1) would break 

into smaller pieces and fall through the spaces between the 

rails, leaving behind the harder silica minerals, which went to 

waste dumps. The ore then went to double log washers where, 

as in earlier washer plants, any remaining clay was removed 

and sent to tailings ponds. Next, a trammel screen was used to 

grind and further concentrate the barite. The ore then went to 

jigs for more concentration and then to a rake classifier. Overflow material went to the tailings pond. Chaney (1949) stated 

that there were more than 20 washer plants in the district, in 

addition to several grinding plants. Apparently, only some 

barite was ground, depending on its final use. 

Harness and Barsigian (1946) described the grinding and 

bleaching process used in the barite industry in the United 

States, with some reference to practices in Missouri. Barite 

that was not going to be bleached (which was not necessary 

for well drilling and some other applications) was ground dry, 

and barite that was to be bleached was ground wet. Wet grinding consisted of grinding 5/8-in. jigged barite in a tube mill, 

and the ground barite was then thickened, bleached, vacuumfiltered, dried in a kiln, and bagged. Bleaching was accomplished using a hot solution of sulfuric acid, which removed 

impurities such as iron minerals and lead sulfide (galena). The 

type of vessel used during this process is not specified; an earlier bleaching process used lead-lined tanks (Steel, 1910; Tarr, 

1918). Magnetic separators were later used to remove iron 

oxides (Wharton and others, 1969).

Mining methods did not change much 

through 1957. Muilenburg (1957) stated 

that exploration generally was unnecessary, as old barite shafts served as guides 

for mining. Some exploration was probably 

done, though, as Wharton (1986) mentioned 

prospecting using backhoes and power 

augers in a grid pattern. Barite was found at 

the surface in most places, so stripping of 

overburden generally was unnecessary. In 

addition to diesel- or gasoline-powered shovels, draglines were employed (Muilenburg, 

1957). Excavation depth averaged 10 or 15 ft 

and in some locations extended to 30 ft or 

more. Ore in low spots between bedrock pinnacles had been hand mined earlier (Weigel, 

1929), but now (Muilenburg, 1957), this ore 

Dake (1930), Missouri Geological Survey

Figure 16. A barite mill.
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 51

was generally not recovered and was lost to future mining 

because it was covered by jig tailings used for building and 

maintaining roads in the mine pit. Ore continued to be hauled 

by trucks, and trucks commonly returned from the washer 

plant with a load of jig tailings. A new road was built each 

time the shovel or dragline was moved (fig. 17A). 

Muilenburg’s (1957) description of the milling processes 

provides some additional details, but basic methods do not 

seem to have changed much from the time of Chaney’s (1949) 

description. A rotating breaker screen (perhaps similar to the 

trommel screen mentioned by Chaney [1949]), was used to 

break the barite into pieces that would pass through the screen, 

thus continuing the process of separating the barite from the 

harder gangue material before going to the jigs. A jaw crusher 

was sometimes used in place of the rotating breaker screen. 

Large quantities of water were required for milling the 

barite. A plant processing 800–1,000 yd3 of ore to produce 

about 100 tons of barite concentrate in 24 hours required 

1,000–1,200 gallons per minute (gal/min) of water (Muilenburg, 1957). About 800–900 gallons would be recirculated 

water, with the remainder coming from dammed streams or 

wells. Tailings and wastewater were impounded behind dikes, 

a method employed since washer plants had been used. Dikes 

were built across small valleys and were increased in height 

as necessary using washer waste and any overburden that had 

been stripped. In some cases, dikes were built across valleys 

that had already been mined for barite (Harness and Barsigian, 1946). Ponds could be many acres in size, particularly 

where the land was relatively flat, and took many years to 

dry (fig. 17B). Harness and Barsigian (1946) stated that older 

ponds had not completely dried but had a strong enough crust 

to support a plow team for cultivation. Waste material not 

placed in tailings ponds was placed in mine pits (Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, 2013)

By 1972, front end loaders were being used in addition 

to power shovels and, less commonly, dragline excavators 

(Wharton, 1972). Ore left in low spots in the bedrock surface 

was sometimes recovered using draglines, a practice previously done by hand (Weigel, 1929) but which later had been 

discontinued (Muilenburg, 1957). Abandoned pits were sometimes re-mined to recover lower-grade ore when market conditions allowed it. Ore was generally milled using the methods 

described by Muilenburg (1957). Rotary breakers, log washers, and breaker screens continued to be used; crushers were 

no longer used (Wharton, 1972). A typical washer plant could 

process 70–120 yd3 of ore per hour to produce 100–200 lb 

of barite per cubic yard of ore, using up to 5,000 gal/min of 

water. It is not stated by Wharton (1972), but most of this 

water probably would have been recirculated, as described by 

Muilenburg (1957). Wharton (1986) stated that froth flotation was attempted with the goal of recovering barite from 

the washer wastewater that went to the tailings ponds. It was 

unclear in 1986 whether froth flotation would be economical, 

but mining of barite did not last for many years after 1986, so 

this process could not have been common, if practiced at all.

Although lead was sometimes recovered while processing 

the barite, the amount of lead recovered is unknown. Weigel 

(1977), describing washers at Valles Mines, stated that it was 

common practice to place the log washer oversize on a picking 

belt where galena “nuggets” could be removed. Weigel (1977) 

also stated that galena was recovered from the first jig cell at 

the old plants.

Barite Production, Losses During Mining and 

Processing, and Potential Reserves

Cumulative production of barite in Missouri, starting 

in 1872 when some recordkeeping began, is estimated at 

13.4 million tons (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 

2012). Allowing for 5,000–10,000 tons per year from the 

1860’s through 1871 (Park, 2006) increases the estimate to 

13.5 million tons. The total barite production from the Central 

Missouri Barite District (fig. 1), where production ended in 

the 1950’s, is estimated at 400,000 tons (Wharton and others, 

1969), so the total production of barite from the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines can be estimated 

to have been about 13.1 million tons. 

