1. Mineral Resources
  2. Online Spatial Data
  3. Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS)

Tub Mountain

Prospect in Alaska, United States with commodities Iron, Manganese
Map
XML
JSON
KML
B
Sections on this page
  1. Identification information
  2. Geographic coordinates
  3. Site location context
  4. Geographic areas
  5. Commodities
  6. Materials information
  7. Alteration
  8. Nearby scientific data
  9. Economic information about the deposit and operations
  10. Mining district
  11. Reserves and resources
  12. Links to other databases
  13. Bibliographic references
  14. General comments
  15. Reporter information

Geologic information

Identification information

Deposit ID 10001944
MRDS ID A012778
Record type Site
Current site name Tub Mountain
Related records 10160152

Geographic coordinates

Geographic coordinates: -165.75247, 64.78206 (WGS84)
Relative position The Tub Mountain prospect is on hill 956 in the SW1/4NW1/4 section 22, T. 8 S., R 35 W., Kateel River Meridian. It is 1.25 miles southwest of the confluence of Stewart and Sinuk Rivers and about 0.8 mile south of Sinuk River. The prospect is locality 6 of Hummel (1975) and locality 2 of Cobb (1972 [MF 463], 1978 [OFR 78-93]).

Site location context

Political divisions (FIPS codes)

Nome(Census area)

Alaska(state)

United States(country)

North America(continent)

Land(continent)

USGS map quadrangles

Nome D-2(quadrangle 1:63,360 scale)

Solomon NW(quadrangle 1:100,000 scale)

Nome(quadrangle 1:250,000 scale)

Hydrologic units (watersheds)

Nome(hydrologic unit)

Norton Sound(hydrologic accounting unit)

Northwest(hydrologic subregion)

Alaska(hydrologic region)

Geographic areas

Country State
United States Alaska

Commodities

Commodity Importance
Iron Primary
Manganese Critical Secondary

Materials information

Materials Type of material
Goethite Ore
Hematite Ore
Pyrite Ore
Calcite Gangue
Dolomite Gangue
Quartz Gangue

Alteration

  • (Local) Dolomitization and oxidation.

Nearby scientific data

(1) -165.75247, 64.78206
ListMap

Economic information

Comments on the geologic information

  • Geologic Description = The Tub Mountain prospect is a limonite-rich deposit about 300 by 600 feet that appears to be localized along high-angle faults in marble (Herried, 1970). It is one of several similar deposits in the area (see NM014, NM014, NM017, NM019, and NM020). The limonite can be massive to granular, botryoidal, mamillary, or fibrous. The iron content ranges to as much as 59 percent in analyzed samples (Eakin, 1915). Hematite, pyrolusite, and calcite are present locally. Shallit (1942; Mulligan and Hess, 1965, table 3) estimated that 8,000 long tons of rock containing 10 to 20 percent iron is present at Tub Mountain.? This prospect and other iron deposits of the Sinuk River area are at or near the base of massive marble whose protolith age is probably lower Paleozoic (Sainsbury, Hummel, and Hudson, 1972; Bundtzen and others, 1994). The deposits are locally controlled by high-angle faults or folds, but they are in general crudely stratabound within the basal massive marble or underlying calc-schist (Mulligan and Hess, 1965; Herreid, 1970). This stratigraphic interval also hosts base metal sulfide-fluorite-barite deposits at the Galena (NM130) and Quarry prospects (NM135).? the origin and age of the iron deposits of the Sinuk River area are uncertain. The deposits may be, in part, gossan developed on oxidized sulfide deposits (Eakin, 1915 [B 622-I, p. 361-365];Mertie, 1918 [B662-I, p. 425-449]; Cathcart, 1922; Mulligan and Hess, 1965; Herreid, 1970). Several of the iron deposits, including American (NM014) and Monarch (NM017), are locally highly anomalous in zinc and lead. Arguing against a simple gossan origin is the paucity of diagnostic textures and structures in boxworks that would suggest derivation from specific sulfide minerals. Alternatively, these deposits could be hypogene iron oxide and carbonate deposits probably transitional to lead-zinc-barite deposits, such as Quarry (NM135), that are at about the same stratigraphic position.? the age of the iron deposits of the Sinuk River area is most likely post-mid-Cretaceous because faults that crosscut mid-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks are an important ore control. A Late Cretaceous age for the iron deposits was suggested by Brobst and others (1971) as this is the age of fluorine-rich tin granites of northwestern Seward Peninsula (Hudson and Arth, 1983). The youngest possible age appears to be Early Tertiary, when deep weathering, sandstone-type uranium mineralization, and possibly karst formation occurred to the east in the Solomon quadrangle (Hudson, 1999).
  • Age = Late Cretaceous or Early Tertiary; post mid-Cretaceous metamorphism.

Economic information about the deposit and operations

Development status Prospect
Commodity type Metallic

Comments on exploration

  • Status = Inactive

Mining district

District name Nome

Reserves and resources

  • Type In-situ
    Estimate year 1942
    Total resources 3000mt ore
    Remarks Entry carried over from Old MRDS or added later (i.e. it did not originate in ARDF)
    Commodity Subtype Grade units Group Importance Year
    Iron Fe 15 wt-pct Iron Major 1942

Comments on the reserve resource information

  • Reserves = Shallit (1942; table 3, Mulligan and Hess, 1965) estimated that the Tub Mountain prospect includes 8,000 long tons of rock containing 10 to 20 percent iron.

Comments on the workings information

  • Workings / Exploration = Surface prospecting pits, dating to before WWI, are present.

Reference information

Bibliographic references

Comments on the references

  • Primary Reference = Herreid, 1970

General comments

Subject category Comment text
Deposit Model Name = Carbonate-hosted, iron oxide deposit.

Reporter information

Type Date Name Affiliation Comment
Reporter 22-OCT-99 Hawley, C.C. Hawley Resource Group
Reporter 22-OCT-99 Travis L. Hudson Hawley Resource Group

Beyond USGS

Supplemental information added by qvyshift.com. Not part of the original USGS MRDS record.

Maps centered on this site

Authoritative Alaska resources

These are landing pages for further research — the state agencies don't currently expose per-mine deep links.