Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Improving Mindat.orgGraphite ball from the Saranac mine?

24th Dec 2014 20:28 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

http://www.mindat.org/photo-617191.html this is a typical ball from the Hwy 507 occurrence http://www.mindat.org/photo-266172.html. The Saranac mine is in a granite pegmatite and does not have any white marble, maybe on the road into the mine but certainly not at the mine itself. The problem is where do you draw the boundary of the Saranac Mine? The Saranac mine itself is in a granite pegmatite which is intruding marble. There is lots of white marble on the road to the mine, although there is no mention of graphite in the marble by Sabina. John maybe you can find out exactly where Michael found it. Maybe a new sublocality needs to be created?

24th Dec 2014 21:29 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

As far as I can determine the trenches exposing the pegmatite only extend as far north as the N half of lot 24 which is the boundary of the claim. In other words the road into the mine is in the North half of lot 24 and is not on the Saranac property which is in the South half of lot 24 (as noted in Satterly 1956). If one were to create a sublocality for the road in it could be Concession 10, N half of Lot 24, Monmouth Twp.

25th Dec 2014 00:46 UTCMatt Neuzil Expert

I believe i have poked around in that marble just past the garbage dump. I'd say they are different too. i guess coordinates would be off by Seconds?

25th Dec 2014 15:28 UTCJohn R. Montgomery 🌟 Expert

Greetings Reiner and Matt,

I will get in touch with Michael... just wrote him about another matter on this Christmas morn and I know he is with family so it may be a while before i get back with an answer .

thanks

John

25th Dec 2014 18:24 UTCKelly Nash 🌟 Expert

The other graphite ball in the locality gallery (Graphite Ball - Saranac) is one I found along the road between the dump and the pegmatite. I have another one that is in calcite (marble or skarn, I guess) similar to Michael's. Shortly after posting it I got a note from John Rakovan questioning the locality, which is why my description says it could be from roadbed material. If there is a marble outcrop there (it's kind of overgrown), that is just as likely the source. In fact, Ann Sabina's guidebook (Geol. Surv. Canada Misc. Rept. 39) does mention trenches in a skarn along the 250 meter road, and I think it is likely that the roadbed source material is probably very localized instead of hauled in from elsewhere. If you want to make another locality out of the skarn (and I distinguish between skarn and marble), I'm happy to move mine to that locality.

25th Dec 2014 21:51 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Done

26th Dec 2014 00:17 UTCMichael J. Bainbridge Expert

This was found in what Sabina describes as "the skarn zone" under the Saranac mine description in her Bancroft book. It is the trench into a massive calcite body along the road to the pegmatite (zircon) occurrence. I'm going to check some references before weighing in on whether this warrants a new locality.

26th Dec 2014 01:35 UTCJohn R. Montgomery 🌟 Expert

Thanks Michael

26th Dec 2014 12:45 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Since the trenches in the marble are a totally different geology from the zircon showing it would make sense to create a sublocality for this. It is just a matter of what to call it. Should it be a sublocality of the Saranac property or it's own locality? After reading Sabina more closely I am inclined to make it a sublocality of the Saranac just like the Zircon showing and Pegmatite showing are. I have already created a locality for the marble showing but as a sublocality of Monmouth Twp. I can easily change that to a sublocality of Saranac mine. What do you think?

While on this Saranac subject, I don't know why it is called a mine? It never got beyond the prospect pit stage nor produced anything so it is not technically a mine. What do you think about changing it to "property" or should we just leave it as is to match what Sabina calls it?

26th Dec 2014 14:10 UTCMatt Neuzil Expert

Id call it saranac skarn showing or something to that effect maybe

26th Dec 2014 20:14 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Trouble with that is skarn is not the same as marble, it is a geochemically altered marble. From the appearance of the matrix of the ball it is not in skarn rather just marble ( calcite). Also on the geological map graphite is noted as occuring in the marble although not in the vicinity of the zircon showing and it's associated skarn. However Sabina does mention graphite in the granite but not the skarn? Probably an oversight or an error though.

26th Dec 2014 21:43 UTCMichael J. Bainbridge Expert

The graphite balls in massive calcite were found in one of the trenches exposing "skarn in crystalline limestone" that Sabina describes below:

"The showings were explored for radioactive minerals by several open cuts from 1954-1956. The work was conducted by Saranac Uranium Mines Limited. At the Zircon showing, granite and granite pegmatite are exposed by a 46-m long open-cut and by a trench 30 m to the south. A skarn in crystalline limestone is exposed by two trenches 90 m north of the open-cut. The Pegmatite showing is exposed by an open-cut 46 m long.

To reach the Zircon showing, proceed onto the road that leaves Highway 121 at km 24.2 and continue beyond the garbage disposal area along a single-lane road for about 350 m to the open-cut. The trenches exposing the skarn are along this road. To reach the Pegmatite showing, proceed along the Hadlington Road for 2.45 km from Highway 121; turn left and proceed lOO m to the open-cut which is 9 m above the level of the swamp (on the east side of the opening). The junction of the Hadlington Road is at km 23.3."

I never actually made it as far as the zircon showing, but according to the description, it is only 90m from the trench where I found the graphite. The pegmatite showing, on the other hand, is 1.7km away from the zircon showing (meaning they would be on different lots):

"The property consists of two deposits, the Zircon and the Pegmatite showings which are l. 7 km apart."

Additionally, the pegmatite and zircon showings are accessed by different roads. To me, this means that the pegmatite and zircon showings should be different localities in Monmouth Tp., with the workings in the skarn being a sub-locality to the zircon showing.

27th Dec 2014 02:33 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

That makes sense. However maybe it would be best to drop the "Mine" title and just have a locality called "Saranac properties" then make sublocalities called: Saranac pegmatite showing, Saranac zircon showing, and Saranac skarn showing? There really is no mine just a bunch of pits and an open cut. I think the mine thing came from the name of the company "Saranac Uranium Mines Ltd." Satterly (1957) refers to a Zircon Showing and East Pegmatite Showing not a mine. Saranac was looking for uranium but all the radioactivity at the zircon showing was from thorium in the form of thorite, so they only worked on the property for two years (1954-1955) and the East Pegmatite showing for one year in 1956.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 20, 2024 01:49:23

Go to top of page