Most of the barite production from the Southeast Missouri Barite District was from Washington County. For this 

reason, most authors, when referring to district production, 

refer only to production from Washington County, from the 

“Washington County Barite District,” or use the term “Washington County barite” or similar terminology without referencing production from Jefferson or St. Francois Counties (also, 

there was minor barite production from adjacent Franklin and 

Crawford Counties, which are not part of the Southeast Missouri Barite District). Wharton (1975) estimated that the barite 

production from the Valles Mines through 1974 was about 

3,200 tons, just 0.03 percent of the estimated 11.828 million 

tons of combined barite production for the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District and the Valles Mines through 1974.

Because most of the barite production in Missouri was 

from the Southeast Missouri Barite District, statistics for Missouri barite production serve as a proxy for production from 

the district. A graph of Missouri barite production from 1872 

to 1998 (fig. 18) shows a general increase, with some brief 

downturns, from the early 1900’s to 1957 when production 

peaked at 382,000 tons per year. Production was strong for the 

next few years before dropping in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Barite mining in Missouri ceased in 1998 (Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources, 2012). Although a grinding plant was 

operating in Washington County in 2000 (Searls, 2000) and in 

2009 (Miller, 2011), and Rueff (2003) shows a grinding plant 

in Washington County, the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources (2012) does not show any barite production after 

1998 (fig. 18). Missouri led the United States in barite production in most years from 1885 to 1971, after which Nevada 

was the major producer (Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, 2012).
52 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Wharton (1972), Missouri Geological Survey

Wharton (1972), Missouri Geological Survey

rol17-EMSG00-0006fig 17

A. Open-pit barite mine, showing network of roads in the mine

B. Barite tailings pond, partially vegetated

Figure 17. An open-pit barite mine and tailings pond.
Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines 53

Hand mining and processing of barite was inefficient. 

Estimates of barite recovery range from less than one-fourth 

(Muilenburg, 1954) to about one-half (Steel, 1910) because 

the pillars between the shafts in the residuum needed to be left 

unmined for stability. The hand cobbing of the barite at the 

surface was probably also inefficient because it would have 

been difficult to recover small pieces of barite bound to drusy 

quartz or other gangue minerals. Wharton (1972) stated that 

the fine-grained barite was either discarded or lost; the rattle 

box was used to concentrate the barite by removing clay, but 

some barite, being relatively soft at 3 to 3.5 on the Mohs 1 

to 10 scale of hardness (table 1; Hurlbut, 1971) would have 

broken into smaller pieces and passed through the slots in the 

bottom of the rattle box and onto the ground. Some galena, a 

soft mineral at 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale (table 1), also 

would have broken into small pieces; the galena fines would 

have remained with the clay (Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, 2013) and would have passed through the slots 

onto the ground. Although mechanized mining did not leave 

pillars and was therefore more efficient than hand mining, ore 

was sometimes left behind, particularly in low areas between 

bedrock highs. Pits were sometimes re-worked to recover 

additional barite (Wharton, 1972). 

Wharton (1986) estimated that about 30 percent of the 

barite was lost during the milling process. Wharton (1972) 

estimated that about two-thirds of the lost barite was finegrained and was discharged to the tailings ponds. Most of this 

fine-grained barite loss was overflow from the log washers 

(Wharton, 1972), but some was also lost during the jigging 

process (Muilenburg, 1957). Some galena was lost to the tailings ponds (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2013), 

but this has not been quantified.

Recognizing that the tailings ponds contained a large 

amount of barite and might be considered a barite resource, 

the Missouri Geological Survey investigated them to determine the tonnage, grade, and distribution of barite in representative ponds, and to provide information that could be used 

to develop barite recovery methods (Wharton, 1972). A 1972 

inventory of tailings ponds by the Missouri Geological Survey 

identified 67 ponds in the Southeast Missouri Barite District, 

40 of which were considered large (more than 500,000 yd3 or 

500,000 tons of tailings, with 1 yd3 weighing roughly 1 ton dry 

weight). Four ponds were drilled, and samples were scanned 

using x-ray fluorescence spectrometry to determine barium 

concentrations, from which barite concentrations were calculated. Wet chemistry was used for control assays. Results from 

the 4 ponds were used to estimate that the 67 ponds contained 

almost 39 million tons (or cubic yards) of tailings averaging 

about 5 percent barite, for a reserve of 1.935 million tons of 

barite. This is about 17 percent of the estimated 11.5 million 

tons of barite produced in the district through 1971, and represented about 10 years of supply at the rate of production in the 

1960’s. Metallurgical tests determined that about 50 percent of 

the barite is a minus 400-mesh size. A map showing the location of the 67 tailings ponds, and a detailed map and cross section of each of the four ponds showing locations of drill holes, 

barite grade, and thickness at each drill location and areas of 

different grades of barite in each pond are given by Wharton 

rol17-EMSG00-0006_fig 18

Note: Modified from Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources (2012).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Annual barite production in Missouri, in thousands of short tons

Year

Cumulative Missouri barite production from 1872 to 1998—13.4 million short tons

Figure 18. Cumulative Missouri barite production, 1872–1998.
54 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

(1972). The barite concentrations were the highest near the 

points of mill discharge because of the relatively large specific 

gravity of barite (table 1). For example, a 15-ft interval of 

tailings near an old mill site contained about 26 percent barite, 

whereas the tailings most distal from the point of discharge 

ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 percent barite. The 67 tailings ponds 

inventoried in 1972 are fewer than the 93 tailings ponds in 

the study area listed in the IMOP database. Although lead was 

not reported by Wharton (1972), its distribution in the tailings 

ponds would probably be similar because of the large specific 

gravity of lead minerals (table 1).

The barite deposits generally contained lead (and zinc) 

minerals as well as barite. It is not known how much lead was 

removed during barite mining, how much lead was recovered, 

or how much lead went to the tailing ponds or was used for 

mine roads or was otherwise lost.

Summary

The Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles 

Mines are located in Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois 

Counties, Missouri, where barite and lead ore are present 

together in surficial and near-surface deposits. Lead mining 

began in the early 1700’s and extended into the early 1900’s. 

