jrork report bigwood twp. sudbury mining division...ac1 a general geology across the claim ac1 b...

Click here to load reader

Post on 19-Jan-2021

2 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • ASSESSMENT V\jrORK REPORT

    Allstone Quarries Products Inc. Bigwood Twp.

    Sudbury Mining Division

    REPORT ON GEOLOGY FOR MINING CLAIM S 3007599

    David Villal·d

    July 9, 2008

    RE ts JUL 1 1 2009 OSCIENCE ASSESSMENT

    OFFICE

    2-38570

  • SUMMARY

    INTRODUCTION

    OBJECTIVE

    LOCATION AND ACCESS

    REGIONAL GEOLOGY

    LOCAL GEOLOGY

    PICTURES

    CONCLUSIONS

    REFERENCES

    APPENDIX "Au

    MAPS 1. Index map 2. Geology map

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Page

    3

    3

    3

    3

    3

    4

    5

    10

    11

    12

    Back pocket

    2

  • SUMMARY:

    This report has been prepared as part of the requirement for filing of assessment work on Mining Claim S 3007599. $1600 worth of work is required to be filed by July 13,2008. The claim represents 4 Claim Units and the recorded holder is Jose Melo(100%). The claim is located approximately 2 to 3 km. southwest of an active quarry (Bigwood Quarry) under a mining lease to Allstone Quarry Products Inc., of which Jose Melo is a principal. The claim has the potential to produce suitable landscaping stone, as well as, aggregate for road building.

    INTRODUCTION:

    Allstone Quarry Products Inc. has an active stone quarry located 2 to 3 km. NNE. of this claim and they continue to explore for new properties in the area to satisfy the increasing demand for stone for the landscaping Industry. This report provides an initial examination of the bedrock geology of the claim.

    OBJECTIVE:

    An outcrop map was prepared for the claim and this was used as a base map for the fieldwork carried out across the property. The work was carried out to map the general nature and extent of the bedrock, in particular the structural characteristics that are critical to block/slab extraction. As in their existing quarry, it is desirable that the rock:

    • fracture naturally, facilitating extraction • be relatively durable under all weather conditions • produce blocks and slabs of suitable size for the end use • have an absence of deleterious material that could cause rusting or staining • have a relatively consistent color and be aesthetically pleasing • have a low density of joints and fractures • have a positive relief • be marketable

    LOCATION and Access:

    The claim is located in the west half of Lot 9, Concession 2, Bigwood Township. The south boundary of the claim borders on Hartley Lake Road, 4 km. west of Highway 69, approximately 75 kilometres south of Sudbury. See Figure 1.

    REGIONAL GEOLOGY:

    The geology of the area has been described by several workers, most notably Davidson and Culshaw, who have published numerous papers. The claim lies within the Central Gneiss Belt of the Grenville geological province. The structural arrangement of the Central Gneiss Belt is regarded by Davidson and co-workers as a series of stacked thrust sheets or domains that were emplaced from the southeast(Marmont, 1991).

    The rocks of the Central Gneiss Belt in the general area are migmatitic gneisses of varying composition, encompassing bodies of metamorphosed plutonic rocks. The gneisses are generally medium to coarse-grained, composed mainly of quartz, feldspar and biotite.

    This area is located within the Britt Domain(Davidson, A. and Morgan. w.e. 1981) and the rocks of the Britt Domain have been subjected to at least two separate phases of deformation. "The Britt Domain is underlain by highly deformed ortho- and paragneiss, cut by a suite of younger

    3

  • granitoid plutonic rocks, and subsequently been deformed and metamorphosed again"(Davidson, A. and Morgan. w.e. 1981).

    LOCAL GEOLOGY:

    Initial mapping consisted of traversing the claim with the help of a previous produced outcrop map. Since the geology is relatively consistent throughout the claim, it was not noted on the map, but is described in the text below. The strike and dip of the foliation. although relatively consistent, have been marked on the map. The jointing patterns have been described in the text.

    Exposure is significantly better in the southern two thirds of the claim. with large expanses of bare flat exposures that have been smoothed by glacial activity. As one progresses towards the north boundary. outcrops are more limited and are much smaller and are covered with lichen and moss resulting in difficulties in evaluation. Overburden on the flat exposures is generally very thin and is mainly organics and/or an organic till mixture.

    Relief across most of the claim is low, in the order of 1-2 meters for any particular outcrop, although the elevation does drop off to the west. The elevation difference between the highest point on the claim and the lowest is approximately 10 metres.

    The rock is mainly a medium grained, medium grey coloured granite gneiss with some minor migmatitic sections, with laminae of pink and white material. There are some layers and discontinuous blebs of amphibolite, containing varying amounts of biotite, and minor layers of a coarser pegmatitic material. This is best shown in the picture Ac1 a. The geology is relatively consistent across the claim and the gneissic texture is generally homogeneous.

    The dominant foliation across the property is approximately 345 degrees, with local variations plus or minus 15 degrees, with a general dip to the east of 70 to 85 degrees. The foliation may become weaker towards the north end of the claim, but this conclusion may be a result of not being able to fully evaluate the outcrops due to poor exposure. In places there is a noticeable parting along this foliation with spacing generally of less than 1 m. The general trend of the outcrops is parallel to the foliation.

    Figure 2 portrays a basic outline of the flat lying outcrops that over large areas show good exposure but in many places are covered with trees growing on a veneer of shallow overburden.