Lead minerals were recovered by hand and although hand 

mining was carried out on a small scale compared to modern 

mining, the Southeast Missouri Barite District was the most 

important lead-producing district in the United States for a 

number of years. Although lead and barite were recovered, the 

Valles Mines was better known for zinc production. Lead mining in residuum (residual soil) resulted in widespread pits (also 

called shafts or diggings), and there was some underground 

mining of lead in bedrock.

For many years, barite was recovered from the residuum 

by hand mining, which also resulted in widespread diggings 

but generally not underground mines in bedrock. Mechanized 

open-pit mining of the residuum for barite began in the 1920’s, 

and by the 1940’s all barite mining was mechanized. Barite 

continued to be mined after lead mining had ceased, and more 

barite was produced than lead. Barite production slowed by 

the 1980’s, and there has not been any barite mining since 

1998. Missouri led the United States in barite production in 

most years from 1885 to 1971. Mechanized barite mining 

resulted in large mined areas and tailings ponds containing 

waste from barite mills.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

determined that lead is present in surface soils in Washington 

and Jefferson Counties at concentrations exceeding healthbased screening levels. Also, elevated concentrations of 

barium, arsenic, and cadmium have been identified in surface 

soils, and lead concentrations exceeding the Federal drinkingwater standard of 15 micrograms per liter (μg/L) have been 

identified in private drinking-water wells. Potential sources of 

these contaminants are wastes associated with barite mining, 

wastes associated with lead mining, or unmined natural deposits of barium, lead, and other metals. As a first step in helping 

EPA determine the source of soil and groundwater contamination, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with 

the EPA, investigated the geology and mining history of the 

Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines.

The Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles 

Mines have some similarities but they are different primarily 

in two ways: (1) most of the mining at the Valles Mines was 

in bedrock, which in contrast to the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District where most of the mining was in the residuum; and 

(2) the Valles Mines was an important zinc-producing area, 

and barite was not as important of a product as in the Southeast Missouri Barite District. Zinc was not recovered during 

the early years of lead mining because it was not a valuable 

commodity at that time. 

The Cambrian Potosi Dolomite is the most important 

formation in the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the 

Valles Mines because the residuum derived from it hosts most 

of the barite and lead in the Southeast Missouri Barite District, 

and ore also is found in the formation. The Cambrian Eminence Dolomite conformably overlies the Potosi Dolomite and 

is the second most important ore-bearing formation. Clayey 

residuum overlies the Cambrian and Ordovician formations in 

the study area and is mostly clay, but also contains chert, sand 

and sandstone, and drusy quartz and chalcedony, particularly 

where the residuum is developed from the Potosi Dolomite. 

Barite (barium sulfate) is a primary ore mineral. The 

primary, and most important lead-ore mineral, is galena (lead 

sulfide). Secondary lead minerals are cerussite (lead carbonate; 

also called dry bone by the early miners) and anglesite (lead 

sulfate). These secondary lead minerals commonly are present 

as alteration products of galena and were locally important ore 

minerals. The primary zinc ore mineral is sphalerite (zinc sulfide); smithsonite (zinc carbonate) is a secondary mineral that 

also was mined as an ore mineral and was more important than 

sphalerite in some deposits, including the Valles Mines. Chalcopyrite (copper-iron sulfide) also is present in the ore deposits 

as a primary mineral and was recovered in a few mines. 

Most of the ore that is present in bedrock is of one of two 

types: (1) runs or channels, also called pipes and pipe veins, 

are deposits with a larger horizontal than vertical extent with 

the vertical extent ranging from 1 to 6 feet (ft), and sometimes 

present in different levels; or (2) vertical crevice ore, also 

called fissures and veins, are vertical, tabular deposits that 

pinch out with depth and form along joints, with a greater 

vertical than horizontal extent, and which also are present as 

cross-veinlets. Breccia-filling ore also is present as vertical 

tabular masses cementing either fault or solution breccia. Ore 

in bedrock is characterized by open-space filling and less commonly replacement of the host dolomite. 

Because galena, sphalerite, and barite are less soluble 

than dolomite, chemical weathering of the dolomite bedrock 

resulted in the concentration of ore minerals in the residuum, 

and most of the barite and lead mining was in the residuum, 

which averages 10 to 15 ft thick. Barite and lead concentration 
Summary 55

can be randomly distributed in the residuum or evenly distributed from top to bottom, but usually the richest ore was found 

at the bottom of the residuum near the bedrock surface.

Barite, known as tiff to the miners, varies in size from 

minute grains to large masses (as much as several hundred 

pounds), but is more commonly in pieces from about 1 to 

about 10 inches in size. Galena usually is present as small 

cubes but was sometimes found in masses as large as several 

hundred pounds. Sphalerite is present as layers and isolated 

clusters of black, greenish-black, light red, and tan crystals.

Barite textural zoning and mineralogic zoning are present in large, linear ore runs from about 1 to at least 6 miles 

long and from about 200 yards to about 2.5 miles wide in 

the Southeast Missouri Barite District. Barite textural zoning 

consists of a central zone of coarsely crystalline barite that 

grades (or sometimes more abruptly changes) outward to a 

zone of finely crystalline barite. Mineralogic zoning coincides 

spatially with the barite-textural zoning, with sulfides concentrated mostly in the center of runs.

Lead mining by French explorers may have begun in 

1719 along Old Mines Creek at Cabanage de Renaudiere. This 

was followed shortly by the discovery of lead and the development of lead mines by Philippe Francois Renault at Mine 

Renault (also called Forche a Renault Mine), Old Mines, and 

at other places along the Big River, Mineral Fork, and Forche 

a Renault Creek. Renault continued to mine until 1744 when 

his mines closed; lead mining continued sporadically until 

about the end of the 18th century. Sometime between 1775 

and 1780, Francis Azor and Peter Boyer discovered lead at 

the surface at what would become known as Mine a Breton 

(sometimes written as Mine a Burton), but the name later 

changed to Potosi.

A major advancement in lead mining in Missouri happened with the arrival in 1798 of Moses Austin, an American, 

who transformed lead mining from a seasonal endeavor carried 

out between the end of the harvest and winter to a year-round 

industry. Until this time most of the ore in the district was dug 

from shallow diggings. Austin sank a shaft to a depth of 80 ft in 

1799 and erected a shot tower about 1 mile northwest of Potosi. 

Austin also established the port town of Herculaneum on the 

Mississippi River in 1809 and built a shot tower there.

Other mining areas in the Southeast Missouri Barite 

District were developed in the early part of the 19th century, 

including Fourche a Courtois in southwestern Washington 

County (also known as the Palmer Mines or the Shirley-Palmer 

area), the French Diggings and La Beaume Mines at what 

would become known as the Richwoods Mines in northeastern 

Washington County. Zinc became a valuable resource after 

the Civil War, and the Valles Mines was an important supplier 

of zinc as well as lead, with at least some production up until 

the 1920’s. Lead mines continued to operate during the Civil 

War, though at reduced production. It is unclear if production decreased or remained more or less uniform after the war 

through the latter part of the 19th century, but it did decline in 

the early part of the 20th century as mining in the Old Lead 

Belt, Mine La Motte, and the Tri-State District expanded.

Lead mining was primitive by modern standards, and 

production from individual mines was small compared 

to future production from underground mines of the Old 

Lead Belt and Viburnum Trend. The earliest lead mines 

were diggings (also called pits or shafts) in the residual 

soil and were normally 15–20 ft deep. Round holes about 

4 ft in diameter were dug with pick and shovel, and a hand 

windlass and bucket were used to hoist material to the 

surface. The shafts were normally dug to bedrock where 

the ore commonly was concentrated, and drifts about 4 ft 

by 4 ft were dug a short distance laterally from the bottom of the shafts, undermining the residuum. The process 

was repeated a short distance away until a large area was 

covered with pits. Austin’s 1799 shaft was the first that was 

more like a modern shaft; later, more mining in the bedrock 

was done, with shafts as deep as 170 ft and up to several 

hundred feet of lateral drifts.

The material brought to the surface consisted of lead ore, 

which was mostly galena, with lesser cerussite and anglesite 

mixed with clay, dolomite, druzy quartz, zinc minerals, and 

barite. Galena was cleaned by cobbing with a hammer to 

remove clay and other gangue prior to smelting. Waste, which 

included cerussite, anglesite, zinc ore, and barite, until the 

value of these minerals increased sufficiently to warrant recovery, was discarded in dumps.

Smelting of the lead ore to elemental lead was first done 

using a log hearth, also called a log furnace, and was the only 

type of furnace used until 1798. Log furnaces were probably 

built wherever there was mining; there probably were many 

log furnaces in the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the 

Valles Mines. Log furnaces were inefficient; estimates have 

been made that only about 50 percent of the lead was recovered and the remainder was lost to the ashes (slags) and to 

volatilization. About 20 log furnaces were in operation near 

Potosi when Moses Austin arrived in 1798. Austin built two 

more-efficient reverbatory furnaces, one for smelting primary 

ore and the other for smelting ashes (called an ash furnace). 

An ash furnace thus supplemented the log furnace. Log 

furnaces and ash furnaces, sometimes collectively termed a 

log and ash furnace when they worked in tandem, were used 

in Missouri for many years but were gradually replaced by 

other furnaces, including the Scotch hearth. Estimates have 

been made that the recovery of lead by a Scotch hearth was 

80–90 percent with 10–20 percent loss to slag and volatilization, but estimates of 67- and 70-percent recovery have been 

made. At least three types of reverbatory furnaces were used 

in Missouri: the ash furnace; the Drummond furnace, also 

called the air furnace; and the Flintshire furnace. Different estimates of the recovery of lead by an air furnace are 

80–90 percent and 63 percent. 

The first zinc furnace in Missouri was the Hesselmeyer 

Furnace built in Potosi in 1867 to smelt zinc ore from the 

Valles Mines. Zinc was more profitable than lead at the Valles 

Mines, but the furnace did not operate for very long. Much of 

the zinc ore was shipped out of the area, either to a smelter in 

St. Louis, Missouri, or to other smelters. 
56 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

The total lead and zinc production from the Southeast 

Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated at 

180,000 tons of lead and 60,000 tons of zinc. An estimated 

97,000 tons of lead and an estimated 120,000 tons of zinc 

were lost during smelting. The loss of zinc during smelting 

was likely not as widespread in the study area as that of lead. 

There were fewer zinc furnaces than lead furnaces, and most 

of the zinc smelting seems to have been outside the study area. 

The estimated losses do not include losses at the mine site 

during mining and preparation for smelting, such as the loss 

of fine-grained galena during hand cleaning or the discarding 

of zinc ore before its value was known, for which no estimates 

are available.

Barite mining in southeastern Missouri was active by at 

least the 1860’s. Mining was by hand for many years; production increased after 1905 as more uses for barite were developed. The peak of hand mining was from 1905 to the 1930’s, 

when several thousand people were engaged in barite mining. 

An important development happened around 1926 when barite 

began to be used as a weighting agent (drilling mud) for oil 

well drilling, leading to increased demand for barite. Mechanized open-pit mining of old barite diggings began in 1924 

to recover barite left behind by hand mining, and large-scale 

washing plants were used to clean the clay from the barite. 

Hand mining, however, continued to thrive, and washer plants 

began to close in 1931, unable to compete with cheap labor 

of hand mining during the Great Depression. Nearly all of the 

barite produced before 1937 was by hand mining. Mechanized 

mining and washing returned in the 1940’s, and barite was last 

mined in Missouri in 1998.

Most of the barite that was mined in the Southeast Missouri Barite District was from the residuum, and for many years 

the mining method was hand digging in the same way as earlier 

lead mining. Barite also was cleaned by cobbing to remove 

clay and other impurities in much the same way as clay was 

separated from galena during lead mining. The barite was then 

placed in a rattle box, shaped somewhat like a baby’s cradle, 

which, when rocked back and forth, forced the barite against 

metal spikes inside the rattle box, further cleaning the barite.