    It is difficult to evaluate the jointing patterns across the whole claim, although it is more evident in the south end. The primary jointing is evident as a separation conformable to the foliation with several other sets as shown at field point Ac1. Field point Ac1 shows: the jOints parallel (Ac1 1) to the foliation, a pattern (Ac1 b, c, e and 1) at 310 degrees with a steep dip and a spacing of less than 1 metre and a cross set (Ac1 g) at 250 to 260 degrees. Field point Ac4 shows the 250-degree joints with a 1.5 to 1.8 m. spacing. Field point Ac6 shows a separation parallel to the foliation, a cross set at 260 degrees with a spacing in excess of 1 m. and another separation at 30 degrees. Field point Ac8 a shows a pattern at 315 degrees. Field point Ac8 e shows a pattern parallel to the foliation but with a shallower dip. Field point Ac8 g shows the blocks as a result of separation along different joint patterns. Field point Ac1 0 a shows a separation that could produce suitable slabs for extraction. Field point Ac16 a shows the blocks as a result of separation along different joint patterns. Although it would appear that the primary joint pattern is parallel to the foliation and that there is a minor set perpendicular to the foliation, as well as, some indication that there may be a SUb-horizontal set, it is not clear how extensive and continuous these jOint patterns are. They seem unpredictable and in many cases they might not be apparent on the surface. Joint spacing appears to be erratic but at several locations I have provided spacing but this may only represent a few joints and is not characteristic of the whole area.

    4

  • PICTURES:

    The pictures shown below are referenced to the Field Data Points on Figure 2. The following table gives a very brief description of what each picture shows, but the pictures are mainly provided so that the reader may gain a better appreciation of the geological characteristics of the outcrops.

    Data Point Comments

    Ac1 a General geology across the claim Ac1 b Joints at 320 degrees, 80 cm. spacing Ac1 c Joint at 310 degrees. Ac1 d Joint at 310 degrees Ac1 e Close up of Ac1 d Ac1 f General outcrop characteristics Ac1 9 Joint cross-cuttin9 foliation Ac4 1.8 m. joint spacing

    [I Parting parallel to foliation and cross joints Close-up of Ac6 a Variable joints 315 degree joints Close up of Ac8 a !

    Ac8c Shows outcrop ! Ac8d Shows outcrop Ac8e Separation parallel to foliation - shallower dip to foliation? Ac8 f Separation parallel to foliation Ac8g Blocks generated by jointing Ac10 Shallower joints??? Ac11 a Picture at 90 degrees to Ac11 b Ac11 b Separation parallel to foliation Ac12 Separation parallel to foliation Ac16 Blocking along foliation and joint Ac18 Separation parallel to foliation Ac23 Amphibolitic lense Ac24 Separation parallel to foliation Ac25 Separation parallel to foliation

    5

  • Ac1 a Ac1 b

    Ac1 c Ac1 d

    Ac1 e Ac1 f

    6

  • Ac1 9 Ac4

    Ac6 a Ac6 b

    Ac7 Ac8 a

    7

  • Ac8 b Ac8e

    Ac8 d Ac8 e

    Ac8 f Ac8 9

    8

  • Ac10 Ac11 a

    Ac11 b Ac12

    Ac16 Ac18

    9

  • Ac23 Ac24

    Ac25

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Work on this claim has shown that the geology is relatively consistent across the whole property and that the trend of the foliation is around 350 degrees, dipping at a very steep angle to the east. There are good separation planes along this foliation in places and indications of other joint patterns, but in many cases the jointing is not evident at surface and it is difficult to evaluate how massive the bedrock is.

    Allstone's existing quarry may partially be located in the Rutter pluton (Lumbers, S. B. 1975) while this claim is located just west of the pluton, in the more widespread gneisses. As a result, it would be initially difficult to draw comparisons between the two properties with respect to extraction characteristics. The evaluation of the property by an experienced quarry man to determine whether this property would be suitable for the production of landscaping stone would be required as a next step.

    Initial indications are that this property could also produce a suitable aggregate for road construction and this should be considered in any future evaluation of the property.

    10

  • REFERENCES

    Davidson, A. and Morgan. W.C. 1981. Preliminary notes on the geology east of Georgian Bay, Grenville Structural Province, Ontario; in Current research, Part A, Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 81-1A, p. 291-298.

    Lumbers, S.B. 1975 Geology of the Burwash area, Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound; Ontario Department of Mines, Geological Report 116, 160 p.

    Marmont, C.R. 1991. Building stone, feldspar and limestone resources in central Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5719, 499p.

    11

  • APPENDIX "A"

    The following people were involved in the production of this assessment report.

    1. Preparation of base map showing outcrops.

    Danny Benson Timber Craft Consultations Inc. 111 King St., Sturgeon Falls, ON P2B 1P9

    Danny has 10 years experience working on the field and office production of maps using GPS technology and ARCGIS software.

    2. Geological mapping and preparation of report.

    David Villard Pebble Beach Aggregate 76 Pebble Beach Drive Callander, ON POH 1 HO 1-705-752-5707

    David has a BSc. in geology and a MSc. in geochemistry with over 37 years experience in the geological field, both in the private and public sectors. While a Resident Geologist with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, he was responsible for this area and is quite familiar with the general geology.

    12

  • 2_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0012_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0022_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0032_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0042_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0052_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0062_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0072_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0082_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0092_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0102_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0112_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_0122_38570_10_Geological Survey Report_013