Early mechanized mining used shovels powered by 

steam, gasoline, or electricity to mine the residuum to a depth 

of 12 to 15 ft, and ore was loaded onto rail cars for shipment 

to washer plants. The processing (milling) of barite ore was 

a matter of washing the barite to remove the clay, breaking 

the pieces of ore to reduce their size and remove coarse waste 

material, and then concentrating the barite. Clay was removed 

from the barite using a log washer, and a jig was used to concentrate the barite. Log washers consisted of paddles rotating 

around an axis (log) that, with the addition of water, removed 

clay from the ore. Overflow from the log washers was waste 

and went to a mud (tailings) pond. The coarse jig tailings went 

to tailings piles or were used as railroad ballast and, later, to 

create roads within the mine pit. By the 1940’s barite mining 

and processing were mechanized at a larger scale, using power 

shovels and, later, draglines and front end loaders to remove 

the ore, and trucks rather than rail cars for haulage to washer 

plants. Some barite was ground, depending on its final use, 

and some ground barite was bleached using a hot solution of 

sulfuric acid to remove impurities such as iron minerals and 

lead sulfide (galena). An earlier bleaching process used leadlined tanks.

Large quantities of water were required for milling the 

barite; some was recirculated water and the remainder came 

from dammed streams or was pumped from wells. Tailings 

and wastewater were impounded behind dikes that were built 

across small valleys and were increased in height as necessary using washer waste and any overburden that had been 

stripped. In some cases, dikes were built across valleys that 

had already been mined for barite.

The total production of barite from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated to have 

been about 13.1 million tons. Most of the barite production 

was from Washington County. Hand mining and processing 

of barite was inefficient. Estimates of barite recovery range 

from less than one-fourth to about one-half because the pillars 

between the shafts in the residuum needed to be left unmined 

for stability. Also, some barite (and galena) would have broken 

into smaller pieces in the rattle box and would have passed 

through the slots and onto the ground. With mechanized 

mining, large amounts of barite were lost during the milling 

process. It has been estimated that about 30 percent of the 

barite was lost and that about two-thirds of the lost barite was 

fine-grained and was discharged to the tailings ponds. Some 

galena was lost to the tailings ponds.

A 1972 inventory of tailings ponds by the Missouri Geological Survey identified 67 ponds in the Southeast Missouri 

Barite District. Four ponds were drilled, and samples were 

scanned using x-ray fluorescence spectrometry to determine 

barium concentrations, from which barite concentrations were 

calculated. Results from the 4 ponds were used to estimate that 

the 67 ponds contained almost 39 million tons (or cubic yards) 

of tailings averaging about 5 percent barite, for a potential 

reserve of 1.935 million tons of barite. The 67 tailings ponds 

inventoried in 1972 are fewer than the 93 tailings ponds in the 

study area listed in the IMOP database.

The ore deposits contained lead (and zinc) minerals as 

well as barite. It is not known how much lead was removed 

during barite mining, either by hand or mechanized mining 

and processing, how much lead was recovered, or how much 

lead went as fines to the tailing ponds or as coarse material to 

mine roads or was otherwise lost.

References

Ball, S.H., 1916, The lead mines of Washington County, Missouri: Mining and Scientific Press, v. 113, p. 807–810. 

Ballinger, H.J., 1948, Investigation of the Krueger zinc 

deposit, Washington County, Missouri: U.S. Bureau of 

Mines Report of Investigations 4292, 49 p.
References 57

Blount, H.F., [1950?], Mining Tiff by hand, Washington County, MO: 26:50 min, posted May 26, 2012, 

accessed October 21, 2013, at http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=tU7Ovb5NtaI.

Brobst, D.A., 1958, Barite resources of the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1072–B, 130 p.

Brobst, D.A., and Wagner, R.J., 1967, Barite, in Mineral and 

Water Resources of Missouri: Missouri Geological Survey 

and Water Resources, v. 43, 2d series, p. 99–106.

Buckley, E.R., 1908, Geology of the disseminated lead 

deposits of St. Francois and Washington Counties: Missouri 

Bureau of Geology and Mines, v. 9, parts 1 and 2, 259 p. 

with plates.

Burford, J., 1978, Underground treasures, the story of mining 

in Missouri, in Official Manual of the State of Missouri, 

1977–1978: Jefferson City, Missouri, Von Hoffman Press, 

Inc., p. 1–33.

Carrollscorner.net, [n.d.], History of Mine A Breton/Potosi, 

Washington County, Missouri: accessed April 6, 2016, at 

http://www.carrollscorner.net/Potosi,Missouri.htm.

Chaney, J.B., 1949, The barite industry in the United States: 

Rolla, Missouri, University of Missouri School of Mines 

and Metallurgy, M.S. thesis, 89 p.

Dake, C.L., 1930, The geology of the Potosi and Edgehill 

quadrangles: Missouri Bureau of Geology and Mines, v. 23, 

2d series, 233 p. with plates.

Ekberg, C.J., Smith, C.R., Walters, W.D., Jr., and Lange, 

F.W., 1981, A cultural, geographical, and historical study 

of the Pine Ford Lake project area, Washington, Jefferson, 

Franklin, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri: Illinois State 

University, 115 p., accessed September 9, 2014, at http://

oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html

&identifier=ADA292365. 

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of the Eastern United 

States: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 419–518.

Garlichs, H., 1918, The metallurgy of lead ores in the lower 

Mississippi Valley, in Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers: New York, The Maple Press, 

v. 57, p. 610–615, accessed April 28, 2016, at https://babel.

hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00124177d;view=1up;

seq=662.

Gracy, D.B., II, 1992, Moses Austin and the development 

of the Missouri lead industry: OzarksWatch, v. 6, no. 1, 

accessed April 6, 2016, at http://thelibrary.org/lochist/periodicals/ozarkswatch/ow601f.htm.

Guberman, D.E., 2014, Lead: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral 

Commodity summaries 2014, p. 90–91. 

Hagni, R.D., 1995, The Southeast Missouri Lead District, in

Misra, K.C., ed., Carbonate-hosted lead-zinc-fluorite-barite 

deposits of North America: Guidebook Series, v. 22, p. 

44–78.

Harness, C.L., and Barsigian, F.M., 1946, Mining and marketing of barite: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7345, 73 p. 

Hearthstone Legacy Publications, 2004, Goodspeed’s 

Washington County history, originally published by The 

Goodspeed Publishing Co., 1888: Higginsville, Missouri, 

Hearthstone Legacy Publications, p.459–535.

Hill, J.M., 1917, Barytes and strontium, in Mineral Resources 

of the United States, 1915, Part 2—Nonmetals: U.S. Geological Survey, p. 161–185, accessed February 16, 2016, 

at https://archive.org/stream/mineralresources152unit#p

age/160/mode/2up. 

Hurlbut, C.S., Jr., 1971, Dana’s manual of mineralogy (18th 

ed.): New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 p.

Imes, J.L., 1990, Major geohydrologic units in and adjacent to 

the Ozark Plateaus province, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, 

and Oklahoma-St. Francois confining unit: U.S. Geological 

Survey Hydrologic Atlas 711–D, 3 sheets.

Imes, J.L., and Emmett, L.F., 1994, Geohydrology of the 

Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System in parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1414–D, 127 p.

Ingalls, W.R., 1908, Lead and zinc in the United States: New 

York, Hill Publishing Co., 368 p.

Kaiser, C.J., Kelly, W.C., Wagner, R.J., and Shanks, W.C., III, 

1987, Geologic and geochemical controls of mineralization in the Southeast Missouri Barite District: Economic 

Geology, v. 82, no. 3, p. 719–734, accessed March 12, 2014, 

at http://econgeol.geoscienceworld.org/content/econgeo/82/3/719.full.pdf.

Kiilsgaard, T.H., Hayes, W.C., and Heyl, A.V., 1967, Lead and 

zinc, in Mineral and Water Resources of Missouri: Missouri 

Geological Survey and Water Resources, v. 43, 2d series, 

p. 41–63.

Leach, D.L., Taylor, R.D., Fey, D.L., Diehl, S.F., and Saltus, 

R.W., 2010, A deposit model for Mississippi Valley-Type 

lead-zinc ores, chap. A of Mineral deposit models for 

resource assessment: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010–5070–A, 52 p.

Ligasacchi, A., 1959, A study of the genesis of the Krueger 

zinc deposit and near-by barite deposits of the Potosi 

quadrangle, Washington County, Missouri: Rolla, Missouri, 

University of Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy, 

M.S. thesis, 112 p.
58 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Litton, A, 1855, A preliminary report on some of the principal 

mines in Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, St. Francois and 

Madison Counties, Missouri, in Swallow, G.C., The first 

and second annual reports of the Geological Survey of Missouri: Jefferson City, Missouri, James Lusk, Public Printer, 

p. 1–94.

McCracken, M.H., 1971, Structural features of Missouri: 

Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources Report of 

Investigation 49, 99 p. with plate.

McQueen, H.S., and Grohskopf, J.G., 1933, Mineral production in Missouri, in Biennial Report of the State Geologist: 

Rolla, Missouri, Missouri Bureau of Geology and Mines, 

p. 32–50.

Miller, M.M., 2011, Barite [advance release], in Metals and 

minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2009, 

v. I, p. 9.1–9.8, accessed February 12, 2014, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/barite/myb1-2009-

barit.pdf.

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, 2005, 

Health consultation, Valles Mines, Valles Mines School 

Road, Jefferson County, Missouri, EPA Facility ID 

MON00070446: Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, accessed February 18, 2016, 

at http:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/VallesMinesSchoolRoad/VallesMinesSchoolRoadHC10045.pdf.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2003, Geologic 

map of Missouri: Rolla, Missouri, Missouri Geological 

Survey, scale 1:500,000.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2012, Missouri 

barite: accessed August 21, 2012, at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/

geology/geosrv/imac/barite.htm. 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2013, Missouri 

lead mining history by county: accessed August 13, 2013, 

at http://dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/sfund/lead-mo-history-more.

htm.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015a, Missouri Geological Survey Geosciences Technical Resources 

Assessment Tool (GeoSTRAT): accessed December 29, 2015, at http://dnr.mo.gov/geostrat/.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2015b, Missouri Geological Survey Geosciences Technical Resources 

Assessment Tool (GeoSTRAT): accessed October 8, 2015, 

at http://dnr.mo.gov/geostrat/.

Muilenburg, G.A., 1954, Barite mining in Missouri, in Kansas 

Geological Society Guidebook, 17th Field Conference: 

Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources Report of 

Investigations 17, p. 45–50.

Muilenburg, G.A., 1957, Barite mining and production in 

Missouri: Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources 

Miscellaneous Publication, 13 p.

Nelson, W.J., and Lumm, D.K., 1985, Ste. Genevieve fault 

zone, Missouri and Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey, 

Final Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Department of Interior, NRC-04-81-016, 94 p., accessed 

October 13, 2015, at https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/42744/stegenevievefaul19853nels.

pdf?sequence=2.

Parizek, E.J., 1949, The geology of the Tiff and Vineland 

quadrangles of Southeast Missouri: University of Iowa, 

Ph.D. dissertation, 225 p.

Park, J.R., 2006, Missouri Mining Heritage Guide, version 

1.3: Miami, Florida, Stonerose Publishing Company, 279 p.

Pulsifer, W.H., 1888, Notes for a history of lead: University Press, John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, 389 p., 

accessed February 16, 2016, at https://archive.org/stream/

notesforhistoryo00pulsrich#page/n7/mode/2up.

Robertson, J.D., 1894a, Industry and statistics of lead and 

zinc, chap. 6 of Winslow, A., Lead and zinc deposits: Jefferson City, Missouri, Tribune Printing Co., Missouri Geological Survey, v. 6, p. 198–264.

Robertson, J.D., 1894b, Industry and statistics of lead and zinc 

in Missouri, chap. 8 of Winslow, A., Lead and zinc deposits: 

Jefferson City, Missouri, Tribune Printing Co., Missouri 

Geological Survey, v. 6, p. 488–499.

Rothstein, A., 1939a, Photograph of miner digging tiff: Library 

of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Farm Security 

Administration, Office of War Information Photograph Collection, LC-USF34-029130-D, accessed May 6, 2016, at 

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/fsa2000010529/PP/.

Rothstein, A., 1939b, Photograph—In a good mine a man 

can dig a thousand pounds of tiff ore a day, Washington 

County, Missouri: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Farm Security Administration, LC-USF34-

029133-D, accessed May 6, 2016, at http://www.loc.gov/

pictures/collection/fsa/item/fsa2000010532/PP/resource/.

Rueff, A.W., 2003, Mineral resources and industry map of 

Missouri: Rolla, Missouri, Missouri Geological Survey, 

scale 1:500,000.

Schoolcraft, H.R., 1819, A view of the lead mines of Missouri, 

including some observations on the mineralogy, geology, geography, antiquities, soil, climate, population, and 

productions of Missouri and Arkansaw, and other sections 

of the western country: New York, Charles Wiley & Co., 

299 p.
References 59

Schott, T., 2012, Geology of the RC Westfork-Cemetery Ridge 

Solution Collapse Breccia, Viburnum Trend, southeast 

Missouri: The Doe Run Company, accessed January 20, 

2016, at http://www.doerun.com/Portals/0/Presentations/

PDAC%20Viburnum%20Trend%20Present.%20T.%20

Schott.pdf

Searls, J.P., 2000, Barite, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2000, v. I, p. 10.1–10.8, 

accessed February 12, 2014, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/

minerals/pubs/commodity/barite/barite00.pdf.

Seeger, C.M., 2008, History of mining in the Southeast Missouri Lead District and description of mine processes, regulatory controls, environmental effects, and mine facilities 

in the Viburnum Trend Subdistrict, chap. 1 of Kleeschulte, 

M.J., ed., Hydrologic investigations concerning lead mining 

issues in southeastern Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5140, p. 1–33.

Showalter, G.W., 1963, Potosi, 200 years, a bicentennial scrapbook commemorating the 200th anniversary of Potosi at 

the heart of the historic mining country in Missouri: Potosi, 

Missouri, Bicentennial History Committee, Independent 

Journal reprint edition 1985, 29 p.

Snyder, F.G., 1968a, Geology and mineral deposits, midcontinent United States, in Ridge, J.D., ed., Ore deposits of the 

United States, 1933–1967 (Graton-Sales Volume): New 

York, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., p. 257–286.

Snyder, F.G., 1968b, Tectonic history of the midcontinental 

United States: Rolla, Missouri, University of Missouri at 

Rolla, UMR Journal, v. 1, no. 1, p. 65–78.

Snyder, F.G., and Gerdemann, P.E., 1968, Geology of the 

Southeast Missouri Lead District, in Ridge, J.D., ed., Ore 

deposits of the United States, 1933–1967 (Graton-Sales Volume): New York, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy 

and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., p. 326–358.

State Historical Society of Missouri, 2013, Valles Mining 

Company records, 1839–1972: accessed on October 28, 

2013, at http://shsmo.org/manuscripts/rolla/r1278.pdf.

Steel, A.A., 1910, The geology, mining, and preparation of 

barite in Washington County, Missouri: Transactions of the 

American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 

v. 40, p.711–743.

Stoddard, A., 1804, Description of the lead mines in 

Upper Louisiana: American State Papers, 8th Congress, 

2d Session, Public Lands, v. 1, no. 103, p. 188–191, 

accessed on June 2, 2014, at http://memory.loc.gov/

cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=028/llsp028.

db&recNum=197

Swallow, G.C., 1855, The first and second annual reports of 

the Geological Survey of Missouri: Jefferson City, Missouri, 

James Lusk, Public Printer, 541 p.

Swallow, G.C., 1859, Geological report of the country along 

the line of the south-western branch of the Pacific Railroad, 

State of Missouri: St. Louis, Missouri, George Knapp & 

Co., 93 p.

Tarr, W.A., 1918, The barite deposits of Missouri and the geology of the Barite District: Columbia, Missouri, The University of Missouri Studies, v. 3, no. 1, 111 p. with plates. 

Tarr, W.A., 1919, The barite deposits of Missouri: Economic 

Geology, v. 14, p. 46–67, accessed February 21, 2014, at 

http://econgeol.geoscienceworld.org/content/14/1/46.

Thacker, J.L., and Anderson, K.H., 1977, The geologic setting 

of the Southeast Missouri Lead District—Regional geologic 

history, structure, and stratigraphy: Economic Geology, 

v. 72, no. 3, p. 339–348.

Thacker, J.L., and Anderson, K.H., 1979a, Preliminary isopach 

maps of the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone and Cambrian 

Bonneterre Formation, Rolla 1° x 2° degree quadrangle, 

Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field 

Studies Map MF–1002A, 2 sheets, scale 1:250,000.

Thacker, J.L., and Anderson, K.H., 1979b, Preliminary isopach maps and sand/shale ratio maps of the Cambrian Davis 

Formation, Rolla 1° x 2° degree quadrangle, Missouri: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF–1002D, 2 sheets, scale 1:250,000.

Thacker, J.L., and Anderson, K.H., 1979c, Preliminary isopach 

maps of the Cambrian Derby-DoeRun Dolomite and the 

Cambrian Elvins Group, Rolla 1° x 2° degree quadrangle, 

Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field 

Studies Map MF–1002F, 2 sheets, scale 1:250,000.

Thacker, J.L., and Anderson, K.H., 1979d, Preliminary isopach maps of the Cambrian Potosi Dolomite and Cambrian 

Eminence Dolomite, Rolla 1° x 2° degree quadrangle, Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies 

Map MF–1002G, 2 sheets, scale 1:250,000.

Thompson, H.C., 1955, Our Lead Belt heritage: reprinted in 

1992 by the Walsworth Publishing Company, 187 p.

Thompson, T.L., 1995, The stratigraphic succession in Missouri: Missouri Department of Natural Resources Division 

of Geology and Land Survey, v. 40, 2d Series, revised, 

188 p.
60 Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri

Thompson, T.L., Mulvany, P.S., Palmer, J.R., Davis, J.G., and 

Miller, J.F., 2013, Cambrian stratigraphic succession in Missouri, in Mulvnay, P.S., and Thompson, T.L., ed., Paleozoic 

succession in Missouri, Part 1 (Revised)—Cambrian System: Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri 

Geological Survey Report of Investigation No. 70, Part 1, 

revised, 266 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016a, EPA superfund 

program: Southwest Jefferson County mining, Jefferson 

County: accessed December 20, 2016, at MOhttps://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0705443.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016b, Washington County Lead District - Furnace Creek superfund site, 

Washington County, Missouri - Fact Sheet, June 2016: 

accessed December 20, 2016, at https://www.epa.gov/mo/

washington-county-lead-district-furnace-creek-superfundsite-washington-county-missouri-fact.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016c, Washington 

County Lead District - Potosi, Old Mines, and Richwoods 

superfund sites, Washington County, Missouri - Fact Sheet, 

September 2016: accessed December 20, 2016, at https://

www.epa.gov/mo/washington-county-lead-district-potosiold-mines-and-richwoods-superfund-sites-washingtoncounty.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1937, Photograph of hoisting operation in tiff mining near Palmer, Missouri: Records 

of the Forest Service, U.S. National Archives and Records 

Administration, National Archives Catalog, accessed 

May 6, 2016, at https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2128072.

Valles Mines, Missouri, USA, 2014, The Valles Mines smelter 

and scotch eye furnace: accessed September 19, 2014, at 

http://vallesmines.com/VMC-Activities/RuinsAndRestorations/Smelter/Smelter.aspx.

Valles Mines, Missouri, USA, 2015, The chat pile ore-dressing 

and beneficiation mill: accessed August 11, 2015, at http://

vallesmines.com/VMC-Activities/Main_Street/TheChatPile.aspx.

Valles Mines, Missouri, USA, 2016, 1946 Missouri Geological 

Survey topographic map showing the portion of the Valles 

Mines property near Tunnel Station: accessed April 4, 2016, 

at http://vallesmines.com/VMC-Tools/Maps/TunnelStation.

aspx.

Wagner, R.J., 1973, Stratigraphic and structural controls and 

genesis of barite deposits in Washington County, Missouri: 

University of Michigan, Ph.D. dissertation, 265 p. with 

plates.

Wagner, R.J., 1986, Geology, zoning, and controls of mineralization in the Southeast Missouri Barite District, in

Hagni, R.D., Bradley, M.F., Dunn, R.G. Jr., Gerdemann, 

P.E., Gregg, J.M., Masters, T.D., Stone, C.G., and Wharton, H.M., eds., Sediment-hosted Pb-Zn-Ba deposits of the 

midcontinent, Society of Economic Geology Pre-Meeting 

Field Trip No. 1, Nov. 3–8, 1986, in conjunction with the 

1986 Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America: 

Rolla, Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geology and Land Survey, p. 120–122.

Weigel, W.M., 1929, The barite industry of Missouri: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers Technical Publication 201, p. 256–279.

Weigel, W.M., 1977, Valle Mines washer design: Valles Mines, 

Missouri, USA, accessed June 19, 2014, at http://www.

vallesmines.com/Downloads/Valles%20Mines%20Ore%20

Washer.pdf.

Werner, W.A., 1937, Photograph of tiff mining area near 

Palmer: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Records of the 

Forest Service, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives Catalog, accessed December 2, 

2016, at https://catalog.archives.gov/search?q=missouri%20

mining&rows=20.

Wharton, H.M., 1972, Barite ore potential of four tailings 

ponds in the Washington County barite district, Missouri: 

Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources Report of 

Investigations No. 53, 91 p.

Wharton, H.M., 1975, Introduction to the Southeast Missouri Lead District, in Guidebook to the geology and ore 

deposits of selected mines in the Viburnum Trend, Missouri: 

Rolla, Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Report of Investigations 58, 60 p.

Wharton, H.M., 1986, Washington County or Southeast Missouri barite district, in Hagni, R.D., Bradley, M.F., Dunn, 

R.G. Jr., Gerdemann, P.E., Gregg, J.M., Masters, T.D., 

Stone, C.G., and Wharton, H.M., eds., Sediment-hosted PbZn-Ba deposits of the midcontinent, Society of Economic 

Geology Pre-Meeting Field Trip No. 1, Nov. 3–8, 1986, in 

conjunction with the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America: Rolla, Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land 

Survey, p. 109–117.

 Wharton, H.M., Martin, J.A., Rueff, A.W., Robertson, C.E., 

Wells, J.S., and Kisvarsanyi, E.B., 1969, Missouri minerals—Resources, production, and forecasts: Rolla, Missouri, 

Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources Special 

Publication No. 1, 303 p.
References 61

Winslow, A., 1894, Lead and zinc deposits: Jefferson City, 

Missouri, Tribune Printing Co., Missouri Geological Survey, v. 6, 763 p.

Witman, A., 1941, Photograph—Typical hand mining of 

tiff: St. Louis Post Dispatch, U.S. National Archives 

and Records Administration, National Archives Catalog, 

accessed December 2, 2016, at https://catalog.archives.gov/

id/7029746. 

Wood, J.A., 1963, Barite (tiff) mining in Washington County, 

Missouri—Built 1961: 3:32 min, posted July 13, 2013, 

accessed October 21, 2013, at http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=ZodjLH-k7Bc.

Publishing support provided by: 

Rolla Publishing Service Center

For additional information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Missouri Water Science Center 

1400 Independence Road

Rolla, MO 65401

(573) 308–3667

Or visit the Missouri Water Science Center Web site at:

https://mo.water.usgs.gov

Back cover photographs. Upper left: Barite (barium sulfate). Specimen on display at the Missouri 

Geology Survey, Rolla, Missouri (photograph by Douglas N. Mugel). Lower right: Galena (lead sulfide) 

(photograph by Douglas N. Mugel).
Mugel—Geology and Mining History of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Missouri—SIR 2016–5173

ISSN 2328-031X (print)

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20165173

9 781411 341036

ISBN 978-1-4113-4103-6

Printed on recycled paper